• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teacher of the year is laid off.

Why is it that the students have no stake? Could it be the misguided practice of moving problem kids along through the grade system regardless of whether or not they have mastered the skill supposedly taught?

You teachers helped create this monster, then want to sit back and not take ANY responsibility at all, but rather blame parents, blame even the minor student, but when it comes to the teachers responsibility I guess the answer is like the old sit com, Chico and the man, 'It's not my job, man!'

Well it damned well IS your job, and you shirk your duties, and bitch and moan that $50K isn't enough money, and 10 weeks in the summer, with every conceivable holiday, along with at least 2 teacher 'in service' days per month, and to work at 7, GONE at 3 sharp is too much to ask in teaching the kids, and it's their fault?

What a joke.

People are fed the hell up with you lib public sector, pampered crybabies, and they aren't going to take much more of it I tell ya.

j-mac

In my experience, when teachers suggest that a student be retained, it is the parent that steps in and stops it. I've know many children who have been reatained, though if you do the research you find that retention is not as beneficial as many, including teachers, believe. In high school, students self-retain. Meaning if they don't pass enough classes to earn enough credits then they don't advance to the next grade.

As for the rest, you have to remember that school's vary so much, especially state to state. I've been teaching for nearly 20 years and have a masters but I don't make $50K. We do get the summer "off" and some of the vacation days the students do. We are required to work some of the days the students have off. We also work many days that we are not required to work. You could go to my school almost any day during the summer or most Saturdays and Sundays during the year and find at least a couple, if not more, teachers working. As for the in-service days, here we don't get 2 a month, more like one every other month. Those are work/training days for the teachers. Unfortunately, not all schools use these days they way they should. The inservice days should be spent on quality training or collaboration time for teachers to go over testing data, etc.

Expecting respect and fair pay for the work you do doesn't make someone a crybaby.
 
They already have protection. They have for years. They already have representation, just all the rest of us do.

If they wanted what was best for the children, they wouldn't strike.

What protection would that be? I've seen good teachers fired for no good reason. We've seen what happens to teachers now, what would happen without some sort of protection? As long as ignorant people (school boards, congress)are making decisions about what is best and ignoring the advice of the experts (teachers), teachers will need some sort of representation.

I don't think teachers should strike. That is one of the reasons I've never been in a union and likely won't be. I understand the reasons behind the strike and often agree with the position of the teachers, but a strike hurts the students and they are not the ones making the decisions.
 
By this, do you mean onll for public sector jobs? Or for teachers in general? Because otherwise, I would have to disagree.

Public and private, schools and others. Worked at a hospital, worked the same way. This is fairly common policy across the board. Weak links tend to lose their jobs first, even with unions. But after that, it is usually by seniority.
 
No, in fact, it sucks. Quality teachers are critical.

If you believe this, and your rhetoric makes that doubtful, instead of demonizing, I would recommend more effort put into recruitment and giving teachers more respect 9the number one reason we lose new teachers).
 
I've been teaching for nearly 20 years and the majority of teachers I've met or worked with work very hard. Yes, I've known some who should be in a different job, but they are the minority. Most teachers are there much longer than the adminstrators.

I've read about great schools with teachers who are very dedicated to their students and work their asses off to get things done. I've read about schools where the teachers are HUNGRY for a new professional book, video, presentation... so they can try it in their class. Sadly, I've only read about them. Maybe someday I'll get to work in one of those schools.

Yes, sometimes teachers don't want to add to their work load without being paid for it. I don't think that makes them unusual or unreasonable. Two years ago this state cut a program that paid teachers for doing extra work. This program paid for things the teacher did beyond their job description. The first time the legislatiure tried to cut it at the end of the school year. This would have denied payment to the teachers after they had done the work. We avoided that but they cut it for the next school year. This meant a pay cut of up to $5,000. Now I do know that some teachers have stopped doing some of the things funded by this program, but most of the work is still being done. Expecting to paid for the work you do doesn't make one a bad teacher.

I think if it's something that will benefit the children and the district isn't able to pay for you for it, but asks for volunteers to help... those that help are the ones who are great teachers. Those who bitch and complain about their time and money aren't in the career for the right reasons. Now, I agree that teachers should be paid fairly - we have to make a living. But I don't think we have to be paid for every single little friggin' 5 minutes that we're asked to help do something.
 
I've read about great schools with teachers who are very dedicated to their students and work their asses off to get things done. I've read about schools where the teachers are HUNGRY for a new professional book, video, presentation... so they can try it in their class. Sadly, I've only read about them. Maybe someday I'll get to work in one of those schools.



I think if it's something that will benefit the children and the district isn't able to pay for you for it, but asks for volunteers to help... those that help are the ones who are great teachers. Those who bitch and complain about their time and money aren't in the career for the right reasons. Now, I agree that teachers should be paid fairly - we have to make a living. But I don't think we have to be paid for every single little friggin' 5 minutes that we're asked to help do something.

I'm sorry you don't like where you work and don't respect you fellow teachers. I've worked at different schools and talked to teachers at many others and have never seen, heard about, or experienced what you describe.

I think that, to a point, teachers should do what needs to be done regardless of pay. However, I see nothing wrong with letting the adminstration know that you are doing work for which you are not being paid. They certainly won't increase pay if not asked. Also, we are not indentured servants and it is unfair and wrong to cut our pay and then increase our workload. Personally, I know some teachers that have had to take a second job to make up for pay cuts. These teachers can't spend as much time on their students. I also find it difficult to justify missing my own child's activities to do things I'm no longer being paid to do. On a personal level I'm especially bitter about this because even though we just had a big pay cut and budget cuts our superintendent just got a really big raise. He is what many think all teachers are. In at 8:00, out at 3:00.
 
I'm sorry you don't like where you work and don't respect you fellow teachers. I've worked at different schools and talked to teachers at many others and have never seen, heard about, or experienced what you describe.

I think that, to a point, teachers should do what needs to be done regardless of pay. However, I see nothing wrong with letting the adminstration know that you are doing work for which you are not being paid. They certainly won't increase pay if not asked. Also, we are not indentured servants and it is unfair and wrong to cut our pay and then increase our workload. Personally, I know some teachers that have had to take a second job to make up for pay cuts. These teachers can't spend as much time on their students. I also find it difficult to justify missing my own child's activities to do things I'm no longer being paid to do. On a personal level I'm especially bitter about this because even though we just had a big pay cut and budget cuts our superintendent just got a really big raise. He is what many think all teachers are. In at 8:00, out at 3:00.

Layla, while I appreciate your refreshing view on the subject I think perhaps you have a local view and others have their own local view. Interestingly you don't have a union and say you have never seen many of the common things I and apparently Josie have witnessed at many, many public schools. If anything your arguments in defense turns into ammunition for the people you are debating. Do you believe the union mentality has an effect on public schools in our nation? Your arguments show that perhaps there is some anecdotal evidence to show that it just may. It may not be the all encompassing doomsday scenario, but from my experience it is clear that it has an effect. Almost all of which is negative to the education of children.

Josie sounds like she has a CRT type position which from my experience many hard-working CRTs have similar views. They tend to be the people who go into teaching for the right reasons and feel slighted when others don't pull their weight.

Out of curiousity Do you teach in a very rural area? I have a hinkering that you do and that may also play a part.
 
Last edited:
Why would unions block a system in which their members would get more pay and less hassle from administration, government, and bureaucrats?
First it forces them to meet a standard, second, it allows parents to move their kids to whatever schools they want, third it removes the power base of the unions themselves. If they can block alternative schools like charters, they're a monopoly - part of the suggestions you gave means they'd have to give that up. Fourth, realize that not all teachers are great or even good teachers. That would mean, some would be fired (hopefully) or at the very least, retired early. Also not good for the unions. The Government wouldn't be unhappy because they could put new standards out and, as is going on now, just give exceptions to states who don't meet them without any issue at all. It's so easy for government to just shove this under the rug and then when it doesn't work out, give out exemptions like candy.

That makes less sense than you telling us how easy teaching is, and that you wouldn't want such an easy and well paid job for yourself.
I never claimed teaching is easy, I claimed teachers had it made given their perks, and given the job, I'd hate teaching. Perhaps you'd understand better if you could comprehend what I'm saying. It's also apparent that you're ability to cognatively associate language with a counterpoint is lacking. You must be in a union... amirite?

and, if the schools are so bad, how is it you got such a good education there?
A BA or BS degree is easy to obtain. Kids seem to thrive in life, despite bad teaching in middle and HS levels.
 
What protection would that be? I've seen good teachers fired for no good reason. We've seen what happens to teachers now, what would happen without some sort of protection? As long as ignorant people (school boards, congress)are making decisions about what is best and ignoring the advice of the experts (teachers), teachers will need some sort of representation.

I don't think teachers should strike. That is one of the reasons I've never been in a union and likely won't be. I understand the reasons behind the strike and often agree with the position of the teachers, but a strike hurts the students and they are not the ones making the decisions.

Oh you've seen it have you? For nothing? That is interesting, but hardly compelling. What have we seen happen to teachers now?
 
Layla, while I appreciate your refreshing view on the subject I think perhaps you have a local view and others have their own local view. Interestingly you don't have a union and say you have never seen many of the common things I and apparently Josie have witnessed at many, many public schools. If anything your arguments in defense turns into ammunition for the people you are debating. Do you believe the union mentality has an effect on public schools in our nation? Your arguments show that perhaps there is some anecdotal evidence to show that it just may. It may not be the all encompassing doomsday scenario, but from my experience it is clear that it has an effect. Almost all of which is negative to the education of children.

Josie sounds like she has a CRT type position which from my experience many hard-working CRTs have similar views. They tend to be the people who go into teaching for the right reasons and feel slighted when others don't pull their weight.

Out of curiousity Do you teach in a very rural area? I have a hinkering that you do and that may also play a part.

Why is it that you can take your experiences and apply it to all education but my experiences are dismissed? Oh wait, I know - because my experiences do prove your points. I witnessed many public schools as well, rural, urban, and suburban. I don't know how in the world my experiences to the contrary can turn into ammunition for those who don't agree. I do teach at a rural school and I'm very familiar with many of the schools around me. There are more small rural schools in this state than there are urban schools. I'm also know a great deal about larger schools in the state where the union is stronger. Of course the union affects education in this country but I don't think it is the root of all evil as some do.

I don't know if Josie or you for that matter are good teachers in the profession for the right reasons or not. I do know that I've seen her posts for awhile and we've talked before on education and our experiences are not the same. I don't deny that her experiences are legit, they are just not like mine. I've tried to point out many times that there are vast differences across the country in education and local experiences don 't necessarily apply to what is going on everywhere. I do find it interesting that you choose to dismiss anyone whose experiences are different from your own. You sound very young. Your condension is insulting and childish.
 
Oh you've seen it have you? For nothing? That is interesting, but hardly compelling. What have we seen happen to teachers now?

Wow, do you always dismiss the experiences of others when they don't fit with your beliefs. Yes, I have seen more than a few teachers fired for no legitimate reason. I've seen teachers get excellent evaluations from their supervisor but be fired by the school board.
 
Could be a tenure or policy thing. They may have had no choice as idiotic as that may be.

Sure. But it would be less idiotic if they weren't the ones influencing such policies, including tenure.
 
We do get the summer "off" and some of the vacation days the students do. We are required to work some of the days the students have off. We also work many days that we are not required to work. You could go to my school almost any day during the summer or most Saturdays and Sundays during the year and find at least a couple, if not more, teachers working.

Expecting respect and fair pay for the work you do doesn't make someone a crybaby.

No, you get summers off. No reason to mince words or put in quotations. There's nothing wrong with having summers off and I truly hope you enjoy them. You receive a 180 day (or so) contract, you are free to have off. And from my experience your school is an anomaly for having a couple teachers being in there most weekend days in the summer. For most schools the classrooms are unavailable to teachers during the summer because the floors are being stripped and cleaned. They are usually allowed back in a week or two before school starts and some will come in early to set up their classrooms because they don't want to spend the entire day doing it that is allotted to them at the end of summer (typically on a paid orientation day). Between orientations and other stuff going on it would make for a long day to set up the classroom as well so it is understandable to want to bang it out early. They're doing it because it makes their lives easier. Either way the work has to get done.

Everyone deserves respect and fair pay and the average teacher receives both. You went to school for education knowing fair well what teachers made and opted to get your masters for whatever reasons you chose. That's fine, but people don't want to see teacher's complaining when they feel their local teachers make enough money.

Let's play a game. Let's find the competitive salary your for a typical teacher making $40k a year. First step is to account for the difference in time worked. Let's use 180 days for a teacher as a baseline and the typical full time American works 270. That's a 33% difference so we'll add that off the top. That comes to a little over $53k. Now let's estimate health benefits that the tax payers are pitching in annually between now and throughout retirement. We'll pretend this number averages out to about $4k a year. Up to a little over $57k. Now let's factor in the pension that tax payers will have to pitch in and pretend this averages out to another $1.5k annually. So all in, the typical $40k teacher has a competitive salary of $59k. It's a pretty safe bet that this figure is close to if not exceeding the median household income for the school district you work for.

Whenever I do this exercise with teachers who complain about their pay (they really love me) the first thing they tell me is that it is not fair to add 33% on top of their salaries to find their competitive wage. I respond, "Ok, if the school year is extended 20 days would you not expect to paid for those additional days?" By this point they realize they're cornered. That and the fact that they sign a contract that specifically states their salary is for only 180 days...

Most teachers in America are paid a fair wage. If they weren't there wouldn't be such a huge flood of people becoming certified to teach. Gone are the days of teacher shortages.
 
Last edited:
Why is it that you can take your experiences and apply it to all education but my experiences are dismissed? Oh wait, I know - because my experiences do prove your points. I witnessed many public schools as well, rural, urban, and suburban. I don't know how in the world my experiences to the contrary can turn into ammunition for those who don't agree. I do teach at a rural school and I'm very familiar with many of the schools around me. There are more small rural schools in this state than there are urban schools. I'm also know a great deal about larger schools in the state where the union is stronger. Of course the union affects education in this country but I don't think it is the root of all evil as some do.

I don't know if Josie or you for that matter are good teachers in the profession for the right reasons or not. I do know that I've seen her posts for awhile and we've talked before on education and our experiences are not the same. I don't deny that her experiences are legit, they are just not like mine. I've tried to point out many times that there are vast differences across the country in education and local experiences don 't necessarily apply to what is going on everywhere. I do find it interesting that you choose to dismiss anyone whose experiences are different from your own. You sound very young. Your condension is insulting and childish.

I'm not dismissing you. I'm saying I find it interesting that when I discuss some of the negative aspects of public unions in education you chime in and and defend them by telling me about your school district that isn't in a public union. You basically say "Well my school district isn't in a union and I have the exact opposite experience so stop attacking teachers." But that's the whole point. I'm not attacking teachers so much as discussing the effect that public unions have on education as a whole. And if your district is not in a union and you're not seeing any of the things people involved with the public unions tend to see you're essentially validating our points. Am I explaining this well?

I'm really sorry if you think I'm dismissing you. The first sentence was stating that I "appreciated" your "refreshing" view. I'm not trying to downplay your experiences or opinions. That wasn't me being rude or sarcastic. It was a serious statement.
 
Last edited:
Hey, no doubt about it. I fully agree. Now sure there was a time right after 9/11 that I was full throated in support of Iraq, and Afghanistan as it pertained to removing Saddam, and routing the Taliban. However, 10 years later, and building nations that have little use or appreciation for what we sacrificed for them? Not so much. But, with Obama, he doesn't just stick to his enumerated powers as laid out by the Constitution. He seems to think that he will play the constitution game as long as Congress goes along with what he wants, and if not, well then he can just do it anyway, whether through a Czar, or head of a regulatory body which is NOT our form of Government.

We have two viable choices for president in the upcoming elections, one that has ordered cuts to military spending and ended the war in Iraq, and one that has pledged to increase military spending and thought we should have not ended the war with Iraq.

So you would cut defense spending by at least 2/3 from $700 Billion to $200 Billion? Yeah, at this time in the world? heh, good luck with that.

I don't expect it will be done now, but it will have to be done whenever we get serious about reducing the deficit.


They realize that now, but they for the most part don't agree with you that it is a defense spending problem.

"Ask your average American whether the defense budget should go up or down in 2013, and by how much, and they’ll tell you to cut spending by a whopping 18 percent. Ask your average member of Congress the same question, and no matter which party they’re from, you’ll likely hear that defense spending should barely budge from where it is right now.

“It’s a sizable gap—perhaps even a missile-sized gap,” suggested R. Jeffrey Smith, an editor at the Center for Public Integrity and former Washington Post reporter, unveiling the findings Thursday morning at the Stimson Center. On average, Smith and his co-authors found the public wants $103.5 billion in defense budget cuts, or 18 percent of the current budget; Republicans want $74 billion cut, on average, Democrats want a $124.4 billion cut, and independents want a $112.2 billion reduction. Participants evaluated 87 percent of defense discretionary spending, so their cuts might even be higher if the entire defense budget were covered."

Americans want to slash defense spending, but Washington isn’t listening - The Washington Post
 
Wow, do you always dismiss the experiences of others when they don't fit with your beliefs. Yes, I have seen more than a few teachers fired for no legitimate reason. I've seen teachers get excellent evaluations from their supervisor but be fired by the school board.

So have I.
 
The constitution also specifies ZERO for the amount of federal education spending, yet the fastest growing, cabinet level federal department is DOEd. The entire DOEd should be terminated.

Would you quote the part in the Constitution that "specifies ZERO for the amount of federal education spending"?
Here is the quote where funding of education is allowed:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If this were not the case, the federal funding of education would have been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which has not happened.

I agree that there is plenty of fat in the defense budget, even the DOD says this, yet billions in defense PORK spending is at play, as EACH congressional district has skin in the game, so EACH congressman helps all of the others to keep this nonsense going. I remember reading that 37 states are "involved" in the production of the latest "joint services" fighter aircraft project, thus it has a virtual congressional "LOCK" for funding. The F22, the last "must have" military toy, has NEVER been used in combat, yet its replacement, the F35 is a "top priority" simply because congress says so.

Foreign aid and "nation building" are other massive wastes of tax money; what sense does it make to borrow money just to give it away, often to nations that don't need it, have corrupt gov'ts and are filled with people that truely hate us?

The answer for that is for Americans to do their duty and vote out congressman that waste money on excessive military spending.



Welfare money is constantly squandered on 12% to 15% of the population, that simply refuse to get educated, get off drugs/alcohol and stop having children that they can not afford to raise, yet we spend and average of $7,500 on each of these morons and call it a "war on poverty". The same nation that frets over the cost of caring for its elderly, many that have worked their entire lives paying into SS/Medicare, willingly tosses money to the parent(s) of newborn out-of-wedlock children simply because they exist.

8 Myths about Welfare

"1. Myth: “Welfare” is comprised solely of cash handouts to poor moms. In fact, welfare is provided to Americans of all income levels and especially to corporations. Welfare includes Social Security, tax breaks, corporate subsidies and incentives, Wall Street bailouts, Medicare and Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the means-tested cash assistance or in-kind support (food stamps, housing, childcare vouchers) that we associate with welfare “queens.” Of the means-tested public assistance programs for the poor, food stamps have the broadest reach- some 46 million Americans (about 15% of the population, and an all-time high) were receiving food stamps in 2011. However, when most people talk about dodgy welfare moms, what they mean is the cash assistance and other meager benefits supplied (sometimes) under TANF. TANF support sometimes includes vouchers for childcare, clothing, and other needs along with cash assistance, but this varies wildly from state to state (Southern states tend to be meanest when it comes to assistance for the poor). For the purposes of this discussion, I will pretend that the only type of welfare is indeed the cash and in-kind support given (mostly) to poor moms through TANF.
2. Myth: Most poor moms are on welfare. It is true that the majority of TANF’s clients are women and children, but most poor families never receive any assistance at all. In 2010, there were about 78 million families in the United States. Just over 9 million families (about 12%) were officially in poverty, but about 28% of families qualified as in poverty or near-poor. While some 20-odd million families were poor or near-poor and thus arguably in need of some kind of assistance, very few were poor enough to be eligible for TANF, and of those families eligible for TANF, only 1.9 million were actually receiving TANF in 2011. Since the welfare reform of 1996, participation by eligible families has plummeted: 84% of those families in need received ADC in 1995, dropping to 52% receiving TANF in 2000, and only 40% in 2005. Most poor moms, whether single or married, are not on welfare.
3. Myth: Moms on welfare take up a huge amount of the national budget. Actually, each year, about 20% of the national budget goes to defense, and another 20% to Social Security. Less than 1/3 of the $3.7 trillion dollar 2012 federal budget went to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which administers TANF and other programs. Of the HHS’s 2012 budget, 54% went to Medicare, 30% to Medicaid, 14% to other programs, and 2%, or about $17 billion, to TANF. Meanwhile, $13 billion was budgeted in 2012 for TARP- yet another welfare handout to bankers that nearly matches that of TANF recipients. Speaking of welfare handouts for bankers, it’s worth noting that it would take about 42 years for our nation’s 1.9 million TANF recipients to equal the $700 billion dollar handout given to Wall Street in 2008.
4. Myth: Poor moms spend decades, or even lifetimes, on welfare. Since 1996, there has been a five-year lifetime cap on TANF assistance for adults. In 2006, the average length of time families received TANF assistance was 35.4 months, and case closure data from 35 states indicated that less than one-half of one percent of cases were closed because families had hit the 5-year ceiling.
5. Myth: Welfare moms refuse to work. In fact, in 2006, 33% of TANF families were engaged in qualified work activities for at least 30 hours per week, and another 14% had some work hours (though not enough to qualify toward the work rate). Looking at poor families more generally, in 2010, about 32% of single moms in poverty were working at least part time (compared to 17% of single dads in poverty), rising to 59% and 40%, respectively, for near-poor single moms and dads. Poor and welfare moms rarely refuse to work, but are more likely to be laid off, to spend more time looking for work, and to be stuck in low-income, no-benefit junk jobs that make survival, perversely, more difficult.
6. Myth: Welfare moms have more kids to get bigger benefit payments. Contrary to popular belief, TANF families in 2006 had an average of 2.3 children, and approximately 1 in 2 TANF recipients had only 1 child. Only 10% of TANF recipients had more than 3 children. The average TANF cash assistance grant is $372 per month (so much for the Escalades and Playstations), and while some states do give larger grants to families with more children, the average payment increases only $80 per child. Most TANF families (about 80%) do also qualify for SNAP, the food stamp program, and receive an average monthly food stamp allowance of $275.
7. Myth: Loads of poor moms are committing welfare “fraud.” There is no statistical evidence to support the notion of an epidemic of women marauding as welfare frauds. In fact, vendors commit a great deal of welfare fraud (and the real fraud game is in the military- perhaps poor moms should get into the defense contracting business if they want to get rich fraudulently on the taxpayer’s dime).
8. Myth: Most mothers on welfare are black. In 2006, 36% of TANF families were black, 33% were white, and 26% were Hispanic.
When we break down the myth of the lazy, freeloading welfare mom, we find that the real myth is that poor moms are getting help at all. While longstanding sexist attitudes underpinned the stigmatization of poor mothers on welfare from it’s inception, today’s intense demonization of poor mothers- actually on welfare or no- probably has much to do with our society’s changing economic fortunes. Over the last 30-odd years, we have seen our standard of living decline, our wages stagnate, our dependence on credit to survive intensify, and our jobs disappear, while the costs of education, healthcare, food, and housing have gone through the roof. Many of us are only a tenuous thread above the very poor whom we demonize, and may all too soon find ourselves in need of a welfare "handout." When the fear, stress, and insecurity of declining economic fortunes combine with powerful sexist and racist attitudes, people’s anger can end up misdirected toward a boogeyman of cheating, lazy, drug-addled poor minority moms. This not only allows the real “welfare queens” (corporations and the rich) to continue truly wasting our money while ransacking our economy, our society, and our lives, but leads to a hysterical “off with their heads” sort of environment that has real and devastating consequences for poor moms and their children."

Junkland: 8 Myths About "Welfare Queens", Debunked

We subsidze the production of corn, then we subsidze the production of sugar cane/beets to offset the losses caused by the subsidized high fructose corn syrup. We need a VERY serious review of this nations spending,

I'm right there with you, we need to cut waste in government spending so that we can prioritize what is most important for the future of our country like education of our citizens.

specifically examining the constitutional authority of and a realistic cost/benefit analysis of ALL federal spending programs.

The bolded part is a function of the Supreme Court under our Constitution, the second part I would agree.
 
If you believe this, and your rhetoric makes that doubtful

:roll: Of my 6 closest friends in the world, 3 of them are teachers. I have two people I call "siblings" because I was raised with them - both of them are teachers. I will probably teach at one point for pay - I certainly teach wherever I have the chance now.

instead of demonizing,

This is where you miss. You seem to think that decrying the destructive results of public sector unions somehow means demonizing teachers. That's crap. One of the reasons I dislike teachers unions is because I think they are bad for teachers and teaching. They protect bad teachers. They hold back good teachers. They encourage low-middle achievers to seek the field. They make it nearly impossible for local school systems and states to control costs in ways to effect the kids least, and they stand in the way of education reform to make our system better. They create unnecessary conflict between our educators and the rest of society.

One of those three friends is currently unemployed. We were Best Men at each others' weddings. As a male teacher, he was unique enough. As a white male teacher from an upper middle class background willing to go teach in a minority heavy low income school, he was rare. As a white male teacher from an upper middle class background who could consistently get 6th and 7th grade african american boys to read he was a ****ing God-send. Until he got laid off. Because what he wasn't, was senior to the lady down the hall who walks in, hands out assignments, and then zones out behind a magazine every day for class. So.. budget cuts you know.... She's still teaching. The story in the OP? That **** Happens Every Damn Day. Because unionization has been bad for teaching.

I would recommend more effort put into recruitment and giving teachers more respect 9the number one reason we lose new teachers).

If you want teachers to get respect and pay, then we need to start ensuring that we get good teachers who will deserve it. The way to do that is through judging and rewarding by merit, so that our society's high-performers are attracted to the field. Good luck getting that past the unions.
 
Last edited:
We have two viable choices for president in the upcoming elections, one that has ordered cuts to military spending and ended the war in Iraq, and one that has pledged to increase military spending and thought we should have not ended the war with Iraq.

Too bad the one that's in office right now, his administration is involved in a cover up of the deaths of 2 American Law Enforcement agents by guns allowed by his DOJ and ATF to walk right across the border into the hands of Mexican Drug killers with their blessings obviously. Yet, Obama staunchly stands behind Holder. In my eyes that makes him as bad or worse than Richard Nixon. Vote for anyone BUT Obama in November. He promised transparency and gives us a boat load of dung.
 
Last edited:

Junkland.net????? From what I've read it sure is.

Domain name: JUNKLAND.NET


Administrative Contact:
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0125022078, junkland.net@contactprivacy.com
96 Mowat Ave
Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
CA
+1.4165385457
Technical Contact:
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0125022078, junkland.net@contactprivacy.com
96 Mowat Ave
Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
CA
+1.4165385457

An anonymous source? Why should we believe any of that tripe?
 
So have I.

This is extremely rare. Typically the only reason teachers are let go is due to a layoff from a reduction in force or a teacher is denied tenure. Most other terminations for teachers with good reviews has to do with legal/criminal issues.

But regardless here is a take on teacher reviews and how the unions have even overtaken that aspect of teaching...

I speak with a department head on a daily basis. I can't avoid it, his office is near me and he likes to chat it up about how horrible this one teacher of his, we'll call her Jesse, is. I try to stay out of it and walk away, but sometimes I get caught with subtle subject starters. Day in day out all he does is complain about this one teacher Jesse about how she doesn't do her job and how she makes his job difficult. My first year working in education I made the mistake of having this conversation with him...

Supervisor: Finally got all my teacher evals submitted, f'in Jesse.
Me: Feel good to have everything turned in?
Supervisor: I guess so, it just bothers me to have to write that eval for Jesse.
Me: Writing negative reviews isn't enjoyable for anyone.
Supervisor: <stars at me in shock, like I just said he was pregnant> What do you mean?
Me: You said you were worked up over the Jesse eval, it's only one negative review she'll have time to grow.
Supervisor: Why would I write her a negative review?
Me: Because you say she is the worst teacher you have ever seen?
Supervisor: So why would I write her a negative review?
Me: <blank stare>
Supervisor: You know what happens if I write a negative review? I get in trouble. They <pointing down the hall to the administrators> will come down here with my review and ask me what the hell I'm doing. I write a negative review I rock the boat. They'll get the teacher's union involved which means the lawyers get involved which means it will be this big costly production and I'll get yelled at for wasting a **** ton of money. What's a negative review gonna do? You know the last time a teacher was let go in this district due to negative reviews? Before I started here that's for sure. Best thing for me to do is to just write something good and turn it in. Otherwise everyone will be upset.

And that was the first of many instances where I've learned that teacher reviews in many of the districts I've been involved with mean absolutely nothing. Below average to average teachers get "good" reviews. Good teachers get "glowing" reviews. And bad teachers get whatever the administration wants them to get depending on the politics of their district.
 
What protection would that be? I've seen good teachers fired for no good reason. We've seen what happens to teachers now, what would happen without some sort of protection? As long as ignorant people (school boards, congress)are making decisions about what is best and ignoring the advice of the experts (teachers), teachers will need some sort of representation.

I don't think teachers should strike. That is one of the reasons I've never been in a union and likely won't be. I understand the reasons behind the strike and often agree with the position of the teachers, but a strike hurts the students and they are not the ones making the decisions.

I wouldn't step through the door of the classroom without union protection, and I'll tell you why. It has nothing to do with the administration nor the board.

All a little tart has to do is point a finger and say, "he touched me", and you're in for the fight of your life. You don't actually have to touch her, you understand, just be accused, and you have a choice:

Depend on an underpaid and overworked public defender to save your career and your reputation.
Pay every cent you have for decent representation, if, that is, you've been working long enough to have a savings account at all
Depend on the union to back you up.

Don't expect the school district to support you, regardless of the facts of the case.

Accused = guilty, and you have to prove you're innocent.
 
Too bad the one that's in office right now, his administration is involved in a cover up of the deaths of 2 American Law Enforcement agents by guns allowed by his DOJ and ATF to walk right across the border into the hands of Mexican Drug killers with their blessings obviously. Yet, Obama staunchly stands behind Holder. In my eyes that makes him as bad or worse than Richard Nixon. Vote for anyone BUT Obama in November. He promised transparency and gives us a boat load of dung.


So you ignore GOP support of an unnecessary war in Iraq that resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths and a $2 trillion dollar price tag for taxpayers, and get all worked up about a connection to 2 people killed that has not been proven.

Sounds like you should vote Republican!
 
Back
Top Bottom