Barbara Boxer

California Roundup: Teachers Want Better Information As Long As Nobody's Allowed to See It

|

Come for the girl surfers, stay for the government pension!

* School's in for teachers: Los Angeles Times debuts its "value-added" database of L.A. Unified School District teachers. Unified Teachers Los Angeles hits back, but concedes the point by calling the LAT's database "the height of journalistic irresponsibility" – longhand for "I got squat." UTLA is on slightly firmer ground in warning of an apocalyptic uprising as "parents scramble to get their children into classes taught by teachers labeled 'effective' by a newspaper." Take away the contemptuous attitude toward parents/customers (and the presumption that the people need to be shielded from information about the product they're paying for), and you have an interesting question: How reliable is the paper's database? Caveat quaeror (?): I put in all of my kid's teachers, and none of them came up.

* Who's gonna wake up Jerry? If you saw me in the octagon with Alan Colmes this morning, you may be wondering whether Attorney General Jerry Brown's lackluster performance against former eBay exec. Meg Whitman is really (as I said) because Brown has been a low-energy candidate or (as Colmes said) because Whitman is a kazillionaire. Here's George Skelton agreeing that Brown needs to get off his keister, while elsewhere in the L.A. Times, Seema Mehta speculates that Brown is employing some kind of rope-a-dope strategy.

* What do teachers do when they're trying not trying to cover up their own performance records? They're giving $600,000 to PR firm Edelman and Lucas to "provide overall management of a grassroots effort/campaign." The campaign aims to get lawmakers pouring more money into a fund that has managed to lose more than a third of its value to the ravages of heartless capitalism.

* Blowback! In the L.A. Times' web-only reader response column, NORML deputy director Paul Armentano deconstructs a recent No-On-Proposition 19 op-ed by a cackle of drug czars (including sitting drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, who would be legally enjoined from commenting on pending state legislation if this were a free country).

* Comedy: Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer travels to 16.2-percent-unemployed Fresno to help the rubes understand how many jobs the stimuli have created.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Ad Facebook Condé Nast Doesn't Want You to See

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Seeing that dimwit Boxer booted from the Senate in November would be like finding a pony under the Christmas tree.

    1. Keep shoveling, I’m sure there’s a pony in there somewhere.

      1. From the linked article:

        There undoubtedly would have been more job losses without the federal help, but that’s not an argument that Boxer wants to make.

        Apparently they seem to be confusing the editorial page with reporting. Or confusing knee-jerk liberalism with an understanding of economics.

  2. UTLA is on slightly firmer ground in warning of an apocalyptic uprising as “parents scramble to get their children into classes taught by teachers labeled ‘effective’ by a newspaper.”

    OH NOES!!! Parents who actually give a shit about the education of their children. It’s the end of the world.

  3. Proposal: replace all CA teachers with hot surfer girls/beach babes. It’s not like they could do any worse.

    1. As a product of public schools in a California beach town, it’s my sad duty to report that there is almost no overlap in a Venn diagram comparing the two sets, “hot surfer girls/beach babes” and “public school teachers”.

  4. Proposal: replace all CA teachers with hot surfer girls/beach babes. It’s not like they could do any worse.

    1. You can say that again.

    2. I’d certainly like to see the “value added” database on surfer chicks.

    3. That repetitive hand motion isn’t for your computer mouse, Hugh.

      1. I need to figure out how to mouse with my left hand. Introduce my laptop to The Stranger.

  5. Meg Whitman is really (as I said) because Brown has been a low-energy candidate or (as Colmes said) because Whitman is a kazillionaire.

    Hasn’t the-super-rich-guy-buys-elections-an-always-wins meme been super-scientifically studied and super-scientifically debunked?

    1. It’s interesting that you say that, because the Rick Scott “purchase” of the Republican nomination for governor in Florida is generating comment on how unusual it is for this to work.

      This idea of people “buying” an election when they use their own money being worse than the parties buying elections with their money is beyond me.

      1. When the parties spend money, it’s merely a tool to communicate real issues, to real people.

        When just some rich guy does it… it’s… something else.

        1. It’s funny that it’s portrayed as such a radical difference when a rich guy runs.

      2. It couldn’t possibly be because Bill McCollum is the greasy, colorless spawn of the politician-for-life faction of the RNC. Nooo…

        1. I voted for Scott solely because I thought a corrupt business man was an upgrade from a corrupt career politician.

          Sink’s smug “I’m above it all” bullshit is going to kick her in the ass, too. I think Scott has a good chance of winning the whole thing.

    2. Yes, but don’t you see it’s still a danger to democracy when rich Republicans run for office. When rich Democrats do, eh, not so much.

  6. since the state is 90% illegal aliens, hipster fucktards, and rich liberals they dont remember how badly brown fucked up the place in the 70’s

  7. “Caveat quaeror”? “Let him beware; I complain”?

  8. So, we DON’T have a right to know the product? This is the same liberal mindset that wants nutritional labeling on restaurant food, right?

  9. Does anyone else hate those stupid giant Harry Carey sunglasses?

    1. It’s popular for reasons of esteem these days, they are trying to form their own self-image of womanhood in a now-savage media landscape; thus the Bono-esque large sunglasses are employed, a must-have accessory. Yes

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.