| California Judge Rules Tenure Laws Violate Student Rights to an Education Posted: 10 Jun 2014 10:45 PM PDT It's not often that I am shocked by a common-sense judicial ruling, especially in California, but today I am. The New York Times reports Judge Rejects Teacher Tenure for California. A California judge ruled Tuesday that teacher tenure laws deprived students of their right to an education under the State Constitution and violated their civil rights. The decision hands teachers' unions a major defeat in a landmark case, one that could radically alter how California teachers are hired and fired and prompt challenges to tenure laws in other states.
"Substantial evidence presented makes it clear to this court that the challenged statutes disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students," Judge Rolf M. Treu of Los Angeles Superior Court wrote in the ruling. "The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience."
The decision, which was enthusiastically endorsed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, brings a close to the first chapter of the case, Vergara v. California, in which a group of student plaintiffs backed by a Silicon Valley millionaire argued that state tenure laws had deprived them of a decent education by leaving bad teachers in place.
David Welch, a Silicon Valley technology magnate, spent several million dollars to create the organization that brought the Vergara case to court — Students Matter — and paid for a team of high-profile lawyers, including Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who helped win a Supreme Court decision striking down California's same-sex marriage ban. While the next move is still unclear, the group is considering filing lawsuits in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, Idaho and Kansas as well as other states with powerful unions where legislatures have defeated attempts to change teacher tenure laws.
In his sharply worded 16-page ruling, Judge Treu compared the Vergara case to the historic desegregation battle of Brown v. Board of Education, saying that the earlier case addressed "a student's fundamental right to equality of the educational experience," and that this case involved applying that principle to the "quality of the educational experience."
He agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that California's current laws make it impossible to remove the system's numerous low-performing and incompetent teachers, because the tenure system assures them a job essentially for life; that seniority rules requiring the newest teachers to be laid off first were harmful; and that granting tenure to teachers after only two years on the job was farcical, offering far too little time for a fair assessment of the teacher's skills.
Further, Judge Treu said, the least effective teachers are disproportionately assigned to schools filled with low-income and minority students. The situation violates those students' constitutional right to an equal education, he determined. It is believed to be the first legal opinion to assert that the quality of an education is as important as mere access to schools or sufficient funding.
He also had harsh words for the layoff system that protects veteran teachers without regard to any evaluation. "The logic of this position is unfathomable and therefore constitutionally unsupportable," he wrote. California Teachers' Union Hypocrisy Exposed Mark Bucher on UnionWatch correctly surmises CTA Hypocrisy Exposed by Vergara Ruling. In a mesmerizing 56 minute closing argument, plaintiff attorney Marcellus McRae dissected the objections of the defense. As he repeatedly cited, it was the witnesses for the defense who, withering under cross-examination, provided some of the most compelling testimony. Again and again they admitted that yes, it is impossible to evaluate a teacher for tenure in only 16 months, yes, it is for all practical purposes impossible to fire ineffective teachers, and yes, LIFO layoff rules cause districts to lose some of their finest teachers, while retaining many who are ineffective.
McRae's argument concerning the disproportionate harm these rules cause low-income and minority communities was impossible to refute. Good teachers accept new job offers and migrate to better schools while poor teachers take advantage of their tenure to remain in place. Vacancies are then filled by poor teachers getting transferred out of good schools because they can't be dismissed. The few good new teachers who are attracted to poor schools are lost whenever there's a layoff.
The judge agreed. Students MatterHere is a link to the ruling on the Students Matter website: Vergara v. California. It's exceptionally rare for California to lead the way on anti-union matters, but here we are, and I vigorously applaud the ruling. However, it's not over yet. Teachers' unions will appeal, all the way to the supreme court. Let's hope this ruling stands every step of the way. Meanwhile, expect similar battles in other states now that California opened the door. California was the major prize. Other states should be easier. It's unprecedented for someone in California to stand up to teachers' union greed and arrogance and actually win the battle. Yet, today a California judge actually ruled for the kids instead of the blatant liars who claim to be for the kids. It's shocking but exceptionally welcome. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| Computer Beats "Turing Test" Convincing Some Human Judges It's Human Posted: 10 Jun 2014 10:23 AM PDT A computer pretending to be 'Eugene Goostman', a 13-year old boy fooled 33% of human judge interrogators into thinking it is human. Eugene is the first ever computer to fool more than 30% of judges, in what is seen as a milestone in artificial intelligence. The Guardian reports Computer Simulating 13-Year-Old Boy Becomes First to Pass Turing TestA "super computer" has duped humans into thinking it was a 13-year-old boy to become the first machine to pass the Turing test, experts have said. Five machines were tested at the Royal Society in central London to see if they could fool people into thinking they were humans during text-based conversations.
The test was devised in 1950 by computer science pioneer and second world war codebreaker Alan Turing, who said that if a machine was indistinguishable from a human, then it was "thinking".
No computer had ever previously passed the Turing test, which requires 30% of human interrogators to be duped during a series of five-minute keyboard conversations, organisers from the University of Reading said.
But "Eugene Goostman", a computer programme developed to simulate a 13-year-old boy, managed to convince 33% of the judges that it was human, the university said.
The successful machine was created by Russian-born Vladimir Veselov, who lives in the United States, and Ukrainian Eugene Demchenko, who lives in Russia.
Veselov said: "It's a remarkable achievement for us and we hope it boosts interest in artificial intelligence and chatbots."
Warwick said there had been previous claims that the test was passed in similar competitions around the world. "A true Turing test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations," he said. "We are therefore proud to declare that Alan Turing's test was passed for the first time."
Warwick said having a computer with such artificial intelligence had "implications for society" and would serve as a "wake-up call to cybercrime".
During the second world war, his [Turing's] critical work at Britain's codebreaking centre at Bletchley Park helped shorten the conflict and save many thousands of lives.
Instead of being hailed a hero, Turing was persecuted for his homosexuality. After his conviction in 1952 for gross indecency with a 19-year-old Manchester man, he was chemically castrated. Two years later, he died from cyanide poisoning in an apparent suicide, though there have been suggestions that his death was an accident. Conversations With EugeneA separate Guardian article Eugene – In 'His' Own Words, lists the actual conversations that fooled some of the judges. I read through the conversations and they seemed disjointed. But, then again Eugene was supposed to be a 13 year-old kid. The inventor, programmed into the algorithm purposeful misspellings and other artifacts. Our main idea was that [Eugene] can claim that he knows anything, but his age also makes it perfectly reasonable that he doesn't know everything," said the robot's creator, Vladimir Veselov. It also makes affectations like misspellings look more plausible than they would coming from an "adult". For Additional details, please see How Do the Robots Win?Fooling a group of adults that a computer was a 13 year-old boy is arguably a lot easier than tricking a panel of humans that a computer was a 30 year-old man. Nonetheless, this was a remarkable achievement. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
No comments:
Post a Comment