How Does Teacher Tenure and Seniority Help Students?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Exceptions to a rule do not prove the rule is valueless. Is it not preferable to have a teacher who has met a standard? Are we not asking students meet standards?

A standard shouldn't exist just to protect the welfare of those who've passed the standard. This criticism isn't restricted to the field of public education, we see valueless licensing in many fields.

If there is no student outcome difference between a credentialed teacher and a non-credentialed teacher, then what value is the coursework for credentialing producing?

Man you are so far off base here it isn't even funny. Who does a stupid little license protect?

you have been show, there are work arounds . They require effort. Don't want to go through the effort, fine don't.

 

[Bfgrn]

Date 2003

You think it's gotten better since then?

ROFLMAO.

Exit exams may be on their way out

Look at how fast testing changes. These are just exit exams. You want to know why there is no money in education? Pay attention to how much is spent on testing and what it actually accomplishes.

No money for education? We spend more than ever on an inflation adjusted basis.

In constant 2000-2001 dollars, we spent $3K per pupil in 1960. By 2000-2001, the per pupil amount increased to $8.8K, an increase of over 190% in CONSTANT DOLLARS.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt167.asp

Between 2000 and 2009, the CONSTANT DOLLAR spending per pupil (in 2009 dollars) increased by an other 20%, up to $10.6K.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_06.asp

We spend more money now for worse results. The problem is not lack of money. The problem is lack of educational standards and rigor combined with politically correct multicultralistic pablum which pushes propaganda instead of promoting knowledge.

The problem IS "educational standards and rigor". Teaching to pass tests instead of teaching in-depth knowledge that leads to SELF knowledge and the ability to problem solve.

Incorrect.

The problem , once again, is that public schools have to accept EVERYONE and to put it bluntly, half of students in public schools are a waste of funds.

WOW. Too bad one of the most successful school systems in the world is based on equality.

Finnish Education Chief: 'We Created a School System Based on Equality'

The secret to the success of the Finnish school system is the fact that the schools are filled with Finnish students, not Somalian students.

Meanwhile, the United States has been imposing more external testing—often exacerbating differential access to curriculum—while creating more inequitable conditions in local schools. Resources for children and schools, in the form of both overall funding and the presence of trained, experienced teachers, have become more disparate in many states, thus undermining the capacity of schools to meet the outcomes that are ostensibly sought. Sahlberg notes that Finland has taken a very different path. He observes:

Let's deal with this horseshit, piece by piece.

The US has been imposing external testing BECAUSE the local control model wasn't working. Capisce?

Testing, by itself, has no effect other than to uniformly measure performance.

As for resources, we've tried many experiments. One took place in Kansas City where a judge gave school officials a BLANK CHECK to do anything and everything needed to improve minority student performance:

For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." The education establishment and its supporters have replied, "No one's ever tried." In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.

Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil--more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.

The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.

The Kansas City experiment suggests that, indeed, educational problems can't be solved by throwing money at them, that the structural problems of our current educational system are far more important than a lack of material resources, and that the focus on desegregation diverted attention from the real problem, low achievement.​

We see the same results in the new Jersey Abbott Schools, which due to State funding spend more per student than schools in rich upper-class districts. Even in the stellar schools, like Princeton High School, where black university professors send their kids:

An uneasy amalgam of pride and discontent, Caroline Mitchell sat amid the balloons and beach chairs on the front lawn of Princeton High School, watching the Class of 2004 graduate. Her pride was for the seniors' average SAT score of 1237, third-highest in the state, and their admission to elite universities like Harvard, Yale and Duke. As president of the high school alumni association and community liaison for the school district, Ms. Mitchell deserved to bask in the tradition of public-education excellence.

Discontent, though, was what she felt about Blake, her own son. He was receiving his diploma on this June afternoon only after years of struggle - the failed English class in ninth grade, the science teacher who said he was capable only of C's, the assignment to a remedial "basic skills" class. Even at that, Ms. Mitchell realized, Blake had fared better than several friends who were nowhere to be seen in the procession of gowns and mortarboards. They were headed instead for summer school.

"I said to myself: 'Oh, no. Please, no,' " Ms. Mitchell recalled. "I was so hurt. These were bright kids. This shouldn't have been happening."

It did not escape Ms. Mitchell's perception that her son and most of those faltering classmates were black. They were the evidence of a prosperous, accomplished school district's dirty little secret, a racial achievement gap that has been observed, acknowledged and left uncorrected for decades. Now that pattern just may have to change under the pressure of the federal No Child Left Behind law.

Several months after Blake graduated, Princeton High School (and thus the district as a whole) ran afoul of the statute for the first time, based on the lagging scores of African-American students on a standardized English test given to 11th graders. Last month, the school was cited for the second year in a row, this time because 37 percent of black students failed to meet standards in English, and 55 percent of blacks and 40 percent of Hispanics failed in math.

One of the standard complaints about No Child Left Behind by its critics in public education is that it punishes urban schools that are chronically underfinanced and already contending with a concentration of poor, nonwhite, bilingual and special-education pupils. Princeton could hardly be more different. It is an Ivy League town with a minority population of slightly more than 10 percent and per-student spending well above the state average. The high school sends 94 percent of its graduates to four-year colleges and offers 29 different Advanced Placement courses. Over all, 98 percent of Princeton High School students exceed the math and English standards required by No Child Left Behind.​

When we aggregate this phenomena of rich black parents having children who underperform at school up the the national level, this is what we see:

The children of black executives, black physicians, black judges, the upper class backs, who make more than $200,000 per year, are performing on the SAT almost at par with the children of poor white families where the family income is less than $20,000 per year. Also keep in mind that the SAT OVER-predicts black performance during first year university. Over-predicts, so the issue of the SAT being structurally biased against blacks is now invalidated.

So high teacher pay, small class sizes, excellent school environments, upper class upbringing and nothing closes the gap.

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

Is cutting quotes really that difficult a concept?

 

[Bfgrn]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

Is cutting quotes really that difficult a concept?

WTF is "cutting quotes"?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Is cutting quotes really that difficult a concept?

WTF is "cutting quotes"?

when you quote someone it reposts the ENTIRE chain of posts that they have quoted, so go in and delete everything except for what you are responding to and your post won't be ten miles long, making the board easier to read.

 

[Bfgrn]

Is cutting quotes really that difficult a concept?

WTF is "cutting quotes"?

when you quote someone it reposts the ENTIRE chain of posts that they have quoted, so go in and delete everything except for what you are responding to and your post won't be ten miles long, making the board easier to read.

Tell that to the assholes who changed the format to this LOUSY one. The old format did that automatically.

 

[Samson]

So, after 20 pages, did anyone answer the question in the OP?

@Toro

 

[Rikurzhen]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

Hey, you close-minded ignorant creationist, the links are right above the quoted material. I swear, you creationists are the not the sharpest tools in the drawer.

As for the judge, find the law yourself. It was likely some civil rights discrimination lawsuit.

 

[Bfgrn]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

Hey, you close-minded ignorant creationist, the links are right above the quoted material. I swear, you creationists are the not the sharpest tools in the drawer.

As for the judge, find the law yourself. It was likely some civil rights discrimination lawsuit.

Hey pea brain, I am not close minded, and I am not a creationist. And I am not a racist piece of excrement like you are.

Are we clear scum bag?

 

[Rikurzhen]

What you've written is triggering some more memories. He was teaching for a year and then was required to get a teaching credential and he pointed out that he had been teaching for decades and won awards for teaching excellence. Didn't matter. He needed to be state certified to teach math to public school students. He chose not to jump through the hoops.

No one saw him as a career switcher, he WAS a teacher, just not a teacher of high school kids.

Thank you for acknowledging that he was hireable and that it was his choice to not pursue the proper licensure requirements.

>>>>

No problem. Like I said, more details came back. All the town commentary in that article was harping on the idiocy of having a teacher/professor who won teaching awards having to be certified by lesser qualified people. The feeling was that this was turf protection. This guy wasn't a civil engineer, for example, who knew math and wanted to teach it but had never taught before and who had been absent from a classroom for decades, this was a guy who spent a lifetime career in a classroom.

 

[Rikurzhen]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

Hey, you close-minded ignorant creationist, the links are right above the quoted material. I swear, you creationists are the not the sharpest tools in the drawer.

As for the judge, find the law yourself. It was likely some civil rights discrimination lawsuit.

Hey pea brain, I am not close minded, and I am not a creationist. And I am not a racist piece of excrement like you are.

Are we clear scum bag?

You implicitly admitted you were a creationist when you rejected evolution, moron. Are we clear, douchebag?

 

[Bfgrn]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

Hey, you close-minded ignorant creationist, the links are right above the quoted material. I swear, you creationists are the not the sharpest tools in the drawer.

As for the judge, find the law yourself. It was likely some civil rights discrimination lawsuit.

Hey pea brain, I am not close minded, and I am not a creationist. And I am not a racist piece of excrement like you are.

Are we clear scum bag?

You implicitly admitted you were a creationist when you rejected evolution, moron. Are we clear, douchebag?

Where do I reject evolution?

 

[Rikurzhen]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

Hey, you close-minded ignorant creationist, the links are right above the quoted material. I swear, you creationists are the not the sharpest tools in the drawer.

As for the judge, find the law yourself. It was likely some civil rights discrimination lawsuit.

Hey pea brain, I am not close minded, and I am not a creationist. And I am not a racist piece of excrement like you are.

Are we clear scum bag?

You implicitly admitted you were a creationist when you rejected evolution, moron. Are we clear, douchebag?

Where do I reject evolution?

I explain that the reason for Finland's success is that they have schools filled with Finnish students. You call that racism. You reject the notion that population genetics has anything to say about social outcomes and populations. That makes you a creationist, someone who believes, despite mountains of evidence, that all human populations are identical in socially relevant metrics. Religious Creationists believe that God made all humans 6,000 years ago and made them equal. Liberal Creationists believe that evolution worked on humanity up until the Out of Africa migrations and then evolution mysteriously stopped, or was stopped by some unknown force which prevented mutations, selection pressure and genetic drift from working above the neck as though there was some invisible force-field in place. Both types of creationists appeal to magic - God or unstated forces - to insure the genetic equality of all races. It doesn't matter to me what kind of creationist you are, you calling genetics to be racist is signal enough that you're an evolution-denying creationist.

 

[Rikurzhen]

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

If you had followed the link I provided, this link, then you would have been able to read the details, excerpted below:

In the mid-1970s, in response to what appeared to be the imminent financial and educational bankruptcy of the school system, a group of mothers and educational activists took over the KCMSD school board. Then in 1977, with the schools in collapse and the voters unwilling to approve levy increases or school bond measures, members of the school board, the school district, and 2 (later increased to 10) plaintiff schoolchildren brought suit against the state of Missouri and assorted federal agencies, alleging that the state, the surrounding school districts, and various federal agencies had caused racial segregation within the district.(7) Federal Judge Russell Clark, who had just been appointed to the federal bench by President Jimmy Carter, got the case shortly thereafter. The following year he dropped the federal agencies from the case and realigned the school district, making it a defendant rather than a plaintiff (8) (in practice, however, the district and the plaintiffs always had a "friendly adversary" relationship).(9)

In April 1984 after five months of trial, Clark rendered his first major decision, releasing the suburban districts from the case.(10) Three years later he found that the district and the state were "jointly and severally liable" for the segregated conditions in the Kansas City schools, a decision that meant that if Clark ordered the district to spend money to improve the schools and the district didn't have it, the state had to make up the difference.(11)

Originally, the plaintiffs' goal had been to get the judge to consolidate Kansas City's dozen small suburban districts with the KCMSD to create one big district that would then be subdivided into three or four smaller districts, each with a mandatory busing plan for integrating the schools. But when Judge Clark dismissed the suburban districts from the case, the plaintiffs were forced into a radical shift in strategy.(12)

Because the KCMSD was already 73 percent nonwhite, the only way to really integrate it was to bring in white children from the suburbs. Although critics had told Benson that such a plan wouldn't work--whites simply wouldn't go to majority black schools--Benson was operating on a Field of Dreams theory--"If you build it, they will come." As he saw it, parents didn't care about race. They didn't care how long the bus ride was. They didn't care what kind of neighborhood the school was in. What they wanted was a good, safe school that would provide their children with a good education. Benson considered it his job, therefore, to build a school system that would give students a better education than they could get anywhere else in the area. Then, as suburban middle-class whites flooded into the district, they would integrate the schools, and their middle-class aspirations would change the school culture from one of failure to one of success, whereupon blacks' achievement would rise to match that of whites.(13)

Because the judge had no expertise in devising a plan that would both desegregate the district and provide a quality education for the students, he asked the state and the plaintiffs each to come up with a remedy and he would chose between the two.

The state took the aggressive but (as events would later show) not entirely irrational position that most of what was wrong with the KCMSD had more to do with crime, poverty, and dysfunctional families than it did with the failure of the state to meet its constitutional obligations. Under the circumstances, the state argued, all that was legally required was a little reroofing, patching, painting, and carpet repair coupled with curriculum reform and emphasis on better teaching.

The plaintiffs, on the other hand, encouraged by what they saw as the increasing sympathy of the judge for their position, decided to "go for the moon"--to ask for far more than they thought they could ever get.

The choice for Clark was a stark one--he could go with the state's plan, which in the words of Harvard researcher Alison Morante was "laughably insufficient," or he could go with the plaintiffs' plan, which was basically a wish list of everything they had ever wanted. Given the choice between doing hardly anything and giving the plaintiffs the moon, Clark decided to go for the moon.(14)

Once Clark decided for the plaintiffs, he didn't ask them to do things on the cheap. When it came time to fill in the plan's specifics, he invited them to "dream"(15)--to use their imaginations, push the envelope, try anything that would both achieve integration and raise student scores. The idea was that Kansas City would be a demonstration project in which the best and most modern educational thinking would for once be combined with the judicial will and the financial resources to do the job right. No longer would children go to schools with broken toilets, leaky roofs, tattered books, and inadequate curricula. The schools would use the most modern teaching techniques; have the best facilities and the most motivated teachers; and, on top of everything else, be thoroughly integrated, too. Kansas City would show what could be done if a school district had both the money and the will. It would be a model for educational reformers throughout the nation.

When estimates of the cost of the initial version of the plan came back, the lawyers and education activists who had designed the plan were shocked at their own audacity.(16) The $250 million cost was a staggering amount in a district whose normal budget was $125 million a year. But that was only the start. By the time he recused himself from the case in March 1997, Clark had approved dozens of increases, bringing the total cost of the plan to over $2 billion--$1.5 billion from the state and $600 million from the school district (largely from increased property taxes). ​

 

[auditor0007]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

There are two sides to this, and each is valid. While tenure protects teachers who have been around but who may not be good teachers, by removing tenure we could see the opposite. As school districts struggle to get by with less funding, they must make cuts. If tenure no longer plays a role, what is to stop a school district from just laying off all the highest paid teachers, regardless of their effectiveness?

 

[Rikurzhen]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

There are two sides to this, and each is valid. While tenure protects teachers who have been around but who may not be good teachers, by removing tenure we could see the opposite. As school districts struggle to get by with less funding, they must make cuts. If tenure no longer plays a role, what is to stop a school district from just laying off all the highest paid teachers, regardless of their effectiveness?

First we need to determine whether the effectiveness is worth the money being paid to the experienced teacher. How much is a 1% boost in student performance worth to the school and the parents?

If the school cuts recklessly then this will reflect back on the school as the good students move to different schools with higher performance ratings. For instance, if the school fires 4 experienced teachers and can use the savings to hire 5 inexperienced teachers, thus lowering class size, maybe what they lose from teacher quality can be made up for with more teacher attention.

 

[Bfgrn]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

Hey, you close-minded ignorant creationist, the links are right above the quoted material. I swear, you creationists are the not the sharpest tools in the drawer.

As for the judge, find the law yourself. It was likely some civil rights discrimination lawsuit.

Hey pea brain, I am not close minded, and I am not a creationist. And I am not a racist piece of excrement like you are.

Are we clear scum bag?

You implicitly admitted you were a creationist when you rejected evolution, moron. Are we clear, douchebag?

Where do I reject evolution?

I explain that the reason for Finland's success is that they have schools filled with Finnish students. You call that racism. You reject the notion that population genetics has anything to say about social outcomes and populations. That makes you a creationist, someone who believes, despite mountains of evidence, that all human populations are identical in socially relevant metrics. Religious Creationists believe that God made all humans 6,000 years ago and made them equal. Liberal Creationists believe that evolution worked on humanity up until the Out of Africa migrations and then evolution mysteriously stopped, or was stopped by some unknown force which prevented mutations, selection pressure and genetic drift from working above the neck as though there was some invisible force-field in place. Both types of creationists appeal to magic - God or unstated forces - to insure the genetic equality of all races. It doesn't matter to me what kind of creationist you are, you calling genetics to be racist is signal enough that you're an evolution-denying creationist.

I had really hoped that was not what you were headed. You have moved beyond the generic right wing racist. You are a white supremacist. On the scale of human existence, you are the lowest form of human life. Words like scum, cretin and excrement are too mild to describe you. They haven't invented words that aptly describe something as low on the human scale as you.

You are just another nail in the coffin of 'conservatism', the scourge of mankind.

 

[Disir]

[QUOTE="Disir, post: 9752154, member: 32913]
In a perfect world...

There was a doctor in California that used to pay drug addicts to be sterilized. I thought it was the best program ever.

No, you aren't saying that the way they live is wrong. Not when shelter is provided. Not when health care is provided. Not when food is provided. Not when health courses with sex ed is provided.

When you provide shelter, you are saying the parent is not providing it correctly. When food is given, you are saying the parent is failing at providing food. When you provide sex education, you are saying the parent has not done an adequate job. You are sending a clear message that failure has happened and you have the correct answer. My solution empowers the parent to overcome the situation. The programs you talk about just enable.[/QUOTE]

No they don't enable. You will pay. The question is where are you going to pay. Sex education is necessary. You are sending a clear message: Unprotected sex has repercussions beyond pregnancy. You can acquire STDs and you some of them will kill you. This is your body and this is the way it works.

The same group of people that believe that these programs (SNAP/Affordable Housing/Healthcare)enable others refuse to put a leash on those that are extorting money for rent etc. This is a problem that you refuse to address in any meaningful way. It creates a feudal society. Again. I reiterate: unless you have a psych eval in your hand you do not know the person that you are dealing with.

 

[RKMBrown]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

Hey, you close-minded ignorant creationist, the links are right above the quoted material. I swear, you creationists are the not the sharpest tools in the drawer.

As for the judge, find the law yourself. It was likely some civil rights discrimination lawsuit.

Hey pea brain, I am not close minded, and I am not a creationist. And I am not a racist piece of excrement like you are.

Are we clear scum bag?

You implicitly admitted you were a creationist when you rejected evolution, moron. Are we clear, douchebag?

Where do I reject evolution?

I explain that the reason for Finland's success is that they have schools filled with Finnish students. You call that racism. You reject the notion that population genetics has anything to say about social outcomes and populations. That makes you a creationist, someone who believes, despite mountains of evidence, that all human populations are identical in socially relevant metrics. Religious Creationists believe that God made all humans 6,000 years ago and made them equal. Liberal Creationists believe that evolution worked on humanity up until the Out of Africa migrations and then evolution mysteriously stopped, or was stopped by some unknown force which prevented mutations, selection pressure and genetic drift from working above the neck as though there was some invisible force-field in place. Both types of creationists appeal to magic - God or unstated forces - to insure the genetic equality of all races. It doesn't matter to me what kind of creationist you are, you calling genetics to be racist is signal enough that you're an evolution-denying creationist.

I had really hoped that was not what you were headed. You have moved beyond the generic right wing racist. You are a white supremacist. On the scale of human existence, you are the lowest form of human life. Words like scum, cretin and excrement are too mild to describe you. They haven't invented words that aptly describe something as low on the human scale as you.

You are just another nail in the coffin of 'conservatism', the scourge of mankind.

lol he said the reason for Finland's success is their students. Then he called you a creationist. Then you call him another nail in the coffin of conservatism, and the scourge of mankind This apparently for saying Finland success is based on their students.

IOW you are retarded.

 

[Bfgrn]

WHERE is your link you racist piece of excrement?

And BTW, under WHAT law in America does a judge have the authority to issue a blank check to a school district?

Hey, you close-minded ignorant creationist, the links are right above the quoted material. I swear, you creationists are the not the sharpest tools in the drawer.

As for the judge, find the law yourself. It was likely some civil rights discrimination lawsuit.

Hey pea brain, I am not close minded, and I am not a creationist. And I am not a racist piece of excrement like you are.

Are we clear scum bag?

You implicitly admitted you were a creationist when you rejected evolution, moron. Are we clear, douchebag?

Where do I reject evolution?

I explain that the reason for Finland's success is that they have schools filled with Finnish students. You call that racism. You reject the notion that population genetics has anything to say about social outcomes and populations. That makes you a creationist, someone who believes, despite mountains of evidence, that all human populations are identical in socially relevant metrics. Religious Creationists believe that God made all humans 6,000 years ago and made them equal. Liberal Creationists believe that evolution worked on humanity up until the Out of Africa migrations and then evolution mysteriously stopped, or was stopped by some unknown force which prevented mutations, selection pressure and genetic drift from working above the neck as though there was some invisible force-field in place. Both types of creationists appeal to magic - God or unstated forces - to insure the genetic equality of all races. It doesn't matter to me what kind of creationist you are, you calling genetics to be racist is signal enough that you're an evolution-denying creationist.

I had really hoped that was not what you were headed. You have moved beyond the generic right wing racist. You are a white supremacist. On the scale of human existence, you are the lowest form of human life. Words like scum, cretin and excrement are too mild to describe you. They haven't invented words that aptly describe something as low on the human scale as you.

You are just another nail in the coffin of 'conservatism', the scourge of mankind.

lol he said the reason for Finland's success is their students. Then he called you a creationist. Then you call him another nail in the coffin of conservatism, and the scourge of mankind This apparently for saying Finland success is based on their students.

IOW you are retarded.

Maybe you can find an adult to decipher it for you. YOU are the retard.