Teachers and Democrats Head for Divorce

[proud2BlibKansan]

25 July, 2010
Countercurrents.org

It’s best to quickly recognize the red flags in any failing relationship. This way, ties can be severed instead of allowing things to linger forever in dysfunction. For Democrats and teachers’ unions, the writing is on the wall. The two are simply going in opposite directions.

The Democrats continue on the road to corporate-inspired charter schools, using the tried and true method of “stronger teacher evaluations” to undermine “underperforming” schools and teachers — thus opening the door wide to private charter schools with their non-union workforce.

Obama’s Race to the Top education “reform” has enshrined these odious goals into government policy, and the once love-struck teachers’ unions have hastily exited the honeymoon stage with the Obama administration, heading toward a quick divorce.

Rank and file teachers have already quit the Obama administration, and by extension the Democrats as a whole. Evidence of this was on display during the national conventions of the two largest teacher unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

More ... http://www.countercurrents.org/cooke250710.htm

[ZombieHorde]

1. Chess master. nt

[slay]

20. chess master.....

bater. :P

[ZombieHorde]

23. Chess is a sexy game. nt

[phasma ex machina]

28. How much chess would a woodchuck check if a woodchuck could check chess? nt

[liberation]

281. As long as you are not a peon...

;-)

[ibegurpard]

2. Healthcare "reform" round 2

and people still question why I can't support them?

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. MTE

Great minds and all.

[Skittles]

35. healthcare reform, education reform, Wall Street reform

it's all the same half-assed shit, heavily influenced by repukes

[Psephos]

59. D House, D Senate, D WH

There has not been an alignment of the planets like this for a long time, yet it's being largely squandered.

[Skittles]

62. they are pissing it down the drain

[Ishoutandscream2]

227. Yep!

[BlueJac]

238. Looks like the 2012 disaster!

Or just the biggest fucking joke in American history!

[LibDemAlways]

305. They're only interested in helping the corporations and those who

run them. No one in Washington cares about ordinary people. If they did, they'd be passing single payer health care, putting people back to work, and investing in projects that would improve American life. Instead we've got half-assed health insurance "reform," bailouts for bankers, and no jobs for the masses. If the American people woke up and cleaned house, there would be hope. Right now, we're not represented at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Lost generation

[Hardrada]

40. Lost civilization.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Nah, we do this stupidity every so often

but in the meantime we will lose anywhere from one to two generations of kids... and there goes that competitive edge.

Notice how English published over the last ten years has dropped? I have.

[Hardrada]

71. But we can't afford another cycle of stupidity.

An nescis quantilla prudentia regitur orbis simply is too dangerous a maxim in these hazardly unbalanced time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. I agree with you, but unfortunately we are in one of those cycles

Americans historically have blamed intellectuals. Now they will complaint even more when suzie and jackie cannot read and write and do numbers since these new teachers can't do the job... but most parents will not connect the dots either.

[Leopolds Ghost]

179. I took latin in school but not enough... trans?

I was in public school till 10th grade. The magnet programs in Public School got more and more restricted to the top tier of students (10-20 top students out of a student body of 3500) Naturally, the "non-magnet" students were mostly minority, and confined to a separate wing.

[Recursion]

194. "Don't you know how stupidly world is governed?"

Axel Oxenstierna, Swedish minister of something or other, telling a correspondent not to expect too much positive change too quickly.

A 17th-century Swedish woodchuck, in essence.

[flyarm]

4. K&R!!

[Jakes Progress]

6. The administration feels it can shit on teachers

and not suffer because they don't think they will vote republican. I guess we will see in November.

[rpannier]

12. Reagan got a lot of voted from teachers in 84

Granted he got a lot of votes from many different people
But if the administration assumes that many won't vote Republican again they're fooling themselves

[bobbolink]

160. We're not nearly as boxed in as they delude themselves into thinking we are.

This is more than sad.... this is tragic.

It has moved past being about Obama... if history teaches anything, this is leading up to another era of a party going extinct.

:cry:

And it could just have well gone completely the other way, with the right leadership. :cry:

[BlueJac]

239. The administration is shit....

or just the biggest look alike!

[sendero]

260. A lot of them won't..

... vote at all which is my plan. I'm never going to vote for a Republican but never for a DLC Dem either.

[Jakes Progress]

358. It's not even not voting,

It's not being able to muster up the belief that drove millions of hours of volunteer time for the last election. I can't in good conscience go into all those living rooms again and tell people what I know know are lies. If Obama needs the kind of grass roots turn-out he had last time, he needs to know that a huge percentage of those volunteers were teachers.

[Wounded Bear]

339. They don't have to vote Repub....

if they stay home, which they will, the Repubs will win. Traditionally, high voter turnout favors the Repubs.

[Hydra]

7. Queue: "Those Teachers need to shut up and vote Democrat!"

in 3...2...1...

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. And support the president!

[BlueJac]

240. I am wearing my supporter now.........

what else can I do? Scratch a little!

[proud2BlibKansan]

327. LOL!!

[napi21]

8. Why are they afraid of teacher evals? In every job, there re evals and some make it & some don't.

I don't mean to suggest that all teachers are bad, nor are they all good. My granddaughter had a teacher 2 years ago who was the laziest teacher I've ever met. She had the kids check all their tests simply by exchanging papers. Spent 70% of the class reading the text book, and never assigned homework. I kow it sounds like I'm just prejudice because it was my GS, but she has maintained an A average all through the 7 years she's been in school. It didn't do much damage to my GD becasue her dad spent time at home explaining things she didn't understand, but what about therest of the class?

I don't believe this teacher was the only one like her

I really can't see any reason any teacher should be against evals. Something has to prove you're doing your job!

[rpannier]

9. You think that's the reason they're unhappy with this admin

Evaluations

[ibegurpard]

11. Please do a bit of research

there are plenty of threads on this site alone about this issue.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. And let the bashing commence!

Because since everyone knows at least one bad teacher, they must ALL be bad. And we must change the way we evaluate all teachers since that one bad teacher means they are ALL bad.

[notesdev]

24. Bashing? Or strawmen?

The problem is that there is no effective method of addressing abuses that the teachers' unions find acceptable.

As a strategy it worked for a long time in forcing financial concessions from governments in favor of teachers. Now the reality of budgets has made it so no more concessions are possible.

The teachers' unions have failed to adapt to the new reality and have cut themselves out of the conversation by means of failing to bring any adequate solutions to the table for the various problems, financial and performance, of the educational system, while immovably opposing every idea brought by any other source.

Just look at what they do to anybody who makes a serious attempt to reform a failing school system. The teachers' unions are always against any change that could produce positive results, if those results do not mean more money it its pocket. People are tired of dealing with hostage takers and have decided to no longer do so.

Of course you will object to this, my challenge to you is for you to demonstrate any way in which the teachers' unions are helping governments to cope with the present financial situation, OR any way that these unions have found to help improve students' performance that does not require large new financial commitments.

[Wednesdays]

32. But, there's the rub...

"The teachers' unions are always against any change that could produce positive results..."

That's the key word: "could." So, we're to allow an end-around the unions so we could try something that could produce positive results?

[notesdev]

100. Yes, we need to do that

We need to do things that could produce results, and find out which among the universe of coulds can be determined by actual experience to be a will produce results.

The reason why we must do that is because a failure to act guarantees that the present, unacceptable situation will be perpetuated.

There isn't that much to lose. Graduation rates are awful, and many of those who do graduate are coming out of 12 years of schooling with no skills whatsoever that can help them to survive on their own. Many go to college and sign onto a live of indentured servitude merely for the chance to get an adequate basic education, and even there many fail to achieve it.

Nothing in life is risk-free; demanding that all change must be riskless is the precise equivalent to demanding no change at all.

[Leopolds Ghost]

181. Given how segregation and closure of inner city schools is considered a positive result

"We" (the great, uniform "we") first need to define what y'all consider a positive result.

It won't be the same for most people.

[sense]

312. Teacher's Unions are a huge problem,

they refuse to budge. There is no reason in the world for tenure. Every person in every job should be subject to evaluation. Most are, yet we continue to allow special treatment of teachers, to the detriment of our children and our future. Greed is an ugly thing. Who's protecting the children's right to a decent education at their rate and level of learning? The education of our children shouldn't be about guaranteeing jobs for adults. Other countries get it. They understand that if their citizens are educated to the best of each individuals capability it's win-win. With all their citizens performing well, their countries prosper and innovate. We're far too interested in controlling people instead of educating them. We are lagging other countries in so many areas, almost all traceable to a lack of true education.

If the Teacher's unions won't negotiate on tenure, let alone any of the other problems, we'll have to move to a different system they don't control. I'm very pro union, but not at the expense of our children and our future. They need a reality check.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. Well you have to assume there are problems and the union is resisting addressing them

which is an absolutely ridiculous notion.

And you have to assume that unproven reform will be effective.

It's like driving into a pouring rainstorm with no wipers.

No thanks.

[notesdev]

102. That is why the teachers' unions are being cut out

in the face of overwhelming failure by the educational system as a whole, the unions - whose position you are representing well - cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that there is a problem with the present situation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. The 'problem' was falsely identified in the first place back during the Reagan administration

Then we we we were blessed by NCLB, which has done nothing to improve education. Both gifts from republican administrations. And I would imagine both slammed here on a Democratic website. And rightfully so.

But then we went from 'the president's plan is wrong' to 'the president wants to do what's best for our kids' and the only thing that changed was the president.

It's an excellent example of blind loyalty.

[notesdev]

121. NCLB is bunk

One major problem is the federalization of education, it just brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

What needs to happen is that power over the education system needs to be returned to the states, where we can take advantage of the unique strength of this country - having 50 sovereign states all of which can try what each feels is best for its own circumstances, and which can compare notes between them as to what works and what doesn't.

The problems are easily identifiable. We spend more money than any other westernized country on education and end up with the worst-educated students in the entire Western world.

[John Q. Citizen]

323. Got some data to back up your assumptions? K-12 is run by local school districts which

are also required to teach curricula and achieve targets set by both the state and federal governments.


Now that the corporations are pushing to disband the union representation of teachers and to re-define the mission of schools to serve the corporate state, we see a lot of push for 'charter schools' which is new-speak for publicly subsidized private schools.

This is just as stupid as publicly subsidized private health insurance.

We don't spend more money than any other industrialized nation, at least on secondary education. http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html

But we do spend a lot. We spend a lot of money on education in areas where the infrastructure is falling down around the students, the teachers, the parents, and the community at large. We are torturing people around the world, and our schools are crumbling around us.

There are lots of homeless kids attending schools. Perhaps if Congress were to remedy that, then schools would be achieving higher test scores and higher graduation rates. Teachers have no control over that.

i am opposed to privatization of public education. It's wrong for a lot of reasons, particularly economic and good clean government reasons.

[newspeak]

125. And, No Child Left Behind has nothing to do with our current predicament?

As I understand it, most classes spend their time gearing for the end of the year tests. Remember Neil Bush and the junk bond king, Michael Milkin found a different way to make some moolah--selling education programs and tests.

I'd say the repugs have been pecking at the public educational system for quite some time. Remember during Guiliani, they were more concerned about students wearing uniforms than taking care of deteriorating infrastructure.

I do not accept privatizing education--I mean it's worked so well for the prison system. By privatizing everything, the people even have less representation-we become "captured consumers"-and I see less quality for services and higher expense, so those corporations can make a buck. Also, I'd say more privatizing, just so a corporation can make a profit, means lower paid wages, less oversite by government and higher incidence of corruption.

[proud2BlibKansan]

140. I believe you are correct

Our larger problem today is that our president has put NCLB on steroids. And in some ways, Race to the Top is worse than NCLB.

[msanthrope]

45. Excellent post. You highlight precisely the problem of these innumerable 'education' threads.

While there is lots of bitching, I have yet to see a single thread that highlights a union-driven solution that is economically feasible and satisfies the public need for accountability.

I think you make a larger point. The teacher's unions have not kept up with market demands--instead, they've relied on education being perceived by the general public as something 'different', i.e., not a commodity.

But education is viewed as a commodity, and not as something protected when budget crises hit. It may not be right, but that's the way things are. And that will not change anytime, soon.

Those who will not lead, will follow.

[sabrina 1]

63. Teaching is commodity? You mean like Heatlh Care?

Is Social Security a commodity also?

George Bush's businessmen who wrote NCLB agree with you that teaching is a commidity. Everything is a commodity in a run-away, greedy, Capitalist society.

But teaching is a profession. Are doctors and lawyers a commodity also? Have we now reduced everything in this society to dollars and cents? How about marriage, love, family?

What a sad feeling I got when I read your post. We really are lost as a society when we reduce everyone, every profession to the status of a product.

[msanthrope]

204. I agree with you.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that given we HAVE a "greedy capitalist society", to think that education is not a commodity simply does not jibe with reality.

It sucks. But it is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

233. IOW, reality = percerption of reality.

Well, the unions and the teachers have been valiantly promoting the perception that education is NOT a commodity. They stand with an earlier generation of democrats who, like FDR, felt education was a RIGHT.

Those who wish to reduce it to a commodity are those who want the populace to be cogs in their money making machines - the ones who will get the best education regardless of what system is in place. Fortune 500 progeny never worry about their schools being closed.

"It sucks, but it is" is not reality - it is futility. Crushing the teacher unions will not change the game for the better; it will lock us into 3rd world status.

[sabrina 1]

341. Then we have to change it.

It won't change if we accept it. Nothing good ever happened without a fight. I will never accept that teaching is a commodity, or that children's education should be viewed as a way to enrich Big Business. I KNOW that is how the Corporatists who wrote NCLB viewed it and we are suffering from the fallout by having a generation or more who are not getting an education, they are getting tested. And the Educational Publishing Corps who print those tests have hauled in huge profits, millions and millions of dollars from NCLB. Friends of Bush.

It is simply unacceptable and that is the only way to approach it imo.

[wickerwoman]

68. Education isn't a commodity.

You don't pay money and *poof* you're educated. Money buys your access but you actually have to work to get an education. And that's on you. Not your teacher.

Why are our grad programs being flooded by Asian exchange students? It's not because China produces a better educational product. I've seen their schools (run-down, roach-infested, chalk a precious commodity, teachers who barely have high school diplomas and can't spot mistakes in the text books they cling to).

It's because their parents work their asses off to give their kids every possible opportunity. Absolutely every spare penny goes for books, school supplies, extracurricular classes on weekends and in the summer. And the kids know it. They know their parents are going hungry and working seventy hours a week to give them a better chance in life.

My friend told me when she was in school she could see one of her classmate's windows from her bedroom. She would stay up studying and would never go to sleep before she saw the light go off in her classmate's window (often at 3 or 3:30 in the morning). Primary school students in China commonly have sleep deprivation.

Education may be viewed as a commodity in the US, but the real problem is that it's a seriously devalued one. Fire every teacher in the US if you want and replace them with the most perfect blend of high-tech equipment, up-to-the-minute textbooks and world class entertainers and put them in front of a class of kids that don't give a shit and they will fail just as miserably as you think our current batch of teachers are failing. Because no teacher is ever going to be able to complete with a PS3. No teacher is ever going to be able to compensate for disengaged parents or a community in chaos or missed meals or five hours of sleep a night.

Sure, many other employees are evaluated. Are they evaluated on someone else's performance though? The only people I can think of are higher level managers. And there's a reason they make six figure salaries, get corporate retreats and tons of other perks. It's because our society acknowledges that making other people work is *frickin hard* if not impossible. And teachers don't get to fire their students. They have none of a manager's tools for threatening or coercing cooperation. A child who is not motivated or otherwise equipped to learn *will not learn* period. So how can you argue for judging the teacher's performance on what is, in some cases, an impossible task?

[msanthrope]

206. Education should not be a commodity. Yet it is. Do you think the

parents of immigrants aren't buying something when they work their fingers to the bone to send their kids to best schools possible???

[wickerwoman]

272. Educational opportunity may have some elements of a commodity,

education itself doesn't.

No matter how hard the parent works, they cannot provide an education to a child who doesn't want one or is not capable of getting one.

And the proposal is not to evaluate how well teachers provide the opportunity for education (since that would be too expensive and subjective to measure). The proposal is to evaluate how well teachers do their job based on the degree to which their students have seized the opportunity provided. And that is patently unfair, anyway you paint it.

[Carolina]

224. excellent post

:hi:

You are so right. Teachers cannot be held accountable or responsible for what children do not get in their homes or in the larger society that promotes passive entertainment, willful stupidity and family disintegration!

It does take a village and unfortunately, the American village is failing miserably.

[LooseWilly]

70. You're taking as "granted' things that are not metaphysically/innately 'true'.

If the continuing war in Afghanistan, not to mention the 'cautious' draw down of forces in Iraq are "economically feasible", then why not investing resources in education? If bailing out Wall St. is "economically feasible", then why not investing in education? If it is "economically feasible" for CEO salaries to always rise in order to retain "top talent", then why not likewise in education?

Have you ever tried to teach a class of 38 students? How about 38 students in an "economically disadvantaged" neighborhood? And... who is determining the number "targets" for the testing? Is it based on the results in similar socio-economic localities? Or are the children of working class (or downright poverty ridden) families being expected to be able to compete with the children of lawyers and physicists on standardized tests? And... why is it reasonable to expect that test scores will go up from year to year, when it isn't the same children being taught more, but rather a new class of kids each year? And, why would the kids be expected to do better each year, when their families are doing worse, economically, each year?

The notion of trying to apply the theories of "market demand" to education is ridiculous. Next people trying to privatize space exploration will begin to criticize astrophysics for not complying with the theories of "market demand".

Or, to be more accurate... if the critics of the current education system want to criticize results based on the dynamics of "market demand"— what the school districts ought to be doing is creating a budget for advertising. Wouldn't it be wonderful if educational success was advertised and promoted as aggressively as Pepsi? Maybe kids would think an education was cool, if they needed one to understand the eloquent diction of their favorite cartoon characters... (or if ignorant characters were mercilessly ridiculed).

In the meantime, there's no real evidence that charter schools teach any better... there're just power point presentations featuring "privatization snake oil salesmen" giving charter schools the hard sell— marketing.

[msanthrope]

207. Metaphysically? Try reality. n/t

[LooseWilly]

241. Oh, I'm sorry... presenting evidence to back up what I say- a bad habit from public schools.

If we're just making unfounded assertions, I'll settle for repeating myself: "In the meantime, there's no real evidence that charter schools teach any better... there're just power point presentations featuring "privatization snake oil salesmen" giving charter schools the hard sell— marketing."

[proud2BlibKansan]

96. That's false

Several of us have offered solutions. There are numerous threads in the Education forum.The unions have also offered many solutions but unless they buy into Obama's deform agenda, their ideas are ignored or criticized.

[msanthrope]

212. Several posters on the Internets have offered solutions? n/t

[Catshrink]

147. Children are not commodities.

They are not widgets. I'm afraid we'll see the results of the business model being boisted on education soon enough and it will be the children who are harmed by this grand experiement. I wonder if Arne's methods ever went past an Institutional Review Board? After all, this whole privatization scam is a huge experiment in education. Of course there are no safeguards to protect children from harm. Of course, once the results are known, it will be too late. Public education will be gone.

[msanthrope]

209. They should not be. But, they are viewed as such.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying the paradigm changed, and the unions need to get a foothold.

[sendero]

263. Getting a foothold into stupidity..

... hardly seems the answer.

[Eyerish]

150. Our children and their education is not a "commodity"

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[msanthrope]

210. I'm not arguing it's right.

I'm arguing it's what the reality is. And I'm not ashamed of myself for suggesting that facing reality is a good thing.

[Recursion]

218. The woodchuck will hunt you down NT

[msanthrope]

231. My neighbors from West Va have a name for that rodent that

I find evocative.

[Hannah Bell]

73. "failed to adapt to the new reality"? shows what you know. the union leadership have been active

collaborators in creating "the new reality". they've sold out their membership every step of the way.

jesus christ, does it all come from propaganda central?

[msanthrope]

215. The teacher's unions are sellouts?

But other posters have claimed that there are good solutions from the unions. Are they wrong?

[LWolf]

127. Bullshit.

1. Teachers, and teachers' unions, don't find abuses "acceptable."

2. Teachers have plenty of adequate solutions. They haven't been allowed at the table to present them.

3. Teachers are absolutely NOT against changes that are likely to produce positive results. They are against changes that harm schools, students, and the public education system. What, exactly, do you think we "do to people?"

4. Performance on standardized tests is not the ultimate goal of educators. Learning is the ultimate goal, and standardized tests are not the only way, or necessarily the best way, to demonstrate learning. They're just the best tool to introduce competition into the system. Competition doesn't benefit public education. Of course improvement requires financial commitments. Until the nation is willing to fund the changes needed to narrow achievement gaps, those gaps are going to be there. We could do quite a bit now, just with the funds used on standardized testing, consulting, etc..

[erodriguez]

315. Agreed LWolf

[Diane R]

162. Excellent post, notesdev. Teachers can no longer be protected, regardless of ability & performance

[arikara]

336. I have a novel idea

How about cutting the military budget and maybe spending a bit more on education. So-called "defense" takes so much tax money it chokes off everything worthwhile.

[Hydra]

16. There are plenty of ways to address teachers that are not doing their job

But how about I give you a bunch of kids, you teach them the workskills you have, and we have President Obama's people write up a test for them, and if they do badly at it, your head is on the chopping block?

And while we're at it, how about I have another person lined up to replace you, and I deliberately make the test harder for your kids, because I think you're getting paid too much?

[Missy Vixen]

25. +1

Actually, I'd like to + this for every teacher in the country.

If you can read this, thank a teacher.

[Wednesdays]

33. Well, it was my FATHER who taught me how to read! When I was 3!

And my father worked for 22 years as a...

er, well, he was a public school teacher.

[Missy Vixen]

41. Some of my favorite people are teachers and librarians

After all, one doesn't get paid a princely amount to do so. There has to be some love for the job.

Plus, I spent a lot of quality time at school and in the library.

:woohoo:

[mentalsolstice]

57. My mom had me reading when I was 3. She was NOT a teacher!

I've had good and poor teachers. At 49 years old, I'm still getting get caught up on books I should have been assigned in high school.

[LooseWilly]

77. That's because teachers are expected to teach from the "Western canon" of literature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon

It's not the teacher's choice... at least not entirely. There's some leeway, and there're some that are "expected."

I'm still trying to purge the trauma of reading Jane Eyre and Billy Budd, but reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Slaughterhouse Five were probably personal contributions of several of my high school English teachers (one of whom I rather hated... but learned despite my personal antipathy).

The notion that you should've been assigned all the good books in existence in high school is an insult to authors living and dead... to think there are so few that you could've covered them all in 8 semesters is more than a little demeaning.

Ironically, though, I would suspect that you don't even need to have a working familiarity with the notion of the Westen canon in order to influence the books assigned in high schools in your area... all you need is to be fertile enough to have a child, and the free time to show up and hassle the local board of education.

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. There was no public library in your town?

Or did a teacher tell you you could only read the books assigned in class?

[mentalsolstice]

122. No encouragement from educators

If a teen isn't encouraged to read, or told about books, etc., s/he is going to go about busy teen activities and if they have time to read, it'll be fluff. Sorry, but my high school education was pitiful at best, and I blame the teachers for that.

eta: I had wonderful teachers at other times of my life, I'm just pointing out like any other profession there are good and bad, and I don't necessarily support the President's education policies.

[proud2BlibKansan]

142. And I think that encouragement is a parental responsibility

especially when parents see the school as failing there.

[mentalsolstice]

172. My mother encouraged me to read

However, she is not an educator, and at the time, had nothing but a high school education herself (nor did my dad). We had nothing like "suggested reading lists" for summer or during the school year, we simply were not encouraged. I was in a small town, no bookstores, a small library with limited resources.

You can try to convince me that my poor H.S. education was my fault or my parents' fault, and I say bullshit. Not all teachers are good, and sometimes an entire school can be filled with bad apples.

BTW, don't assume that I was not curious or open to challenges...I went on to successfully obtain a college degree and two post-grad degrees.

[Catshrink]

176. If you went on to earn those degrees

my guess is those teachers inspired you more than you know or are willing to admit.

[mentalsolstice]

184. Uh, no inspiration from my H.S. teachers

Encouragement came from my parents and college professors. My dad paid for my mom and I to go to college at the same time. I've been around enough educators to see the good and the bad, and I know a broken system when I see one, particularly in hindsight. The local private school wasn't any better. I don't recall any of my peers from there making it past the 1st year of college.

Seems that I've touched a sore spot with some teachers on here...I would say toughen up, grow some thick skin. I respect educators and I would like to optimistically think that the good teachers far outnumber the bad. I wholly support public education as one of the great foundations for the success of this country. However, just like some Dr.s, lawyers, cops, etc., some teachers just don't need to be in the teaching business. They deserve the criticism they get, the damage they can do can be lifelong for a child if s/he doesn't have support or inspiration from other sources.

eta: I had excellent elementary school teachers, but that was in a different state/system.

[Jax]

229. It was your parents fault

sounds like they weren't ready to be parents. did they go talk to all these awful teachers?

You had a library, so what if it was small, why didn't your parents take you, you could all read as a group.


Your parents should have been more involved.



Just more teacher bashing that has gone on here since day one. But your posts show me the problems you had in high school were lack of parental involvement in your life.

[mentalsolstice]

242. You are so full of it!

I have acknowledged that my parents were influential, and that I had some great teachers early on. Are you saying people who are well-educated and intellectual should have be the only ones qualified to have children? Wow, that's real progressive thinking there. My folks did the best they could with what they had. They encouraged me to read daily, and I read whatever was around the house or available at the grocery store. However, lacking post HS educations themselves, how were they to know that I wasn't getting a good education? My parents are the reason I was able to go on and succeed after HS, it sure as hell wasn't because of my HS teachers.

I only discovered after HS through peers that certain books even existed and had been expected reading in their schools. If the teachers aren't giving a child that information how are children and parents even supposed to know they exist. BTW, I went to school before PCs and that internet thingy was around.

There wasn't an active PTA at my HS, and the only time teachers communicated with parents was when there was a disciplinary problem. There wasn't even a counselor on hand to give advice about going to college, and what courses you should be taking in HS. It really was as if nobody gave a shit about a kid's success.

Just speaking the truth, if you can't handle it...oh well.

[Jax]

262. You brought the 'well educated, intellectual' crap

up. Not me. Well educated intellectuals are crappy parents too. Your deflection failed.

You wanna bash teachers, that's all. Your parents were not ready to be parents from your own posts.

Why didn't your parents go and see these crappy teachers first? Did they need a PTA to stand up for their kid to all of the kid's bad high school teachers? They could not stand on their own for their kid? They could not stand up speak up for all the kids at this high school you describe that didn't give 'a shit about a kid's success'?

No counselors, no PTA...sure.

I don't believe you know the truth but I know you wanna bash teachers. Period.

[mentalsolstice]

268. See post #184

Otherwise, I'm done with you.

eta: My observations are not just about me, but how all of my classmates in a rural school system were cheated. Perhaps the system purposefully "dumbed down" recognizing a very small minority of us were headed to college.

[Joe Bacon]

316. I know the feeling.

I have very little love for the public high school I went to. The teachers I had were sadly cut out of the same cloth as the ones you describe. The only thing they cared about was having a winning football team and award winning cheerleaders. Education was put on the back burner.

At least I had a refuge in a decent library in my town that got me interested in reading. That was my sole comfort in a dying mill town.

[Hannah Bell]

278. my uncles and aunts only had HS educations & they read widely & deeply,

you apparently read well enough to complete college.

i have no idea what you're complaining about. better complain to the town because it didn't have any bookstores or a big enough library. or any second-hand stores, evidently. or any neighbors with books -- no books anywhere!

our neighbor kids used to come to our house sometimes to borrow books for school research because my folks had a basement full -- all of them bought second-hand.

ny grade school library was about as big as a walk-in closet, but i read almost every book in it. i remember worrying i might finish them all & then there'd be no more books in the world. my parents took us to second-hand stores as a "treat" on payday so we could look for books.

something wrong with this story, you didn't need a "summer reading list" to access the library if you wanted to read something. anything you were interested in would have been fine to read. just because the library was small doesn't mean there was nothing good or useful to read. the point of reading is to read what interests or seems useful to you.

[mentalsolstice]

290. I think I'm being misunderstood here

We had plenty of books in my house. My mom and I were/still are voracious readers. However, my HS did not recommend any books for critical thinking or discussion. The only reason I read TKAM as early as I did, was because my mom read it when it first came out and loved it, no mention of it in my HS, in mid-to-late 70s. My mom loved to read, however, with only a rural HS education herself, she was in no position to evaluate what I should be reading and studying to succeed in college and beyond. As I posted earlier, she fulfilled her dream of getting a college degree at the same I was.

My parents had no idea what kids were getting in better school systems. They weren't educated for that, and perhaps they were overly optimistic that I was getting what I needed. Teachers should be the font of information. In my case, in HS, this wasn't the reality. For example, while studying WWI, it would've been wonderful for my teacher to say "Hey, if you're really interested, go read 'All Quiet on the Western Front', and we'll discuss it in class. My history teacher had the capability to do that...my parents did not, and as a 13-14 y.o. child nor did I.


Education is a three-way street, school system, parents and child. However, where the school system fails, it's kind of ludicrous to blame the child and parents for not taking up the slack.

[Hannah Bell]

296. i still have no clue what you're complaining about. you complained there was only a small library &

no books. now you say you had *lots* of books. and you read *lots*.

the whole thing seems to boil down to the lack of a summer reading list.

[mentalsolstice]

301. Yeah I read a lot

...from my mom's membership to the Random House Book of the Month club...but nothing like what my peers from other systems were required to read and critically discuss. No TKAM, no Catcher in the Rye, no Hawthorne, Plath, Wilde, not even "Moby Dick", etc. Many of these books were expected reading in other school systems.

I'm complaining because I wasn't even tortured to read some books.

I'm blamed here because I didn't go to the public library, or my parents failed in being not being informed. All I'm saying is all those HS teachers had to do was plant the little seed...suggest a relevant book, but they did not. They went strictly by the text book.

So yeah, shitty system, and shitty teachers that couldn't spit out a one sentence blurb suggesting a challenge to their students.

However, let's blame the parents and the child.

[Hannah Bell]

328. i see, not only did you go to the library & read a lot, your mother had a subscription to the book

of the month club, belying the picture of a town with no bookshops.

your complaint is now: you didn't read moby dick or catcher in the rye, & it ruined your life.

i've never read moby dick & the only reason i read catcher in the rye was it was one of the books laying around at camp -- i.e. one of "my peers" was reading it so i did too.

sorry, i have no clue what your complaint is; & actually, i can't believe that in your entire school career no teacher ever suggested a book to you.

not saying you're fibbing, but i think we often forget big chunks of our past. & random house selections don't look too bad.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8Kbj5Ex9MWsJ:www.randomhouse.com/features/island/+random+house+book+of+the+month+club&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[mentalsolstice]

342. Perhaps you're very young

RHBOM club was entirely through the mail. It started with pamphlet that advertised the latest and greatest, such as Judith Krantz or Stephen King, and the subscriber checked off which book they wanted that month. No great works of literature were part of the deal, unless they happened to be published very recently.

I never said that a teacher never suggested a book in my entire school year...just in HS, I wasn't expected nor challenged to read the same books as my peers in other school systems. I would loved it if a teacher suggested books relevant to the topic they were teaching beyond the standard textbook, and I'm sure my parents would have supported it as well. And I would expect that teachers should be the first ones to impart such information.

What I'm seeing here proves my point actually, educators who are too fricking lazy to do their jobs. I'm seeing too much "blame the parents" because they're not education experts. As I said upthread, I optimistically hoped the poor system I was in was very much the minority, but maybe that was unrealistic on my part.

As an adult, I've come across teachers that made me cringe when thinking they spent 6+ hours a day with children. One in particular hated her job and was a blatant racist although she taught in an inner city school that was comprised of 70% blacks. But again I always hoped she was the exception and not the rule.

I'm done with this discussion, the pile-on, frankly is depressing, as it proves that what I went through in HS was not uncommon. Sad, really.

[Hannah Bell]

343. i'm probably older than you. there was a selection; you didn't have to pick judith kranz;

the book i linked was a rh book of the month selection. it's a decent book.

i'm not blaming anyone. i just have no clue why you're griping (you apparently read widely & well enough for graduate work), & i don't believe that in 12 years of schooling no teacher ever recommended a book to you.

sorry, i just don't.

btw, i'm not a teacher, either, so don't use me as a stick to beat teachers with.

[mentalsolstice]

350. No, I said no HS teacher ever rec'd a book

See my post #184. And conveniently you "linked" to a book from RH. I was born in 1960, we didn't have links then, usually just a pamphlet of the latest hardbacks. And yes, I read some quality literature at home, but I never had the classroom experience that my peers did with the guidance of an educator leading the discussion. As someone else said most of high school revolved around football, and in my case teachers trying to get down other teachers pants. It was a broken system, for sure.

I'm going to leave this silly discussion now, and go drive 300 miles to confront my parents about their poor parenting. And if they don't kowtow to me, then I'm going to beat them until they bleed. Do I need to insert the sarcasm thing here?

[kwassa]

340. Read this article, about a study on the importance of books in the home to education

from Jay Matthews, the guy who ranks the high schools for Newsweek. Educational writer for the Washington Post.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2010/07/power_of_books_my_wife_grew_up.html#more

The study, “Scholarly Culture and Educational Success in 27 Nations,” by four researchers in the United States and Australia, is worth reading by those in the Washington area, where the number of books varies so much from family to family and not necessarily because some parents are well-educated and others aren’t.

The study, based on 20 years of research, suggests that children who have 500 or more books in the home get, on average, 3.2 years more schooling than children in bookless homes. Even just 20 books makes a difference. The availability of reading material has a strong impact on a child’s education, even when controlling for the effects of parental education, father’s occupation, gender, nationality, political system and gross national product.

[mentalsolstice]

351. Never said I didn't have books at home.

In fact I had tons of them. Just no guidance from educators to critically discuss them, and no direction to further read more challenging books. I guess my view of what is a quality education is higher than the average educator.

I've been told upthread that I must have been inspired in HS, and I said no that came from my parents. Then I was told my parents were totally unqualified to have children. The argument seems to go in circles.

[kwassa]

359. I'm not disagreeing with you.

I am pointing out that you may have had more of a foundation for college success than you realized.

Public schools vary widely in quality, and I've been in very good and pretty bad public schools. Like you, I went to a rural high school that was a joke, but I only went for one year before my parents got us all out of there, and paid a modest tuition that allowed us to go to public school in a nearby college town. Even this school was poor compared to the Connecticut school system we have moved from. My best education came in junior high, and was never equaled again.

[Joe Bacon]

317. Same here.

Treated the same way. I know the feeling.

[newspeak]

143. yep, exactly what Little Boots did

and, his brother made money off of it.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Because teachers get treated like shit in this country...

And tenure is just about the only benefit that they enjoy. I'm all for evaluations and merit pay just as soon as we make the base pay comparable to what Canada and Western Europe pay teachers and start investing the money in public schools that those countries do.

[SunsetDreams]

37. Napi, I agree with you

As parents we should expect Teachers to be the best, after all we send our students to learn.

I really don't get the angst here. Why should the teacher profession be any different than any other job?

I'm not sure I buy the reasoning behind all those teachers being fired in DC. Any reporter or blogger can write something to make it appear one way. If it really is true. That's dissapointing, because while I agree with evaluation, I also think teachers need to be given a chance for improvement. Any job usually has verbal & written warnings, before dismissal.

[Hannah Bell]

74. the firings in dc are just the beginning. another bunch will be fired in the next round, and the

next, until this bunch is all gone except for some selected brown-nosers.

it's a way to lower pension costs.

then the kids in dc will get to be taught by round after round of new hires who will be fired in turn just as they're beginning to get good at their craft.

you don't get it. it's not about helping kids, & it's not about helping teachers "improve".

IT'S ABOUT MONEY & POWER.

you're naive if you imagine the folks pushing this stuff give one good goddamn about kids, education, or the future of the country.

[proud2BlibKansan]

98. +1

[proud2BlibKansan]

110. Hannah, check this out:

From a blog someone just sent me-

Now I know I am only a sample of one, but in my experience, observations have been canceled at the last minute, scheduled at the last minute, absently watched and blatantly hi-jacked.  Let's see, there was the time that my administrator suggested that I post a chart that she was sitting in front of at the time.  (Way to go powers of observation!)  Then there was the time I was told, "Let's just skip it all together.  You're fine."  Or the time when my suggestions for follow up were cut and pasted out of another colleague's observation report, AND considering we taught different grades and were observed in different subjects, were less than relevant or helpful.  Ooo!  How about the time I begged for feedback on my teaching and was told, "No."

Can we please base my salary and job security on that? 'Cuz it seems like fun.  Like a big old carnival game or something.  But more rigged and with no stuffed prize at the end.

Perhaps the folks who developed the system of observations in DC had good intentions.  I mean, they DID think to incorporate master teachers to conduct two of the five evaluations in an effort to alleviate the potential bias of an angry administrator.  Yet, they also expect teachers to demonstrate 22 different teaching elements in 30 minutes.  Again, I'm no math wizard, but essentially that means one needs to demonstrate a new skill roughly every second-ish.

Well that sounds like it would lead to a coherent lesson focused on the students!

http://itsnotallflowersandsausages.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-you-fired-up-about-dc-firings.html

[LWolf]

151. I have experienced all of the above at some point in the last 27 years.

The best evaluations I've had did not involve scheduled observations or particular check lists. I've had 2 different principles evaluate me by dropping in for 2, or 5, or 10 minutes whenever they found time, all year long. Unscheduled, unstructured visits, once a week, sometimes twice, and then, at the end of the year, a formal evaluation written based on what they saw happening. Not what was happening during a formal, scheduled observation, when I submitted a plan and they checked off each component of that plan, but just what we did every day of the year, observed or not.

[Hannah Bell]

158. not surprised at all. that's one reason no one should be evaluated by any one person or process.

the authoritative-sounding formally described process is always significantly different from how it's enacted in practice.

[femmocrat]

118. +2

Hannah Bell, thank you for your contributions to DU on these issues. Very greatly appreciated.

[flyarm]

344. + 10,000!!! Right you are Hannah! eom

[LooseWilly]

78. "Why should the teacher profession be any different than any other job?"- teaching, Taco Bell...

what's the difference?

Teaching, Software Engineering?... Let's just issue some H1N visas, and "on-shore" some Indians to teach. What's the difference?

"Any job usually has verbal & written warnings, before dismissal."— Yeah, like when you're training people at work, and they can't figure out what you're trying to train them to do... the company usually fires you- rather than the one who is failing to grasp what you're training them to do. That's how I remember it.

Should, maybe the kids be viewed as the ones who are failing to grasp their training, and the ones to be fired? Or are we, as a public, just such failures with our own "training" that we fail to see a specious analogy when it is being presented to us?

[SunsetDreams]

91. "on shore" some Indians"?

I'm sensing a little bigotry in that reference. If that is not your intention, can you please explain?

If some teachers have a problem with being evaluated, then that leads me to wonder why. Why is it that my child can get evaluated on how well they do in school, and can fail or pass, but a teacher gets a free pass?

"Should, maybe the kids be viewed as the ones who are failing to grasp their training, and the ones to be fired?"

Students don't get paid to go to school. Teachers get paid to teach.

[LooseWilly]

235. "Students don't get paid to go to school."- no, but in a lot of places they pay to go

Here, for some reason, people seem to feel that the student has no responsibility in the process of learning... "Teachers get paid to teach." you say casually, as if a rudabago could be dropped in the seat and a teacher should be able to teach it too. What you are glossing over is the fact that a student has to be interested and willing to put in the work to learn. In the more disadvantaged neighborhoods and cities, the kids have other things to worry about (more other things than in the suburbs)... and so... the scores are lower. Holding teachers accountable for the fact that some children are more interested/receptive/ less-distracted is an injustice to the teacher (who has no power to alter the rest of the child's world).

And as for the bigotry you think you sense, you misconstrue me... my bigotry is aimed at the rich & powerful who seem to be playing workers against workers, taking advantage of the lower costs of living and consequent lower expectations of foreign workers in order to undercut US workers, and I use the example of Indians because there are so many Indian software engineers being given H1N visas so they can come work in the US at rates that offend the sensibilities of the US software engineers... I see I was wrong to expect you to be aware of the broader workplace implications of the abbreviated example I provided.

By the way... do you remember those standardized tests? The ones that they are talking about basing teacher evaluations on? The ones that begin with the teacher obligated to explain to the students that this is a test to evaluate the teacher and the school... but that it would not affect the students' grades or affect them in any other way?... Do you remember filling in a portion of the bubbles not by trying to determine the correct answers, but rather to see what kind of cool pictures you could make? I was a big fan of upside-down crosses... nevermind that that meant I had to fill in all 5 answers for one of the questions, or two... what did I care? It wasn't like the score made any difference to me.

[Raineyb]

103. You send your children to school to learn do you make sure they actually do so?

Learning is not a passive act where you just go to school sit in the classroom and absorb the material by osmosis. If you don't make the effort to comprehend and master the subject the best teacher in the world can't do a damn thing for you.

And then you want to test the teachers based on whether or not the students bothered to do their part in the learning equation? Just because the test scores are low doesn't mean the teacher was crap. The students have a role and you seem inclined to ignore their role in their learning and put it all on the teacher. Such a view is short sighted and stupid.

[SunsetDreams]

108. IF I only blamed the teachers YOU

might have a point about it being "short sighted and stupid"

The topic was about teacher evaluations, yes?
I still think they are a good idea.

I am not saying parents don't shoulder some responsiblity, or students. Students do have responsibility, which is why they get failed if they don't live up to the standards they are being judged by. Parents need to step up to the plate as well. Most parents already do, but then you have those that view school as someplace to go, so the child is out of their hair. Teachers should be evaluated, as well.
MOST teachers do a damn good job, in the classroom, and I don't envy what they have to put up with day in and day out. However, they still should be evaluated, to hopefully weed out teachers who are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. That will not punish the GOOD teachers, but the ones who are not doing their job.

[Raineyb]

114. Teachers are evaluated all the time. But the decisions to fire are blatantly

being based on test scores which doesn't have a damn thing to do with the competence of the teacher and everything to do with the ability of a student to take a test. Meanwhile, try leaving a student back and see how fast the parent comes to the school to berate you for daring to leave their precious snookums back.

My sister has had children with behavior problems in her classes and the parents as HER how to deal with their children. That's not counting the ones who just refuse to acknowledge that their children are ill-behaved brats who cause trouble in class. There are children who will just walk out of a classroom. Do you expect the teacher to chase after the one child while neglecting the rest of the class? And when these children don't pass some arbitrary test whom do they blame? The children for not bothering? Or the teacher trying to do their best by 30+ children.

So to bring up evaluations as though they don't occur is a straw man ignoring that these teachers are being fired because of the test scores which don't do a good job of actually measuring what the children have learned but rather how well they take some test.

That's not even going into the amount of time teaching to the test rather than actual teaching.

So if the only thing someone has to add to the equation is yammering about evaluations as though teachers are somehow exempt from such things then I will continue to call their view short-sighted and stupid. Because that's exactly what it is.

[SunsetDreams]

120. Tell me then...

What are teachers currently being evaluated on? That might help me better evaluate, your claim.

I know there are students with behavioral problems, which is partly why I said I don't envy teachers. No, I don't expect teachers to chase after that one child while neglecting the rest of the class. I think it is also a mistake to place the blame entirely on students and parents.

So, what is your solution in measuring how well the student has learned? If not tests, then what?

IMO actual teaching would take more time than just teaching to a test. It should be a combination of both.

Notice something here, I don't need to hurl insults to have a debate. It doesn't help further one's arguement.

[U4ikLefty]

195. You have the competence in education to "evaluate" the evaluators?

It's seems that you are trying to win an argument without the necessary knowledge of teaching.

Notice something here, I didn't hurl pasive-agressive insults to try to gain position.

[Recursion]

214. Most of us get evaluated by people who can't do what we do

It's just part of life. Do you think my boss can write code? Debug it? Document it? Plan a software lifecycle? Read an RFC to figure out why one vendor's nameserver does a different thing with CNAME records than every other nameserver? No: but he still evaluates me on whether my work accomplished the task he assigned me.

Like I keep asking in so many different contexts in this debate (evaluation, job security, compensation structure), why do teachers need things the rest of us don't have to do their jobs?

[U4ikLefty]

360. Are you drunk, or trying to make a point?

I can't tell if you are just riffing about your shitty programming job, or are you making some kind of mysterious analogy.

Please unlock the code Oh Key-Master!!!

[SunsetDreams]

275. LOL I hardly said that, now did I?

I would venture to guess most of the people debating this subject, do not either.

Does it matter? I'm trying to gain insight to the other side of the equation. One shouldn't have a problem with that, it might bring me to the other side.

Thank you for replying, I just wish you would have had the answers to what I asked.

[Raineyb]

264. Well I prefer speaking plain and if I think an arugment is short sighted and stupid

I will say so and I don't give a rat's ass if you don't like it.

[SunsetDreams]

276. Oh well,

So you had no answers to the questions, which were based off of your claims.
That's okay, carry on. Maybe someone who does have knowledge about my questions, can answer them.

[Raineyb]

356. Considering your head is so far up your ass that you don't listen. I rather doubt it.

As it is I do have other things to do than continuously argue with people who don't fucking read. So why bother?

[Recursion]

145. DC is a special situation

I'm more pro-teacher-union in general than my post history might suggest because the school system I was involved with for a while was DC's. DC has several unique problems:

1. It has no state to fund its schools
2. DC does not have true home rule, so Congress can (and does) meddle with it whenever the whim strikes
3. DC suffered for decades under an unbelievably corrupt and nepotistic local political machine
4. The public schools got stuffed with (often unqualified) clients of that machine
5. The last two mayors have managed to more or less purge the administration side of DCPS of the old guard, but
6. The teacher's union has been adamantly resisting any attempt to change the makeup of the schools' faculties

The vice president of the DC teacher's union was on the Kojo show Friday (an NPR show produced in DC that does a lot of local politics episodes) and talked for 10 minutes about the importance of these jobs to the community without once mentioning the students. That is the attitude of the DC teacher's union in particular (it doesn't exist in most cities) that so frustrates me and a lot of other people, and it's why Rhee is getting so much traction in the city to essentially nuke the school system and start over.

[JVS]

56. Because we have a process of evaluation that judges the teacher by the student's test taking.

Maybe the students' problems aren't the teachers, but the teachers get the shit for it.

[Hannah Bell]

72. teachers have always been evaluated. did you think they'd just been left to do whatever

they liked all these years?

[eridani]

79. The objection is the link of evaluation to test taking

You honestly think that your description of that bad teacher wouldn't count as an evaluation? If more people than you noticed it, it certainly would.

[femmocrat]

115. It is the types and purposes of the evaluations that teachers object to.

In some districts, they can bring in "professional" evaluators, who are not even educators. (Not sure, but I think DC is going this route?)

Also, teachers can be fired based on their students' test scores, regardless of the inherent problems of that student population, e.g., poverty, homelessness, non-English speakers/readers, etc.

Some districts are simply letting experienced teachers go in order to hire newbies at a lower salary, who will then be replaced in a year or two. How will those revolving-door inexperienced teachers raise test scores? They won't-- so the school can then be called a "failing school" and suffer the consequences.

It's all about the dismantling of public education. When you hear "that teachers cannot be fired because they have tenure and the unions protect them", it's all hogwash.

[mike_c]

130. if you'd think about if for a moment you'd understand why....

The bottom line is that there aren't any effective teacher evaluations in use ANYWHERE that I know of, at any level of education. The prevailing practices are:

1) Evaluate on the basis of student test scores or some similar measure. The most obvious problem with this one is that it's a STUDENT EVALUATION, not a teacher eval. That is equivalent to evaluating a sales clerk on the basis of how profitable their customers are in business. Until teachers have direct control over student learning, i.e. until they can open peoples' heads up and pour knowledge in, teachers remain only one link in an education chain that includes STUDENTS (big time!), school administrators, local government, parents, siblings and friend, and just about everyone else who influences the intellectual development-- or lack of it- of individual students. Yes, teachers have responsibility within that chain, but this evaluation places ALL of the responsibility on teachers, who do not have anywhere near the authority, or even the ability, to discharge it by themselves.

2) Evaluation on the basis of student satisfaction. This is most common in higher ed, where student retention is an issue because attendance is not mandated by the state. It's a pernicious lie, frankly. It evaluates popularity much more effectively than teaching and learning success. One of the biggest problems is that effective education is CHALLENGING. It's difficult. Learning is a struggle, and the degree of success is often correlated with the intensity of struggle. Unfortunately, so is student dissatisfaction. Students in hard but fair courses are more likely to express dissatisfaction than students in courses they perceive as "easy," even though they usually learn far more in the challenging classes-- if they themselves rise to the challenge, of course. Another major problem is that education is an ongoing, life time activity, whether it's pursued that way or not. Most schooling only lays the foundations for life time education. Students often don't even realize the value of lessons until years later. Evaluating their immediate, short-term satisfaction as a proxy for learning-- ridiculous when you think about it that way to begin with-- is completely ineffective.

3) Evaluation by colleagues and administrators. This is potentially the best of the available practices, but in reality it's often one of the worst. However, it can be done very effectively if the evaluators are aware of the best practices and are aware of the individual challenges each classroom presents-- AND if they don't allow subjectivity to spoil the evaluation. Unfortunately, my experience is that most of my colleagues have vastly different levels of experience, training, and aptitude of experimentation. Frankly, many are simply not qualified to assess peers professionally. It's also tempting to let other agendas intrude on this sort of evaluation-- that's especially true when evals are performed by administrators.

The truth is that there simply is no objective measure of teacher performance that actually measures teacher performance and not something else. In fact-- and you might find this shocking-- there are few generally accepted standards of teacher performance to measure. Again, think about it. Some are pretty standard measures of professional conduct-- those are pretty easy-- but I defy you to suggest a single objective measure of teacher performance that doesn't depend on someone else's actual performance, and the choices they make independent of anything their teachers do.

THAT is the problem.

[Erose999]

149. When I was in grade school we exchanged papers to grade all the time. Teachers are stretched thin by

"reforms".

I don't think the Republicans can offer anything better when it comes to education policy as their platform is gonna support creationism and X-tianity in the classroom, seek to end tenure, cut education budgets and programs, promote charter schools, vouchers, and other means of segregation, etc.

But the democrats need to offer a more progressive policy, no doubt. I do think they take the votes of educators for granted and it could end up costing them. In GA, former Gov. Roy Barnes (winner of the Dem primary last week)screwed the educators by eliminating tenure for newly hired teachers (among other things)and a lot of them voted for the Republican Sonny Perdue(who went on to do even worse things to educators). Barnes' entire campaign for the primary race has been apologizing to educators.

[Catshrink]

168. In our school, teachers have 180-200 students

Do you have any idea how long it takes to read that many essays and give constructive feedback? Or lab reports, quizzes, homework assignments? Given the huge leap in my student load in the 10-11 school year, I plan on having some assignments self- or peer-graded. I'm one of the lucky ones with only 180 - it's the math and English departments that got slammed with 200. If I spent all my time grading, I wouldn't have time to prepare new lessons or make the modifications for special education students or attend meetings, call parents, tutor students, or all those other tasks people seem to take for granted.

BTW, our state test covers math, reading, and writing so does this increase in student load make sense? How well will the kids learn?

[sulphurdunn]

226. Public school teachers

are evaluated annually. The teacher you describe is doing exactly what is required to improve standardized (a,b,c,d)test scores . The whole purpose of this "educational reform" is to destroy critical thinking among the common people. The teachers who could have done anything they wanted in life but who elected teaching are the ones who will be gone under this regime. But for a serious altruistic character defect, relative indifference to the love of money and the appeal of long summer vacations, I probably would have gone into investment banking. Considering how teachers and bankers get about equally blamed for all the ills of society, I might as well have gone for the fucking money. :smoke:

[roody]

267. They are not afraid of evaluations. WE are evaluated as much

as any other employees.

[Wilms]

13. Technically, that is "Change". n/t

[readmoreoften]

14. Well, it's not like public school teachers and unions are the base of the Democratic Party.

Why not fuck 'em over?

[Skidmore]

128. The base of the Democratic Party is broader than the teacher's union.

We are of many professions/trades/crafts and work in the larger scope of the community.

[Hannah Bell]

243. teachers' unions are by far the biggest unions in the country, dwarfing all others.

about 3.5 million members of nea + aft.

that's slightly less than seiu, ufcw & teamsters combined (4.1 million)

and public workers' unions are next on the hitlist.

and when teachers & public workers go down, you can bet it's going to affect every other union that's not totally bought off or mafia-ized.


Union Membership: Largest Unions (2003)

1. NEA - National Education Association 2,679,396
2. SEIU - Service Employees International Union 1,464,007
3. UFCW - United Food & Commercial Workers International Union 1,380,507
4. IBT - International Brotherhood of Teamsters 1,350,000
5. AFSCME - American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 1,350,000
6. LIUNA - Laborers' International Union of North America 840,180
7. AFT - American Federation of Teachers 770,090
8. IBEW - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 700,548
9. IAM - International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 673,095
10. UAW - United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America 638,722

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=Union+Membership%3A+Largest+Unions+(2003)

[Skidmore]

277. And not all Dems are union members either.

[Hannah Bell]

285. few dems are union members. that's part of the problem with the party.

and few americans are unionized -- something like 7% of the private workforce.

the last bastion of unionism = public workers.

when they destroy that, they destroy the last institutional base for large-scale organizing.

how do you organize workers? how do you educate workers? how do you turn out workers for mass action?

there has to be a base space where large numbers of workers gather.

on the shop floor - but now with globalized production with smaller plants that can be ramped up or shut down on a dime, they can just close up shop & produce more at another facility. this is what walmart does when their workers get uppity.

within existing organizations -- but where are they? the old hiring halls, workingmen's clubs, working class bars & hangouts -- disappeared or disappearing.

union halls, public library conference rooms, church basements -- unions going down the tubes, libraries being defunded, churches taken over by fundies & gone to the dark side (& this is why there was a deliberate effort to take over churches -- because they're a possible organizing space)

so what's the social space for the needed conversations & interactions to take place?

in general, the only space i see is the net, & that's atomized, like grouping with like -- where do conversations & information-sharing between people who don't already have more or less the same take on things -- actually take place?

and that's the first step toward organizing.

[Warpy]

17. Obama seems to have bought into the idea that inner city schools

just naturally attract the worst teachers, when exactly the opposite is true in so many cases. Teachers who want a true challenge gravitate there and that's where you're going to find a lot of the most creative and hard working teachers. I know some of these teachers and they're awe inspiring. They're also labeled underperforming.

They seem underperforming because of the kids they're given: undernourished, occasionally given illegal drugs by parents who want their own highs to be enjoyed in peace and quiet, from a culture of multi generational hopelessness, poisoned by lead paint and other heavy duty pollutants, often speaking no English at all, and if they're lucky, from two parent homes where both parents are working constantly, unable to help with homework or confer with the teacher but keeping them adequately fed and clothed.

The other fiction is that the corporate model is any way to run a public system, something that is as true as other Republican fantasies like trickle down economics. Because the corporate model doesn't allow for the human factor of kids in distress and parents who are either overworked or totally uncommitted to their children, teachers will continue to be labeled unproductive when they're actually doing a heroic job of managing to teach these kids to read, at all.

I'll change my opinion of all this garbage only when the affluent, upper middle class suburbs are seen as full of underperforming teachers and schools. Until then, it's just more damned class warfare against the people least able to fight back.

[w8liftinglady]

22. I was just going to say the same thing..a good friend of mine drives 30 miles

to teach in a south dallas school that has the poorest of the poor.he teaches 5th grade-some of the kids have no home-just go from shelter or fleabag,some have parents in prison or deported,some have already had sex...multiple times...by their family.Some have had no discipline...no reaction at all,and are starving for someone to care,to take the time to teach them how to act,to praise them when they succeed.it is so critical...and so neglected.some in our country truly wish the poor would go away.I respect him and his co-workers SO much.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Please post this as an OP

You get it. It is beyond frustrating trying to explain this to those who don't get it.

I read a blog that was discussing test scores earlier today and one of the comments said that if we put teachers from the wealthy suburban districts into the urban schools serving our poorest kids, test scores wouldn't go up, but down. Way down.

Maybe that's what we need to do. Let's take our teachers from the highest performing schools in the wealthiest district and put them in the lowest performing urban core schools. And move those teachers from the urban schools into the burbs.

My bet is that BOTH groups will fail.

My calling is urban ed. I do not know the culture of the suburban kids. I taught summer school for many years at the most exclusive private school in the area and I couldn't wait at the end of every summer to get back to where I was more comfortable, in my urban school. I could handle the teaching, and I'm sure those suburban teachers could handle the teaching in the urban core. But working in a school and doing it well involves understanding the culture of the students and their community and being able to fit in and be accepted by the kids and the community. Without that a teacher fails.

[Hannah Bell]

75. a blogger had just that experience; he taught in a poor school, where he was, per

the standardized test scores of his students, a "failing" teacher -- then taught at a wealthy suburban school, where suddenly he became a "successful" teacher - his students were getting top scores on the same tests.

but the reality was, he was the same teacher using the same techniques.

so i guess the lesson is, teachers who work with rich kids are good teachers.

[knitter4democracy]

185. This. Switch teachers and watch test scores drop.

I had the opportunity to sub in various school districts in our county last year (before getting into a long-term gig at the alternative h.s.), and I was shocked at how lazy some of the rich district teachers were (and then there was the teacher who put the wrong definitions on the overhead slide and his co-teacher who didn't know the book at all). The "urban" high school with the bad reputation? Amazing teachers with great lesson plans and obviously worked their fingers off every week grading papers and helping students get better. I quickly decided which schools I'd rather work in: give me those "urban" or "difficult" schools any day!

[Hannah Bell]

153. black teachers: fired disproportionately in all these inner-city teacher firings.

the reality of duncan's "civil rights" bullshit.

same game plan: pick off the politically weakest targets first & move up the ladder.

it's a living demonstration of the niehbuhr quote: "first they came for the..."

[YvonneCa]

161. GREAT post. Thank you for saying...

...what many of us know and standing up for teachers.

[slay]

18. Liberals and Democrats will also soon be headed for divorce

unless we can get the Dems to stand up for THE PEOPLE against the super rich elite and the corporations. It wouldn't be that hard to win back the liberals if they would do that. But so far, they have not, and are not doing that.

[BzaDem]

26. Says one of the 15% of liberal Democrats who don't approve of Obama. n/t

[slay]

27. So... you think the Dems can win if 15% of liberals go another route?

your statistics don't look so pretty now do they smartypants? :P

[BzaDem]

31. Absolutely. Obama's approval among Democrats exceeds or meets every president since LBJ.

What is remarkable is how high Obama's support is among Democrats and liberal Democrats, not how low.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Nice try though. :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. And how has that liberal approval rating helped?

Let's see.

Johnson - one term and out, but passed historic liberal legislation

Nixon - republican but passed liberal legislation

Carter - one term and out, so his liberal approval rating meant nothing

Reagan - hated liberals and probably wanted to ship them to Nicaragua to get rid of them

Bush - hated liberals

Clinton - not too liberal but was good for teachers and education

Bush - :puke:

Now let's review. Of all these presidents, we got good liberal legislation out of two Democrats and one republican. And that liberal approval rating didn't mean a thing in terms of winning an election or getting legislation passed.

Now do you really believe it matters what Obama's liberal approval rating is?

[BzaDem]

42. I wasn't arguing that the approval rating of a president among Liberal Democrats is correlated with

liberal legislation.

I was responding to the idea that liberals are breaking away from Obama. They are not, and my data shows that.

[depakid]

46. He's well below 50% in key electoral states that he won in 2008

and at 51% in Oregon of all places.

Nice try, but that doesn't translate out well to mid term elections, where having engaged constituencies is the key to success.

[BzaDem]

47. I was talking about the approval rating among liberal Democrats.

Why? Becuase I was responding to the idea that Obama is somehow "losing the base."

You are talking about his approval among all Americans. That has nothing to do with this conversation (though it is still pretty close to or above Clinton and Reagan at this time respectively in their administrations).

[depakid]

49. If he and the Dems aren't losing their base- then why are we even talking about a repeat

of 1994?

I mean- if everyone was so fired up and the numbers you cite (this time) are correct?

[BzaDem]

53. Because Independents are voting against Democrats 2-1?

Of course, you would take this as evidence that the independents don't think Obama is liberal enough. It reminds me of the that study about people taking evidence against their beliefs and using it to reinforce their beliefs.

[depakid]

67. Errr... that's only part of it

As in 1994, Republicans probably won't increase turnout- but the Dems will likely suffer from a reduction in volunteers and turnout, due to the fact that there aren't many constituencies left that haven't been either taken for granted, gratuitously insulted or stabbed in the back.

Labor rank & file, teachers, reproductive rights groups, environmentalists, scientists, human rights and civil liberties groups, consumer groups- in short, many of the folks who are the most important to GOTV efforts.

And you're correct- as I've pointed out many times before, a large majority of Americans- especially independents hold progressive positions on the issues- and so pandering to the corporate right is likely to alienate them, too.

[Hannah Bell]

82. from about 90% to about 78%. negatives from 4% to 16%.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama-dems.php

[BzaDem]

85. That's just Democrats. Not liberal Democrats.

If you include conservatives and moderates it is lower, as you point out.

[Hannah Bell]

138. link to the liberal dem poll?

[BzaDem]

173. Sure.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

[liberation]

283. You mean the same LBJ that did not run for reelection because he was polling like shit by 68?

Given that Obama won by single percentile points vs. a completely insane old fool and a floor mat with glasses, I'd be more careful about gleefully biding goodbye to 15% of your base.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. And that'll get em back!

To hell with that big tent.

[depakid]

43. There's LOT more than than any 15%!

if it weren't, the Dems wouldn't be staring down another 1994.

[BzaDem]

55. Nope. Just 15%. Truth hurts.

We are staring down another 1994 because of independents, not liberal Democrats.

[depakid]

69. but wait- wasn't 80% support the last "agreed on" figure the DLC crowd was touting

Next time doubtlessly, it'll be 10% disapprove -and that will be offered up as "the truth."

[BzaDem]

76. Why don't you just look at the figures yourself.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

The current weekly rating is 87% for liberal Democrats.

[depakid]

94. I've looked at dozens of sets of figures

and read and seen things from constituency after constituency that pretty much tell us all why the Democrats- far from having relegated a failed ideology and a Republican party in utter disarray to the fringe for a generation- are now begging their voters to please, please, please come to the polls- or else those baddie Republican will come back and be worse.

That's just pathetic- more pathetic even than the Republicans (and that's damn hard to trump).

[Hannah Bell]

288. other democrats about 10 points less. special pleading.

in fact, plenty of democratic presidents have had higher overall approval ratings at the same point in their presidencies.

kennedy had 80% overall a year into his presidency. do you think "liberal dems" weren't substantially higher than that?

obama's overall approval is under 50%. & his democratic supporters are growing disillusioned.

[LooseWilly]

51. Make that two of the 15%...

I'm with slay

[donco6]

54. i.e., "we don't need you"

Heh. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. We'll get blamed for the losses anyway.

[LooseWilly]

253. We're never needed, until we are.

And then, when we are... it's because we weren't there before that we deserve to be abused. It's our own fault, really. They love us, we just have to stop making them mad...

[donco6]

286. Why do we keep going back?

Someday it'll be the death of us.

[LooseWilly]

309. Why, I guess it should've been obvious...

Why didn't we see it before—it's because we aren't sufficiently practical... (let alone, reality based)

(I can hear it now—2016:"Come on babies, you know we didn't mean it. We're all in this together...") It's obviously our own fault.

[laughingliberal]

21. K & R nt

[MadHound]

34. You can't attack a particular voting bloc and expect them to support you, it's that simple

He is pissing off more and more core groups that got him into office. If he continues he will only be a one term president.

Frankly I'm looking for a primary challenger at this point, and if that doesn't materialize, well, it will be damn near impossible for me to pull the lever for him in any sort of good conscience.

[SunsetDreams]

38. Is this blogger speaking for all teachers?

[LWolf]

131. No. The blogger is noting public reaction.

<snip>

Rank and file teachers have already quit the Obama administration, and by extension the Democrats as a whole. Evidence of this was on display during the national conventions of the two largest teacher unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

The NEA convention voted in favor of a resolution of “no confidence” in Obama’s Race to the Top program, essentially voting “no confidence” in the Obama administration. The AFT convention was not allowed to vote on a similar resolution, but the rank and file applauded loudest when the AFT President, Randi Weingarten, spoke about the betrayal of the Obama administration. The NEA did not invite Obama administration officials to the convention, because, according to The New York Times, “…union officials feared that administration speakers would face heckling.” (July 4, 2010).

The president of the NEA, Dennis Van Roekel, summarized teacher’s experience with the Obama administration:

“Today our members face the most anti-educator, anti-union, anti-student environment I have ever experienced.” This is an extraordinary statement. Not only is it true, but it highlights that President Obama is more anti-teacher than was President Bush, who introduced the anti-teacher No Child Left Behind.

[Ross K]

48. Maybe not the worst thing in the world

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. In the divorce settlement, I hope the teachers get the kids.

The Democrats are using both as political pawns.

[Starry Messenger]

66. +1

[femmocrat]

113. +2

Best point yet!

[LWolf]

144. +3

[MissDeeds]

200. +4

[YvonneCa]

165. ...

...:)

[Fearless]

247. +5!

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SunsetDreams]

58. "finally recognized the stench of a dead party"

Am I on Democratic Underground, or did I land somewhere else?

[upi402]

60. If you're happy that the Democratic Party has moved toward corporatism

and you're comfortable with letting it continue, then have at it.

But it is not the Democratic Party I marched for, and donated to - for decades.

Good luck

[SunsetDreams]

61. The corporatism meme is old

If you are comfortable with letting that continue, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Raineyb]

64. Call it old all you want but sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling

la la la la la I can't hear you because you don't LIKE it doesn't make it less true.

[SunsetDreams]

65. I hardly think I am the one doing that.

but thanks for your reply nonetheless.

[LooseWilly]

80. Hmm, I think you *are* doing that.

The policies of this administration have consistently favored corporations... maybe not as much as Republican championed policies, but nevertheless... more favoring of corporations than workers/employees/citizens = 'corporatist'. You may want to deny the meaning of the word because you aren't comfortable with the connotations (all justifiably cringe-worthy, in my opinion)... but that doesn't make the policies not fit the definition. It just makes you "defensive"...

[BzaDem]

81. Some people think allowing corporations to exist is "corporatist."

Most people throw around the word without having any idea of what it actually means.

For example, the healthcare bill provides 200 billion dollars per year to help workers/employees/citizens get insurance. That would obviously favor the workers/employees/citizens. It happens to be the biggest social welfare bill in 40 years.

But because the law allows health insurance companies to continue to exist, the bill is somehow "corporatist." This is why people who throw around the word "corporatist" should not be taken seriously.

[SunsetDreams]

88. Absolutely

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

135. $200 billion a year to corporations as the solution to our corporate health insurance

problem is corporatism.

[BzaDem]

174. See? You prove my point entirely.

When people start to define "corporatist" as allowing certain industries to exist, the word has lost all meaning and people should stop taking others who use it seriously.

[mmonk]

245. How about allowing something that doesn't run through a corporation

or is written by industry lobbyists? You prove absolutely nothing. Many countries let corporations exist and are in fact, free enterprize based countries, but have a different approach to health care access.

[LooseWilly]

252. The bill provides that 200 billion to corporations... and billions more from workers to corporations

in the form of legal (& punitively enforced) mandates to purchase a "product" from those corporations. The 200 billion you mention isn't provided to the employees/workers/citizens ... it is a subsidy that goes to the corporations (along with a portion to be paid by those self-same workers/employees/citizens in addition).

The mandate that these monies be directed to corporations, who will then (with some regulations) re-direct the monies (less their percentage cut) to those who are actually providing the health care... is a corporatist solution. It is a corporate-centric solution. Single payer, directed through an expansion of medicare or even of the VA, would have been a public/nationalized solution because it would have used public/nationalized resources to solve the issue of delivering health care to citizens.

You can try to spin it... but the term 'corporatist' applies to this example, because the kernel of the approach was to utilize corporations.

You can attempt to marginalize those who use the term 'corporatist', or you can sing the praises of the corporations... but when you try to marginalize those who use the term 'corporatist' by trying to conflate a corporatist policy (as explained above) with a public-interest-policy (as explained above with regards to other means of delivering health care by utilizing public/nationalized resources)... then you just make yourself look like a talking-point spewing hack... and in the process you simply marginalize yourself.

Thanks for playing... maybe you should do a little more work on that metaphorical curve ball? :freak:

[BzaDem]

335. Food stamp money goes to corporations. Is the food stamp program corporatist?

Yes, HCR provides health insurance through corporations. No, that is not corporatist. The definition here I have seen is helping the corporations more than the workers/employees/citizens. This bill clearly helps the workers/employees/citizens by providing them 900 billion to spend on health insurance. Insurance companies can only pocket 15% of that for administrative costs/profits/salaries.

So we have 85% of the money going to healthcare for workers/employees/citizens (mandated by law, with rebates if it is violated), and 15% to the insurance companies. How exactly does that help the corporations MORE than workers/employees/citizens?

[Raineyb]

266. Your ignorance of what the word means doesn't mean the word has no meaning.

Perhaps a dictionary would be helpful if you're having such a hard time with the word?

[rhett o rick]

330. The corporatists health care bill does not have single payer. Therefor, allowing corporations to

continue to rape the people. I guess you are ok with that.

[BzaDem]

337. There you go. Any bill that isn't single payer is "corporatist" to you. n/t

[rhett o rick]

345. Yes. Do you disagree? The corporations made out like bandits with this bill. nm

[BzaDem]

361. Absolutely, without hesitation.

I absolutely disagree that any HCR bill that isn't "Single payer" is corporatist.

Single payer wouldn't get 10 votes in the Senate. If everything to the right of "Single payer" shouldn't be enacted because of its "corporatism," then that word should simply be scrapped entirely.

[rhett o rick]

357. I was discussing the HCR bill not any bill. Your exageration does not help the discussion.

The health care bill passed was heavily influenced by millions of dollars from the corporations that ended up gaining from the bill. Do you refuteate that?

[rhett o rick]

331. i notice you dont respond. Is this a hit and run post? nm

[BzaDem]

338. Some people work during the day. n/t

[rhett o rick]

346. What???? My post was 8:45 west coast time. Whatever man. nm

[BzaDem]

362. Umm... some people work during the day and then do other things at night besides posting?

What do you want from me?

[SunsetDreams]

87. lol nice try

Opinions don't always represent facts. "consistently favored corporations" is hyperbole.
"more favoring of corporations than workers/employees/citizens"=hyperbole
I know what the meaning of the word is, I just don't think it's being used properly here. It's being used as an attack, when that attack is unfounded.

I will play defense on a baseless broad brush attack.
"The policies of this administration have consistently favored corporations"

[LooseWilly]

265. Ok, let me provide some facts to support my assertion... which I'm sure you'll then ignore.

The health care bill, rather than providing a single payer option (or even considering one)- which would've utilized public resources and infrastructure to deliver health care, the administration immediately jumped to a corporation-centric (health insurance companies) system for delivering (eventually) health care. Further, rather than regulating the health care companies in order to force them to provide more or better coverage, the administration instead decided to support a mandate forcing all citizens to purchase health insurance (which they may or may not be able to afford), and offered subsidies from the national treasury (rather than even requiring the health insurance companies to provide these subsidies) for the poor. All in all, the new law guarantees health insurance company profits to make up for the expense of covering those with pre-existing conditions... profits to be paid by those who are currently un-insured, and by taxpayers.

That is a policy that favors corporations- specifically health insurance corporations, but also corporations that provide health insurance to employees, because the main effect of forcing the poor to pay for insurance that they previously have decided they couldn't afford- is to stabilize the prices that these corporations pay for health insurance as a benefit... and so all corporations save money &/or profit.

The Wall St. bailout... bailed out Lehman Brothers, AIG, BofA, CitiBank... but never actually required that any of those institutions then continue lending (the supposed reason for the bailout...). There were no bailouts for individuals whose homes were "underwater". Sure, there were polite requests that loans be re-negotiated... but mostly that came to naught.

There are now talks about Fannie and Freddie lobbying to pass laws barring anyone who walks away from an underwater home loan from ever getting a home loan through Fannie or Freddie ever again... ironic since there is a ceiling to the home cost that Fannie or Freddie will cover, which means that the rich don't go to Fannie or Freddie for home loans... which means that only the workers/employees would be affected by this legislation... not the bosses/managers/executives.

The stimulus money was watered down, and included lots of tax cuts (which are a very ineffective source of economic stimulus). Money for states and municipalities, to help curb the loss of public jobs (as in public jobs vs. private/corporate jobs) was greatly reduced... which is a source of many of the budget crunches now being used as excuses to cut teacher pay & jobs. The choice to reduce economic support/stimulus to state and local governments in order to include tax cuts is just another contribution to an overall corporate-friendly/corporatist set of policies.

Continued outsourcing of projection of military power in both wars to corporations (Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, and gods know what all else) rather than having, say, the State Department handle the contracting of Iraqi/Afghan sub-contractors directly (cutting out Dick Cheney and all the rest of the Halliburton, etc., stockholders and executives... to make the whole process more "efficient"). I gotta call that 'corporatist'.

Uhhmm... I can't think of anything else that Obama's done. Carbon trading- not so much. Immigration reform- negatory. Uhh, I think he signed some stuff... ENDA- nope, DOMA-repeal- not so much. DADT wouldn't even have corporate repercussions... but still no.

Hate bill legislation? Hey, good stuff. Now corporations can't torture gay people... point- Obama administration. Well, unless they're gay people who've been renditioned/captured abroad/declared enemy combatants and outsourced to Kazakhstan for interrogation. Still, nice work overall.

Uhhm, domestic partner rights for federal employees... ohh, right... absolutely no effect on corporations- so, irrelevant to the question of 'corporatist'.

Well, that's all I got... I look forward to seeing your list of counter examples to prove how 'corporatist' the Obama administration's policies aren't.

[Raineyb]

105. Of course you don't. But then since you're wrong that's hardly a surprise.

:shrug:

[Cary]

83. So IOW we have to agree with you or we don't know the truth.

Yeah, your meme really is old and tired.

[Forkboy]

86. That meme is directed towards the Left all the time here.

The Left isn't part of the "real world", not part of the "reality based community". If the meme is old it's because centrists have been using it for years.

[Cary]

123. Too bad.

I'm sure the above comment was interesting, but all I can see is:

Ignored.

Oh well.

[Catshrink]

157. Ha!

Me too.

[Cary]

163. Ignore is a beautiful thing.

:)

[Catshrink]

169. It sure is

saves a lot of aggravation.

[Jax]

221. and transparent

same old same old, no substance, never was.

[Raineyb]

261. No but you can't go about spouting things that are demonstrably false and not expect to be called

out on it.

But then I'm surprised at the projection coming from someone who uses that meme all the damn time.

You've got a fucking nerve you hypocrite.

[EFerrari]

84. "The corporatism meme is old"?

LOL. Don't worry. Citizens United will reinvigorate it.

[SunsetDreams]

89. LOL Citizens United?

"Citizens United and Conservative Leaders Urge Senate to Reject Nomination of Elena Kagan: An Inexperienced Rubber Stamp"
(that's on their homepage)

If you really look at thier homepage, one can clearly see it's an attack on Democrats.

I won't link to it because it's nothing but an attack group on Dems.

[dgibby]

92. I may be wrong,

but I think "Citizens United" was a reference to the SCOTUS ruling that allows corporations to buy politicians, thereby rendering the votes of average Americans useless.

[SunsetDreams]

93. If that's the case, then it was a 5-4 ruling

The conservative court ONLY allowed that to go through.
Which is one of the BIG reasons, we can't allow another Republican President in to nominate another Conservative judge.

[Cary]

126. But now you're just being pragmatic.

Don't you know we Democrats aren't allowed to do that?

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

137. It's too late to be "pragmatic" when the horse is already out of the barn. n/t

[Cary]

159. Ridiculous. n/t

[EFerrari]

198. Nope. The Democrats did not fight those nominees

in their pragmatic wisdom. Now we're stuck with them.

[Cary]

213. If it's so easy and you can do it better, why don't you?

It's kind of a problem when the other party holds all three branches. It takes time to undo their mess and it's a lot easier to bitch and moan than it is to fight and get stuff done.

[EFerrari]

217. And none of that is responsive. Plus, you forgot pony. nt

[Cary]

219. I forgot pony because I told you to put your money where your mouth is?

Do it better, help to get it done, or STFU and get out of the way.

Unless you have a better alternative.

[JVS]

101. The corporatist policies are old.

[SunsetDreams]

104. Which policies in your view are Corporatist?

Also please give a link to the language you think is corporatist.

[LWolf]

132. Old? I guess it depends on how old you are.

Relevant? Absolutely.

[SunsetDreams]

164. LOL if I believe it were somehow relevant,

I might tell you.

[LWolf]

167. I didn't ask.

But age is certainly relevant to whether or not one considers something "old" or not.

The young tend to think anything that predates their own puberty is "old." The old, having seen many decades, sometimes consider anything younger than half a century or so to be "young." :D

[SunsetDreams]

171. That doesn't qualify in this instance,

and I am glad you were not asking my age.

[Catshrink]

175. I so admire your patience.

[LWolf]

189. On some days, anyway.

;) :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

154. letting "that" continue? what is "that"? the poster is *not* comfortable with letting financial

power dictate & mold social & economic policy, maybe you are.

yes, it's "old", jeez, yawn, no longer worthy of note

[rhett o rick]

332. I have no trouble knowing what to tell you. Corporations exist at our priveledge. We allow them to

live. They either live by our rules or die. Do you understand that? or are you a damn DLC corporatists (read fascist)?

[stray cat]

90. Great news for the GOP - they now have the teachers union votes!

Congrats on an excellent decision by union workers - the GOP welcomes you to the party and will fight for better benefits for union employees - Regards, Michael Steele

[proud2BlibKansan]

95. Actually I expect most teachers will stay home and not vote at all

[Skidmore]

129. Nothing like shooting yourself in the proverbial

kneecap.

[Diane R]

166. So I guess everything really IS all about them, huh?

[RBInMaine]

97. Politics are local, and local teachers will favor Dems heavily.

[MadHound]

99. Whistling past the graveyard there,

As a result of this ongoing war on public education, many, many teachers will simply stay home out of frustration. Then what?

[proud2BlibKansan]

111. Not to mention the work on the ground in campaigns

Teachers are already refusing to do the canvassing and door knocking we almost always do for candidates. In some races, teachers make up the majority of the volunteer campaign workers.

[femmocrat]

116. Yes, many of us worked our butts off for Obama.

I won't be taken advantage of in 2012. I will always vote democratic, but that doesn't mean I will continue to donate and volunteer.

[proud2BlibKansan]

139. I'm pretty much in the same place

But in 08 I focused on local races. It was the first time since I was a child that I didn't work on the presidential campaign. Not that I didn't like Obama-I felt like the Dems were going to win the WH regardless of who they nominated. So I worked on increasing our Dems at the local and state levels.

[derby378]

112. I believe in strong teacher evaluations, but not at the expense of public schools

To that extent, I am definitely pro-union. Corporate education comes with too high a price tag.

[proud2BlibKansan]

117. We all believe in evaluations

The problem is what these evaluations are measuring and the consequences attached to the evaluations.

[Joe Fields]

124. Then get with the program.

If the teachers know what the administrators expect from them, in regard to evaluations, then it is in the teacher's best interest to follow those guidelines. If a teacher doesn't follow those guidelines and gets a poor evaluation, then they only have themselves to blame, now don't they?

[LWolf]

136. The evaluations being promoted by the current administration

are corrupt. Teachers don't object to evaluations. We tend, not surprisingly, to prefer evaluations that are designed to improve our professional practice, rather than as punitive weapons, but that only makes sense.

It's more constructive and helpful, in the long run, to improve every teacher's practice, including those who are already good, than to march around like Dolores Umbridge trying to find something to use as a weapon against teachers.

Evaluations that judge us on things that are affected by factors we don't control, though...those are corrupt. And this administration is heavily promoting the use of those corrupt evaluations.

[Joe Fields]

182. If that is the case, then I would agree. Can you provide examples?

[LWolf]

188. Of course.

D.C.'s IMPACT would be one.

Any state that wants to qualify to compete for RTTT funds has to agree to use students' standardized test scores as part of teacher evaluation.

Since teachers are not the sole factor influencing test scores, using those test scores as an evaluation tool is corrupt. That means holding teachers accountable for factors outside of their control, and blaming them when scores don't meet expectations. If that is not a corrupt use of data, I'm not sure what is.

[Recursion]

208. Everyone knew Rhee was going to do mass firings before IMPACT even appeared

That was part of what sold the city on her.

IMPACT is a red herring for both sides; she needs an excuse to clear out the "political appointee" teachers from the 80s and 90s, when DCPS was viewed as a jobs program for Southeast.


Since teachers are not the sole factor influencing test scores, using those test scores as an evaluation tool is corrupt.

You're jumping from "unfair" to "corrupt". That's a big jump.

DCPS students have something like 8% at-grade literacy and 4% at-grade numeracy, while 90% of DCPS teachers up until 3 years ago were evaluated as "very good" or "excellent". I am well aware of how many factors outside of the teachers' control influence the "performance" of students (and we're way too performance-happy with students as it is). But come on... 90%, year after year, while dropout rates increase (one of the only systems in the nation in which dropout rates have gone steadily up for the past 20 years) and every single measure of student achievement goes down (again, in most systems there has been gradual upward movement for 20 years)? Rhee is nuking the system because the teachers and administrators have refused to implement any realistic evaluation system and people are extremely pissed and want blood.

[LWolf]

291. Corrupt because those who advocate using test scores in that way

KNOW it's not a valid use, and do it anyway for political purposes.

Since you are already aware of how many factors outside of our control influence student success, I have to ask this: is DC doing anything to address those factors? Until those factors are addressed, how is "nuking the system" going to fix anything? If the goal is truly to make a positive change, ALL the factors must be addressed. What has been done to increase resources at schools for struggling students?

[Recursion]

295. I'm torn here

On the one hand, I completely agree with your points

On the other, DCPS is in the unfortunately singular position of having the threat of Federal receivership hanging over it every year.

If we ended DC's colonial status a lot of these problems would disappear.

[LWolf]

297. I'm thinking a couple of things.

First of all, DC's issues need to be solved cleanly. I don't think you clean up a bad system with corrupt tools. That just sets up whatever replaces the current status quo to also be corrupt.

I'd really be interested in hearing your thoughts on DC's colonial status, in a non-education related thread. Not that it's not relevant to education; it obviously is, just as poverty is.

Since it's a direct source of much of the dysfunction, it deserves some discussions of it's own.

And I'm thinking that public education doesn't need every state and district to be run under punitive authoritarian mandates because problems have been identified with some. That's overkill, and if it weren't politically advantageous to some, it wouldn't happen. I'd love to see the actual sources of those problems be addressed directly. By and large, I don't think teachers are the primary sources of those problems.

Disclaimer: I, and most teachers I know, are not against getting rid of bad teachers, as long as due process is used.

[Recursion]

299. Thank you for that thoughtful post. Let me give one unqualified "Amen"

First of all, DC's issues need to be solved cleanly.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES.

The danger as I see it is that the GOP is going to take Fenty's/Rhee's work against the particular corruption of the city and use it to endanger the party as a whole nationwide.

I'm working on a post on DC's status (I do them every so often) and will PM you when it's up outside of Education.

[Joe Fields]

232. We will have to agree to disagree on nyour statement.

I see nothing at all wrong with evaluating teachers on standardized test scores. What you are saying to me is, IMO, a cop out.

[YvonneCa]

258. If it were the teachers taking the standardized test...

...and being evaluated on how they performed, that would be correct. But the teachers DON'T take the test...students do. That leaves MANY variables that can influence their score...all the way from 'they were given the answers and scored well' to 'they disliked the subject or the teacher or the school', or 'they were sick', or 'they didn't care' and scored poorly.

In public schools the workers are the students and the teachers are the middle managers.

If one wants to *incent* learning, it's important to apply the positive or negative reinforcement in the correct place...the workers (students). Paying teachers for performance or punishing them for non-performance MISSES THE POINT.

[Joe Fields]

289. IMO, that's a cop-out. It was that way when my father went to school,

it was that way when I went to school, and so what's the big deal? There have been and will always be outside influences. I have been asked to perform "under the gun," so to speak on a few jobs, and rose to the challenge. If the teacher cannot find ways to motivate kids in the classroom to learn the required subject matter, then they should be held accountable, period.

[YvonneCa]

300. And your credentials for making that judgement is...

...what? That you attended school?

I just don't understand this straw man argument...that teachers are evading accountability. That is TOTALLY untrue. And where does the idea come from that teachers "should be held accountable, period" because somehow students aren't learning because the teacher didn't successfully MOTIVATE them?

Have you even had a student in your class whose dad had just died? That student WILL NOT...I repeat WILL NOT...respond to a teacher's efforts at motivation for a while.

What about the group of kids who saw a friend shot in the neighborhood the night before? Do you think MATH will be the first thing you teach that morning?

I just wish...before people make straw man arguments about a subject the know NOTHING about...that they would think.

[Joe Fields]

321. your wild and extreme statements say a lot about you.

I wonder how much of that spills into your classroom.

Those statements remind me of Reagan talking about "welfare queens," as if they were the norm. You and a few others here are ALL about making excuses for yourselves. If you are so unfairly treated, then find another profession, if you can't cut it. I'm through with this discussion.

[YvonneCa]

326. Wow. Don't I remember both of us supporting...

...Biden in 2008, and then President Obama? I could be wrong. I don't remember personal attacks back then...we were mostly on the same side.

I'm sorry you perceive truth as 'wild and extreme.' Maybe ending this discussion is for the best.

[LWolf]

293. No. Using student test scores to evaluate teachers is junk science. nt

[newspeak]

354. yes, and as stated above

the * "no child left behind" is based on test results. Now, I had a professor who graded on a curve and the reason was that the tests that he created may be flawed. He admitted it. In Nevada when the new tests were being administered to highschool students, (I can't remember the number who didn't graduate, but it was unusually high), the RJ had an article that the test was administered to some professionals, like engineers, some had a difficult time as well.

Spending the whole year preparing the students for a test, by rote, does not promote critical thinking skills. What it does promote is allowing those students to become drone listeners to our MSM--repetitious fabrications enforced because there is no critical thinking. Debate and discussion allows a student to sharpen their critical thinking skills and to be flexible to other ideas.

[proud2BlibKansan]

155. I'm blaming poverty, incarcerated parents, poor attendance, lack of social services, etc

Those are the major factors impacting achievement. And since student achievement is now tied to teacher evaluations, it's only fair to look at all the factors that impact it, correct?

Unless of course you also think we should blame dentists when patients get cavities because they don't brush their teeth.

What? You say that's silly? Well of course it is, but that's exactly what's happening in the world of teacher evaluations.

[Hannah Bell]

156. they're not getting evaluated on how well they do "what administrators expect of them".

they're getting evaluated on their students' scores on standardized tests.

[Joe Fields]

180. that is a given that I felt need not even be mentioned.

I guess I have to spell things out. The administrators expect the teachers to teach what is covered on standardized tests. Therefore, it is the teachers responsibility to do just that.

[Hannah Bell]

183. lol. they *do* "cover it". to a fault. your condescension is noted.

[Joe Fields]

202. do you even know what the hell you're arguing about?

I have my doubts that you do. Why do I say that? All you have to do is go back and read your answers to my statements and there you have it. You noted my condescension, while I note your lack of comprehension.

[Catshrink]

187. That's called narrowing the curriculum.

Who decides what goes on the tests decides what gets taught, according to what you've written.

[Joe Fields]

203. That is a whole different topic. I am hearing a lot of teachers

on this thread complaining about evals. Many of them have railed against evals based on their student's standardized test scores. So, my answer is for the teachers to do as they are told and there should be no problem. Give the administrators what they want, and they should have no problem with the teacher evaluations.

[proud2BlibKansan]

249. And to hell with doing what's best for the kids!

[Joe Fields]

254. as a teacher, you don't get to make that call.

that's the administrators call. If you choose to do your own thing in the classroom and ignore administration guidelines then you will probably get a poor eval.

completely different argument you just threw in my face.

[proud2BlibKansan]

311. Actually, that's my JOB to make that call

[Catshrink]

251. What about educating children?

That's why we're in this business. Are teachers the only ones who care what kind of education a student gets?

[Joe Fields]

257. If you don't want to play by the rules, then....

I would suggest finding an education system more suitable to you, or get out of the business. Contrary to popular belief on this board, standardized tests are not the evil that they are made out to be.

[Catshrink]

274. And you know this by...

your vast experience in the education field? Do you know how seriously students take standardized tests? Do you really think they measure learning or do you think they measure test taking ability?

[YvonneCa]

303. I've given standardized tests since...

...1984. You?

[YvonneCa]

302. You are confusing terms. It is one thing to TEACH...

...that is the job of teachers. The term you are missing is LEARN. That is the job of students...with the help and support of their teachers, parents and others in their world.

Teachers do have the responsibility to teach...but they cannot MAKE a student learn. It's that old saying..."You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." :)

You don't have to spell anything out...your position is the RHEE line.

[Joe Fields]

307. a good teacher doesn't "make" a child learn...they inspire them.

enough already with these circular arguments and lame excuses for not wanting to be held accountable for your jobs.

[YvonneCa]

308. Could you share some examples of what you...

...mean by 'inspire'?

[WinkyDink]

134. Yet somehow PRINCIPALS DOING THEIR OWN JOBS BETTER is never a topic, is it?

[Recursion]

146. A principal's being fired doesn't bring out protestors

Teachers' being fired does.

[knitter4democracy]

186. Probably because it doesn't happen as often.

It's harder to get rid of a bad administrator than it is to get rid of a bad teacher--and admins cost more.

[Recursion]

190. Really?

It's harder to get rid of a bad administrator than it is to get rid of a bad teacher

On what do you base that claim?

[Recursion]

192. Here are some results from a Google news search of "principal fired"

http://www.projo.com/news/content/ONEILL_TRIAL23_07-23-10_52JA2FP_v10.3a63a47.html

http://www.theledger.com/article/20100723/NEWS/7235080/1338

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/07/20/2349484/fort-worth-school-board-delays.html

http://www.dailymail.com/News/201007210778

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/99080869_The_wrong_vice-principal_is_being_fired.html

(I left out two stories about a principal fired for sexual harrassment of students)

[Hannah Bell]

211. your first link is about a teacher who was fired, not a principal. allegedly for not fraudulently

altering a grade as ordered to do by administration.

the principal was *not* fired, he is accusing the teacher of stalking.


the second link is about a "dean" who quit (likely forced to quit behind the scenes given the charges). and in fact if you read further, you find he was a dean of curriculum (i.e. a teacher in charge of one aspect of instruction) -- not a principal.

the third link is about a teacher.

the fourth link, finally, is about a principal -- though an assistant principal, some of whom often continue teaching duties. the firing happened 11 years ago; the article is about a lawsuit pursued by the asst principal.


the 5th link is about a vice-principal.


so 3/5 of your links are actually about teachers being fired; 2/5 are about vice/assistant principals being fired, one of which occurred 11 years ago.

none is about principals being fired.

i can find reports of thousands of teachers being fired/laid off just in the last year.

[Recursion]

216. You're right, I misread the first one

For the rest (and in the other "teacher" story, the principal also resigned), I didn't realize you needed a literal principal as opposed to "senior level administration". I'll do some more google-fu.

[Hannah Bell]

222. no need to do anything. no one disputes that principals are sometimes fired. the poster

said that teachers are more easily fired than principals, & if you understand the balance of power in most schools, districts & states, you'd know it's true. teachers are the least powerful players in the mix, for all the stories of how teaching is a sinecure. it's just not true, & never was.

i can find you *thousands,* maybe even tens of thousands, of teacher firings in just the last year. entire schools fired. 5% of an entire district fired.

[Recursion]

228. Several groups are less powerful than teachers

Students

Non-administrative staff

Community tutors/mentors

[Hannah Bell]

236. students are less powerful in some situations, more powerful in others.

students (& their parents) have the power to get teachers fired if they choose to do so.

public school teachers rarely have the power to expel students permanently or to force them to do work, attend classes, or behave in the classroom if the student doesn't choose to do so. teachers have the power to have students *temporarily* removed from their classroom, but everything else depends on their principal & upper-level administration.

non-administrative staff (janitors, lunch ladies, clerical etc.) are generally unionized personnel (in public schools) & as such, have as much power & protection from indiscriminate firing as teachers. they also (save perhaps clerical staff) have much less "political" positions -- so long as a janitor shows up, adequately cleans up, & doesn't drink, steal, etc, he's generally safe from interpersonal conflict/power struggles that can lead to firing. it's pretty cut & dried.

teachers otoh have to navigate the personalities & issues of students, parents, & administrators as well as teach. but they don't control *what* is taught, they don't control *how* it's taught, they don't control class size, class time, they don't control *who* is taught, they don't control who's in their classroom, they don't control regulations, etc.

they're asked to do a very difficult job with lots of minefields but have next to no control over the conditions under which they do it.

[madfloridian]

259. That is not really true. A student can be far more powerful than a teacher.

If they tell a lie about that teacher. A student can get a teacher fired if their parents are powerful enough.

[knitter4democracy]

322. Everyone knows that secretaries and janitors run the school.

It takes a lot to fire them--usually sexual misconduct of some sort or blatant job performance issues. They know all the dirt on everyone, know who's related to whom and who goes to church/body of worship with whom, and where the bodies are buried. Only an idiot of a principal or HR director would fire a school secretary.

The least powerful people in a school, in my experience, are the parapros, lunch staff, and bus drivers. They're often the first cut in any budget rollbacks, but they're often the most critical staff for the students every day.

As for students, it depends on several factors: whom they're related to, what their history at that school is, what PR problems the school's been having lately, and whether it's a public or private school. In every private school I've taught in, the students have had far more power than the teachers by a long shot.

[Recursion]

225. Stories about fired principals

(Again, I'm skipping several who were fired for blatant misconduct like assault or sexual harrassment; also skipping vice principals and assistant principals.)

http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2010/07/obama-school-deform-rules-get-top.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/bellaire/news/5465458.html

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/22966514/detail.html (this involves saying the "N word" but I left it in because the principal himself argues it's an academic freedom issue)

http://www.wqad.com/news/wqad-durant-monica-rouse-032910,0,6274194.story

http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Rincon-High-principal-fired-89042467.html (this did involve allegations of misconduct, but reads more like she pissed off the board)

http://www.dcedublog.com/2008/11/hart-principal-fired.html

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/06/25/news/5191351.txt

Judging from this, what a principal has to do to get fired is not kiss sufficient ass with the board.

[knitter4democracy]

320. Principals, in general, have to screw up big-time.

There has to be a pattern of behavior stretching over time, or, if not, there has to be a massive screw-up. I'd bet that every one of those principals has found another job, excepting the sexual harrassment ones. Districts tend to pass bad admins around like bad pennies.

We had a principal in my district who sexually harassed his teachers and was caught having an affair with one of them. The board fired him, but he won on a lawsuit (they skipped a couple of steps in the firing process) and so was "demoted" to being a teacher again. He even got caught with a prostitute in a big sting and still taught until retirement.

In my experience (I'm a teacher, my mom is a retired public high school teacher of 35 years, and my stepmom's a retired public high school journalism and home ec teacher), principals keep their jobs if they kiss the right asses and play the political game right. They get promoted if they fire enough expensive teachers and keep the school from burning down, and they only get fired if there's enough parental and social pressure to fire them (or if they tick off the wrong powerful board member--rarely happens, but it can).

[WinkyDink]

196. Here's my point: A principal's main---MAIN---duty is to EVALUATE TEACHERS.

I'm not talking about "protestors."

[xchrom]

119. recommend -- we will see what happens. nt

[WinkyDink]

133. Not "the Democrats"; "the Obama Administration". Thank you.

[DailyGrind51]

141. Obama will have to hitch a ride home from the dance after ditching the ones that brung him!

[amborin]

152. K&R

[Dragonbreathp9d]

170. hmmm, I disagree - however that may be becasue I am in Texas

where our dear governor has been waging a war against public schools - and any teacher worth a damn knows it- even conservative (values) teachers take a strong stance against him- and in turn- the (majority of) republicans in the state

[TBF]

230. Yes, I have been in Texas now 7 years and it is like living in another country

in some ways. Some of it is awesome (one of my hobbies is finding great barbeque!) but it is saying something when someone as conservative as Bill White barely has a chance against a neanderthal like Perry.

We are in suburban Houston (Brazoria), exemplary schools. We are fortunate to have outstanding teachers, and this year they've punished them by going to one year contracts which is much less stable for the teachers.

[Individualist]

177. K&R

[MichiganVote]

178. Teachers only direction is to serve students. Every administration for the past 30 years has had

another "reform" plan for education. AND every one has about as much chance of success as the war in Afghanistan.

I don't see anything different in Obama's plan. That said, I expect there will be a hyped up national media event featuring a charter school teacher very soon. AND it will be amazing and wonderful and on and on.

Tired of the bullshit. Different president, same bullshit.

[madfloridian]

191. When did it become ok with our party to bust teachers" unions??

Recommended.

[Recursion]

193. When some (not all, not most) teachers' unions put job security above everything else

The VP of the DC teachers' union was on an NPR talk show on Friday and talked for 10 minutes about how important these teachers' jobs were to the community and how long these teachers had worked at the school system... and never once mentioned the students.

I love unions. I am pro-union. But part of being pro-union is recognizing when unions are doing bad things and trying to correct them.

[WinkyDink]

197. In a discussion on "unions", "unions" will be the topic, not some standard pap about the chirrun.

Do we expect UAW members to wax poetic about their love of cars, when union issues are the topic?

[Recursion]

199. The topic of that segment was "education"

Obviously it's the union's job to be the teachers' advocates. I would also hope they balance that with being the students' advocates to some extent (and, no, what's best for all teachers' jobs is not necessarily best for students).

[madfloridian]

201. Oh, yeh, like the "reformers" are enamored of the students.. yeh right.

I am to the point that I realize some here are baiting, but it needs to stop.

Bad teachers don't last as long these everloving talking points do.

Obama and Arne better start paying attention to the teachers.

[Recursion]

205. I'm certainly not baiting

And in the school systems I've learned in and worked in the bad teachers have lasted a very long time. (30 years. 40 years.) And the unions aren't remotely the biggest part of that problem but they are part of it, and it doesn't do good teachers any good to pretend:

A) that teachers are never the problem
B) that some TUs don't put teacher job security above everything else
C) that in some dysfunctional systems education jobs are doled out as political rewards and viewed as an entitlement by the people who hold them

Is there any reform involving getting any teachers out of the classroom that you wouldn't consider union-busting?

[madfloridian]

256. I will not argue with the propaganda anymore. It's like fighting a cloud...

there's nothing there to fight.

I will just present my position.

Yes, it is union busting when they are firing teachers with tenure who get good salaries.

This administration is making a huge mistake by dismissing teachers as unworthy.

[Recursion]

269. Any attempt whatsoever, to fire any tenured teacher, is union busting?

Is that really what you're saying?

[madfloridian]

270. That's it for me. Deliberate misrepresentation is baiting.

Bye to you, not going to bother anymore.

[Recursion]

273. No, no, no. I was giving you a chance to clarify

You said, and I quote, "Yes, it is union busting when they are firing teachers with tenure who get good salaries."

I was asking you to clarify whether you really meant that absolutely.

Does having tenure mean you are a good teacher? Look, I've been through and worked at very bad school systems, where tenure meant you held on long enough and had enough friends that you finally made it to the good-old-gals network. This does happen.

[Hannah Bell]

280. no, you were baiting & throwing straw men. i seriously doubt you're in education.

the "good old gals" network is a serious clue. schools aren't run by "good old gals".

[Recursion]

287. It depends

I'm going to say that I need to think about this for a while (I just wrote a post in GD describing my confusion if you'd like to excoriate me there). This is a complex subject for me for a lot of reasons and I've been too hasty on a lot of this. So, I guess my point is, you may well be right, and I need to think for a while.

[Danger Mouse]

220. I stand with the unions. K and R. (nt)

[TBF]

223. Solidarity with teachers.

I have no interest in anything that snake oil salesman Duncan is proposing.

[LWolf]

298. Thank you. nt

[Jefferson23]

234. This stilll shocks me, but maybe they figure they'll make up for it

with voters who have been abandoned by the GOP/Teabaggers. Hispanic voters, although traditionally socially conservative to a degree, are going to vote in droves for Obama. What as a voting block would they have strong disagreements with, DADT? Still in place and abortion rights? Looking at the HCR, no money there to speak of for abortions with fed dollars. This administration it appears has made their decisions, and
teachers/unions are not necessarily a concern...not at all.

[John Agar]

237. I expected better from the Democrats.

Teachers need our support.

[LWolf]

294. Thank you. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

334. Welcome to DU

[John Agar]

349. Thank you proud2B.

It was a little intimidating at first.

Your welcome makes me feel a bit more at home.

Is there a forum here that you can recommend, where new posters can relax a little, and get to know people and such?

Thanks again.

JA

[Vinca]

244. I don't understand why we can't work toward really good public schools.

Must everything be taken over by for-profit companies?

[ibegurpard]

248. my question exactly

and when did this philosophy become the dominant philosophy in the Democratic Party?

[Hannah Bell]

282. yes, everything must. They're been privatizing public functions for 30 years.

Even the military, intelligence, prisons, & emergency management. Basic security functions. Private corps are doing those things, & in some cases even foreign-owned corps.

I don't understand why the wingers aren't up in arms about it.

[liberation]

284. Yes, the magic invisible hand of the market will make things better

Don't cha know?

I find your lack of faith disturbing. ;-)

[Fearless]

246. Hmm... if only SOMEONE could've seen this coming...

:sarcasm:

[Dappleganger]

250. This independent will ALWAYS vote with the teachers.

[VPStoltz]

255. Perhaps, but they certainly are not running to dark side.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

271. YAWN...

Another screed written by Shamus Cooke, who in a 3 minute google, I found writes for the Socialist Appeal, the Worker Compass (featuring articles such as "The Significance of the Socialist Revolution"), and "Peace, Earth, and Justice" a far-left Canadian who calls economic sanctions against Iran (for violating nuclear weapons treaties) "an act of war".

Mr. Cooke is certainly entitled to his own opinion. Apparently it's taken him this long to realize that the President, and the Democratic party, is actually not socialist. Like Beck, he also makes compares the President to Nazis more or less at the drop of the hat.

However, what he doesn't do is actually speak for teacher's unions.



Oh I'm sure teachers' unions aren't 100% happy with everything the President has been able to get done, or even 100% of his positions. Part of politics is learning to accept compromise. And I'm sure they're working the President's people to get what they want.

But Shamus's hate-filled rants (really? an ugly cartoon depicting Naomi Wolfe as a battered housewife? really?) are just that.

Haters gonna hate.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Bluebear]

318. "Haters gonna hate" - what a stupid response. nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

355. Like I said. N/T

[Raggz]

279. HCR will lay off thousands of angry teachers

I can tell you that the teacher unions in California are upset about health care reform. California now needs to find ANOTHER 3 billion to pay for health care reform and a lot of that will come from teacher layoffs and school closings. The teachers haven't thought this through but their union leaders have.

[pleah]

292. The union busting and privatization continues. :( n/t

[Bozita]

325. +1

[Historic NY]

304. I'm sure you can get the GOP to repeal any of the changes Obama makes...

right after the dismantle the Dept. of Education.
:popcorn:

[AllTooEasy]

306. Well good luck with a Republican Administration

My cousin teaches at Coolidge public high school in DC and she says the 270 firings WASN'T ENOUGH. DC has some HORRIBLE teachers. Anyone in DC that can barely afford a private school education for their kids, sends their kids to private schools in and around DC...including my parents, my cousin at Coolidge, her principle, and probably everyone else up the chain.

My cousin thought the firings were unfair based on test scores alone. If you get a class that been improperly educated for 8 years, how are you going to turn those study habits and test scores around by mid year? That's always frustrated her.

[Name removed]

310. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoseGaspar]

313. Teachers under the bus...

... the school bus, of course. Who needs em? Public education? Union work rules? Seniority? Fuck it. Who needs it?

Got no money for poor kids. Got no money at all. Hell, education which was Number One during the important decades, is number two at best, these days... behind prisons. We need some really NEW good ideas, now... from EXPERTS like Bill Gates, who knows nothing but can afford everything. Cut the budgets, fire the teachers, and maybe we can have Corporate Trainers do the job.

Better still would be to lower the working age again. Put those kids back to work in the mills - life is a great teacher.

...if there were any mills left.

What a lame, sorry, disgusting spectacle this is. It would make Romans blush.

[Dinger]

324. Yup. It's Fuckin' Crowded Under Here Too (nt)

[DeSwiss]

314. K&R n/t

[colsohlibgal]

319. Big Leaks In The Umbrella

At the leadership level now it's actually like we have one party with 2 divisions - corporate and corporate ultra. The big problem at the actual top is that Obama has veered to the corporate and military/industrial interests. That stinks and that's why individuals and groups/unions are bolting or looking at bolting.

[Hardrada]

348. And this is a threat to democracy no matter which party

is in power. But the betrayal by Obama is especially perilous for when people see they are doomed anyway, leftists or teabaggers (yes, they are doomed too), they may resort to other means for the society that they want and that would mean lakes of blood.

[rhett o rick]

329. The DLC Democrats are corporatists and not supportive of unions or the working class. nm

[Oilwellian]

333. Good

K&R

[Name removed]

347. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

352. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

353. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.