I am not sure why you think i dislike indians in the USA i really don't lol.

As for the parents, do you realize that's inheritable traits as well right? all behavioural propensities are inheritable, including the very crucial one (for education) about the father staying with the kids

I realise it quite well, I was one of those children (not Indian, though). My family brought me to the UK when I was 8 and couldn't speak any English, and ended up doing OK in what were by all accounts pretty mediocre schools.

It would be easier for you to say: "I don't like people who are different than me". Than to spin up so much bullshit.

so can we say all the students in the same schools as yours, that failed, didn't fail because of the mediocrity of the school, but rather because of the inherent characteristics of those students? (how much it's nurture or nature for those, we can't know at this stage)

Can you stop the trolling? there are many people different from me that i like, also because some are better than me at things i care about, why wouldn't i like them in those cases?

I went to a lot of different schools, probably in excess of 10 total, we moved around a lot to stay one step ahead of the cops (j/k). Some of those schools were in poor areas where all the local kids went, so yeah, a lot of those kids graduated to doing life on the instalment plan. Others were grammar schools with an entrance exam. But when I say they were mediocre schools I was referring to the clientele, not to the school itself. The schools all used the national curriculum and I can't say that on the whole any particular school had more talented or "better" teachers than another. So I'm a bit confused what you're asking.

That overwhelmingly, education outcomes in those schools depending on the students not the teachers.

So if , say, someone came and told you "we should increase teacher salaries to get better educational outcome" you would know that is a complete lie.

If your teachers had been paid 20% more, you would have literally learnt exactly the same.

The idea is "what could have been done to get better educational outcomes for the failing kids", and the answer very probably is "absolutely nothing"

I certainly don't agree regarding pay. Paying people more mean you'll get people who are more motivated and generally better at their jobs. I don't know exactly what "better" entails when it comes to teachers, but that's just common sense to me.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don't judge a teacher on how I did in their class, you judge the teacher by how the median kid did in their class. I was fortunate enough to not need much help from the teachers, nor did I even listen much in class and I stopped bothering to show up towards the end of my secondary school career, I just read the relevant chapters of the text book the night before the test. My personal experience in school is atypical and isn't a good springboard for this discussion.

you get better people only if you couple increased salaries with a lot of firing.

Otherwise you are simply paying exactly the same people as before, just more, getting exactly the same results as before (if you believe the results depend on teachers, which i don't too much).

In theory you should judge a teacher on the *differential educational outcome* given the material (the student quality) he has.

So you should test all the kids before they have that teacher, and after, compare to how much educational outcomes improve in those grades *starting from those levels*, and see if the teacher did better or worse.

If you just pick the median kid, it's all about which students go to that school.

Your bold is actually all that matters, because for smart people school is usually like that, it's extremely easy and the biggest threat is getting bored to death

I'm not trolling at all. I'm trying to help you make more sense. You're just adding steps to bigotry for no reason. If you want to be racist, don't be such a weeny. Say it loud and proud without all the wordy jazz.

lol, you know he's never going to stop

I see. So we are back to the part where you want to rank nationalities and ethnicities according to which you groups you believe are better "examples of the human species." And then you want to explain that you don't have any animus toward any particular group. You just believe that it is important to explain why you believe particular groups are genetically inferior in terms of intelligence, work ethic, or whatever.

No thanks.

I don't think all government workers are lazy or bad at their job - just a majority of them. I'm not blaming the workers either - the problem is that there isn't accountability. If you suck at your job you are far more likely to be able to keep your job if you work for the govt than if you worked for a private company - that is one hell of a job perk.

Again, I think the reason we see so many job openings for teachers is because those hiring the teachers are doing a poor job marketing the position. Instead of promoting the salary they should be talking about the complete compensation package and highlight things like: you will work far few hours compared to other jobs, you will be able to retire far earlier, you will get an insanely large pension for the rest of your life and you can keep your job even if you are bad at it.

Many states do not have a voucher system in place so I am suggesting all states should have it. No, I do not want to eliminate any education options - including public schools. Allow parents to vote if public schools should stay open or not by moving their kids to a private schools or keeping them at public schools.

I agree that year one if you gave every teacher a 20% raise it wouldn't result in better edu outcomes. That is why I support the vouchers. The vouchers allow schools to not blanket give everyone a raise, they can target raises to good teachers, fire bad ones and train avg teachers, along with hire good teachers. In theory this could also be done in public schools, but I think it ie beyond time to admit that the govt isn't capable of such rational decisions.

here you can read a very detailed piece on teachers shortages

https://www.degreechoices.com/blog/t...er%20in%202019.

tl;dr is math, computer science, chemistry and so on are lacking (no wonder, given a skillset in those subjects is rewarded more in the private sector).

Rural districts are suffering shortages (no wonder, marriage age people want to live where suitable potential partners are, and if they have kids, they want services for them as well)

Then there are some other spot-shortages linked to credentialing regulation and so on.

Some of the states with the worst shortages (like California) are among the best-paying for teachers

Teachers in california are paid almost double than in florida (85k average vs 48k average). I think non-wage benefits are at least the same as well, if not better in california. I think this wage gap has been going on for a while.

Cost of living is pretty high in both states.

Are educational outcomes exceptionally better in k12 in california?

This is not a good faith response. But I have tried many times with Lucium to explain you are not going to get good faith responses from liberals when explicitly discussing how differences in group behavior effect outcome. Such discussion is just outside acceptable moral parameters, regardless of whether the data supports the argument or not. You might as well be trying to argue to a devout conservative Muslim why there should be female Imam's. It is just a completely alien concept that is a non starter.

Instead, you have to find workarounds to frame the issue in a way that liberals will accept, and develop effective policies towards these ends.

As the world's leading expert on my own state of mind, I can assure you that my response was in good faith. The language I quoted was a direct reference to Luciom's previous statement that:

That's what he want to wants to argue.

Also, no one is prevented from discussing group behavior or characteristics. Smoking rates, eating habits, voting behavior, incidences of disease, and a million other things vary statistically by demographic. In limited cases -- for example, the incidence of certain diseases -- the explanation is mostly genetic. None of this is remotely controversial.

Without guardrails, I am 99% certain that Luciom would start arguing that most behaviors or traits he views as negative are intrinsic to group status--that is, hardwired. That is the starting point for various forms of noxious scientific racism. And that is exactly the road that we are not going to traverse.

I worked for the government as an employee and a contractor for well over 10 years and I can assure you, this isn't even close to being true.

I never said anything about CA vs FL so I’m not sure why you asked for my thoughts on the 2 states teachers. Looking at the salaries for teachers and comparing them to salary of other teachers aren’t worth much because teachers non salary compensation/benefits are often great.

Didn't you work for the government?

that was one example of an argument under the discussion of "which arguments are forbidden", which it was , as you confirmed.

I worked for the govt for one year before getting fired so i can assure you that what you said isnt even close to being true.

MAN IT IS CONTROVERSIAL among the people who agree with you politically, maybe you don't want to see it, or admit it, or you are actually shielded by that because of the niche of smart center-left people you interact with that shields you from the beliefs of the masses that allow democrats to win, and their ringleaders in academia, in the media and so on.

And in literature all behavioural traits are inheritable (ofc, often by smallish percentages). All of them , not controversial among genetists. As we know it's the case for all mammals as well (and we know well before we knew what DNA is).

Everything desirable or not you can measure in human beings is at least somewhat inheritable. That isn't going to change depending on personal preferences.

But most of all that doesn't mean "scientific racism", rather the opposite. Because if some groups have worse outcomes for stuff outside their control *they deserve more help* in a personal responsibility moral framework (ie the normal moral framework of the right) than if it's "nurture" alone, because if it's nurture alone it's *their fault* they have worse outcomes.

And also it's very often not about race anyway. Poor "whites" are self-sorted genetically as well

Why can't you see the latter corollary as obvious, is beyond me.