Here Are The Real Motives of Teachers Unions

Could you possibly ever appreciate that fact that, BECAUSE they care about the quality of teaching they provide to the kids, that's WHY they're protesting this Draconian action?

Canadian Dave,

The teachers do not have the right to strike- which is what this protest amounts to. They are in violation of their contracts, and should be reprimanded (being unionized this amounts to a sham trial- a further waste of school money), or better still fired.

I keep hearing how these teachers are, "The most educated" and, "Have skills beyond what is found in the average private workforce". Well, have at it. If they are so miserable with their working conditions/terms they are free to quit and try and find a job in the private sector workforce.

I am sure there are teachers that are unemployed that would love to replace them under the terms provided. And a dose of reality would be good for the newly unemployed.

Right Dave:

So "Draconian" that the teachers don't pay even half what the private sector pays for 401ks or HC.

2.2 - That is the tried and true worst argument that exists when criticizing teachers. "If you don't like your conditions, then go work someplace else." Because that's going to fix the quality of education was we continue to slip behind other industrialized nations. How dare they speak about what they believe to be an injustice...and use the sick time many of them bank to fight for workers' rights.

Is that what we've come to? "Golly guys, I'm exercising my right to protest what I feel is unjust, because it's one of my Constitutional rights to assembly. But I should just quit the job I've worked hard for instead."

When the coined the phrase, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going," they didn't mean "leave", they meant, "fight". It's precisely what these people are doing and it is their God-given American right to do so...just like it's your right to condemn them if you wish. However, your opinion doesn't make them wrong.

I find it laughable that nobody tells a cop how to put on a pair of hand-cuffs, nobody tells a firefighter how to pull someone out of a burning building, but bless you, I have never seen so many educational experts trying to tell teachers how to teach. The fact that the police and firemen were exempt from this ridiculous bill seems to elude you...the fact that teachers (of all professions) are targeted for their fat paychecks is one of the most asinine things I've read in ages. I'm thankful none of you have any real voice in the educational process.

actually that would improve education

they leave..then lets say they cant be replaced..then the employeer sweetens the deal for them to come back.

conditions improve and the crappy teachers wouldnt be invited back.

its a win win for everyone...good teachers get paid more....student learn more..and there is freedom.

the way it is now will only make things worse..unions suck as they breed mediocrity.

I am sure there are teachers that are unemployed that would love to replace them under the terms provided

And if you're wrong?

Also, contracting to the lowest bidder tends to get you what you pay for.

contracting to the lowest bidder tends to get you what you pay for

Yes, nice things like:

• Nimitz-class Aircraft Carriers
• Space Shuttles
• Interstate Highways
• Stadiums
• Houses
• Fire Trucks
• Etc, etc, etc.

I mean, @!$%#, do you really want to do business with the *highest* bidder - if you're footing the bill???

Excellent points Rob-L.

Voted up!

Rob, notice none of those things you listed are people or jobs?

I saw in a previous post of yours that teachers start at 40k. I've been at it 5 years now...nowhere near 40k. I can think of few careers that require college degrees that pay people that little.

Before the "You only work 9 months" argument occurs (and I'm not saying you'll say it, Rob, but someone will), I'm actually in training all summer for the next school year. The job never stops.

I've enjoyed some of your posts and healthy debate is important. In this case, teachers who've dedicated years to the betterment of children don't deserve to be paid minimum wage.

Unfortunately, with unions, they are the ONLY BIDDER. Everyone else is locked out.

What I want are three options - kinda like when I buy a TeeVee, I try to find three I like and I build a matrix. I list some pluses, I list some minuses. I factor in the cost. I pick what I feel is the best value for my dollar - and you're damned right, it's not always the cheapest one. I'd like to think I pick average cost stuff (not too high, not too low), and the power of my research means I get a bargain. Or, if I make an impulse purchase, at least I'm an informed consumer and buy from folks that have a return policy since I know I can go get a well-reviewed widget from Amazon, etc.

I saw in a previous post of yours that teachers start at 40k

No, I was responding to the effort from the PA Teachers Union that had a program called 40 at 40...meaning they wanted to teach new educators about how to get that as their starting salary. This is from 3.4 (it's actually below):

Well, BJK, the PSEA (Pennsylvania State Education Association) gives classes to other state associations on how to get at least $40K starting salary. It's called "$40K Right Away".

I won't argue that some teachers are underpaid (nor will I argue that there are some that should have been fired a decade or more ago), but hey - personally, I could be making 33 to 50 percent less if I was staying home, living with my family, doing what is convenient. Personally, I'm a little motivated by paying off some debt, so I'm travelling 5-7 days a week and making more $ instead of being where my family is. There are options for folks to work overseas (teaching if they want to stay teachers). There are private options. The cream will rise to the top, union or not.

If folks can't sacrifice stuff and think "the way it is is the way it should be", I just have zero sympathy. This tis the 21st Century. I'd bet all of us have access to computers, and the resources to find other employment - in our current industry or not - are right at our fingertips.

Some folks kinda like to whine about it and self-martyr themselves. I think there was a lot of that going on in Wisconsin.

On both sides.

I've been at it 5 years now...nowhere near 40k.

Dude, that frigging absolutely sucks and I feel for you. Are you in an area with an abnormally low cost of living? I'd GTFO if I could. Seriously.

Do you have some IT skills? Could you leverage your education into a training role with an organization, developing curriculum for training on software products or something? Or - when it comes down to it, do you enjoy educating young people (I'm not a fan of kids, honestly)? Older people are so much easier...lol. The check's already cleared, whether they want to learn or not is on them. I'm not here to give anyone advice and I'm certainly not judging anyone's situation (there are a lot of folks like myself that are forced for whatever reason to actually live in a certain area), but if you were me, you couldn't live on that much. Christ, I probably spend $5k a year on MMj.

By 30 with no degree I'd been over $100k in compensation for a year or two...sigh.

then lets say they cant be replaced

With all the teachers being laid off in CA alone, they could be.

@Cap'n Obvious - I'm an educator as well....(in a manner of speaking. I'm working on my PhD and student teaching at the moment).
I'm not sure what state you reside in, but the kind of money you're describing only applies to elementary level educators here in Texas. Those teaching secondary make more, and if you are teaching at a community/city college or higher (which, of course, requires a PhD in most states) you make considerably more than that.
If you're making as far under 40K a year as you suggest, then just upgrading to a Masters degree (or moving to another state) would earn you considerably more money.
I'm just sayin'.....

Education...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Conservative Conspirator--

Isn't that what you are advocating?

...privatized education?

That would mean either education ONLY for those who can afford to pay tuition...or corporate sponsored education...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy?

I wish I could vote you up MORE...

...Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

(FR sent ...Brought to you by Carls' Jr.)

Privatized education can STILL be paid for with tax dollars. We already collect the taxes and have a way to distribute to the schools (still school boards). I think it's the way to go

Privatized education can STILL be paid for with tax dollars. We already collect the taxes and have a way to distribute to the schools (still school boards). I think it's the way to go

So, we should send tax dollars to school boards that will open up a bunch of private schools presumably stocked with employees from the former public school system. How would that be different from public schools? I guess it would be for-profit, so some of the tax dollars would be skimmed off the top for no reason.

jawill - sarcasm will not help your cause. There are already private schools in existence, and I'm sure that there are companies who could move in to existing public schools and operate them as private enterprise. The MAIN difference would be that the kids would all get a better education. And why SHOULDN"T some of the best teachers get those jobs?

I wasn't being sarcastic. If you privatized all schools and used tax money to fund it, you would have a public school system.

Make no mistake about it. Private schools sometimes perform better mainly because they are allowed to choose who they accept and exclude kids with behavioral or learning problems. They also have much smaller class sizes. You cannot transfer the first aspect to a universal public setting and the second one would make public schools better as well, it just costs more money.

Private schools sometimes perform better mainly because they are allowed to choose who they accept and exclude kids with behavioral or learning problems.

Private schools tend to do better since the majority of their students are from a higher socio-economic class. Statistics have shown that even in the public school system, schools in richer neighborhoods perform better than poorer neighborhoods.

European schools excel since they do not force every child to attend the same classes. If you're not interested in continuing education (e.g. college), you go to a trade school instead of high school.

AND the private schools who specialize in learning disabled children? The ones set up specifically for special needs children? The private schools set up specifically for kids who are "at risk?" How do they perform? I wasn't able to find anything about that. Every article I saw on special needs private schools was written by a public education association of some type - not exactly "switzerland" if you know what I mean. I would, however, be curious to know. If anyone could weigh in on that I'd appreciate it.

DLMaston: I'm in Arizona, having received my masters in education from Ohio State (I grew up there). I currently teach 12th grade English. I came here due to the teaching shortage and will be starting my PhD in the fall. Considering the expense, one I'm sure you're familiar with, it's much better than the alternative of not having a family or modest home.

A layman would look at my district's salary scale and think I make a fortune. If I were to ever move on that scale due to salary freezes I might be able to make a decent living and raise a family.

My wife is also an educator. We'll never be wealthy; we never had aspirations to be so. Had I gone into education for wealth I would invite anyone to put a bullet in my head. I got into education to help children...I never for a moment thought the American public would hate me for doing so. So, as they take away my right to fight for a higher salary (because my 33K for 5 straight years with a masters means I'm apparently sleeping on a pile of money) and continue to hate me, I say let them. Tomorrow I'll continue to make kids smarter.

Captain - all due respect, I think that it is a bit conceited to believe that the American public has a responsibility to pay you more money because you have a Masters Degree and are going for a Doctorate. Lets be completely honest here - your job requires a BACHELORS degree. Anything over and above that is because a) you want more education or b) you want more money.

Again, I respect teachers and the job they do, but please - lets drop the "I should make more money because I'm more educated" rhetoric. In the rest of America you get paid based on the fact that you meet the guidelines required for the job - you do not get an automatic increase because you have exceeded those guidelines

Please don't call me conceited because I haven't seen a raise at my job...ever. You've missed the point entirely. This article is about ending the collective bargaining rights of teachers to demand raises when the economy has recovered. Something I haven't seen even when the economy was doing well. The point I was making is that those rights are necessary.

Don't bastardize my argument to make it seem like I want more money now because I've been in school for a long time. I've never said that and don't assume that's what I'm looking for.

To make a final point, in the rest of America (as you put it), if you continue training for the job you have, you see more money come time of any annual or bi-annual performance review. When I was in the private sector, it was akin to 3% a year (but I'm sure that varies). Teachers fit the same criteria. Don't separate us into some special bracket that doesn't exist.

FYI - teachers in most states are required to get a masters degree. Ergo, you argument about exceeding expectations holds no water. If I want to keep my job, I have to get one or show proof I'm working toward one. And yes, teachers with a masters degree do get a pay increase for their extra work.

I'm sorry if I have offended you. It seems that your argument about the Masters Degree is exactly the same as I've seen from a million other teachers. I was of the opinion that teachers AUTOMATICALLY get raises when they have a Masters Degree. I was also unaware that teachers do actually HAVE a performance review. (though if you do it doesn't really matter, because you can't be fired for poor performance anyway) Your contracts have "steps" do they not? That certain separates you into a "special backet".

No kjmgirl, that isn't quite the way things work. The fact is that most state employees (teachers included) have been getting pay freezes for years before the economy collapsed. They should be paid more. In the rest of America you get paid based on you education level and experience. You get paid to full fill the job requirements and if you exceed those requirements...then you usually move on to another higher position commensurate with your education.

Being offended is a choice. I am never offended.

You continue to pick and choose which arguments are convenient for you...it's a poor way to hold a debate. Not to mention both myself, and now fireyone have pointed out how continuing education in the public and private sector lead to pay increases. So it appears in all of America, the practice is normal.

My contract does not have steps; the publicly-viewed salary schedule does. If an organization (public or private) chooses to opt out of a salary schedule (a spreadsheet detailing level of education in correlation with years of service), the annual review determines a minimum level raise (my earlier 3% argument). Many public and private organizations use a salary schedule...not just education. Still no special bracket for us.

OK let me talk about MY school district's contract then. They DO get an automatic raise when they get a Masters degree. They DO get an automatic raised based on years of service. Do even if they have had a "pay freeze" for 5 years, they are still getting raises because they have moved to more years of service. Fieryone - I agree, if you exceed the requirements of your job and want to be paid more, you MOVE ON to another higher position.

Yes, but teachers generally don't move on to another higher position because they want to teach. What state are you in that treats teachers so horribly that they get pay increases. /sarc I just don't get why people are upset by this. If you want the benefits a teacher gets, then become a teacher or fight for them with your employer.

A pay freeze means no pay increase. It can't be both.

As stated previously, if performance is where it should be, a pay increase is expected...just like every other job. This is not unique to teachers.

You've obviously posted enough anti-education rants in this thread. Please, inform me how we should increase the pay for teachers doing their job well?

Merit pay? I can just see it now: Tim, the honor's History teacher with straight "A" students making hand over fist compared to Sally: teaching remedial Math to students who have chosen to fail it 3 times. That will create nothing more than the incentive for passing every student for any amount of effort.

Privatize it? The call for privatizing education has been growing. Unfortunately, those calling for it forget that they'll actually have to pay for it out-of-pocket. If you think college is expensive, wait until k-12 hits the pocket-book.

You lump bad educators in with the rest of the people doing their job well. Every work-force has bad performers; another thing not unique to education. Quit being a living-room quarterback. You continue to assume you have an understanding of the issues in education...the more you say, the more I understand that isn't true.

I am not anti-teacher. I am staunchly anti-teacher UNION. Any public union, not just teachers, either.

What I AM becomming is anti - "teachers have a brain". Really, do you seriously think that ANY of us believe that the effectiveness of teachers can't be measured just because some kids are smarter than others? You must think we are ALL that mentally challenged kid in special ed.

And YES I do think we should privatize education. Why? Because the cost per child in PUBLIC sector is about $12K per year. The cost per child in Private sector is about $7K. RED HERRING and STRAW MAN argument there. FYI, there is absolutely no reason that tax dollars can't be spent on PRIVATE schools just like they are spent on public schools.

I'm sorry if this has disintegrated into bitterness on my part, but I'm at the edge. I started out with the expectation (from your post) of having a civil discussion and it went downhill into an indictment of my beliefs on education in general and employment based on WORTH in particular.

I don't have anything else to say - because I don't know ANYTHING. Maybe it's because I only have a Bachelor degree and run my own business. That must make me too stupid to figure out how to read a teacher's contract (Yes, I go to school board meetings, yes I read the teachers contracts, yes I investigate their salaries, etc - because MY tax dollars pay for education.)

"there is absolutely no reason that tax dollars can't be spent on PRIVATE schools just like they are spent on public schools."

uh...they'd be public then.

"I am not anti-teacher. I am staunchly anti-teacher UNION."

the unions represent the teachers.

No need to be at the edge. I strongly do NOT want education to be privatized. MY tax dollars pay for education.

blazera - sometimes they are public and sometimes they are not. In states which have education voucher systems, tax dollars DO go to private schools.

"the unions represent the teachers". - Uh, I don't think they do. I think they are just another money-making scheme looking at $$$$$$$$$ just like those "evil" corporations.

Fieryone - Yeah, I guess I'm a little too passionate about this - my school district is in the middle of a really bitter bitter bitter battle for a new contract.

Captain - my apologies.

A publically funded school is a public school. If they're already getting aid, then you already have what you want. If you want all the public education money to go to the private schools, they would be public then.

Unions are non-profit.

You DO understand that non-profit only means they can't show a profit - NOT that they can't solicit and spend billions of dollars, right?

No, a public school is one which is run by a governmental entity. The fact that they get tax dollars is not what makes them a public school.

Of course they solicit, they campaign to improve the rights of workers they represent. But they can't be in it for the money as you claimed, there can't be any left over for them.

The administrators' salary would be coming from the government right? Sounds like government employees to me.

kjmgirl, I spent many years working for a state agency evaluating the effectiveness of out sourcing many different services. They almost always ended up costing more and paying their employees more in salaries and benies than the state did. Privatization isn't always a big savings...look at security contractors in Iraq for an example. They are paid so much more than our soldiers.

A pay freeze simply means one will not get an increase in their current position. However, if they are promoted to a higher paid position, they will receive an increase in pay do to promotion, not necessarily a raise.

Now in the school district I live in Hickman Mills, CSD #1, the salary schedule is posted for all to see. Step 1 with a BS starts @ $34,340.00 *source, www.hickmanmills.org, select employment, then salary schedule. Cost of living here is such that one can get a 2 bed room apt that is not section 8 for @600/month, and with the economy as it is right now, a 4 bedroom house with a two car garage and a basement is a dime a doze @ around $80-85k.

My old high school track coach (gym teacher) had his MEd and @ retirement was making somewhere around $70k a year.

"The unions also spend billions on politics, i.e. democrat candidates and their campaigns."

I said they campaign for their workers. A win for democrats is a loss for republicans, and thus a win for workers. Look no further than Walker's bill for evidence.

"Union leaders also spend countless dollars wining and dining themselves."

Need evidence of that.

"Yes, there definitely is money left over."

there can legally be no profit. If you have evidence to the contrary I recommend mailing it to your republican leader of choice to mount a suit.

That is an indictment that you cannot substantiate. Stop lying or provide proof.

That's right. Before teachers unions, there were no books. No pens or tablets. There was no chalk or even a chalkboard. No supplies of any kind. There was no continuing education available for teachers. No teaching assistants. No parents helping their children do homework. ALL OF THIS we have because of teachers unions.

Whew, implied sarcasm tag...lmfao...:) Almost missed it due to the Vicodin.

Happy Friday!

The intention behind forming teachers' unions is good. Same with police, firefighters, etc.

That said, I'm not sure what organizations like AFT (American Federation of Teachers) or AEA (American Education Association) do beyond collecting monthly dues to perpetuate their own existence.

Beyond corrupt unions, the state depts. of education have transformed most US public schools into glorified day care centers.

Things are so far gone, it's hard to conceive of a viable solution beyond reorganizing the public school system along the lines of a private school/charter school model.

Well, BJK, the PSEA (Pennsylvania State Education Association) gives classes to other state associations on how to get at least $40K starting salary. It's called "$40K Right Away"

http://www.psea.org/general.aspx?id=1288

It probably cost them a lot of dues to set up that "educational" program

Both of my parents were teachers. My Mother still is. We had a civil, yet heated debate last fall regarding the teachers union. (we as in me and mom) She was an avid defender then. Since the beginning of the spring semester she has been having problems with kids in the school. The short story is, the school tried to sweep an incident under the rug. She went to the local union for help. Guess who bailed on her?

Beyond corrupt unions, the state depts. of education have transformed most US public schools into glorified day care centers.

Funny you should mention that BJK. That was covered in our little debate. Obviously, she was upset at my suggesting such a thing. Now that the union has thrown her under the bus, she admits as much. (She still supports the union though...go figure)

After going to college and obtaining a degree, getting certified as a teacher and maintaining the continuing education requirements, a 40K salary is too much?

a 40K salary is too much?

That's a day 1 starting salary. I doubt anyone has to meet any continuing education requirements their first day on the job.

And yes, $40k is probably just a tad bit high for a fresh-out-of-college 23-year old beginning teacher IMO - certainly considering the taxpayers fund the majority (if not all, in some cases) of their healthcare and pensions.

KJM,

It's crazy, aint it?

Lol, 40k is barely above the poverty level in this country anymore. I love how teachers are supposed to not only tend what is literally our most valuable resource but accept no pay and voice no opinions at the same time.

Rob, I started right out of college earning 45K, 40k isn't too much to pay a teacher. What was your starting salary right out of college?

I didn't actually graduate, only had a few years of college when I entered the workforce.

My first "real job" was as a (Federal) GS-3 Clerk Typist, in 1989. I made around $15,000 a year as I recall...it might have been a little less. When I jumped ship and moved to industry, it was as a LAN Manager making $29,000 a year in 1992.

Over the course of my 20+ year career, I have substantially increased my earning potential - and still have no bachelor's degree. It wasn't through training, it wasn't through a union - some of it was consistently being in the right place at the right time, and most of it was a lot of 60-70-80 hour work weeks early in my career busting my ass making a name for myself in my industry.

Again, for a 23-year old that is just starting their "first real job"...I honestly (even in this day and age) think $40k is a bit high. Sure, if we're talking about a 35-year old with 3 kids and 10 years experience doing anything other than "going to school", it's not even similar.

They don't need an iPhone or any phone that play video and sucks $1000 a year out of their budget. They don't need an Acura. They don't need a 2000sf house. They are starting out on a career path. Ones' first job isn't really supposed to set anyone up for life.

$40k is barely above the poverty line? For a family of frigging 4 maybe...lmfao. Not for a 23-or 24-year old....sheesh.

My starting salary right out of college was 24k. And remember, a teacher starting at 40k today just means s/he will collect another 30k, at least, for the rest of life after retirement thanks to the generous pensions. Who has pensions today not paid by taxpayer dollars--- not many!

common sense-457836:::. I love how teachers are supposed to not only tend what is literally our most valuable resource but accept no pay and voice no opinions at the same time.

Who on this sees said that teachers should accept no pay, or voice no opinions? I didn't see it anywhere.

40k is barely enough to cover rent/mortgage, student loans, car payments/repairs clothing, food and gas these days. Most teachers I know start out at 24K or there about. If we value education at all, why is it that a 40 K salary for a teacher is deemed to be too much? They are college educated, so why shouldn't they get a decent wage for their very difficult job? I know that I couldn't do what they do.

Hey, I'll sign up for $32k. In some regions, $36k may even make sense. You're right, $24k is too low in most places. I'd bet there are one or two (lol...or more) strange places where the cost of living is so high $40k makes sense.

$40k to start and you haven't done your job yet. I say this, and not at all facetiously, what if you suck?

One other point... Mortgage? You've gotta be @!$%#ting me. You actually think a recent college graduate starting their first job has some "right" to own a home? If they can afford it, sure - but I couldn't until I was 35. That's when I bought my first house. WTF is wrong with having a dream and working towards it? Isn't that the American Dream? I shared housing for a while and couldn't really afford to live on my own until I was in my late 20s. WTF is wrong with that? I made great life-long friends living with folks. Should the taxpayers make up for the fact that a teacher's parents were born without a silver spoon like mine?

Lets take a look at something here - $40K might not be much where YOU live but it's a boatload here in Western PA where a 3 bedroom house costs on average of $120,000. AND if you looked at the link and the NEA website you would see that their GOAL with this is to go to $50k RIGHT AWAY.

Rob, I said rent/mortgage. I know a few people who bought houses while in college because, they were married and the market was such that it was cheaper to buy than to rent, but still I said rent/mortgage.

kjmgirl, I'm sorry but I dont' see a problem with paying teachers 50K either. They are highly educated and trained to teach and they should be compensated for their education and for their difficult job. We can pay atheletes millions of dollars for their work...why not pay teachers a decent middle class wage?

I know a few people who bought houses while in college because, they were married and the market was such that it was cheaper to buy than to rent, but still I said rent/mortgage.

So they were able to afford a down payment and mortgage before they had any job, but right out of college they need 40K+ to survive? Sounds fishy to me.

Honestly, it's not salaries that I'm concerned about; it's pensions. Why should I have to pay for my retirement AND yours at the same time?

Paying teachers $50K their first year out of college is ridiculous. First, they have NO track-record. We don't know if they are great teachers or if they will SUCK. And once they're in place - well you can't pay a first year teacher $50K unless you jack up the salaries of the OTHERS who make less than that.

I do not oppose reasonable salaries for teachers. Not at all. I simply feel that - like any other profession - their continued employment should be solely and completely based on how well they do their job.

Did you see 60 Minutes last night? Charter school in NY paying (non-union) teachers $125000 a year. The catch - they are subject to dismissal if they don't do a good job.

Now the unions have pounded into our heads that you CANNOT measure the effectiveness of a teacher. I'm still trying to figure out how they came up with that. It's quite obvious to me that if other teachers know who is a great educator and who sucks then it's possible for the school board and administrators to know, as well.

Here's my thought - in the private sector most people who have pensions have about 3-5% employer contribution. That's where we need to be with the public sector. We need to move away from defined benefit plans. AND we need to completely do away with tenure and automatic annual raises based solely on the fact that the employee is still breathing. If you do Those things, I have absolutely no problem with nice fat salaries for teachers. Oh and one more thing - can they please stop BITCHING?

Let's get some facts straight here.....

The poverty line for a single person household is currently $10,890.
SO....if you start out at a salary of 24K (which is low for most states), you are at 200% of the poverty line.

It's not a lot of money, granted, but it is FAR above the poverty line.
And as Apples has so accurately note, it is not the salaries in question....it IS the pensions.

And for those blaming a given STATE'S Dept. of Education......you know not of that which you speak, with all due respect. All of the mandates that have lowered our standards and forced us to pander to the lowest common denominator has been the US Dept. of Education!!
It is this red-tape breeding, mediocrity celebrating organization that has made teaching, teachers, and students beg just to receive a mediocre education from public schools.
You are simply not old enough to have a full perspective on the situation. I do. I was in school when there was no D of E.
Our education systems nationwide, and the education level of our students-at-large, was FAR SUPERIOR before its creation in 1979/1980. We were number one in the world then.....not now. Not even close.

The WORST thing Jimmy Carter did in his miserable administration was create the Dept of Ed.

DLMatson - at first I thought you said you were in school when there was no D OR E (as in grades). LOL! Now I don't believe you're permitted to fail a student - something about not making them feel bad (/sarc)

Power needs to be either a) given back to the local school districts (and the states) or b) given to a private company to run the schools like a business (based on performance)

DLMatson - at first I thought you said you were in school when there was no D OR E (as in grades). LOL! Now I don't believe you're permitted to fail a student - something about not making them feel bad (/sarc)

Funny you should mention this. I've been told from my teacher friends in WI (so this is purely hearsay) that they are encouraged not to fail students, despite the student's aptitude- or lack thereof. So, while I agree that the unions penchant for protecting teachers' jobs regardless of performance is wrong and contributing to the failure of our public school system; requiring teachers to continue to pass failing students is equally detrimental. Why is it then that the unions don't collectively bargain for the teachers to have a final say in a student's matriculation into the next grade level? Why is it always only about salaries and benefits?

Apples - but, but, but, but, but, it's all about the kids.....

Now I don't believe you're permitted to fail a student - something about not making them feel bad (/sarc)

Which happens to be one of the issues my mother was complaining about. (the not failing issue). I got the sense that not failing the kids had to do more with funding than emotional well-being. I'm the black sheep, however, because my son goes to a private school. They do fail kids there. Funny thing is, nobody seems to fail.

Well the law IS "no child left behind". I'm not sure that they meant "no kids get failed" but there you have it! The sorry state of teaching is becoming overwhelmingly disturbing. I cannot believe that the schools won't enroll you in kindergarten unless you know the alphabet and your numbers and can write your name. Isn't that what Kindergarten is FOR?

So they were able to afford a down payment and mortgage before they had any job, but right out of college they need 40K+ to survive? Sounds fishy to me.

You aren't understanding me at all. The person I'm talking about received a starting salary of 24K roughly, she is married and they bought a house. I wasn't the one who brought up a 40K salary, that was Rob. I was simply stating that I don't see 40K as too much as a starting salary.

I don't have an education degree, but took many education courses to get my degrees. As I understand it you have to student teach in order to obtain your certification after graduating to become a teacher. So there should be an indication of the quality of teacher based on that.

The pension issue must be a state thing. In my state the teachers do pay into their retirement and also for their health insurance.

Why is it then that the unions don't collectively bargain for the teachers to have a final say in a student's matriculation into the next grade level? Why is it always only about salaries and benefits?

Exactly! If they were fighting to overhaul these archaic curriculums, I would get in line and fight right along with them.

Why do you have a problem with this? Why does anyone have a problem with this? This is a American way. It's always about the cash. It's always about the power. What do you people want it to be about?

you apparently have no clue as to the wealth of those in charge of the unions. They arent even close to middle class. I would say they are much closer to those billionaires you libs hate so much.

So we should obliterate unions because the couple of people in charge of them make too much money. Following that line of thought, what corporations do you want to take down this week? Exxon, Goldman Sachs? Let me know, I'll join right in.

So we should obliterate unions

Just the public ones. All of these need to be obliterated.

Why? Being a public servant is a noble profession. Do you not think firefighers or police officers deserve union representation?

Why would anyone want to be a teacher ever again? Not only do they have to put up rude and undisciplined children and try to teach them what they need to know to be successful, they have to put up with their parents and not just on "Back to School" night. Now we have our political leaders, public servants themselves, leading the tearing down of the teaching profession.

Tell me just how much easier do you think classroom management is this month? How many kids have gotten the okay to berate their teachers not just from their own pathetic parents but from the governors of their states? Yeah, we are creating a great system of education for our future leaders. One thing is certain though, the ones that make it through will not choose to teach.

if you had a fire dept that couldn't successfully put out a fire, or a police dept which could not solve a crime would you blame it on the accelerant? The criminal? But we have teachers who aren't giving our kids a good education and they blame it on the kids and the parents. Big difference.

kjmgirl

Excellent point. I do believe that the best teachers out there will never lose their jobs.. it is the substandard, ineffective teachers that SHOULD be threatened to lose their jobs to a more effective teacher. They want tenure, financed by the tax payers, so they can't be replaced for 'any' reason... and we parents are 'supposed' to agree with this bs.....

jacq

It is because of the liberal mentality that students are allowed to be rude, that victims of bullies are punished ALONG with the bullies, if they dare to defend themselves - (my experience and observation) and that parents can blame the school system for their unruly, disrespectful little @!$%#-heads.

Being a public servant is a noble profession.

Agreed; however, obliterating public unions doesn't change this fact. It just makes it fair for us taxpayers who don't want their taxes paying for something we have to fork over ourselves. Are union members so weak that they cannot pay for their retirement like non-union workers?

Why would anyone want to be a teacher ever again?

If union membership is the only reason to teach then this is even more of a reason that obliterating unions is a good thing. Teaching for the sake of teaching is noble. teaching for the sake of union membership is not.

Yeah... 'seniority' purely and simply as in has paid longer, therefore, more in union dues... MUST reward for that first and foremost, rather than get into the burden of rewarding for the quality or actual performance of those teachers who ACTUALLY deserve to be rewarded... too many teachers NEED the boot.... enough with tenure and those teachers who know that this is the ONLY reason they are able to keep their jobs.... it is BS!

Unions perpetuate and facilitate the fact that substandard, ineffective teachers are able to keep their jobs. I have sons and I have experienced the unbelievable frustration of more than a few teachers that have had a negative impact on the 'will to learn' in my boys, that truly excellent teachers, thankfully, succeeded in reversing. That simply, in and of itself, should be enough for us to want to force unions out. We need to keep the good teachers and have the ability to boot the destructive, in-effective, inept ones out. That being said, I believe teachers, firefighters, police officers and every other state worker should have to pay into their own pensions and health care benefits like all of the rest of us have to. I don't/never have had a problem putting in for my own, I do have a problem putting in for theirs in the way of my tax dollars....this concept is ridiculous and unacceptable to me.

re: my 4.6 post... I meant to say that the parents can blame the school system and anything and everything other than THEMSELVES for their little @!$%#-heads. My post timed out before I could edit..... :/

But we have teachers who aren't giving our kids a good education and they blame it on the kids and the parents. Big difference.

And how is cutting the teachers pay going to improve the education kids get? Are all kids always well behaved? Are all parents always involved with their childrens education? There are no problems at home that disrupt a childs ability to learn?

jacq

It is because of the liberal mentality that students are allowed to be rude, that victims of bullies are punished ALONG with the bullies, if they dare to defend themselves - (my experience and observation) and that parents can blame the school system for their unruly, disrespectful little...

And the next words out of your mouth were "Get off my lawn." Give me a break are you 68, white, and do your kids not speak to you?

But we have teachers who aren't giving our kids a good education and they blame it on the kids and the parents. Big difference.

Really, are your kids getting a bad education? Are they incapable of reading, writing and math? Will they get into college? If so, why are you ripping teachers? Go thank a teacher because, according to you, it had nothing to do with you.

Now I would argue with that and say that YOU are most of the reason your children succeed or fail. Do you really think school can undo in 6 hours a day 180 days a year what you did in the 18 hours a day and 185 days a year they were not in school? I don't. And I also don't think teachers alone can make up for all the bad that happens to lots of kids in those out of school hours.

You kids probably went to school fed and had a roof over their head. You might have read to them at night or made sure their homework was done. You might have taken them to the library, on a trip to Gettysburg, the Meteor Crater, the Kennedy Space Center, an aquarium or a zoo. Look at income and parent education and then look at test scores and will see that most "bad teachers" are in districts that are poor, that have parents who have their own problems from drugs to incarceration to just needing to work 18 hours a day 6 days a week to feed their families. Teachers aren't blaming parents for not removing the television from their child's bedroom (although they should) they are pointing at the disadvantages that some of the kids they care most about come into their classrooms with. They are asking society to care about the least of their brethren. They are asking for people to stop pointing fingers and creating panic so as to distract the real agenda - shoveling more money to the rich and corporate America. Destroying unions is only the first step in keeping the part of the pie the rich and powerful let the rest of us keep, as small as possible.

If someone deciding on teaching as a career, researches the pay for that profession and finds that it is say 40 grand a year, decides to pursue that profession anyway, that was their decision to do so. If they expect more, then they should have picked another vocation to train for.

Why exactly are you so hateful of people who would CHOOSE to educate you and your children even though the pay was poor? Weren't you teacher's pet? Did your wife leave you for an educator or just someone WITH an education?

Yes, there are wonderful people who choose to work in public service as teachers even though the pay is not great and the prospect of being rich does not exist. That is precisely why unions exist. To protect people doing the public good and be sure they at least they are getting fair salary increases and benefits over the years. Public sector pay is much lower than private pay when education is factored in (something you'll never hear on FOX). People who go into public service DO make a bargain. They except the fact that they will never be rich and the public guarantees that they will at least be paid and provided good benefits and a decent pension when they retire. It's one of the many SOCIAL CONTRACTS a democratic society embarks on with its people.

jacq24

I happen to believe that teachers should not have tenure because I don't believe the inept ones should continue to be allowed to teach. I believe teachers (firefighters, police officers, etc) should pay for their own health care and retirement like everyone else is required to do. I cover my health care and I save and manage for my retirement; I don't believe it should be required of me/forced upon me to ALSO contribute to anyone else's health care and retirement in the form of my tax dollars. I happen to think that teachers do damn well in pay, working 9 months out of the year with paid holidays. Save the soap opera, 'poor' teacher bs, as I don't buy into it.

So you don't believe your tax dollars should pay for services provided by your state or city? Interesting. Sorry, but that is how the social contract works. We enjoy "free" public libraries, education, police and fire safety, roads and bridges, and many other things. The people that provide them are entitled to a decent salary and benefits.

So you want to get rid of unions because you believe that will improve the quality of teachers. Guess what - you're wrong. Who is going to decide who is effective and ineffective? Test scores can't do that because parental education and income impact scores. So, it will be left to administrators and city hall to decide. Maybe the head of the Board of Ed whose daughter just graduated from college and needs a job.

Or maybe it can be the principal who may want to offer a teaching job to the mayor's son in order to keep her job? Or maybe they'll just let all teachers who have been teaching and teaching really well for 10 or 15 years go so they can save money on salaries.

And now we have what it is REALLY all about. It is not about getting better teachers it is about paying less for whomever we toss in there. Those master teachers who really make a difference for students will be collecting unemployment because they are at the top end of the salary scale. Merit pay? It will never happen because they will never budget for it. It is all smoke and mirrors to help bust unions.

Before you hook your wagon to these people who claim they care about the quality of education, look little deeper. It is never about what they claim it is about. It is always about the money - whether it is hedge fund managers giving campaign contribution to candidates who support charter schools or governors claiming that ineffective teachers are teaching are kids - it is ALWAYS about the MONEY. Money for them and their wealthy friends and contributors. Not money for you or me. Not a good education for our children. Could we do better with our education system - of course. Do these people yelling about unions know or care how to do that, NO. And, that my friend, is the problem. Not some middle school math teacher who doesn't pay as much for his benefits as you do for yours.

jacq24

The people that provide these services are entitled to a decent SALARY, no one would debate that and I certainly never stated otherwise. You still will never convince me that I should AGREE that my tax dollars should contribute to THEIR health care and THEIR pensions and THEIR tenure, because it is bs. These types of 'contracts' need to be a thing of the past.

The Unions are certainly not weeding out the inept teachers. Because of Unions it is all but impossible to get rid of them. Let's then talk about tenure, what do you think tenure is about if not ensuring that the inepts can't be fired.. yeah and I should be okay that my tax dollars help fund their tenure. I'm not okay with it.

Where do you get the idea that it is REALLY about not getting better teachers, its about paying less for whomever we toss in there? That is absurd. Again, teachers are entitled to a decent salary and those Master teachers deserve higher pay. AGAIN, if I can make this simple as possible for you to understand......my BITCH is in being forced to contribute to anyone elses health care and pensions OR tenure. That they need to handle on their own. The rest regarding their salaries and facing being fired for poor job performance; there is no reason in my book that they should not face the same working conditions most of the rest of us face. And yes, without Unions I believe all areas: teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters... the inept will get weeded out. Competition at being replaced by someone who can actually do the job or by someone more qualified is a BITCH, I know.

It's always about the money, you say.... as if this isn't the case with Unions... lol

If you hire an employee you are expected to provide him with salary and benefits. If the government hires an employee, they have to do the same thing. That's how societies work. Don't like that? Go find a deserted island somewhere. Services are provided by your neighbors. Those you like and those you don't. The government pays their wages. I don't like paying to kill innocent civilians in Iraq. If everyone gets to decide where their tax dollars go we would have no services and no defense.

And, if you listened to more than FOX News you would know that this battle against teachers and the unions has been going on for more than 30 years as only a small part of a war to move money up the ladder to the wealthy. Don't you feel rather foolish fighting with your neighbors for the small piece of the pie that the Koch Brothers and Goldman Sachs leaves to you? Pitting the middle class against one another and trying to get the middle class to villify the poor is how the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful. Trust me, after they get their way with the teachers and the unions, they will come for something YOU care about. And then, who will have the resources to stop them.

jacq24

SIGH! This is my last reply to you because I might as well be talking to a brick wall. I think it is wonderful that the government hires employees. I am happy and think that it is extremely special and only right that the government pays their wages. I don't think it is wonderful that I should contribute to these government employees health care, retirement or tenure, as I think contributing to my OWN health care and retirement should be all that is required of me IF I want my OWN health care or retirement; it certainly should not be forced upon me to contribute to anyone else's. They need to be rquired to contribute to THEIR OWN IF THEY WANT THEIR OWN.

We actually get to have some say in where our tax dollars go, it is called voting. This is why you are seeing things change as in Wisconsin.

I would hope you would 'feel foolish' in believing ANYTHING other than Unions are corrupt, power hungry and in it for the money only. You obviously have a serious problem with the wealthy in America; yet, remarkably at the same time, you prefer to sadly bury your head in the sand instead of seeing what it is that the Unions are clearly all about.

Again, since I grow weary of REPEATING myself, especially to the same person (you), I am moving on to another seed or two and then on to my Saturday. Have a nice day!

Sorry your own boss is not more generous with your compensation. He should be. Health care is something everyone should have and not worry about and the ability to retire and survive in your old age is another. Maybe you need to find a better job. Wall Street I understand pays wonderful benefits including terrific bonuses even in a down economy thanks to your tax dollars and mine. But, then, those guys on Wall Street produce so much value for their money. LMAO

Yeah, have a great day fighting for the tiny piece of pie Wall Street and the Koch Brothers have left to you and your child's teacher.

you guys laugh about Wall Street providing no value - it's really naive - why don't you forget their bonuses and do some investigation. Without Wall Street you'd have no new products, no mortgages, no car loans, no business loans, no mutual funds, no stock portfolio, no investments, NO, the don't provide ANYTHING to America. Get real!~

Wall Street provides the capital to do anything in this economy and the mechanism for buying and selling the shares of ownership of any company. It does, however, need to be regulated to prevent the fraud and mismanagement; the irresponsible risk taking with other people's money, that led to the collapse in 2008-2009. The vast majority of people who work in the financial industry are honest and competent. It is the small minorty who lack one or both of these traits who create the need for stricter regulation. After all, they are using our money.

you are correct, paddymurph. I'm getting sick and tired of people who insist wall street is completely corrupt and does nothing. These are probably the same people bitching about mortgages, not having any retirement income, not being able to get money for business start-ups, etc. Where in the hell do they think it comes from?
Try living in this world without Financial Insitutions and see how far you get.

You and I are like the blind squirrels who eventually find the acorn. Eventually, we agree on something.

acorn

Yes ! we did "find out" didn't we ?

PADDY - AND THE STEELERS. We always agree on that.

Even Dan Rooney's endorsement of Obama? JK

paddy - it's ok - he's been exiled to Ireland for it!

Driftwood's posts are all about perpetuating lies and misconceptions. Posters supporting these seeds restate talking points over and over. They attempt associations that are untrue and hope that they distort the truth enough that people will believe lies. People are no longer falling for it though. And so the right has a huge problem. The truth is rising above their lies. I wonder what the going rate to be a traitor to the American people and our country is? And so it is about money for those who shill for the Koch's and corporate fascism. They have no basis to criticize those who actually work for a living and work to teach and educate our children. The teachers work to give the best education they can to our children. The shills take money to try and destroy our country. The teachers have my respect. The shills have my disgust.

This is the 3rd time I've seen this same seed with the same bull@!$%# narative.

He was talking about how power was the only reason their effective. That it's not the kids that make them effective it's the power they have.

landspirit

ummm, "perpetuating lies and misconceptions"...most of Driftwood's seeds are OPINION, much like this seed is and she is entitled to her opinions.... if you can't emotionally handle Driftwood's seeds, why do you torture yourself by getting on her seeds? lol

Clarke

I always LOVE (sarc) the liberal 'it's for the children' bull@!$%#......

Driftwood,

Did you even bother to listen to the video? It Said they ( the unions) were effective advocates because they had power. The power that is implied is from the people, you know the people that are in the unions. The more people =more power.

The republicans really need to stop the destruction of the working people and their facist ideas/policies

Power corrupts.

So, then, there need to be checks on that power. The Unions are a check on the power of the employer. What is wrong with that?

Then you Both Agree that the corporations need to be Strictly regulated and controlled? Because they have far more "power " then any union right now. If power corrupts then woo wee these corporations must be some corrupt bastards.

Power corrupts.

So I guess you like the idea of power for and by the coorporation unstead of power for and by the people?

Drifrtwood, if it wasn't for Unions you'd be Washed up, and many millions more besides

raymondparker

Unless I am mistaken, (because I am not that familiar with you and your posts), and you merely forgot the <sarc> to your 5.11 comment; that is the most hysterically, lame-assed, ridiculous thing I have heard today.... thanks for the laugh!

kam, thankyou for that

I dont mind teachers being paid a fair wage, what I do mind is not being able to get rid of bad teachers.

I have a few people that I work with that I know are bad employees. Unfortunately, getting enough information together that would constitute a fireable offense is a different thing. I don't work for a union or with union employees. We're a non profit home health company (nurses, administrators). We can't afford to just fire someone, pay our portion of thier unemployment (you need to have documentation that the individual did something to get fired to avoid paying thier unemployment in OH) and the salary and training for a replacement.

Steve-2081387:

If the administrators would get off their lazy asses, and do the job for which they are being paid, there wouldn't be very many crappy teachers. Any contract involving teachers has dismissal procedures that have been negotiated. It is up to the administrators to follow those procedures. If they don't, blame them, not the teachers or their union. Blame the most highly-paid person in your school district for those "bad" teachers you are talking about.

Steve: You mean like the @ 4,000 ones in NYC who go to "work" every day, sit in special rooms reading, drinking coffee, doing bills, etc. while their union refuses to allow the administration to fire them even though they are inept & some not even functionally literate?

(Source: "60" Minutes" @ 4 yrs. ago.)

BTW, I remember back in the 90's when the Baltimore City Schools had to administer competency exams to new teachers to see if they could even teach. So much for a college degree! A full 30% of college bound students today have to be remediated even before ATTEMPTING college level work. ( Source: CNBC)

What ever happened to that old saying about, "College Material?"

I remember back in the 90's when the Baltimore City Schools had to administer competency exams to new teachers to see if they could even teach

I remember when every state in the country has been administering exams for teacher certification for decades.

I remember when lawyers had to pass a bar exam before being able to practice law.

V. Bevis

I saw that piece about the teachers union in New York, evidently its easier to build a nuclear bomb out of lego's than to get rid of a NY City teacher, and that goes for the school janitors too.

Steve & Bevis:

WI is much more fortunate than those of us in CA. There was a scathing report in the LA Times noting how many teachers failed to teach accounting for race, wealth, following students through subsequent teachers.

The unions had a fit. Of course, the unions would never offer an alternative to weed out these poor teachers. All they would do is dismiss the report as "biased."We have the highest paid teachers in the US and get mediocre results or worse. We're $26B in the hole and have only Dems in our gov.

When the pension bombs explode, maybe bankruptcy is our only hope.

jawill #6.5 "I remember when every state in the country has been administering exams for teacher certification for decades. I remember when lawyers had to pass a bar exam before being able to practice law."

Yeah? Wanna bet on the certification? Right now I know of a man who graduated a small, prestigious college who hasn't gotten a job in 3 yrs. His degree is in Political Science. He just told hubby that he's going to be teaching in.........get this...........Washington, D.C.

Want another story? A number of yrs. ago, Philadelphia Schools couldn't get enough teachers to teach in the inner city, so they recruited them from India. Wonder how that worked out? Never did hear? (Philadelphia Inquirer)

BTW, as a graduate nurse, I had to also pass state exams & get so many C.E. credits much like teachers do. I kept my job by practicing outstanding nursking skills & patient care. And I did it without a union.

When you have kids graduating from high school who cant read, there is a problem.

Yeah? Wanna bet on the certification?

Yes. No Child Left Behind requires that public teachers be certified. A noncertified teacher can begin to teach, but must pass certification within a few years. This allows people from non-education background to enter the profession. Before NCLB, most states had been requiring certification for decades.

I have known people who have been fired as teachers because they were never able to pass the certification exam.

I thought you could be an adjunct without certification

I thought you could be an adjunct without certification

Each district handles adjunct certification differently. Many still require some sort of certification. Under NCLB, adjunct teachers are not "highly qualified" and can be used in specific capacities, many times part-time or temporary only.

Oh no. They'll loudly claim they're not attacking the teachers, but the teachers' unions who are corrupting and damaging teachers. Then, once those unions are destroyed, they'll institute a bunch of changes that their business focus groups have recommended, over the objections of the teachers. They'll do it because, well, clearly the teachers aren't effective and what is needed here is some clear thinking and tough love. And to pay for all those consultants and focus groups and other corporate leeches, they'll have to cut some teachers, increase class sizes, cut programs (but not sports!) and everyone will have to tighten their belts. Except, you know, them, because raising taxes to pay for their programs is wrong.

Then they'll close the underperforming schools, not bothering to open replacements. Class sizes will increase. And they'll offer up charter schools, with four color glossy brochures and a for profit structure, where the curriculum is carefully gaged to pass the standards test, no thinking necessary. And everything will magically work in the ultra-free market paradise, where parents can shop their kids around from school to school, with no recourse to fix a broken charter school, because there's no responsibility beyond the principle and profits. Test scores will stabilize, but no one will graduate prepared for college or a good job, and many will graduate without knowing how to read.

You may call this a fantasy. I call it Arizona.

The purpose of the attacks is not to attack the teachers. That's too obvious. It is to attack the only method the teachers, highly paid professionals with post-bachelor's educations, have to actually influence the conditions under which they educate.

Teachers have an annoying habit on insisting on actually paying for education. Class sizes don't go up or down magically. They go up when there are fewer teachers per child. Reducing class size is equally easy: hire more teachers. But the GOP doesn't want more teachers. They want lower taxes and corporate leaches to strip off what tax funding is there. So they attack the teachers' unions.

Yep.

They are too dense to realize that people noticed they exempted the Police and Firefighters (who came down on the side of the people anyway)

Police and Firefighters are not allowed to strike because they are emergency personnel.

waffle and clark - it's not lost on the Wisconsin police and fire unions that just because they are spared at present, that union busting politicians won't come for them in the future; as a matter of fact, police and fire unions attracted negative political attention because they support teacher unions and because it's noticed that police and fire unions are not happy that teacher union activity has been criminalized

btw, police and fire union pension costs do not cost less than teacher pension costs and I heard or read somewhere that police/fire pension costs are higher for states than teacher pensions - this whole union busting sitch is far from over in part due to disparate treatment of the unions

Brian, please source one person that has called the teachers evil.

Drizzey. LOL, you don't recognize sarcasm. I thought Brian was brilliant.

No, I recognized what he was trying to do. However I'd still like to see anyone find where anyone on the right has demonized teachers.

Um they did on Faux news last night. Yea I know, I don't usually watch it but wanted to know what there take was on it. Should I give you the details of the words they used "entitlements, overpaid, way over paid, too many benefits".

They used all sorts of words however, they left Governor Walkers line out about them being "bottom feeders". Watch Faux news tonight and see what they have to say about all these overpaid bottom feeders, and I do believe MOST of the broadcaster are on the "right".

Should I give you the details of the words they used "entitlements, overpaid, way over paid, too many benefits".

And how is that demonizing teachers?

Governor Walkers line out about them being "bottom feeders".

Source?

google "bottom feeders". LOL. You hadn't heard that one huh? Actually I think it started from Rush but caught on.........

I couldn't find anywhere that Scott Walker called anyone bottom feeders.

That's because he didn't....nor did FOX bad mouth teachers any night last week. They DID talk about how the unions prevent the districts from getting rid of ineffective teachers, and how over-compensated they are (NOT overpaid, over compensated meaning benefits and pensions far, far out of line with the general public), and the so-called "bottom feeders" they referred to were NOT the teachers, but the "slags" the unions brought in from out of state to bolster the numbers of protesters.

Good heavens people, if you cannot present real facts, with real evidence, to support your arguments......then you are left with nothing but your empty rhetoric.

Drizzey

Brian, please source one person that has called the teachers evil.

Ok...

This is why I don't like teachers, administrators and school board members, for they are soulless cash whores! Teachers have been vampires when sucking the emotion out its community so that they can fatten their wallets and curb their occupational responsibilities.

Driftwood did.

Now colodomom...

The word "evil" is not actually in that text... I'm sure there are some very non-evil "soulless cash whores" and "vampires" out there.[/sarc]

DL--

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021811/content/01125106.guest.html

We always hear about Tea Party temper tantrums, voter temper tantrums. Here we have one. We have a genuine, petulant, immature, tireless bunch of bottom-feeder freeloaders acting in a temper tantrum. The unions in Washington are hiding behind "the children," the unions in Wisconsin are hiding behind "the children." They're using children as human shields, just like leftists and terrorists always do. Whoa! How else would you describe this? I have to admit, I'm seeing all these demonstrators and the kind of people involved... Now, I don't really hope this but I'm saying this to make a point. What would happen if the unions win and Governor Walker's reforms get defeated?

Unless Rush Limbaugh's OWN WEBSITE isn't REAL EVIDENCE of what he said to you.

sheesh...

...calling it "empty rhetoric" while on a thread that is NOTHING BUT empty rhetoric. A thread that was seeded to gather and display rhetoric like some twisted rancid moldy meat shop from a horror movie.

Driftwood--

I quoted what you said in THIS thread.

Please explain how quoting what YOU YOURSELF said is off topic or nonsense.

Start deleting my non-COH violation posts and I'll be reporting YOU.

Colo - threatening the seeder for no reason??? WOW! I'll be reporting YOU, too.

YOU posted it in YOUR very first comment.

I realize you put it in "quotations" and it originally came from the article (so I guess the author of that article called the teachers soulless cash whores and vampires too) But you wanted it read enough to make it YOUR FIRST COMMENT here.

Splitting hairs now aren't we. You know, I'M NOT THE TOPIC of this thread either.

I second that...Kjm

Post number 1. I recognize that it is a quote from the article, but you didn't put it in quotes. So if someone didn't read the link, it would appear as you were saying it. It is interesting that you picked that paragraph though. Do you agree with it?

Thirded...

That little line to the left of the text in comment one? As always, that means the entire comment is a quote. It's proper use of the html "blockquote" attribute and looks like:

this.

khmgirl--

Please show where I threatened a seeder.

I said if she deletes a comment that isn't a COH violation, I'll be reporting her.

That's not a threat and it isn't meant to be a threat. It's what I will do. Report me all you want. I never attacked Driftwood...I attacked what she chose as her first comment here. I know you will disagree, but there is a difference.

Yep...some on the right are all about free speech, until they disagree...then it's DELETE!

nice.

I believe she quoted what you quoted from the article YOU seeded. Obviously you agree with it, or you wouldn't have led your seed with the quote... (so no, you didn't come up with the quote, you just repeated it)

Either way. It's a quote from your article and NOT off topic. But don't let that stop you from deleting it anyway.

(#1.1... Don't pretend you have no idea what she's talking about.)

kmj... nobody likes a tattletale.

Don't you people have jobs?--

I'm used to it now. This happens everytime I disagree with the rhetoric in one of these threads.

I'm not wasting anymore time on this one. I'm outta here so the opinion massage fest can continue without me...

grin.

cya!

Driftwood--

I never attacked you personally, only your first comment in this thead. But you, and a few others sure attacked ME didn't you.

For someone who writes nothing but rightwing opinion pieces, you sure seem to get awfully upset when someone calls what you post the rhetoric it is.

Thin skin.

Don't worry, I'm gone. cya!

Who's "lying"? I just said that you quoted the article.. did I not?

It is a quote from the SEEDED ARTICLE, not MY ARTICLE

Are you saying that you are NOT in agreement with this article?

Take back what you said, as you admit that they were not my words, and apologize - or leave.

Now you get to choose who is and is not allow to be a part of YOUR seed?

.

Now why don't you apologize to me for calling ME a liar. Or leave.

(Isn't calling someone a liar without justification against the CofH?)

Driftwood1

Yeah, cya.

Easier to run away than to admit you lied and apologize.

We got that.

Seriously...playground insults. How mature.

Show me where I "lied" and stated those were YOUR words. I said you posted it as your first comment.

Funny, but you agreed with the comment enough to not only seed this thread, but to quote it as your first comment.

Now you have a problem with someone point it out.

I NEVER LIE.

Ok, I really mean it this time...I'm outta here.

Hey Colodomom.....

My comments were directed ONLY in reply to comments made about the FNC coverage from last week. I do not listen to Limbaugh, I have no clue what Limbaugh said, and I was not defending Limbaugh in any measure whatsoever.
I don't like Limbaugh much. I also do not believe that I have ever defended him in this forum, at any time over the last 2+ years I've been here. I could be wrong about that, but again....I don't listen to him so....I cannot see myself defending him, in any manner.
Additionally, the "he" I was referring to in my posting was Gov. Scott Walker, not Rush Limbaugh. I never heard HIM (Walker) refer to TEACHERS as bottom feeders....only the slags from the Teamsters that were brought in from out-of-state.

Hope that clears my involvement up.....

Thanks!

Attacking and stomping on the Constitutional rights of the people

What constitutional right is being trampled on clarke!

The right to "Bargain"? LOL!

You haven't even seen "trample" yet.

You're about to.

You haven't even seen "trample" yet.

You're about to.

Meaning please!

Just make something up. Your side is good at that. Like this article for instance.

Just make something up

Come on!

I know you have a thought in there somewhere, about what you meant!

Are we on "Truth or Dare"? Where's the camara's? "looking all around"

Did he say "It's not about Children, it's about Power"?

You have that in quotes driftwood.

Were those his words or not?

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. Would a union not be protected under the right to assembly? How about the right to petition the government for redress?

The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals.

Nobody is stopping anybody from being able to petition!

Would a union not be protected under the right to assembly? How about the right to petition the government for redress?

Hmmm, who is saying people cannot assemble? Who is preventing someone to petition the government.

The only "First Amendment Rights" I see being stomped on Clark and PDub are the Union Members who were forced to join the Union or not have a job. They are forced to belong - though I guess the First Amendment does not specifically say "The Right Not To Assemble"....

You Constitutional Lawyers are a hoot. I see Clark has 16 thumbs up at the moment for throwing out an incoherent argument for debate. We must not have the Progressive decoder ring those 16 have.

Clarke

Did you actually 'click' on the YouTube site provided on this seed? I do believe unless my hearing 'ain't what it used to be' that Bobby did actually say that. lol

Your comment, "Attacking unions who created every benefit you now enjoy is the height of hypocrisy"... please define 'you' here because it certainly isn't me....

If you want to teach and don't want to join a union you can go to several southern states. What part of the argument was incoherent? While I take it to mean that the current benefits like 5 day work weeks, time and a half over 40 hours, several federal holidays off, OSHA, unemployment benefits, etc were what he meant the argument isn't incoherent. Maybe incomplete or lacking reference but hardly incoherent. I thought most conservatives thought unions were an entity needed in the past. Would you then need a regressive decoder ring?

Attacking the Unions who created every benefit you now enjoy is the height of hypocrisy.

Every benefit I now enjoy...lmfao. Well, I guess when one's losing an argument, the best thing to do is make some crazy @!$%# up.

I'm a self-employed consultant. I'm very good at what I do, so I charge a lot for my services. I wouldn't sign up to nor work a 40-hour week if you forced me to (sometimes I work 20 hours, sometimes 60, and I get paid for every minute I spend actually working). I don't demand to be paid when I'm not in the office actually working (whether vacationing or sick). I don't extort my customers for free health insurance, nor do I ask that they pay for my retirement. I don't have tenure - if I screw something up tomorrow that costs my customer a bunch of $, they could have me out the door before lunch. And I'd deserve it.

Where do these public sector unions benefit me again?

PDub,

If you want to teach and don't want to join a union you can go to several southern states.

Oh I see, so in the past if I did not want to be a Slave - all I had to do is move from those Southern States up North. I get it, but what about my family - what about where I grew up? I have to move to avoid being forced "to assemble and have money taken from my paychecks..." and keep a job in my field. How Pro-Choice of them.....

What part of the argument was incoherent? While I take it to mean that the current benefits like 5 day work weeks, time and a half over 40 hours, several federal holidays off, OSHA, unemployment benefits, etc were what he meant the argument isn't incoherent. Maybe incomplete or lacking reference but hardly incoherent. I thought most conservatives thought unions were an entity needed in the past. Would you then need a regressive decoder ring?

No PDub I do not need a regressive decoder ring. I know exactly what the Unions of the past did for the Workers in America. Thank ALL of you who were in the Unions back then fighting for the American Worker because of you - safe working conditions and making a livable wage for reasonable time and effort are now possible. Now that we are in the future and that Generation has long gone - what do the Unions represent today other than a Political Wing of the Democratic Party.

Unions no longer protect people from 50 cents a day - we have Minimum Wage Laws in this Country.

Unions no longer protect people from forced 40+ hours per week or forced 7 day work weeks. We do have laws passed since those days.

Unions no longer protect people from unsafe work conditions - we do have OSHA

Unions no longer protect people from just about all the crap Unions say they protect us from because they are parroting the PAST that no longer applies and they know it.

And again, for the ten thousandth time...public sector unions aren't the same as private sector labor unions. Not the same ballgame, not the same animal, not the same at all.

There are a @!$%#-ton of us out here that support the ability for workers in the private sector to unionize - but for them to do so in order to "protect workers from their employer, the taxpayer"...sigh. No thank you.

I can't wait to drive my UAW-built (hand built, in the case of the motor) Ford product home this evening. Hopefully I can turn on my TV and hear about more Governors doing the exact same thing as was done in Wisconsin.

don't extort my customers for free health insurance

Actually as a believer in the fact that everyone should have health care. Isn't it a little slanted to consider health care being extorted from the state?

I don't demand to be paid when I'm not in the office actually working (whether vacationing or sick).

This is generally called vacation, or personal time. And, most over worked people get this. It's so they don't drop dead from being overworked. But, as a SELF-EMPLOYED worker you don't know anything about being overworked.

Rob you have all the leanings of a True American Patriot, who protects their own self interest, but expects that all the lower paid workers not get any benefits or any other perks that you yourself enjoy daily. You actually sound strongly corporatist.

I don't believe everyone should have every single procedure known to man covered as any sort of "right", no. As an obviously over the top example, consider some currently unemployed (through no fault of their own) fool that smoked their whole life - do they really have a "right" to a lung transplant so that they can live another 9 months if they have lung cancer that may be moving to other organs? I don't think so. Some folks do. That's beside the point. Guess what - if they can afford it, there are probably (and always will probably be) physicians that will perform the procedure - they just collect up front. Maybe they should double the cost of cigarettes (again) and deposit half that money in a HSA for the smoker.

Isn't it a little slanted to consider health care being extorted from the state?

I'm not ever going to walk off my job if my customer won't pay my health care insurance premium (or what I feel they should pay). There are other folks that feel this is A-OK behavior. I'm not one of them.

Overworked? You're the only one implying that here. I've never said I'm overworked. When I need a vacation, I take a few months off in between contracts - or I send my supervisor on-site here an e-mail and say "dude, I need some time off". Sometimes he says "you need it, no worries". Sometimes he says "we've got a deadline, can it wait?" I ahve a pretty good sense of what's going on, so it's usually the former not the latter. I save, I budget, and I make it work. I don't rely on some employer to pay me for not working, that's for sure.

I have missed 80ish hours of work lately due to a pretty serious medical condition that was surgically resolved last week. It's been tough, not having that revenue coming in the door as a result of my work product - but guess what, my family's not spending their way out of another deficit. We tighten our belts, spend less and do less, and move on.

Perks that I enjoy daily? Which perks are you addressing, specifically again?

Also, for the thousand-and-oneth time now, those lower (or higher) paid workers in the private sector, absolutely they should (and can) unionize if they so desire. Betty over in the steno pool who works for the Dee Emm Vee? I don't think her public sector union benefits the taxpayers. I think they work in a fashion opposed to taxpayer interest many times.

Sad, since in many cases the taxpayers are not only their employers, but their customers too.

P.S. Going to get around to answering this part of my comment, or continue to ignore it?

Where do these public sector unions benefit me again?

Where do these public sector unions benefit me again?

It's not ALWAYS ALL ABOUT YOU.

And, it has nothing to do with how it benefits you or anyone else. But, these State, and Federal jobs, alot of the times are jobs no one has ever wanted UNTIL now all of a sudden they are the worst offenders of the States shortfalls. Unfortunately, alot of these jobs no one has wanted....specifically United Postal Service, low pay, okay benefits. Or, State workers like corrections officers. They are not paid very well for what they do, and now thanks to this obscenity of Governor Walker, they have to take a cut of $500. a month cut in pay. Do you have to take a cut in pay because a politician suddenly decided YOU were overpaid and had to many benefits? I think NOT.

The problems WITH the States and their shortfalls is they have a Revenue problem. And, specifically it is because of all the Bush Tax Credits which gives excessive Tax credits to companies that are not paying their fair share. As Warren Buffet stated "Susie, my secretary is in a higher tax bracket than this entire corporation or I am". That is the BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR to the revenue shortfalls, NOT THE HOURLY WAGE EARNER. Put the blame where it belongs. And, they can also start by stopping the subsidies to all these oil corporations like the Koch brothers have......... They pay NO TAXES.

It's not ALWAYS ALL ABOUT YOU.

When I'm stating my opinion about how this affects me personally, it actually is.

Wow, how many deflections can you get into a single post?

I am personally working for less than I did a year ago (actually, around $35 an hour less, believe it or not). I'm even working for less than I did last time I contracted with the exact same customer I'm working for now ($2 an hour). Why? Uh...duh, the economy. My market value didn't diminish - but frankly, I had to consider options that weren't palatable a year or two earlier.

Everyone is cutting back. Well, unless the unions get their way, then they will be getting raises. If any of them haven't actually taken cuts in pay like many folks in industry have, I have basically zero sympathy. Zero, with 4 capital letters.

The states are getting @!$%#hammered because they aren't collecting a ton of property taxes that they forecast (forclosure mess) and income taxes that they projected collecting (the unemployed). Because the criminals on Wall Street and their enablers Fannie, Freddie, Barney and Dodd have sucked a ton of money out of the economy and they flat out refuse to give it up. I bet you and I agree somewhat on that point.

When you talk about the "Bush Tax Credits", weren't those to individuals? Aren't we under the same tax rates now (i.e., the "Obama Tax Cuts")?

I agree wholeheartedly 100% that any corporation making $0.10 of profit in this country should NEVER be in a position to pay no taxes. That giant companies like B of A and Exxon don't pay any taxes - it's insane.

And whose fault is it? The people that keep electing the same douchebags to Congress. Congress passes the laws that create the loopholes these Corporations waltz through - you and I (and 300 million other folks) just keep electing them...sigh. It's just yet another reason why I'm in favor of term limits.

When you talk about the "Bush Tax Credits", weren't those to individuals? Aren't we under the same tax rates now (i.e., the "Obama Tax Cuts")?

Actually you are partially right there, but it also gives Corporations the biggest tax break of all. The peoples tax break is just pennies compared to the corporate tax breaks. Seems to always work that way, in Corporate America doesn't it?

That giant companies like B of A and Exxon don't pay any taxes - it's insane.

You are right again. Did you know just this week, that Bank of America with their record profits, PAID NO TAXES at all? All because of those wonderful out of the country bank shelters. The wonders of it all, considering Bank of America has been investigated for foreclosing on homes, without cause, and not offering modifications to help out the home owners who were struggling..

The people that keep electing the same douchebags to Congress.

And, third time is the charm! Term limits and a more literate voter would work for me.

That they can still even use the word "America" in their name makes me want to puke, aye. We as a country should have some say in that, IMO.

Happy Friday!

clarke ong

Did he say "It's not about Children, it's about Power"?

You have that in quotes driftwood.

Were those his words or not?

Still no answer for this one?

--- crickets ---

It really was - I ended up basically sleeping most of the weekend...:)

Post-surgical blues for the win...er...loss of a weekend...:)

Unions guard the rights of workers.

Do Republicans guard the rights of workers?

You need to examine which side you're on.

Driftwood: It will be, just wait for it. That's where it always leads.

The union definitely has problems, but it's the only defense the teachers have. Abolishing the unions in NOT the answer. Cleaning house and making those in charge of the unions honest and accountable is.

Unions guard the rights of workers.

Utter nonsense. Unions guard the rights of there own liberal political special interests. Period

EEOC and 10 million attorneys, NOW guard the rights of workers.

What?

One out of every 30 Americans is an attourney?

Wow!

clarke - this convo that you are engaged in reminds me of a convo about the number of angels on the tip of a pin: it's going nowhere and getting there at break neck speed

And the EPA protects the environment. Except when it doesn't, like when a pro multi national corporate stooge is put in charge.

Except when Republican (bush) administration strips it of enforcement power.

You see, it COST too much to clean up the environment. Takes profit away from the businesses that crap on it.

Fools.

What earlier words driftwood?

Did he say "It's not about children, it's about power"? Because thats what you claimed he said.

What does it say about you when you have to resort to distortion to make a point?

You mean he didn't ACTUALLY say "The reason we are EFFECTIVE is that we have power"?

You're sticking to your guns and saying that his actual words (which you have in quotes) were

"It's not about the children, it's about power"?

You're being disingenous on this in order to score some kind of "point" when the truth is that the context of his statements show EXTREME concern for the children.

In my opinion, you are flat out lying. And this seems to be quite common in your articles.

So the video is taken completely out of context if you take the time to view his whole speech, and he was INTENTIONALLY misquoted here to promote a particular point of view. What he said is absolutely true. Of course a Union is about power. Why exist if you have no power to act upon? The Union exists to represent the teachers, the teachers, and more importantly the schools, are there for the kids. It's like saying the UAW is there to represent the car buyer. It doesn't make sense.

That is deception with intent to mislead if I've ever seen it.

Notice how these types of seeds are usually thrown up here on Fridays, so the NV mods won't see them until Monday?

good luck with that education cirriculum. the only situation worse,or comparably worse would be. maddows, mahre,matthews,bezinsky,and the hollywood set. if you listen to the three you mentioned,and any of the rest. a teacher could not be paid enough to teach you.

thug, thug,

thug, thug,

thug, thug,

thug, thug,

thug, thug,

blah, blah, blah. Why don't you give the talking points a rest, Ryan.

Brian, I see you're still working for the union as a paid blogger...

Nothing like and honest union wage......lol

how about the former 6-7 figure. sacrificial lambs on wall street. that for the first time. have to pay real taxes. are judged on their performance. instead o who's butt they can kiss. had to move from the hampton's to queens. running the teaparty. thugs!

Rather 'thuggish' comment by Brian, I must say. lol

Brian, I see you're still working for the union as a paid blogger...

Nothing like and honest union wage......lol

Oh no, Ryan. I'm a THUG!!!!!!!!

Brian, do you ever bring anything of value to the table?

Brian probably right now is organizing his little union buddies to collapse this seed....

buddies

Don't you mean thugs?

Thugs, thugs, thugs, thugs, thugs, thugs,

Thugs, thugs, thugs, thugs, thugs, thugs....................thugs!

This exactly why you should get an education.......

Ryan

Brian, do you ever bring anything of value to the table?

You beat me to it, I dont think Ive ever seen this guy make an intelligent post, its always some smart ass mindless comment. Brian, if you have something intelligent to say, then say it, if not, go play with your X box and let the adults talk.

I dont think Ive ever seen this guy make an intelligent post, its always some smart ass mindless comment.

Long time listener, first time caller, Steve? Hi.

Thanks for proving my point.

Brian is a prime example of an out of work union worker. He has nothing to do but complain about how an unskilled worker should get paid $75k a year.

I've never been out of work, Ryan. Do not belong to a union.

Last year I made 83k.

You're good at this, buddy.

So by internet terms, you made around 41K...wow pretty successful. I love when people try to make claims about how much they make over the internet......

Look everyone.....Big Bad Brian is rich.....

Big Bad Brian is rich.....

Ha!

Uh, wasn't lying about my pay, but oh well.

Yeah okay buddy...wink wink

but just not power to the people

DEBEKI - WHAT FRIGIN PEOPLE?

12 out of 100?........That's the damn percentage of Union employment, and that is falling. Knock of the "worker" or "people" metaphors as if they are the entire US, living, dead and unborn. It is a liberal mantra, that is so over used.

Unions have people, non unions have people, You do not have ownership to that term any more than you have ownership to any semblance of national support for the extortion you engage in. Gheesh.

Bet you didn't watch the link Braveheart - because if you did that's not all you would have had to say.

You accuse me of extortion - that's just so freaking funny - well, actually your whole post made me double over with laughter cramps. Your mantra has gotten older than mine - your mantra has been going on since the first cave-man smack his first date over the head and dragged her into the cave for a little bit of "over-time" without even a "thank-you ma'am"

My mantra has only been around since Moses decided to stand up to the Pharoah and say "F" you, Ramsey, we ain't taking the sh1t any more...

When I read your kind of rhetorical prose, I am remind of George W. Bush speech to the wealthy - "Some people call you the have's and the have mores. I call you my constituents".....

very astute observation. i think the problem with public education. is it is run by the government.

Who would you have run it?

Who would you have run it?

Why Corporations of course! They would streamline it and make Education run as a profitable business, especially if they can get tax breaks or government subsidies for doing so.

Alternately everybody should just be Home Schooled, because after all who is more capable of teaching the knowledge required to function in the modern world than the previous generation?

Boomer:

I've been educated in CA BEFORE CBAs were approved by Jerry Brown. Now all we have is $26B in debt and the highest paid teachers in the US that can't be fired short of a sex scandal.

If you want to draw a conclusion in CA education, DO NOT thank the unions. Condemn them.

boomer YOU might only know education post-unionization, but some of us remember when a High School Education could get you into a great university WITHOUT taking remedial reading and math at community college FIRST

ima,

Let's address the problems with unions instead of riding roughshod over tax paying, hardworking, union members. No compromise?

kjmgirl,

Nah... I'm old. I don't blame the unions for that, I blame parents.

Boomer:

It's typically the unions that won't compromise, hence the problems in CA. There's also the example of the NJ mayor who fired near half the cops because THEY wouldn't compromise. And btw, there are many many more tax paying NON-UNION members.

boomer - if you blame the parents because the kids can't read or write then we might as well just ditch the whole educational system and go back to the days of Abe Lincoln teachin himself his letters by candlelight. WTF do we have schools FOR if it's the parent's responsibility to teach the kids? Hey, that works for ME. My kids are out of school and on their own. Eliminate schools and I save a boatload of cash on school taxes.

kjm,

I made sure I was involved in my daughter's school every year. I did not leave it up solely for the teachers. I fed her well so she could learn. I made sure she was properly rested. She and I went over homework every night. My thoughts were not to let teachers have all the responsibility-it was also mine.

I blame parents for thinking teachers are babysitters.

You're right, boomer - that's the way it used to be. And no, teachers are NOT babysitters. The irony that I find is when the teachers complain that they are underpaid because of their VAST amount of education - degrees, continuing ed courses, etc - and STILL expect parents - who may not even be high school graduates - to help their children with homework. My 12 year old niece needed help with her math the other day and even though I am a college grad myself, I didn't have a CLUE what ridiculous method they were using - but it didn't look like anything I ever learned!

kjm,

Did you see 60 minutes last night? The school in Was. Hgts. N.Y. where teachers are being paid 125,000. a year. It is a public school. No other benefits. You don't succeed, you are canned. With just a year under their belt, results aren't conclusive

I think teachers should be paid well for their education. Just like others with higher ed. Plus, they are teaching our future.

If you don't have the resources to help your child in school, you find one. To be an effective parent you don't have to know everything, you just have to care about education.

Actually I DID see that last night. I think it is a brilliant concept. The one thing that stood out to me is that the Principal made it clear that it IS possible to quantify how well a TEACHER is doing his/her job. That is something that the teachers unions have said is impossible to do - usually citing the fact that they can't "choose" their own students. In this case, these students were all from poor neighborhoods, and lots of them had fallen far behind.

Since this school is only 4 & 5 grade, the public education system has had about 4 years to lose these kids so I think it's only fair to give the school a few years and see how it goes.

ABout finding the resources to help you kids - that's fine and dandy if you can afford a tutor - but most families are just getting by. If I am paying school taxes, I expect the SCHOOLS to provide the resources.

kjm, We needed help once (girls and math),could not afford tutor, but between what the school could provide and family members we made it work. I agree, the school is responsible also for remedial resources. Good talking with you...FR sent--hope you accept.

FR absolutely accepted.

Sure.

Make education a "for profit" ordeal.

That ought to make for "quality" education huh?

Hmmmm.....How can we squeeze a little more profit out of this venture? That teacher pay and those new science book costs are KILLING us!

Hey, I've got an idea! We could use computer classrooms and hire teachers from India!

Keep drinking the beirbart koolaid and eating his kookies and kakes. For ya'alls sake I hope ya are in the top 2% of income earners. Pathetic.

It can be 'for profit' or it can be 'for kids' it will never be both. If you had to bet..which one would you pick private industry will choose? For that matter if you become a big investor in this private industry..which one will you pick?

Just REMOVE the unions and privatize the whole deal.

Then and only then will it be 'for the children'.

Yeah, Jerr when I think of teaching our children, I think of Corporations.

US History, 9am in classroom 2b, teacher: Mr. Haliburton.

The mindset that has the middle class fighting the middle class is scary.

Scary is an understatement.

Driftwood, unless you dine regularly with the Koch Brothers, you are sh-tting where you live and that is never a good idea

She is also @!$%#ting on all those around her. I wonder if she is working for a right wing propaganda machine, because I find it impossible to believe anyone is unable to recognize the stuff she seeds is nothing but b.s; and so damaging to our country if she can get others to repeat the outrageous misstatements and faulty conclusions. Oh and to demonize everyone around her; neighbors, friends and family.

do you actually believe the crap that comes out of your mouth ? 82% of all public schools are failing, if anyone is getting @!$%# on it's the kids.

You're right, let's just close all the 'failing' schools and then the kids will um... will uhh... will...

Hint: running public education like a corporation doesn't work. You can't just cut your losses, you need to improve what you have. Unless you want to bus kids halfway across the country every morning.

Where do you get your "facts" facts from Bushwack? Are your kids getting $%%& on? Are they incapable of doing math, reading, writing and getting into college? Why or why not? Please let us know. We have some of the best schools in the country in my state but our governor is trying to tell us otherwise because he wants to give lots of money to for-profit schools that have been heavily supported by investors looking to make a profit in construction of charter schools. Guess where the governor gets his campaign money from? Yes, we have schools where kids are not learning. Those are the same schools where kids live on the street, have drug addicted or incarcerated parents, where gangs run rampant, and where kids are lucky when there is something that resembles dinner on the table at night. Bushwack - I bet your kids could beat those kids. no matter who taught them. Who will you credit or blame for that?

jacq24-my wife homeschools our kids, because of how bad our public schools are , my oldest son went to school in vegas while he was living with his mother. (my EX) when he came to live with me and my wife they had passed him to the ninth grade, my wife gave him a couple of compatency tests and low and behold, he had a third grade education, when asked how this could happen the school told us it was because he showed up every day , so because he showed up every day they had to pass him, so don't tell me public schools are great. public school sucks big time.

It's not that tough to figure it out folks !

Less "social engineering " "Brittney has 65 mommies and a groovy gerbil" or "Health Care Songs "

Less teachers PROGRESSING into Clinton's , with their students

Less "broke back Mountain Movies"

More , history , Economics , etc etc etc

And at least ONE less Ward Churchill.............................

Bushwacker - Sorry your ex-wife screwed up your kid. Maybe you should have attended a few parent teacher's conferences or talked to your child sometime before he reached 9th grade. It might have made a difference.

I see public educated kids all the time. They volunteer at the non-profit I work at. They attend state colleges and the Ivy League college in my state. Most of them are from my state and were educated in our schools. They are bright, educated, productive, accomplished, and caring adults who give back to their community. Somehow they managed to be all this after having attended public school. My guess is it was because of the support their parents gave them. I say this because the volunteer work they do is mentoring kids who attend school in one of the worst urban districts of my state as well as mentoring some who attend one of the best schools.

But they all share ONE thing in common. They are kids whose parents either can't or won't provide for their basic needs never mind making sure their homework is done. Many of these kids attended the very same public schools as the college kids who are mentoring them. You tell me how this is the school or the teachers' fault.

Jacq-24 - the kids you mention are the exception , not the rule, teachers today have the attitude if you don't want to learn , well then I can't teach you, back in 1977 I had a math teacher on the first day of school tell the class that if you want to learn fine if not put your head on the desk an take a nap, is this the way teachers are supposed to teach ? and I do agree it takes two parents to raise an intelligent child, and your remark about not being more involved in my sons education was uncalled for , you do not know the circumstances behind my sons upbringing so please keep your snyde comments to yourself.

Well... there's a little hypocrisy for you...

Jacq doesn't know the circumstances behind the reason for you/your son's educational failure, so he should keep his "snyde comments" to himself. But, of course, YOU know the reason behind everyone else's?

teachers today have the attitude if you don't want to learn , well then I can't teach you, back in 1977 I had a math teacher on the first day of school tell the class that if you want to learn fine if not put your head on the desk an take a nap, is this the way teachers are supposed to teach ?

And no, that's not the way teachers are supposed to teach. But THAT is the exception and not the rule... I went to school in the 70's and 80's and had nothing but exceptional public school teachers (across two different states, mind you)

Except that isn't what he said, and if you cared to do anything other than defend your lame position, you would know it.

Clarke,

That is exactly what he said. AFTER we get our top pay, we'll worry about the children.

That is exactly what he said. AFTER we get our top pay, we'll worry about the children

You're not concerned about your pay at your job, Felicite?