Chicago teacher strike: average pay $71K, 80% of 8th graders not proficient at math

CBS News reports:

Thousands of teachers, parents and supporters marched through downtown Chicago on the first day of a school strike.

The crowd Monday afternoon stretched for several blocks and was expected to swell through the early evening and into the city’s rush hour. Some protesters carried signs that said “Chicago Teachers United” and “Fair Contract Now.” Others waved red pom-poms and chanted. Earlier in the day, thousands of teachers picketed around neighborhood schools.

[...]The city’s public school teachers make an average of $71,000 a year. Both sides said they were close to an agreement on wages. What apparently remains are issues involving teacher performance and accountability, which the union saw as a threat to job security.

They don’t want to be held accountable for failing to provide outcomes for their customers, the children.

Why do you think they might fear being held accountable? Are they doing a poor job of teaching? Is that why they fear being accountable? Let’s see.

CNS News explains:

Chicago public school teachers went on strike on Monday and one of the major issues behind the strike is a new system Chicago plans to use for evaluating public school teachers in which student improvement on standardized tests will count for 40 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Until now, the evaluations of Chicago public school teachers have been based on what a Chicago Sun Times editorial called a “meaningless checklist.”

[...]In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education administered National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in reading and math to students around the country, including in the Chicago Public Schools. The tests were scored on a scale of 0 to 500, with 500 being the best possible score. Based on their scores, the U.S. Department of Education rated students’ skills in reading and math as either “below basic,” “basic,” “proficient” or “advanced.”

[...]79 percent of Chicago public school 8^th graders were not grade-level proficient in reading. According to the U.S. Department of Education, this included 43 percent who rated “basic” and 36 percent who rated “below basic.”

[...]80 percent of Chicago public school 8^th graders were not grade-level proficient in math. According to the U.S. Department of Education, this included 40 percent who rated “basic” in math and 40 percent who rated “below basic.”

Fire them all. Abolish the federal Department of Education. Make teacher unions illegal.

Education policy tutorial videos:

• MUST-SEE: John Stossel’s documentary about public schools and school choice
• MUST-SEE: Cato Institute lady explains why competition is better than monopoly

Related posts

• Graduate students with non-STEM degrees increasingly dependent on welfare programs
• A look at homeschooling and alternatives to college
• The consequences of the feminization of education in the UK
• Should the government restrict men’s participation in STEM fields?
• Education policy basics explained in three Heritage Foundation videos
• Student debt forcing college graduates to put their plans on hold
• Despite record youth unemployment, young people support Obama 52-27
• Rising student debt will impact future housing demand
• Is it “brilliant” to accumulate $185,000 of debt studying the humanities?
• 1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed
• Another looming debt crisis: law school students racking up $100,000+ in debt
• Unemployed college graduate ran up $90,000 of debt while studying English
• Is a college degree worth what you pay for it?
• Census Bureau confirms DC schools spending $29,409 per pupil
• Obama: 25% fewer male graduates than female graduates is a great accomplishment
• In Los Angeles schools, only 45% of students can read at grade level
• Many of Obama’s young supporters now unemployed, living with parents
• Wisconsin public school teachers protest the publication of their salaries in flier
• Public school teacher threatens student with arrest for criticizing Obama
• New study: low family income not a major cause of low student achievement
• Teacher union memo reveals agenda to undermine parents
• Public schools spend $130,000 of stimulus money on diversity training books
• New Jersey per-pupil cost is $17,800
• Republicans in Florida, Indiana and Pennsylvania push school choice
• Do public school teachers want to give children a quality education?
• Sex-education video prompts mother to transfer out 7-year old daughter
• 10% of US students are subject to sexual misconduct by school staff
• How Obama’s new 2011 budget fails the poorest children in two ways
• How teacher unions lobby government to block educational reform
• What helps kids to learn? Parents, teacher unions or education bureaucrats?
• New study reveals how school choice benefits the poorest students
• Do teacher unions care about providing high quality education?
• NEA lawyer explains the real goals of teacher unions: money and power
• Are teacher unions interested in helping your children to succeed in life?
• Economist Walter Williams evaluates whether teachers are earning their huge salaries
• How teacher’s unions make war on charter schools

Filed under: News, Accountability, Arne Duncan, Barack Obama, Benefits, Charter Schools, Children, Class Size, Competition, Education, Educrats, Free Market, Government-Run School, Homechooling, Homeschooling, Illinois, Indoctrination, Liberty, Metrics, Outcome, Performance, Private Schools, Public School, Public Schools, Quality, Regulation, Salary, School, School Choice, School Vouchers, Standardized Tests, State, Teacher Pay, Teacher Salaries, Teacher Strike, Teacher Unions, Teacher's Unions, Testing, Voucher, Vouchers

Can recreational sex turn a selfish, irresponsible man into a marriage-minded provider?

An article from the American Thinker answers the question that vexes many men. As you read this excerpt below, ask yourself if it is a man or a woman writing this.

First of all, liberal women seem to be having an awful lot of sex these days. They are losing their virginity early, and working their way through as many “alpha males” as possible, but all the while they insist that a stream of recreational-sex relationships is somehow a path to lifelong married love. Can you turn a man who wants nothing more than recreational sex into the perfect husband, simply by invoking the magical power of sex?

Liberal women think that you can:

On the one hand, liberal women believe wholeheartedly in the idiotic social construct they call, “sexual liberation.”  They pride themselves on losing their virginity, as though that “accomplishment” had ever been above the challenge-scale of an alley cat in heat.

These liberal women I’ve known, having given away their female V-card over and over and over again, all the while scour their host of intimate “trial runs” searching for that mythical, Hollywood-construct, Mr. Right.  This Mr. Right guy, for whom they are searching, is known to them up front as even more sexually-liberated than they, but this little factoid seems not to register in their liberated little heads as they frantically search for the equally mythical family home with the white picket fence, which somehow never gets hit by any of life’s roving tornadoes.  One can almost hear them say in unison, “And they all lived happily ever after.”

I think it’s one of the deepest mysteries of the world why women think that a man who has lots and lots of recreational sex is somehow marriage material. When I think of men who are qualified for marriage, I think of men who have studied hard subjects, gotten marketable skills, worked and worked, saved and saved, and shown that they can be faithful in marriage by exhibiting self-control in the courtship. But liberal women think that all of this reasoning is junk, and you must just jump right into sex to see if the relationship will “work out” or to find out what you “like”. Recreational sex, they insist, is a superior way of finding a husband. Discussing who will do what in a marriage and what the marriage is for is apparently ineffective.

More:

Evidently, the liberal woman is capable of the most severe form of psychological denial known to humankind.  Certain that one of the men with whom she has copulated without strings will suddenly morph into a faithfully monogamous creature the minute she can convince one of them to say “I do” in front of a few witnesses, the liberal woman marches blindly down the aisle towards near-certain, adulterous doom.  Yet, no amount of honest reason can dissuade liberal women from this self-destructive, moral myopia.

What other term but “morally schizoid” could possibly describe this blatantly contradictory tendency among liberal women?

Having spent their youth casually throwing their own sexual morality to the winds of fairytale “liberation,” these liberal women still steadfastly cling to the faithfully monogamous ideal for that sometime-later moment when they actually do desire all the traditional things — the husband, the kids, the white picket fence — those pesky female-nature embedded longings, which coincidentally ensure the continuation of the human race.

But these liberal women somehow — in perfect schizoid manner — convince themselves that once married, they will be the gratuitous beneficiaries of the monogamous respect they still desire, but have never once demanded or deserved.  Intuitively, women know that strict monogamy provides the only real security for themselves and their own offspring.  Yet, they continue themselves to spurn the demands of monogamy until the very last minute, believing that fidelity springs forth naturally in miraculous profusion among all “married” humans.  Such pure poppycock can only be explained as a mental disorder.

I think women need to ask themselves questions honestly and rationally:

• can recreational sex make an unemployed man get a job?
• can recreational sex make a violent man be courteous and respectful?
• can recreational sex make an atheist turn into a Christian?
• can recreational sex make a male slut stay faithful?
• can recreational sex make wastefulness turn into frugality?
• can recreational sex make laziness turn into diligence?
• can recreational sex make irresponsibility turn into commitment?

Marriages last because both partners have prepared themselves for self-sacrifice, rational discussions, problem solving and cooperation.

Previously, I provided the male perspective on liberal women’s poor decision-making about men and marriage. Read the article from the American Thinker (written by a woman), then read mine.

Related posts

• New study finds that cohabitation damages children
• New peer-reviewed paper highlights the benefits of pre-marital chastity/abstinence
• Does being a virgin before marriage affect marital stability?
• Which family configuration is best for raising children?
• Tactics and talking points for defending traditional marriage
• New study links father absence to increased bullying
• How important are biological fathers for healthy child development?
• What causes women to become single mothers, and how are children affected?
• New study shows that children of working mothers live unhealthier lives
• New Scientist article shows why fathers are necessary for children’s well-being
• New study finds that women choose mates based on appearance
• Should Christian men marry Democrats who claim to be Christians?
• Men should prefer women who allow moral judging and spiritual leading
• Where have all the good men gone, and why aren’t men marrying?
• Do men have a responsibility not to marry feminists?
• Why do some women tolerate jerks as boyfriends?
• The dangers of sentimentality in relationships
• Is Mark Driscoll afraid to hold a woman accountable for her own choices?
• How feminism made women unsuitable for marriage and parenting
• Why Christian men should be chaste

Filed under: Commentary, 180-Second Rule, Abortion, Accountability, Adultery, Bad Boy, Betrayal, Chaste, Chastity, Children, Cohabitation, Consequences, Courting, Democrat, Divorce, Emotions, Faithful, Family, Feminism, Feminist, Feminist Theory, Fertility, Fidelity, Infidelity, Intuitions, Irresponsibility, Marriage, Men, No-Fault Divorce, Out of Wedlock, Parents, Premarital Sex, Responsibility, Sex, Sex Roles, Sexually-Transmitted Disease, Sexually-Transmitted Infection, Single-Motherhood, Unborn Children, Virgin, Wisdom, Women, Youth

New study: low family income not a major cause of low student achievement

From PhysOrg.com.  Please click the “Like” button below and tweet this one on Twitter. This is one to share.

Excerpt:

Family income is associated with student achievement, but careful studies show little causal connection. School factors – teacher quality, school accountability, school choice – have bigger causal impacts than family income per se, according to a new analysis by Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG).

The analysis, prepared by PEPG director Paul E. Peterson, calls into question the Broader, Bolder Approach (BBA) to educational reform that has been advanced by a group of education scholars, teacher union leaders, and non-profit groups. The BBA recommends that proposals to enhance teacher quality, school accountability and student choice be dropped in favor of policies that would redistribute income and provide support services to families outside the regular school day.

Peterson focuses on a paper presented by Duke University Professor Helen F. Ladd, a BBA co-chair, which was given as the presidential address before the Association of Public Policy and Management in Washington, D.C. in November of 2011, and is widely regarded as the key scholarly work underpinning BBA. Peterson’s article, “Neither Broad Nor Bold: A narrow-minded approach to school reform,” is available at http://www.educationnext.org and will appear in the Summer, 2012 issue of Education Next.

BBA’s mission statement holds: “Weakening that link [between income and achievement] is the fundamental challenge facing America’s education policy makers.” Peterson agrees that the connection between income and student performance “is no less true in the Age of Obama than it was in the Age of Pericles.” But, he points out, most of the connection is not causal, but due to other factors. He cites a study by Julia Isaacs and Katherine Magnuson (Brookings Institution, 2011), that examines an array of family characteristics – such as race, mother’s and father’s education, single parent or two-parent family, smoking during pregnancy – on school readiness and achievement. The Brookings study finds that the distinctive impact of family income is just 6.4 percent of a standard deviation, generally regarded as a small effect. In addition, Peterson calls attention to earlier research by Susan Mayer, former dean of the Harris School at the University of Chicago, which also found that the direct relationship between family income and education success for children varied between negligible and small.

[...]“A better case can be made that any increase in the achievement gap between high- and low-income groups is more the result of changing family structure than of inadequate medical services or preschool education,” Peterson says. In 1969, 85 percent of children under the age of 18 were living with two married parents; by 2010, that percentage had declined to 65 percent. The median income level of a single-parent family is just over $27,000 (using 1992 dollars), compared to more than $61,000 for a two-parent family; and the risk of dropping out of high school increases from 11 percent to 28 percent if a white student comes from a single-parent family instead of a two-parent family. For blacks, the increment is from 17 percent to 30 percent, and for Hispanics, the risk rises from 25 percent to 49 percent.

Peterson notes that most of the proposals to lift student achievement that Ladd and her BBA colleagues offer, such as expanded social services, preschool, and summer programs, ignore the many hours children spend at school and amount to a “potpourri of non-educational services (that) have never been shown to have more than modest effects on student achievement.” He points out that many school reforms – merit pay, school vouchers, and student and school accountability – have been shown to have had equivalent or larger impacts. For example, school accountability initiatives have raised student performance by 8 percent of a standard deviation. Initiatives to improve teacher quality have the potential of raising student performance by 10 to 20 percent of a standard deviation.

Read the rest here, this is important. So long as we keep looking to big government to solve all of our problems. We should instead be looking to our own good decision making, our own families and the free enterprises system.

Filed under: News, Accountability, Broader Bolder Approach, Capitalism, Child, Education, Evaluation, Family, Family Income, Father, Free Enterprise, Free Market, Grades, Harvard University, Income, Marriage, Merit Pay, Mother, Performance, Program on Education Policy and Governance, Redistribution of Wealth, Research, School, School Choice, Single Parent, Single-Motherhood, Social Justice, Socialism, Student, Study, Teacher, Teacher Quality, Two Parent, Wealth Redistribution

Fraud and waste in government’s program to distribute “free” cell phones

From CBS Atlanta. (H/T Wes)

Excerpt:

Georgians pay the federal government more than $262 million a year in mandatory universal service charges. That’s the hidden fee you pay on your cell phone bill every single month.

That fund is supposed to help the government pay for free phones for the poor.

But CBS Atlanta News found multiple phones being given away to people who already had a free phone, and to people who don’t need them or even want them. And the more phones these companies give away, the more money you pay.

[...]“Get your free government cell phones today, sign up today, get your free phone today,” a Life Wireless contractor yelled out the door of his car.

The pitch the salesman is making is for people to get something for nothing – a free cell phone. In some cases, they receive the phones whether they need them or not.

“I signed up for two already, I got like two of them,” one woman said.

The woman was in line to get her third free phone. In some cases, the people lining up for free phones admitted they already had three or four government-supported phones.

[...]But the bigger problem is that the FCC has no database where companies can check if a person has received one, two, three or even four cell phones from various companies. All someone has to do is show they are on government assistance, show their I.D. and they can get a free phone.

This is nothing but wealth distribution – an effort to equalize life outcomes for all regardless of prudence, thrift and hard work.

Filed under: News, Accountability, Cell Phones, Debt, Deficit, Equality, Federal Government, Government Spending, Measly Cheese Sandwich, Mobile, Mobile Phones, Poor, Poverty, Socialism, Spending, Telephone, Universal Service Charge, Waste, Wealth Redistribution

New government report finds $400 billion dollars of waste and duplication

A new Government Accountability Office report uncovers massive government waste.

Excerpt:

The government could save tens of billions of dollars each year if redundant and duplicative programs were cut, according to a report released by the Government Accountability Office on Tuesday.

The GAO report examines programs and services that could be streamlined to increase efficiency of government and save money. It looked at areas of where it found either duplication or overlap of services — when “two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries — and fragmentation, when “more than one federal agency (or more than one organization with an agency) is involved in the same broad national interest.” Fragmentation often amounts to an overlap.

Here are some examples of the $400 billion of wasteful spending and duplication.

Excerpt:

This year, GAO identified 32 new areas of duplication and 19 additional areas of waste and inefficiency. The report cites duplication in almost a thousand individual programs, costing taxpayers over $300 billion per year. This is on top of more than $100 billion identified in last year’s report.

Examples include:

• 37 uncoordinated EPA laboratories and 94 “green building” programs for which costs cannot be determined because “information agencies provided was incomplete and unreliable.”
• $736 million spent on 14 different diesel emissions programs and federal funding for 55 surface freight transportation programs.
• 160 various housing assistance programs at a cost of $170 billion annually.

But that’s not the only way for the government to waste money… they can give it to green energy companies that go bankrupt!

Excerpt:

Abound Solar Inc., which received a $400 million U.S. loan guarantee to build two factories, shut down production and fired 180 people after panel prices fell by half last year.

Abound stopped making its first-generation solar panels and will refit its manufacturing lines to produce more efficient products, the Loveland, Colorado-based company said yesterday in a statement.

The move is a response to the same forces that drove Solyndra LLC into bankruptcy after it received a $535 million loan guarantee from the same U.S. Energy Department program, said Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in Houston.

You can read this article to see how Abound Solar was connected to wealthy Democrat party contributors.

Filed under: News, Accountability, Debt, Deficit, Duplication, GAO, Government Accountability Office, Government Spending, Government waste, Spending, Spending Cuts, Waste