• 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.

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.

The union part of this is backwards. Unions want teachers to be allowed to be lazy in administering discipline. That way teachers don't have to put up with it.

They kind of had this coming though. When you professionalize education, you dismiss social values. Therefore, people forget about duty of care. They forget that they're entitled to understand manners by the time they're graduated into adulthood, and teachers are allowed to get away with not teaching them.

Instead, teachers get to indoctrinate students with feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, and egalitarianism rather than caring about people for being people.
 
[h=1]Sacramento ‘Teacher of the Year’ laid off[/h]


Work hard, excel at what you do, contribute to society, and get laid off anyway.

Ain't it great?

Yes, there's more to life than working hard.

I'm not surprised. When you teach people to believe they're only valuable as tools, they get treated like tools.

This part of the article was no surprise:

The Sacramento City Unified School District has suffered approximately $143 million in budget cuts in recent years. School spokesperson Gabe Ross told News 10 that who gets laid off is mandated by state law and is based on seniority, not performance.

No kidding, eh? That's how unions always work.
 
The union part of this is backwards. Unions want teachers to be allowed to be lazy in administering discipline. That way teachers don't have to put up with it.

Unions want teachers to want to join them and pay dues. They do this by negotiating decent salaries and working conditions. Your assertion is simply wrong.

They kind of had this coming though. When you professionalize education, you dismiss social values. Therefore, people forget about duty of care. They forget that they're entitled to understand manners by the time they're graduated into adulthood, and teachers are allowed to get away with not teaching them.

How does that relate at all to what I posted?
Teachers don't teach manners?
Manners is what keeps kids from making false accusations?

Do you have any clue at all how sexually aware kids are nowadays, and why that is? Watch primetime TV sometime.

Instead, teachers get to indoctrinate students with feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, and egalitarianism rather than caring about people for being people.

You obviously have no idea at all what is taught in classrooms today.
 
Unions want teachers to want to join them and pay dues. They do this by negotiating decent salaries and working conditions. Your assertion is simply wrong.

Yes, and...?

Why would teachers want to administer discipline as a fair working condition? It's an additional burden. If anything, teachers would expect to not have to deal with unruly students in the first place.

I don't remember ever having a disciplinary teacher growing up. At best, they played favorites, and let their favorites get away with everything while intimidating their favorites' victims on the odd occasion that a victim stood up for oneself.

How does that relate at all to what I posted?
Teachers don't teach manners?
Manners is what keeps kids from making false accusations?

Do you have any clue at all how sexually aware kids are nowadays, and why that is? Watch primetime TV sometime.

Sexuality aside, I'm just talking about "duty of care" and making sure children communicate clearly with each other so they don't offend one another, nor misinterpret offense where it's unintended and respond awkwardly.

Today's English classes fail at this even further by leveling "burden of proof". For example, when children make arguments, they're expected to explain why or why not.

Burden of proof is always on the affirmative. When you teach students they have to explain "why not", they become self-conscious and allow bullies to intimidate them into thinking for bullies or letting bullies stand on top of them. The bully makes a brutal assertion, and intimidates the victim into proving the bully wrong. This can take place perpetually because children aren't taught about harassment either in terms of "abuse of process".

You obviously have no idea at all what is taught in classrooms today.

What I know is classrooms do not teach 100% of the social contract before graduating children into adulthood.

Government cannot legislate more than it's willing to educate. Children aren't born with an implicit understanding of the rule of law.

The reason it happens is because social elites want to preserve social status on top of inside information, daring outsiders to assume the risk of learning right and wrong the hard way.

Those elites have no interest in seeing teachers succeed because they prey on ignorance, so yes, teachers will continue to be hired under crummy terms.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and...?

Why would teachers want to administer discipline as a fair working condition? It's an additional burden. If anything, teachers would expect to not have to deal with unruly students in the first place.

I don't remember ever having a disciplinary teacher growing up. At best, they played favorites, and let their favorites get away with everything while intimidating their favorites' victims on the odd occasion that a victim stood up for oneself.



Sexuality aside, I'm just talking about "duty of care" and making sure children communicate clearly with each other so they don't offend one another, nor misinterpret offense where it's unintended and respond awkwardly.

Today's English classes fail at this even further by leveling "burden of proof". For example, when children make arguments, they're expected to explain why or why not.

Burden of proof is always on the affirmative. When you teach students they have to explain "why not", they become self-conscious and allow bullies to intimidate them into thinking for bullies or letting bullies stand on top of them. The bully makes a brutal assertion, and intimidates the victim into proving the bully wrong. This can take place perpetually because children aren't taught about harassment either in terms of "abuse of process".



What I know is classrooms do not teach 100% of the social contract before graduating children into adulthood.

Government cannot legislate more than it's willing to educate. Children aren't born with an implicit understanding of the rule of law.

The reason it happens is because social elites want to preserve social status on top of inside information, daring outsiders to assume the risk of learning right and wrong the hard way.

Those elites have no interest in seeing teachers succeed because they prey on ignorance, so yes, teachers will continue to be hired under crummy terms.

I'm having a hard time relating any of this to what I've posted.

Dealing with undisciplined children has got to be the most exhausting and stressful thing anyone can do. Successful teachers, the ones who actually have a long term career in teaching are masters at maintaining discipline based on a mutual respect between child and child, and child and teacher.

Since I have no idea what it is you're saying with the rest of the post, I'll not attempt to address it.
 
Unions want teachers to want to join them and pay dues. They do this by negotiating decent salaries and working conditions.

This is flatly false. They do this by making it compulsory or mandatory to join through lobbying politicians. Even if the teacher's union does not work in favor of the teachers their membership and dues are mandated by law. I have seen unions work in their own self interest and in the interest of union leaders while the working class teachers get screwed. The union's #1 priority is self preservation and power. Helping teachers is secondary.
 
Last edited:
Aren't you confusing unions with government? :2razz:


What's the difference these days? Obama has compiled the most aggressively pro union administration in possibly the nations history. :shrug:


j-mac
 
: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.

Reminds of people I knew growing up up who said they couldn't be racist because they had friends who were black. This doesn't change what you do regularly here.


This is where you miss.

Don't miss at all. It isn't unions who are lazy or incompetent.

And the flip side of your complaint is that without unions, good competent teachers would have no protection. And yes, this happens. Personalities get in the way sometimes and good teachers lose jobs where there are not unions. I can't find your voice there. You take a small, small percentage, misrepresent the problem, and in doing so demonize teachers. It is what you do on a regular basis.

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.

Again they need to? Not administrators, not evaluators, not negoitators, but teachers. And what is merit? If you seek false measures as represented by NCLB, you're part of the problem. If you want to measure their knowledge, their classroom performance, measurable things they control, few will argue with you.
 
What's the difference these days? Obama has compiled the most aggressively pro union administration in possibly the nations history. :shrug:


j-mac

Why is pro-union more important than congressmen getting in bed with big business?
 
The union part of this is backwards. Unions want teachers to be allowed to be lazy in administering discipline. That way teachers don't have to put up with it.

They kind of had this coming though. When you professionalize education, you dismiss social values. Therefore, people forget about duty of care. They forget that they're entitled to understand manners by the time they're graduated into adulthood, and teachers are allowed to get away with not teaching them.

Instead, teachers get to indoctrinate students with feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, and egalitarianism rather than caring about people for being people.

BS. Teachers don't indoctrinate, the state developed, state approved curriculum does. Ask a teacher what happens when they deviate from that curriculum, and see what they tell you. Do you think teachers are actually allowed to teach, these days? Hardly. They are little more than mouth pieces for the board of ed.
 
Why is pro-union more important than congressmen getting in bed with big business?

Both are important, why so false choice? Stick to the topic btw.

Sadly, if you take nearly any issue on this forum, and certainly the sum of liberal issues like minority rights, poverty, wealth disparity, welfare, health care, tax/spend issues, etc., they are probably long-term most impacted by our public education system. So much comes back to education, it's a national long-term investment that even a small percentage improvement potentially means big GDP, tax revenue, less welfare, etc, for the nation.

In terms of scale, it's probably far more important.

Then, it also significantly affects me. I have to pay for private school, and I pay for public school. Many thousands per year...directly, and my child directly receives some service or not, from that expense, that helps guide and shape her future on earth. That tends to be more personal for me, than a ****ing farm subsidy that goes to a multi-million dollar farm.
 
Both are important, why so false choice? Stick to the topic btw.

Sadly, if you take nearly any issue on this forum, and certainly the sum of liberal issues like minority rights, poverty, wealth disparity, welfare, health care, tax/spend issues, etc., they are probably long-term most impacted by our public education system. So much comes back to education, it's a national long-term investment that even a small percentage improvement potentially means big GDP, tax revenue, less welfare, etc, for the nation.

In terms of scale, it's probably far more important.

Then, it also significantly affects me. I have to pay for private school, and I pay for public school. Many thousands per year...directly, and my child directly receives some service or not, from that expense, that helps guide and shape her future on earth. That tends to be more personal for me, than a ****ing farm subsidy that goes to a multi-million dollar farm.

I ask because it just kills me that people are finding the most meaningless things to bitch about all the while their congressmen is bending over for any business who wishes to donate to his/her campaign. The biggest problem today is that elected goverments no longer represent the people. Yet here we are bitching about pitly-assed unions and other meaningless things in comparison.
 
I won't down play education, but pointing to education doesn't excuse us ignoring other problems. Unions have no more voice than business. Union voters have no more voice than non union voters.

And no one makes you pay for private school, and if you believe that education is important, and effects you, as you say, than you're actually helping yourself by paying for public education Mach.
 
I ask because it just kills me that people are finding the most meaningless things to bitch about all the while their congressmen is bending over for any business who wishes to donate to his/her campaign. The biggest problem today is that elected goverments no longer represent the people. Yet here we are bitching about pitly-assed unions and other meaningless things in comparison.

The top two teachers unions combined do more than anyone else!!!!
Liberals, Democrats in this case, are also the most polarized top donors. Who are democrats so partisan on campaign contributions? Look at all the donkeys in the tilt column. Are you sure you know what democrats are up to besides just their rhetoric?

If AT&T lobbies, what am I out middleground? I can switch to VOIP, or Verizon, or drop AT&T, or get work to pay for my minutes, etc. Education? I can move, that's about it. Besides, my education bill is about 4-10x my education bill, and my kids education pays long-term dividends, gotta have priorites.

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets
 
Last edited:
I won't down play education, but pointing to education doesn't excuse us ignoring other problems. Unions have no more voice than business. Union voters have no more voice than non union voters.
And no one makes you pay for private school, and if you believe that education is important, and effects you, as you say, than you're actually helping yourself by paying for public education Mach.

They do make me pay for public education boo, and I get what I get, there is nearly no choice in the matter based on job and home site. Even if I DO choose private (I have so far), I can't choose to take that public education tax amount back...

I have no issue paying for public education in principle, do not try to move the argument to be against it. Opportunity cost boo. I could help myself far more by paying for public educaiton, if teachers unions took a back seat. Just because a government agency does "some good" with tax money, is in no way justifcation for the status quo, given that the entire argument is about how much better they could be doing if they spent that money differently.
 
Aren't you confusing unions with government? :2razz:

Some don't seem to know the difference!
Teacher's unions are deeply entrenched in our government and politics.

Let's not be facetious. We all know this to be true.
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

Look at the list of donors to parties. Democrats receive most of their funding from unions. Teacher's unions collectively make the largest donor group of the union subset. And these are national groups, the states typically have their own teacher's unions which are not ranked top 50, but significant nonetheless for their state and in totality at the national level.

There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade or making a factual statement. Teacher's unions take pride in their ability to influence elections. It is part of their strategy in the struggle for power. They use government and their political influence to advance power for themselves.
 
Last edited:
I ask because it just kills me that people are finding the most meaningless things to bitch about all the while their congressmen is bending over for any business who wishes to donate to his/her campaign. The biggest problem today is that elected goverments no longer represent the people. Yet here we are bitching about pitly-assed unions and other meaningless things in comparison.

Businesses likely have far LESS influence over your local politics than teacher's unions. The comparison between the two is a joke. They shouldn't even be brought up in the same conversation. One is irrelevant and insignificant, the other is a key player.
 
Since I have no idea what it is you're saying with the rest of the post, I'll not attempt to address it.

If that's the case, then don't expect things to change anytime soon.

Education is the foundation of culture. What children learn academically affects their thought patterns pragmatically.

When children don't learn about burden of proof, duty of care, or abuse of process, bullying only gets worse and worse. You will see many more bureaucrats fired haphazardly because of irrational paranoia. Melodramatic power politics will only get worse and worse.

It happens because bureaucrats, administrators, and politicians need social decay to continue the professionalization of reform.
 
Last edited:
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.

1. Agreed on the destructive nature of untrue sexual assault/sexual harassment charges (I find it interesting that leftists would thank you for posting about a problem that they helped to exacerbate).

2. Put cameras in the classroom. The notion that the only way to protect our teachers from frivolous charges of sexual assault is to put in place a system that serves to protect horrible teachers including actual child molesters is ludicrous.
 
I wouldn't be opposed to cameras on the classroom. I think that's an excellent way to keep teachers accountable. However, you have to make sure you have administrators who will actually KEEP them accountable.
 
Teacher's unions are deeply entrenched in our government and politics.

Let's not be facetious. We all know this to be true.
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

Look at the list of donors to parties. Democrats receive most of their funding from unions. Teacher's unions collectively make the largest donor group of the union subset. And these are national groups, the states typically have their own teacher's unions which are not ranked top 50, but significant nonetheless for their state and in totality at the national level.

There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade or making a factual statement. Teacher's unions take pride in their ability to influence elections. It is part of their strategy in the struggle for power. They use government and their political influence to advance power for themselves.


You are dishonestly including years when Union membership was much higher than it is today. Only 11% of the population belongs to a union today (both public and private). That makes a big difference. When you look at the big donor numbers in 2010 and this year, the GOP are far ahead.
 
Back
Top Bottom