|
A big flaming stink posted:the bigger problem with metrics is how the hell do you measure them in an objective fashion? Frequently the answer is "how many students passed/what was their average acheivement level" which creates perverse incentives for teachers to do whatever it takes to avoid teaching the students that need it most Right now the metric is "years at employer", which doesn't even pretend to be related to effectiveness. I mean, every industry has to figure out performance management. Many of them deal with externalities. This is not a totally solved problem, but at any company I've worked at if I suggested that people's compensation be simply based on tenure, I would be laughed at.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:the bigger problem with metrics is how the hell do you measure them in an objective fashion? Frequently the answer is "how many students passed/what was their average acheivement level" which creates perverse incentives for teachers to do whatever it takes to avoid teaching the students that need it most It sure isn't easy. I think the usual response to that concern is to measure the before/after and compare it to the average before/after for a student in similar circumstances - i.e. if your student starts at a 2 and goes up to a 5, you get credit for an improvement of 3, and if he starts at 6 and stays at 6, you get credit for an improvement of 0 (instead of just getting credit for what he ends up in, which is indeed a perverse incentive to just take the 6 and not bother to teach him). It is hard to measure teachers objectively. The usual response would be subjective measurement - but when teachers are arguing that subjective measurement needs to be out because they don't trust administrators then that's out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:I was flipping through the court decision on executions and was surprised to find that the court required the plaintiffs to present an alternate method of execution? Like, it's not enough just to say "this is a hosed up way to die," you have to finish with "so kill me using this." What possible reasoning does that precedent have? Is it really up to inmates to propose humane methods of execution when they are presented with one that interferes with their constitutional rights? As someone else said, read RBG. It's basically one of the dumbest opinions to ever come out of the Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Right now the metric is "years at employer", which doesn't even pretend to be related to effectiveness. Thats because you worked at commercial software companies that have easy metrics for outcomes. For teachers right now we have test scores. For a given teacher in a good school they'll get good ratings, put that teacher in a bad school they'll get bad ratings. That means that we don't have any good metrics for teachers. Administration's continuing requirement for metrics means that new teachers will abandon bad schools as quickly as possible for lesser (immediately) paying jobs at "good" schools because their metrics have nothing to do with their ability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is hard to measure teachers objectively. It's hard to measure basically anyone's performance objectively if by that you mean perfectly controlling for context. Salespeople get paid for selling units, but if the product develops a bad reputation (or the competitor has a better one) then they're at a disadvantage. It's also hard to measure students objectively, but we don't (usually) give people credits simply for showing up for more hours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Thats because you worked at commercial software companies that have easy metrics for outcomes. What are the easy-and-useful metrics for an admin? For someone in HR? For a recruiter? For a software developer for that matter? Lines of code? Bugs filed? All of those are terrible. I've been responsible for putting together performance management systems in the past, and I wouldn't call it easy by any means. But that didn't result in anyone saying "oh well, better not do it at all and just pay people based on how long they've worked here". All performance management is subjective, why can't teachers be evaluated against results by their managers, who are familiar with the context?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What are the easy-and-useful metrics for an admin? For someone in HR? For a recruiter? For a software developer for that matter? Lines of code? Bugs filed? All of those are terrible. Because they don't trust the managers, which is the entire motivation for looking for a metric
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Because they don't trust the managers, which is the entire motivation for looking for a metric I thought the union didn't want a metric used, in this case, even though they'd helped develop it. Are unions proposing metrics of effectiveness (seniority not being one) and having them be rejected by management? That's not what I'd expected. (How are managers evaluated? Seniority again?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:For teachers right now we have test scores. For a given teacher in a good school they'll get good ratings, put that teacher in a bad school they'll get bad ratings. That means that we don't have any good metrics for teachers. Administration's continuing requirement for metrics means that new teachers will abandon bad schools as quickly as possible for lesser (immediately) paying jobs at "good" schools because their metrics have nothing to do with their ability. One of the factors in the system developed here, largely by teachers, is teacher observations, as in, observations by multiple other teachers, some from the same school and some from other schools within the district. That's about as subjective as you get, which is a good thing IMO. They also get to give each other constructive feedback and help each other improve. IIRC the other factors in the eventual rating are test scores (which include student growth as a consideration), and administrative observations. They were considering including student evaluations as a small part of the outcome, which sounds like a sticky subject but research shows it's actually quite accurate even if the teacher is a hardass who some students dislike for petty reasons. Anyway they didn't include that. e: Subjunctive posted:I thought the union didn't want a metric used, in this case, even though they'd helped develop it. Are unions proposing metrics of effectiveness (seniority not being one) and having them be rejected by management? That's not what I'd expected. The teachers (and union) helped develop the eval system and everyone thought it was pretty good and fair and even helped them be better teachers. It wasn't until budget cuts came and the district was considering using the outcome of that very eval system (in combination with seniority) for furloughs, that the union leadership flipped out about it and said it was a bad idea and you can only use seniority. alnilam fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
The case that the court has decided to hear has nothing to do with teacher performance, so I don't know why we're getting bogged down with metrics and subjective ranking. The case is about the legality of requiring union membership dues, which attacks the entire basis of a union. The 'free-rider' problem, basically. http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/new-threat-to-public-employee-unionism/ If you hate unions, fine, but if you think unions are ok then I don't know what this special treatment of teachers is about; "well teacher unions sometimes protect one of their members - down with unions!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Sorry, I inadvertantly started a derail when someone said that public sector unions can be crappy sometimes (FoP, prison guards), and I brought up this thing about placing member interests above public good and a local school district example that I phrased in too-general terms and looked like I was attacking teachers' unions in general. Good summary there ^^^^
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Ah, I thought someone was describing a case, and it was rather an event in their area. Apologies. WRT the actual case, it does surprise me that lobbying with respect to education policies isn't counted as a political activity. I'll have to dig into the reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
alnilam posted:The teachers (and union) helped develop the eval system and everyone thought it was pretty good and fair and even helped them be better teachers. It wasn't until budget cuts came and the district was considering using the outcome of that very eval system (in combination with seniority) for furloughs, that the union leadership flipped out about it and said it was a bad idea and you can only use seniority. The key here seems to be that the management acted arbitrarily and without consultation with the union. The point of the eval system was to help teachers improve their teaching. Pecking order for layoffs is a completely different issue. If the union and administration had previously agreed on using seniority for layoffs and then the administration unilaterally decided to change that, there's a pretty good reasons for the union to flip its poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The key here seems to be that the management acted arbitrarily and without consultation with the union. The point of the eval system was to help teachers improve their teaching. The district could not (and didn't try to!) unilaterally change the district-union agreement, but rather they pretty much begged the union to re-negotiate in advance of the coming furloughs. They wanted to keep the best teachers in front of kids, rather than the fairly mindless seniority-based system that was written into the negotiation long before they developed this eval system. Basically it was District: "Hey union, you and I developed this really nice eval system together, and now the shithead governor cut our funding and we regrettably have to furlough some teachers. It sucks. But can we pleeease re-negotiate so that we can consider both seniority and teacher effectiveness, as defined by the eval system already in place?" Union: "No." Me: "Won't somebody pleeeease think of the children!!!" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Ah, I thought someone was describing a case, and it was rather an event in their area. Apologies. How do you represent teachers in contract negotiations with the government that employs them without affecting that government's policies? Is negotiating a contract the same as lobbying?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
alnilam posted:The district could not (and didn't try to!) unilaterally change the district-union agreement, but rather they pretty much begged the union to re-negotiate in advance of the coming furloughs. They wanted to keep the best teachers in front of kids, rather than the fairly mindless seniority-based system that was written into the negotiation long before they developed this eval system. A contract is a contract. The method for determining furloughs had already been negotiated and was right there in black and white. The union had no obligation to renegotiate it with a gun to their head and are not the bad guys for sticking to what they and the administration had already agreed to. Changing the CBA because somebody doesn't like the terms after the fact is not how it works. The merit of determining layoffs based on teacher evaluations needed to be negotiated and hashed out long before the financial crisis hit. Maybe seniority + evaluation is actually a superior method, but it needed to be agreed to after careful consideration and consultation with the teachers while dispassionate analysis was possible. Sorry, your "think of the children" argument is without merit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Family Values posted:How do you represent teachers in contract negotiations with the government that employs them without affecting that government's policies? Is negotiating a contract the same as lobbying? Well, not all government contractors are considered lobbyists, so I suspect there's a way. Simply negotiating a contract isn't considered lobbying anywhere that I've seen -- is that the precedent that leads here? In the cases I'm familiar with, teachers unions don't negotiate with policymakers, but rather with people constrained by those policies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Well, not all government contractors are considered lobbyists, so I suspect there's a way. Simply negotiating a contract isn't considered lobbying anywhere that I've seen -- is that the precedent that leads here? It is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abood_v._Detroit_Board_of_Education
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
alnilam posted:The district could not (and didn't try to!) unilaterally change the district-union agreement, but rather they pretty much begged the union to re-negotiate in advance of the coming furloughs. They wanted to keep the best teachers in front of kids, rather than the fairly mindless seniority-based system that was written into the negotiation long before they developed this eval system. Hmm yes, teachers should willingly bloody their own noses at every single opportunity because ~the children~ are on the line! Or maybe the school district could have given a poo poo "about the children" when they did this thing called contract negotiation? Once the poo poo hits the fan you can't say "hey well despite that entire process we went through of negotiating and agreeing on a CBA with you guys, well, tough poo poo think of the children!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Where does Abood say that lobbying isn't political speech, or that contract negotiation is lobbying? On the contrary, the judgment seems to be explicitly that collective bargaining and political activities are separate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
The eval system didn't exist at all when the original negotiation happened many years prior, it was an emergent situation and the district was trying to see if they could work together to make the best of it (for some definitions of "best"). The union said no, so they couldn't. The union could have voluntarily re negotiated but they chose not to. I'm not arguing that the district had legal standing to change it anyway which seems to be what you're implying?? Just because the law/contract was on the union's side here and gave them the outcome they wanted doesn't mean I can't criticize that outcome 
alnilam fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Where does Abood say that lobbying isn't political speech, or that contract negotiation is lobbying? On the contrary, the judgment seems to be explicitly that collective bargaining and political activities are separate. Yes, but it allows non-union members to be charged a fee to cover collective bargaining representation, which is what the new case challenges. If negotiating a contract, or administering disciplinary hearings affect government policy and are therefore 'lobying' Abood is overturned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Yes, but it allows non-union members to be charged a fee to cover collective bargaining representation, which is what the new case challenges. If negotiating a contract, or administering disciplinary hearings affect government policy and are therefore 'lobying' Abood is overturned. OK, this is the part that wasn't in the Wikipedia page: scotusblog posted:Even though unions in the public sector attempt to influence government policy-making, to protect the interests of those they represent, the Court declared that that activity is not to be treated as political for purposes of the amount of “agency shop” fees to non-members. I had taken from the WP page that Abood was about limiting the use of fees from objectors to non-political activities, and that overturning it would remove that limitation. What union wouldn't want to lobby on behalf of its members, though? Government policy affects everyone, not just public sector workers. I'll have to read Abood I guess. Thank you! E: in fact, wait, if negotiation is deemed lobbying, wouldn't Abood mean that "free riders" could opt out of paying for collective bargaining entirely? If Abood is overturned, then the restriction on political use goes away, and there's no problem with negotiation being lobbying. What am I missing? Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
alnilam posted:The eval system didn't exist at all when the original negotiation happened many years prior, it was an emergent situation and the district was trying to see if they could work together to make the best of it (for some definitions of "best"). The union said no, so they couldn't. The union could have voluntarily re negotiated but they chose not to. I'm not arguing that the district had legal standing to change it anyway which seems to be what you're implying?? Just because the law/contract was on the union's side here and gave them the outcome they wanted doesn't mean I can't criticize that outcome Part of the problem is that there is no evidence that basing furloughs on performance evaluations is actually better for the children. You're just assuming it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Part of the problem is that there is no evidence that basing furloughs on performance evaluations is actually better for the children. You're just assuming it is. The corollary is the assumption that an evaluation system that had only been in place for a short period was mature enough for the union to want to adopt it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Part of the problem is that there is no evidence that basing furloughs on performance evaluations is actually better for the children. You're just assuming it is. How could that evidence be gathered? What was used to determine that seniority was better than random selection for furloughs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Part of the problem is that there is no evidence that basing furloughs on performance evaluations is actually better for the children. You're just assuming it is. The evaluation system was originally based on a body of academic studies correlating different measures of teacher effectiveness to student improvement, so there is evidence, but gently caress if I'm going to go fetch that info because I'm done with this argument Like everything, uions can do things that are good, but they can also do things that are bad, and its possibly to criticize a bad thing a union did once without thinking that All Unions Must Be Destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:E: in fact, wait, if negotiation is deemed lobbying, wouldn't Abood mean that "free riders" could opt out of paying for collective bargaining entirely? If Abood is overturned, then the restriction on political use goes away, and there's no problem with negotiation being lobbying. What am I missing? You're missing the fact that allowing free-riders basically kills a union. They're not free-riders if they're paying the fee, they're free-riders if they don't pay the fee but still get union representation. But everyone would opt out even if they don't object on ideological grounds because why pay for something when you can have it for free? Unless, I suppose, you end the requirement that the NLRA imposes that a union has to represent all employees if it represents any.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:I was flipping through the court decision on executions and was surprised to find that the court required the plaintiffs to present an alternate method of execution? Like, it's not enough just to say "this is a hosed up way to die," you have to finish with "so kill me using this." What possible reasoning does that precedent have? Is it really up to inmates to propose humane methods of execution when they are presented with one that interferes with their constitutional rights? A lot of people (including me, I think) were under the impression that a method of execution could be evaluated in isolation, unrelated to anything else, and we can just look at a method and judge it to be cruel and unusual, or not. The supreme court made it clear that this is not the case. The court says that you need to show that the method is cruel and unusual compared to other available methods. So, if you can't point to a method that is easily available and more humane, well too bad, the method you object to is going to have to be good enough. The court made it clear that we can't go down the line, find a problem with every easily available method of execution, and achieve a de facto ban on executions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How could that evidence be gathered? What was used to determine that seniority was better than random selection for furloughs? Public sector unions use seniority lists for furloughs and layoffs because 1) republicans exist, so expect it to happen a dozen or more times over the course of any public service career 2) administration always wants to slash budgets, so would prefer to be able to just lay off all the most experienced, and thus highly paid because pay is also seniority based, employees to save as much money as possible. You use a seniority list because if you don't then everybody is going to get laid off at some point and nobody is going to make it to retirement without flipping over to management. That's particularly important for teachers' unions when they're already having a serious problem on account of being a teacher being an incredibly stupid financial decision that nobody in their right mind would ever do except for an ideological commitment to the idea of education.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
alnilam posted:The evaluation system was originally based on a body of academic studies correlating different measures of teacher effectiveness to student improvement, so there is evidence, but gently caress if I'm going to go fetch that info because I'm done with this argument The larger issues at stake are its long-term impact on the morale of the teachers, and whether it would affect the system's ability to hire and retain quality teachers in the future. Even if it could be shown that it would have a positive short-term impact, the longer term consequences are often far more important. Considering all of those issues in a cool and calm manner and not under duress is crucial. That's what I meant by it not necessarily being in the best interest of the children - there's a lot more children that this is going to affect than the current students. Leaping into such a major policy change without due deliberation often ends in disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Family Values posted:You're missing the fact that allowing free-riders basically kills a union. They're not free-riders if they're paying the fee, they're free-riders if they don't pay the fee but still get union representation. But everyone would opt out even if they don't object on ideological grounds because why pay for something when you can have it for free? Unless, I suppose, you end the requirement that the NLRA imposes that a union has to represent all employees if it represents any. So here's my understanding, thanks for your patience with me. - In an agency shop, all employees pay some union fees whether members or not (agency fees). - Under Abood, those agency fees exclude the moneys associated with political lobbying if an free-rider employee wishes to opt out (they just pay for collective bargaining). - Also under Abood, for public sector unions lobbying the government isn't considered political lobbying because they're trying to influence their employer: agency fees include lobbying activities. - If lobbying activities are no longer treated specially for public sector unions, then public sector free-riders will be able to opt out of those as well, meaning that they would only pay for collective bargaining. - If Abood is overturned, then political activities would no longer be excluded from agency fees for anyone, in which case it doesn't matter whether public sector unions are treated specially or not. In this case having negotiations be considered lobbying (which I still find baffling) wouldn't matter because lobbying wouldn't get a carve-out from agency fees anyway. Abood seems to apply a limit to private sector unions, since the limit it applies (lobbying excluded from agency fees) is waived for public sector unions. Overturning it would only benefit unions, since it would no longer allow non-members at an agency shop to opt out of the lobbying activity. I'm sure there's a gross error in there, but I'm not sure where.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
SCOTUS is going to rule on whether or not all lobbying by a public sector union amounts to political speech. If they say it does, then forcing someone to pay shop fees or dues violates their free speech. Which means a bunch of folks stop paying dues altogether while still enjoying the benefits of the now financially crippled union. Edit: when I said "lobbying" above I meant negotiating with the employer. The question is whether contract negotiations amount to political activity.
Wicked Them Beats fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:- Also under Abood, for public sector unions lobbying the government isn't considered political lobbying because they're trying to influence their employer: agency fees include lobbying activities. No, political activities are only paid for by members because they are political activities. Non-members only pay fees which must be used only for collective-bargaining. quote:- If lobbying activities are no longer treated specially for public sector unions, then public sector free-riders will be able to opt out of those as well, meaning that they would only pay for collective bargaining. No, this is the status quo today: non-members only pay for collective bargaining through fees, lobbying activities would only be supported by the dues of actual members. quote:Abood seems to apply a limit to private sector unions, since the limit it applies (lobbying excluded from agency fees) is waived for public sector unions. Overturning it would only benefit unions, since it would no longer allow non-members at an agency shop to opt out of the lobbying activity. Abood says that fees used for collective bargaining don't violate the employee's first amendment rights and are therefore legal. Overturning it would mean that even fees which are only used for collective bargaining are a violation of the employee's free speech. Because of the doctrine of fair representation, the union would still have to represent non-members, but overturning Abood would mean that non-members don't have to pay the fees. This is what creates free-riders. (There aren't any free-riders today because non-members are paying for the bargaining services of the union) quote:Abood seems to apply a limit to private sector unions, since the limit it applies (lobbying excluded from agency fees) is waived for public sector unions. Overturning it would only benefit unions, since it would no longer allow non-members at an agency shop to opt out of the lobbying activity. No, public employee unions have the same rights as private sector unions, as upheld by Abood. Private sector unions also must not use fees collected from non-members for political activities. What Friedrichs argues is that all activities of a public sector union, even just representing employees in a contract negotiation, are meant to influence government policy and are therefore political acts that violate the first amendment rights of the employees. You seem to have everything completely backwards. Read the SCOTUSblog link again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
E: going to read more
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Thats because you worked at commercial software companies that have easy metrics for outcomes. To add to this, there's a big controversy around using value added models to see what impact teachers have. They are super popular these days, but what they've found is, generally there's an inter-year variability of up to .5. In other words, a teacher could move from the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile just based on the students they teach from one year to the next. It seems to be okay for finding the absolute best and the absolute worst teachers, but they kind of suck for everyone else. Xandu fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Family Values posted:No, public employee unions have the same rights as private sector unions, as upheld by Abood. Private sector unions also must not use fees collected from non-members for political activities. So what's the meaning of this from the SCOTUSblog post? scotusblog posted:Even though unions in the public sector attempt to influence government policy-making, to protect the interests of those they represent, the Court declared that that activity is not to be treated as political for purposes of the amount of “agency shop” fees to non-members. I understood it to mean that some activity related to influencing the government is permitted as non-political for public unions but not for private ones. quote:What Friedrichs argues is that all activities of a public sector union, even just representing employees in a contract negotiation, are meant to influence government policy and are therefore political acts that violate the first amendment rights of the employees. Prior to Abood, what was the law? I thought it was that non-member agency fees could be used for anything, and that Abood was the thing that limited them to non-political uses for non-members. And therefore that overturning Abood would return to that state, with fewer restrictions on unions' use of non-member agency fees than today. In addition to overturning Abood, though, the risk of Friedrichs is that everything a public union does becomes treated as a political act, not just the things that -- as I understand from the quoted SCOTUSblog passage above -- are currently different between public and private unions. Wouldn't it have pretty wide ramifications, even beyond union issues, for all contract negotiation with the government to be considered political activity? I'm imagining people selling toilet paper to the Department of Agriculture having to register as lobbyists and such ridiculousness. Xandu posted:To add to this, there's a big controversy around using value added models to see what impact teachers have. They are super popular these days, but what they've found is, generally there's an inter-year variability of up to .5. In other words, a teacher could move from the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile just based on the students they teach from one year to the next. It seems to be okay for finding the absolute best and the absolute worst teachers, but they kind of suck for everyone else. Being able to divide people into bottom-quartile, top-quartile, and middle seems like a decent start for performance-based policy decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:
Sure, but in practice there end up being significant differences in outcomes for teachers (bonuses, promotions, being fired) based on nothing more than statistical noise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
e: I think I misread the numbers
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Being able to divide people into bottom-quartile, top-quartile, and middle seems like a decent start for performance-based policy decisions. Given a year over year shift of 0.5, layoff the bottom 25% ten times on random years over the course of a public servant's career and congratulations, getting to retire is now a shockingly rare privilege for those dirty enough to manipulate the stats or lick the right boots and a tiny handful of paragons you get to point to and say "look, the system works!" Meanwhile since you're just comparing teachers to each other teaching outcomes loving plummet as every teacher is worse because now it is an even stupider idea to become a teacher and more and more qualified candidates gently caress off to do literally anything else on earth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 00:16
|
|