An Interesting Example of DEI in Action

[sturg33]

you don't have to answer if you don't want to but is this some unresolved issue with your dad

he was a good teacher til his last 5-10 years or so when the system demoralized him so much. couldn't fail students. had to shift to baby sitting. eventually admitted to just phoning it and that's what made him decide to reitre

many such cases

 

[sturg33]

borrowing from the education thread we already started

https://reason.com/2025/01/13/41-per...-report-finds/

More than four in 10 public school teachers in Chicago were chronically absent last year, according to a new report released by the Illinois State Board of Education. Chronically absent teachers missed 10 or more days of school, including sick days and other personal leave, but not including most long-term leave, such as parental or medical leave, according to the report.

The problem isn't confined to Chicago. While 41 percent of Chicago teachers were chronically absent, 34 percent of teachers statewide were also chronically absent. According to a recent article in The 74, an education-focused news outlet, the problem is likely persistent across the country, though only a few states track this data.

 

[nsacpi]

he was a good teacher til his last 5-10 years or so when the system demoralized him so much. couldn't fail students. had to shift to baby sitting. eventually admitted to just phoning it and that's what made him decide to reitre

many such cases

I'm sure he made a positive difference in the lives of many of his students.

 

[mqt]

borrowing from the education thread we already started

https://reason.com/2025/01/13/41-per...-report-finds/

More than four in 10 public school teachers in Chicago were chronically absent last year, according to a new report released by the Illinois State Board of Education. Chronically absent teachers missed 10 or more days of school, including sick days and other personal leave, but not including most long-term leave, such as parental or medical leave, according to the report.

The problem isn't confined to Chicago. While 41 percent of Chicago teachers were chronically absent, 34 percent of teachers statewide were also chronically absent. According to a recent article in The 74, an education-focused news outlet, the problem is likely persistent across the country, though only a few states track this data.

Again, I’m not sure how you rectify this in a way that doesn’t involve paying teachers more, though I would pair that clawing back on some union protections. With the sheer amount of testing we have students complete in public schools and the ability to track and calculate things so easily with current technologies, it seems like you could track teacher quality in a variety of ways to find the highest performing teachers in each school or district. But that’s not something the federal government can do, because it has to account for too many differences between states and cities and districts. The best teacher in the world can only do so much if they’re walking in through a metal detector or have kids without other support systems for their education. But that teacher can’t be benchmarked against a teacher in a suburban school with iPads for each student and be considered to have failed if the students don’t all perform as well. A great teacher has a kid for 50 minutes a day, but the other 1,390 minutes will play a big role in that student’s ability to meet a federal standard. So I think we also need to be smarter about how we evaluate teacher performance, and I think that can only realistically happen at a district level.

By focusing less on protecting teachers that don’t perform as well compared to their peers and more on attracting talent through higher wages and learning from the teachers who *are* making a difference, I think you’d fix a lot of the problems in education without ever needing to change the structure of the schools.

 

[sturg33]

Again, I’m not sure how you rectify this in a way that doesn’t involve paying teachers more, though I would pair that clawing back on some union protections. With the sheer amount of testing we have students complete in public schools and the ability to track and calculate things so easily with current technologies, it seems like you could track teacher quality in a variety of ways to find the highest performing teachers in each school or district. But that’s not something the federal government can do, because it has to account for too many differences between states and cities and districts. The best teacher in the world can only do so much if they’re walking in through a metal detector or have kids without other support systems for their education. But that teacher can’t be benchmarked against a teacher in a suburban school with iPads for each student and be considered to have failed if the students don’t all perform as well. A great teacher has a kid for 50 minutes a day, but the other 1,390 minutes will play a big role in that student’s ability to meet a federal standard. So I think we also need to be smarter about how we evaluate teacher performance, and I think that can only realistically happen at a district level.

By focusing less on protecting teachers that don’t perform as well compared to their peers and more on attracting talent through higher wages and learning from the teachers who *are* making a difference, I think you’d fix a lot of the problems in education without ever needing to change the structure of the schools.

you won't hear a complaint from me about paying teachers based on their quulity - and firing the bad ones.

the teachers are who will stop that.

see the Chicago teacher's union

 

[mqt]

you won't hear a complaint from me about paying teachers based on their quulity - and firing the bad ones.

the teachers are who will stop that.

see the Chicago teacher's union

We agree on this front. Unfortunately the only people who seem to agree with me on teachers unions get pretty quiet on funding public education more in return. It’s almost like it’s a bad thing that voting (D) or (R) means you’re basically choosing a side on like 11 million different issues. Not that it matters much since even if I elect someone who agrees with me on those specific issues they will only get to vote for whatever the party leadership agreed to behind closed doors.

 

[57Brave]

https://www.military.com/daily-news...my-success-reaching-2024-recruiting-goal.html

Meanwhile, the Army's biggest recruiting challenge isn't just convincing men to sign up -- it's finding eligible ones. Academic standards have become a major barrier for recruits, with a significant portion failing to meet the minimum requirements for enlistment.

 

[57Brave]

‪Senator Tim Kaine‬ ‪@kaine.senate.gov‬
·
6h
GOP members complaining about reduction of military standards

while using a chart that misspells the word military!

 

[Tapate50]

So you now believe public schools aren’t getting it done. Got it

 

[nsacpi]

We've seen this divergence between male and female students. I'm all for the Army and the educational system finding ways to improve the performance of men.

 

[thethe]

We've seen this divergence between male and female students. I'm all for the Army and the educational system finding ways to improve the performance of men.

'Education' is tailored to women. Thats why we are seeing these options. Their ingrained attributes (yes differences at birth) will facilitate more success in a classroom/regurgitation of knowledge world.

Fortunately, education levels do not directly correlate to success in the real world.

I don't think we need to try and resolve these 'inequities' in our education system. We need to divert men away from obtaining traditional 'educations' (unless of course they are STEM driven which they are in much higher numbers than women).

 

[nsacpi]

I don't believe for a minute that men as a group are incapable. There might be some thangs that can be done to reduce the way the system disadvantages them.

 

[thethe]

I don't believe for a minute that men as a group are incapable. There might be some thangs that can be done to reduce the way the system disadvantages them.

Its not being incapable - Its understanding the differences between men and women and accepting thats ok.

Why would we try and change something that isn't even going to help in the long run. The only higher level of educations that are worth the time in a structure setting are STEM based and men far excel in that area.

Let men strive to be entrepreneurs and not liberal arts majors. Women can go ahead and get worthless pieces of paper.

 

[Tapate50]

Common sense ain’t so

 

[nsacpi]

Its not being incapable - Its understanding the differences between men and women and accepting thats ok.

Why would we try and change something that isn't even going to help in the long run. The only higher level of educations that are worth the time in a structure setting are STEM based and men far excel in that area.

Let men strive to be entrepreneurs and not liberal arts majors. Women can go ahead and get worthless pieces of paper.

I mean incapable of learning how to read or do well on reading tests. Reading is an important skill. For men and women. Same for writing and math. Men have been falling behind on all of those basic skills. Can't be a good entrepreneur or join the Army without those basics.

 

[thethe]

I mean incapable of learning how to read or do well on reading tests. Reading is an important skill. For men and women. Same for writing and math. Men have been falling behind on all of those basic skills.

And yet majority of engineers/doctors/other stem related fields continue to be men and it will continue to be this way. You are seeing a change in composition just because naturally women were not fully included in these areas historically. Thats just natural change and not indicative of men falling behind.

WHat you are reporting are results on standardize testing which doesn't translate to the real world. Women can take their bows at figuring out a system of regurgitating information.

Men will continue to lead the world.

 

[mqt]

And yet majority of engineers/doctors/other stem related fields continue to be men and it will continue to be this way. You are seeing a change in composition just because naturally women were not fully included in these areas historically. Thats just natural change and not indicative of men falling behind.

WHat you are reporting are results on standardize testing which doesn't translate to the real world. Women can take their bows at figuring out a system of regurgitating information.

Men will continue to lead the world.

I almost admire how many of your views seem to be based on the idea that we pretty definitively figured out how society should work about 200 years ago and any changes to that understanding goes against the natural order of things.

 

[thethe]

I almost admire how many of your views seem to be based on the idea that we pretty definitively figured out how society should work about 200 years ago and any changes to that understanding goes against the natural order of things.

Its ok mqt - Let women continue to get worthless pieces of paper. But in the business/engineering world the male brain is more conducive to success.

You refuse to acknowledge differences between the sexes but I'm the backwards one.

 

[mqt]

Its ok mqt - Let women continue to get worthless pieces of paper. But in the business/engineering world the male brain is more conducive to success.

You refuse to acknowledge differences between the sexes but I'm the backwards one.

Even if we set aside any and all differences on how men and women differ mentally, you are just defining what constitutes someone being “successful” and then using that to claim that the way men’s brains work is the *right* way to achieve success. But success is a construct, not some objective truth of the universe. So when you say it’s just that I don’t understand or acknowledge differences between men and women, you’re obscuring that the way we’ve set up society to favor the way men “succeed” instead of the way women “succeed” is the basis for those claims.

 

[thethe]

Even if we set aside any and all differences on how men and women differ mentally, you are just defining what constitutes someone being “successful” and then using that to claim that the way men’s brains work is the *right* way to achieve success. But success is a construct, not some objective truth of the universe. So when you say it’s just that I don’t understand or acknowledge differences between men and women, you’re obscuring that the way we’ve set up society to favor the way men “succeed” instead of the way women “succeed” is the basis for those claims.

Success can be construed any way you want but MONEY is ultimately the unit of value in our society and the ones that can attract more money are inherently more valuable in society AS WE DEFINE IT.