Controversial Report Criticizes UCSB Teacher Education Program

But Many Say Its Findings Are Incomplete and Inaccurate

Friday, June 21, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

California’s teacher education programs — including UCSB’s — are woefully inadequate, according to a report released by the controversial National Council on Teacher Quality. Tine Sloan, director of UCSB’s Teacher Education Program, compiled a list of methodological issues with the study, stating that she concurred, “the widely held view of this report is that it is based on partial and inaccurate data that fails to capture valid and reliable indicators of teacher performance.” While the report criticized California programs for not being selective, that was one area in which UCSB earned praise.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Thank you for bringing attention to this important report.

Das Williams, as chair of the Assembly Higher Ed Committee, needs to demand reform of all CSU teacher preparation programs, both elementary and secondary. This report explains why.

The report provide a clear path to turn K-12 education around in this state. The CSU teacher prep deficiency has long been noted, but became buried in the difficult education turf war it generated.

Now these long-standing state CSU teacher prep deficiencies are impossible to ignore. Plus the report sets out nationwide peer examples, showing who is getting it right and why change is critical for our own students to compete globally.

I encourage Higher Ed Chairperson Williams to implement the "red alert" recommendations as soon as possible. This is an excellent checklist, as well as having an independent resource to confirm their compliance.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

as I pointed out on the Harding School Principal thread,
when foo refs NCTQ it's aflawed study. Compare this straight news article from LA Times on June 18 entitled "New teacher training study...decries California" [in next post below]. But the NCTQ website shows a very partisan first two pages, with boldly highlighted "teacher training schools to watch out for" and its most of them in California, while only 3 UCs and the U. Redlands get the coveted 4 stars. The LA Times article by Howard Blume carefully notes that NCTQ itself is political and controversial.
NCTQ, for example, heavily supports using standardized test scores (so-called value-added tests) as a big part of a public school teacher's evaluation. There a huge lot of criticism of this approach, AND it's led to teacher cheating as well.
Tine Sloan is repeating what Tom Torlakson has said. In fact, most of these teacher prep programs are lousy and should be jettisoned. There are other routes to a teaching credential; most private schools, for example, do not require such. Or try Teach for America.
But I have to agree with critics that too much emphasis on developing the teacher's philosophy can get in the way of learning HOW to teach and taking more subject matter (e.g. more English courses).
I have usually been careful to say better assessment methods and more efficient school administration is crucial to improve the schools, but more money absolutely is also needed, italian. Yeah, let's shut down all the teacher education programs in Calif. except the 4 "good ones" -- save money. However, we need to REDUCE CLASS SIZES and INCREASE THE PAY for public school teachers, while continuing to cut at the top bureaucratically (especially at UC). Cap pensions, agreed.
and foo, don't you usually whine that Dr. Fastman fails to indicate his spouse is a SB public school teacher? oh, yeah, you LIKE this news notice, thus the omission this time is OK by you. Prejudiced, what?!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It was an excellent report - and it was not a "study" - merely a reportage of available public information provided by the schools themselves.

Interesting contrast in head lines between the NewsPress, the LA Times and the Independent. Bias much, in just the reporting about the report?

Blessed day when CSU and K-12 put reform and accountability for results on the top of their to-do lists, besides just demanding more money, more money, more money.

Hint: tax payer fatigue has set in, and reports like this will need far more than the typical politics of personal destruction to brush it aside.

The irony of course is the chronic demands for more money, more money, more money has been a defacto admission that K-12 education is deficient .... and can only be cured by more money, more money, more money.

So even after shoveling more money, more money, more money K-12 has yet to show us one single thing besides higher pay, more bonus and more extravagant benefits that will actually change educational outcomes for the students now that they got more money on top of more money on top of even more money.

Reports like this reveal the problem in California goes much deeper than more money, more money and more money. We are using lousy raw material, that even more money will not fix.

No wonder teachers from this failed CSU teacher prep system have wanted instead to (1) blame parents, (2) blame demographics, (3) blame english learners, (4) blame lack of money, (4) blame administrators, and (5) blame teacher-union bashing.

Anyone but themselves, and their poor CSU teacher prep. That should have been on the top of their lists. No we know. So the obvious question, is what next?

Seems like reforming CSU teacher prep is the easiest thing of all to do to make the biggest difference. And that can be done with the stroke of the legislative pen.

(After naturally the next round of wounded howls from the teachers unions and demands for more money, more money, more money)

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not have enough information to enter this argument except to say that my children received excellent educations in the public school system. That said, one of my children went to CSU and the other went to UC and I can tell you that there is a marked difference in academic rigor between the two institutions. Perhaps we should reorganize the systems by creating California State Teachers College that operates within various universities and is standardized so that the academic rigor is the same no matter where the student goes.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good to learn from best practices. This is what the report is all about. Best practices are out there. They need to be consistently the norm for all students, and not just the exception for the few.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

your sanctimonious jargon notwithstanding, foo, your comment hoping "tax payer fatigue has set in" is the thread twining through all your comments. Pay up, and hope for Prop. 31 and more money for the schools.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't really speak to the UCSB program, but the teacher ed program I started at Cal Poly was horrible. I have a MS in one of the sciences but that wasn't good enough for them. I was told to enroll in an Into to Computers class which covered topics like how to use Excel, where the start button is etc. I can tell you about numerous other useless things they wanted me to complete. The classes I did take before dropping out of the program were a total joke. Needless to say, I gave up on teaching high school as a career.

sbjoe (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have stated here before sometimes just loving the subject one teachers makes a good teacher a great teacher. I am sorry CSU teacher prep programs can turn such souls off and away. And it doesn't look like there are any other alternative close by. Shame.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CSU used to be state teachers colleges 40 years or so ago - the primary advanced degree they offered back then were teaching credentials when they were called state colleges. They lost their focus in this regard and obviously lost their way at the same time when they became "universities" offering more advanced degrees than just in education.

A major missing link in the failing public education equation has now been exposed. CSU teacher prep needs serious scrutiny. The private colleges offering teaching credentials who fare just as poorly as CSU will just have to be victims of the market place. But tax dollars should no longer be wasted on CSU if they refuse to reform their teacher prep programs, when there is level of primary mission failure.

Would teacher union members lead this reform and in the process admit they got badly trained? Doubt it. Just the opposite, so this demand for reform will not be visited by the present teacher union dominated state legislature either.

Das Williams in his position as Higher Ed chair is in the perfect position to start the enquiry. Any bets?

The best hope is for local school boards hiring considerations take this report into consideration and act accordingly. And for parents to scrutinize those hires too with this report in hand.

May the market reform what teacher prep programs and teachers unions have so far refused to do.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Disclosure: Both article editor Fastman and Dr Dan have spouses employed in the local education industry.

Dr Dan's constant cry for more money and less work for teachers needs to be evaluated through this potential personal bias and conflict of interests.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about your own full disclosure "foofighter" you big hypocrite.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no financial conflicts of interest with the education industry.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very irresponsible reporting on the part of the SB Independent. The flawed methodology renders the findings of this report untrustworthy at best -- many commenters here could probably have done a more valid study. Please note that NCTQ acknowledges that less than 1% of teacher education programs in the country "participated fully." The conclusions are not based on accepted measures of teacher quality, usually found in student evaluations, classroom observations, demonstrated learning gains, or program quality (retention rates, career placement), but rather on haphazard reviews of syllabi found online. Please see Linda Darling Hammond's op-ed in the Washington Post for a more articulate evaluation of the report:

drmonicabulger (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Ms bulger and for bringing some facts here: as noted above, NCTQ is a joke, with suspect methodologies, and politically biased "findings".
ahh, the world of foo...when he has absolutely nothing [note: his is the first post on this string], he snidely insinuates bias or personal connection for DrDan[93101!] who may have "potential personal bias and conflict of interests." This is all foo can write vs. my two comprehensive posts. Normally I'd not divulge this: I have no connection of any sort with the public schools, either here or elsewhere in California, nor does my spouse or any offspring of ours. On the other hand, all my schooling was at Calif. public schools including UCSB for graduate degrees. I admire our public school teachers and the heroic work they do in difficult conditions!
I have evaluated ten private schools for the California Association of Independent Schools, and taught in Germany and as well for independent schools around California for over 33 years. Blah blah blah.
Foo, you have NOTHING; and when this is the case with you (= most of your ranting posts) then you resort of silly ad hominem attacks which turn people off from the thread. Shame on you.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Clarification: my spouse works in a clerical unit at UCSB; she is not on the faculty. C'mon foo, give a little personal data, eh? Which bank do you work for?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No one else has stepped up to do another "study", now have they? (BTW: This is a report, not a study) So this one stands as the benchmark now. The methodology for reporting was valid and transparent.

And any conclusions reached in reading this report have been previously admitted; now confirmed. This was not about individual teachers, but corroborated statistics about teacher preparation programs

Intentionally trying to muddle the report leads one to conclude you did not like the conclusions. Well guess what, neither should anyone else who reads this report, particularly in California.

The report provides the clearest target where to solve the present intractable mess California public education has gotten itself into. Reform CSU teacher education programs and hire only from the best ranked; and try to avoid the worst ranked pool of graduates.

Inertia only supports the status quo and the status quo is a waste of present tax dollars and harming another generation of our young people in this state.

Why would you want to stick where you are? It is amazing how obstructionist the voices from the teachers unions are about this topic. You have played your card. We are tuning you out.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not now and have never had the privilege to belong to a teachers' union. How bout you, foo??? Some personal honesty, eh?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialling is a tool of the Democratic party CTA teacher union forces - it is an extension of the Governors Office. You can't call it an "independent" agency when it is stacked with teacher union backed political office holders and governor appointees.

Democrats however do love to engage in the politics of personal destruction and killing the messenger, rather than listening to the message. Let their howls of protest continue.

However, it is really too late. Voters know something is wrong with our state education system. They have now been handed a objective, valid reason why. CSU, clean up your act.

The tragedy is even if CSU cleans up its act, it will be decades before any reform in teacher prep shows up with significant impact in our classrooms due to tenure and low-turnover of the existing and poorly credentialed present workforce.

But change has to start somewhere: CSU clean up your act. You now have a model for best practices. Follow them. Check them off one by one. Stop fighting this, because it shows you really don't care about kids; only yourselves.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Imagine it's the 1980's. There are some good cars out there, but some crappy ones too. So you decide to do a review of cars to steer folks to the "right" cars.

So you come up with a ranking. You grab as many car brochures as you can. Cars that come in white get higher scores but the score is lowered if they come in red - that's because you believe red cars are more dangerous. Cars that don't come standard with religious artifacts dangling from the rear view mirror get lower scores because god should be your co-pilot. Honda's automatically get lower scores because real Americans don't buy imports.

If you can't find any brochures for a particular car, then it's OK to ask the neighbors of owners what they think and factor that into your ratings. Barring that, file a lawsuit to force your local dealer to find a brochure for you.

Repair history records and recall notices are not allowed to be factored into your ratings. This is a brochure-driven rating, dummy!

Cars that have more independent mechanics also get lower scores. That's because you enlist the help of the Ford (sic) Foundation whose board members include owners of dealerships who hate red cars.

To fund your work, you get a Federal grant from a former GM employee now heading the Department of Cars. They have a program call NCLB - No Car Left Behind - and your job is to increase the ratings of cars built to NCLB standards (later, your grant is suspended when the Inspector General of DoC finds out).

Finally, you need an edge on Consumer Reports and NHTSA so you hook up with US Snooze and World Report to publish your ratings.

Unfortuntely, the public eventually discredits your car ratings and your foundation backers drop their support. But your decision to buy stock in the Rouge Auto Paint company was in hindsight a brilliant move.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lots of fun with that one, EB! Yes, assessing teachers is very difficult, about as tough as assessing SCHOOLS...and there's little agreement. When assessing teachers, note how it looks like our local SB school district will give the teachers just 2 days of inservice to bring in the Common Core curriculum: that's absurd. Then, we'll assess these teachers based on their usage of Common Core.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WTH is "Common Core" substantively? Readin' Ritin' and Rithmetric under a fancy self pleasuring name?? Weird.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The one test K-12 and CSU can't ignore are the numbers of students in need of remedial course work and basic skills, before they can even start college level work.

Track your district's results on this website:

CSU needs to point their fingers back at themselves, since they trained the vast majority of K-12 teachers. The NCTQ report tells you why. It is all coming together. NCTQ did California public education a great service.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The NCTQ report is highly flawed and driven by ideologues within the education community and the for-profit education sector. Digging into this "advocacy" group and their "report", I was astonished at their incredibly shoddy methodologies (which is why I wrote the parody above):

And to the point of the Indy's article ... according to Stanford University's Linda Darling-Hammond, the NCTQ screwed up their assessments of UCSB and Cal-State Chico, then screwed up their responses to Darling-Hammond when she pointed out their errors to the NCTQ:

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is an idea. Let's let students languish in college even longer than the now standard six years, instead of the traditional four years.

With no reform efforts demanded at the K-12 and teacher prep years, more students will just have to make up the difference later taking remedial classes later in their school career..

Of course, this way does divert the college dollar away from college-ready credit students, who did get out of highschool with college ready english and math. Private or charter school students? Who knows.
But heck, they already are advantaged anyway and just proved it. Not to worry about them.

But ooops, they can't get their necessary college degree credits because too much of the college dollar now has to be spent on remedial high school courses for those other kids, who high schools let slip through the cracks but gave them diplomas anyway.

Here is another idea that will let you froth over "flawed studies" pointing out failures, but not have to change a thing.

Maybe we are trying to send too many students to college after all. Why not tell them at HS graduation to stop wasting everyones time because they wont' be able to cut in college. So sorry, I though you knew this. We should stamp them lwith purple markers on their foreheads saying "Hi, I lost the HS lottery and can't go to college."

Or, we could take the message from this "flawed" report and take a good look at our CSU teacher prep programs and see what can be changed, and celebrate all that has already been proven to work -- which naturally has been verified by a study that had no flaws.

I am no fan of for-profit education, but you are making their case for them. Be careful what you wish for, and work against.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Great Aha!

As long as schools continue to fail, the unions can keep demanding more money.

If schools were doing fine, they would lose their justification to keep taking more and more of the tax dollars for themselves.

I also think 80% of teachers no matter where they got trained are working their hearts out and are good at what they do. The other 20% became the voices of the teachers unions, who are going to be the end of what should be our nations finest institution.

Your call 80%. You can decertify the unions and lobby for the end of this devouring monster that is destroying your chosen profession, alienating the public, failing the students system wide, and keeping yourself whipped up into a constant state of victimhood.

All of which totally distracts and undermines what one should always be focusing on; the success of your students, each and every one of them.

Call a cease fire. You are compensated well. You get the lions share of the state budget. Now get out of the battle and put 100% of your energies back into the classroom and make sure Johnny can read and can add before he gets out of high school.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yawn, foo, you never answer any of your critics, just rant on...

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foofighter, I was not going get into the argument, but you have gone too far. I am a product of public schools and I had a successful matriculation to college and a very successful career. My wife is a product of public schools and has also had a successful career. Both of my children went through the public school system and received excellent educations, went to good decent colleges (one to CSU and the other to UC) and are embarked on careers of their own. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the public education system. All processes can be improved on the margins and since the margins in the educational system are kids who have problems (both the academically challenged and the extremely gifted) it is important to make those improvements. Just tone down the rhetoric and your arguments would be much more effective.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fastman did term NCTQ "controversial" - thanks for the webrefs EB. Eckermann, I've got to give up trying to speak to foo since he is all rhetoric and ad hominem attacks.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My kids received an excellent education at SB public schools. Not counting the English-illiterates, our public schools have stellar scores on the standardized tests, and a significant percentage of our HS graduates, including my own, go on to attend great colleges. We never got to use the on-campus day care center, and I was told that my son wasn't welcome at the after school "Homework Club" (because it wasn't "really for students like him"), but we muddled through, nevertheless.

banjo (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SB public schools have higher standards and scores than schools in most states. That's why they couldn't accept Bush's bribe to dumb down the curriculum. The right wing have long tried to keep people misinformed (Limbaugh) and ignorant (creationism vs. evolution) and have succeeded in many states by gaining office with scare tactics on other issues.
Make no mistake, part of the GOP agenda is to privatize all public institutions including schools, libraries, parks and much more. Currentlly there's a move to privatize SB County's Juvenile mental health program. Not too far away from private prisons.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When the need to provide remedial classes at the college level drops to zero, INSTEAD OF GROWING EVERY YEAR, we can all agree California public K-12 schools have met their mission. And be assured our public dollars spent on public education are well spent.

When community colleges, CSU and UC still have to take their share of public monies to provide HIGH SCHOOL REMEDIAL CLASSES, or delay the time it takes to graduate, we continue to have a problem with K-12 education.

No, I did not go too far arguing CSU needs to reform its teacher prep programs and K-12 needs to get beyond their self-defeating psychology of blame, in lieu of getting results.

Good teachers deserve to be paid well. And in return we get students who do not have to be doubly educated after their graduate from high school. Save your wounded howls because there is an outside validator -the reduction of K-12 students needing remedial math and english skills.

Please look beyond blaming everything under the sun besides K-12 practices, and K-12 teacher preparation for this verifiable conclusion that K-12 fails far too many students still and those numbers needing remedial education grows every year. And no, you don't need more money. Or more parental involvement. Or fewer english learners. Or ...or ... or .... or.

K-12 itself caused its own predicament and now needs to find a way out because public education means you educate the public, and this is the public you have to educate: high percentages of working parents and english learners. If you want more selection in your student population you need to apply to teach at private schools. But public education means you get what walks in the door and you work with it.

You also need to spend the money you are getting far more productively, because you already get the largest percentage of tax dollars of any state institution.

. But right now I can see this unending, teacher union fostered money-grabing mentality before anything changes psychology has gripped the system, is fed by the unions and makes the system itself incapable of introspection, reform or even concern about K-12's self-responsiblity for the state K-12 has fallen into.

I am not here to win anyone over, but I am here to better understand the problem. Which is becoming more transparent as this exchange of opinions has evolved. The status quo of K-12 in this state today is unacceptable.

Demanding more money is off the table. Deal with this as a given. Look elsewhere to bring about the necessary change that you can manifest; not merely deflect with more blame. Good grief, you are committed to education are you not? Include your own now, as well as your students.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From cal

"The Early Assessment Program (EAP) is a collaborative effort among the State Board of Education (SBE), the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California State University (CSU).

The program was established to provide opportunities for students to measure their readiness for college-level English and mathematics in their junior year of high school, and to facilitate opportunities for them to improve their skills during their senior year.


The goal of the EAP program is to have California high school graduates enter the CSU fully prepared to begin college-level study.

The Challenge

More than 60 percent of the nearly 40,000 first-time freshmen admitted to the CSU require remedial education in English, mathematics or both.

These 25,000 freshmen all have taken the required college preparatory curriculum and earned at least a B grade point average in high school.

The cost in time and money to these students and to the state is substantial. Moreover, these students are confused by seemingly having done the right things in high school only to find out after admission to the CSU that they need further preparation."

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Track the Early Assessment Program (EAP) results for SBUSD on the CSU link - left hand side annual reports per district since 2006:

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CSU - 2012 Early Assessment Program results for SBUSD from the above CSU website link:

SBUSD College ready for English: 35%
SBUSD College ready for Math: 21%

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Early Assessment Program (EAP)
Santa Barbara Unified District
All Students

Reported California Standards Test Enrollment in Grade 11: 1,643 County Name: Santa Barbara County
Total Number Tested in EAP English and Math: 1,456

District Name: Santa Barbara Unified District
Total Number Tested in Selected Subgroup: 1,456 School Name: ----

CDS Code: 42-76786-0000000

Early Assessment Program - 2012

Early Assessment of Readiness for College English EAP CST Participation

Students Tested 1453 1542 94%
Ready for College 507 35%
Ready for College - Conditional 214 15%
Did Not Demonstrate College Readiness on This Assessment 731 50%

Early Assessment of Readiness for College Mathematics (Algebra II) EAP CST Participation
Students Tested 220 257 86%

Ready for College 5 2%
Ready for College - Conditional 26 12%
Did Not Demonstrate College Readiness on This Assessment 188 86%

Early Assessment of Readiness for College Mathematics (Summative High School Mathematics) EAP CST Participation
Students Tested 684 748 91%

Ready for College 183 27%
Ready for College - Conditional 411 60%
Did Not Demonstrate College Readiness on This Assessment 90 13%

Early Assessment of Readiness for College Mathematics (Total) EAP CST Participation
Students Tested 904 1005 90%

Ready for College 188 21%
Ready for College - Conditional 437 48%
Did Not Demonstrate College Readiness on This Assessment 278 31%

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EAP-CSU results over time:

College ready for SBUSD:

High Funding Years:
2006: English 21% - Math 16%
2008: English 27% - Math 12%

Post Budget cut years:
2009: English 24% - Math 18%
2011: English 33% - Math 14%
2012: English 35% - Math 21%

It is not really about money after all. It is about focus and public accountability.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm hungry, is lunch ready?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We need a merit-based employment policy in public education, particularly in the current economy, with teacher lay-offs and increased class sizes. Collective bargaining is particularly destructive in education, where the mediocre perpetuate mediocrity. No private enterprise could survive if required to terminate employees with superior performance and retain the less competent based on their term of employment. We have some incredibly excellent teachers, but no control over their continued employment versus the retention of those who are far below excellent.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thoughtful comment 14noscams, and I too have reservations about the power teacher unions have over assessment of teachers. We do have some incredibly excellent public school teachers. How would teacher-groups protect themselves from unfair bosses, that sort of thing, without a collective?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Protection against "unfair bosses" is as close and the next school board election. There is no need for teachers unions today.

When personnel costs take the vast majority of the education dollar already, there is not much room for unfairness left. They already have taken the lion's share of the money.

In fact, it is just the opposite. How do the taxpayers now protect themselves from unfair unions.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foo, all ever yowl about is the $ and the darned unions, yawn.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DD: Just spent quite a bit of time presenting available data regarding K-12 college readiness in English and Math. Sorry you missed those posts.

Don't let your own conflict of interest regarding your spouse's education industry income blind you to the far more important issues which are (1) what do we get for the money already; and (2) who is blocking reforms to do better.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2013 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

present some background on yourself, as I have, foo, and maybe folks will listen. Having one's spouse work at UCSB in the non-faculty area hardly counts as in the "education industry" since we're discussing teacher preparation and assessment in K-12. She is not a member of a union out there, and never has been.
How about YOU? your ties to banking industry? fess up now. See my posts above.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2013 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no ties to the banking industry. Absent some minor interest bearing accounts and a ATM card.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2013 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: