S.C. deputy filmed slamming teen girl out of desk, dragging her away

I think, Rags, he's using "deserving a job" to mean "performing minimally well."

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think maybe you're overstating it. Do students, parents and local school boards not have an incentive to ensure their schools are performing well?

Politicians, administrators and teachers are also have incentive to ensure schools perform well. Do 100 percent of their interests align? No, there is self interest that may in certain instances conflict. But the same holds true of investors in private enterprise.

Is an "activist investor" Bill Ackman always looking out for the long-term interest of a company/brand in which he invests or is he sometimes trying to make a big profit and get the fuck out?

 

I tend to distrust the people who who want to radically overhaul public education, because most of them have a keen, overriding interest in sharply reducing their tax levy, whether it is going to the best school system in the country or the worst.

 

Plus, in today's world you can simply say a measurement says something that it doesn't -- like INCREASING Antarctica ice pack is further proof of global warming.

 

While they don't have direct financial benefit or investment, politicians, board members, administrators and teachers' career trajectories strongly align with the success of their schools. Parents want a good education for their kids.

What I'm saying is that corporate investors' incentives are not always 100 percent aligned with product quality, either. If Bill Ackman sees a way to make $4 billion as an "activist investor" over the short term by demanding the company take specific actions, but also knew that over the long-term those specific actions might sink a company long after he was in and out, he would still go ahead with that transaction and pursue that course of action in a heartbeat.

 

No question, which is why we leave as much as possible to private industry, but free rider problems certainly exist, as well, which is why (IMHO) we should try to give as much control as possible to the key stakeholders, even if those stakes are less direct and not necessarily financial.

(Ackman has had a rough year, but I doubt he's going to need to sell the $100 million penthouse at One57.)

 

Because there's more to teaching than measurable criteria. You really want to compare a teacher who is in a wealthy classroom which can spends tens of thousands of dollars on the football team to a teacher whose kids are going to school hungry, and say the competition is an even one?

And there are more factors that go into why a school is bad than just "the teachers suck". I notice you never did respond to my post that had the study which said the poorer schools in Illinois are not funded as well as the wealthier schools. And yet, you keep saying it's about the teachers. Make the competition even and maybe you could make a point. But right now, and for years, it hasn't even been close.

 

So much for accurately summarizing my argument.

 

"Like Edison in Miami, Fenger replaced the principal and overhauled the staff."

I noticed you left that interesting sentence out.

And as your article went further on, it mentioned other factors, such as poverty and neighborhood violence, that were playing a role.

But of course, you left that out, too. For you, it's always about the teachers, even when the schools does, as your article says, overhaul the staff.

 

God, I love 10,000-word responses to simple questions with no answer.

YF has stated over and over that some teachers need removed. All I'm asking is how many in a percentage form. An estimated guess from me was about 6%.

If I walked into the Pentagon, what percentage of people there should not have their job?

If I walked into Geico, what percentage of people there should not have their job?