Steve Jobs Dead to Cancer at 56

Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair, he's completely right.

Even the Help Desk people (when you finally reach one after waiting about 2 hours) will indirectly admit the system wasn't ready to be marketed. In effect: SESIS was prematurely ejaculated into public education because of the money to be made (incidently, the parent company is under investigation for medical insurance fraud).

Again, this is only the latest debacle. And Mr. Jobs suffered from the same affliction as Bloomberg (I forget the official term): but it's basically the megalomaniacal belief that just because he -- the businessman -- knows how to make money (Praise that $$God$$), he knows how to fix everything via the business model. It simply isn't true. And I still dare any billionaire businessman to take the teaching challenge (not doubt there are many who frequent KMC and would see this).

But we can agree that the way you guys do it now is a gigantic pile of shit, yes?

Anyways, your first example looks very much like an issue that would arise from bureaucracy, not from a business minded approach. So you may have an valid grievance with "SESIS", but I don't understand how that is a product of Steve Jobs ideas (as expressed in this short Huffington Post excerpt).

What we can see is that the people who run education in the US usually are failing, and to a lesser degree, where it is applied, so do the business people that get the chance to try it (though we should be fair, and admit they have to deal with a gigantic mess of a bureaucratic system).

Anyways, I don't want to argue Bloomberg's policies with you (as I don't know them well, nor do I care much), but the points Steve Jobs made I mostly agree with.

Teachers should be able to be fired in a reasonable manner. There is no reason to have tenure for High School teachers, none.

Better teachers should be able to make more money, worse less, worst be able to get fired.

School should be longer, there should be less vacation and the expectations should be higher and standardized (high school students need a good foundation, not specific knowledge)

Huge Unions and the Government making deals together is an issue in almost every field, as they are both, in essence monopolies, and it completely misses individual needs.

I do agree with you that teachers make too little money, they should make way more. But only the ones worth it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
1. But we can agree that the way you guys do it now is a gigantic pile of shit, yes?

2. Anyways, your first example looks very much like an issue that would arise from bureaucracy, not from a business minded approach. So you may have an valid grievance with "SESIS", but I don't understand how that is a product of Steve Jobs ideas (as expressed in this short Huffington Post excerpt).

3. What we can see is that the people who run education in the US usually are failing, and to a lesser degree, where it is applied, so do the business people that get the chance to try it (though we should be fair, and admit they have to deal with a gigantic mess of a bureaucratic system).

4. Anyways, I don't want to argue Bloomberg's policies with you (as I don't know them well, nor do I care much), but the points Steve Jobs made I mostly agree with.

5. Teachers should be able to be fired in a reasonable manner. There is no reason to have tenure for High School teachers, none.

6. Better teachers should be able to make more money, worse less, worst be able to get fired.

7. School should be longer, there should be less vacation and the expectations should be higher and standardized (high school students need a good foundation, not specific knowledge)

8. Huge Unions and the Government making deals together is an issue in almost every field, as they are both, in essence monopolies, and it completely misses individual needs.

9.I do agree with you that teachers make too little money, they should make way more. But only the ones worth it.

2. It was to illustrate, in general, that if the business model is applied, then the business model bottom line will dominate.

3. Meh. Humans. And so far, the only example I know of has made things worse, not better.

4. Everything looks good in writing.

5. Agreed: teachers should be fired in a reasonable manner. This is what tenure guarantees: due process (Not a "job for life," which seems to be, BTW, many peoples' impression).

6. Agreed. But unfortunately, merit will take back seat to other factors.

7. I admit some bias here, since I like my vacation time (though it and other benefits do compensate for the mediocre pay). But if you're going to raise standards, provide the resources for achieving them. Don't set the school system up for failure (as Bloomberg did, until a judge told him to back off).

8. Big Business is not immune to this. Again, if you apply the business model, the business bottom line will dominate the agenda, and in this case, it would Not be education. And as I also said earlier, the unions today are hardly innocent bystanders. Like any system set up by humans, if it's in place long enough, eventually abuse and corruption set in. The unions definitely do need to be "upgraded," not dismantled, otherwise, the common folk's voice is drowned out by the 1%.

9. Indeed.

Bottom line: yes, the education system needs to be fixed (and unions needs to be recalibrated). But I have yet to see any evidence that the business model is the way to do it. IMO, a big help would be for society to regard teachers like rock stars (not, "Those who can't do, teach"😉. This would certainly get kids' attention and imply the value of what teachers do way better than any lip service.

As far as I understand tenure means that you can not be fired, for life, without "just cause", "just cause" in most cases meaning "only if you raped 3+ kids, and not necessarily even then".

Now, I don't think teachers should have tenure at all, I think they should be fireable in a reasonable time frame when the need dictates, but even if we don't agree on that, don't we agree that at least "performance" should be an admissible factor? If you are a completely ineffective teacher shouldn't you get fired?

Especially considering the immense importance of a teachers work, isn't it essential that the bad teachers, who do such huge damage, can be fired?

Conversely, shouldn't great teachers, who do a magnificent job, and are essential for the furtherance of society, be rewarded based on that merit they bring to the table?

Originally posted by Bardock42
As far as I understand tenure means that you can not be fired, for life, without "just cause", "just cause" in most cases meaning "only if you raped 3+ kids, and not necessarily even then".

Now, I don't think teachers should have tenure at all, I think they should be fireable in a reasonable time frame when the need dictates, but even if we don't agree on that, don't we agree that at least "performance" should be an admissible factor? If you are a completely ineffective teacher shouldn't you get fired?

Especially considering the immense importance of a teachers work, isn't it essential that the bad teachers, who do such huge damage, can be fired?

Conversely, shouldn't great teachers, who do a magnificent job, and are essential for the furtherance of society, be rewarded based on that merit they bring to the table?

The difference is that I've been in the field for several years and have witnessed real abuses of power from administration, which is why I feel union protection is a must (though it should be realistic). And if reform is to come, it should not be from businessmen whose bottom line is entirely different from education. Children are not bottles of Coke, passive containers into which knowledge is simply poured, and this complicates what is meant by a teacher being effective. The current zeitgeist in education reform is that teachers are entirely responsible for the outcome of their efforts, and children (especially by high school age) pick this up and draw the conclusion that, if they fail, it's always the teachers fault. Result: they don't do their part in acquiring an education because society has provided a ready-made scapegoat.

My 2 cents worth: You want real education reform? Start by identifying all responsible parties: students, teachers and parents. You want to determine teacher effectiveness? Have a teacher reviewed by peers, as well as the principal, keeping in mind the responsibilities of the student and parent.

I think we are on the same page there too.

However contractual negotiations are an easy thing to work on and improve. Changing the zeitgeist, well that's a much more complicated task (which is not to say it shouldn't be attempted).

Though to come back to my initial point. We have one tiny blurb of Steve Jobs opinion on the subject, it's far too little to draw any conclusions of his actual positions, he may have been completely in line with your thoughts on it...or he may have blamed everything on teachers, who knows...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though to come back to my initial point. We have one tiny blurb of Steve Jobs opinion on the subject, it's far too little to draw any conclusions of his actual positions, he may have been completely in line with your thoughts on it...or he may have blamed everything on teachers, who knows...

You really, really don't like Bloomberg, do you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You really, really don't like Bloomberg, do you?

*sigh*

That Bloomberg? Yeah. I not be too fond o' him. And at this point, most New Yorkers aren't, especially when it comes to how he handled education.

The only thing good about him is, he'll be gone by Jan 2013. Then I can wear my 'I Survived the Mein Fuhrer Bloomberg Years' t-shirt without fear of vindictive response.

R.I.P Steve Jobs!
we really miss you 🙁 , you made the great phone ever...