board77

The reason I have to go to the rangers, SF, is that you have proven you have no personal ability to reign yourself in and actually discuss things, without attackign your opponent.

Your last posts are so beyond out of line I'm not exactly sure how to respond.

As for calling you a communist, well, I wasn't. I was pointing out your point of view was the same as one.

Freddy, I still haven't gotten answers to the questions I've asked SF either. He seems far more concerned with trying to smear me into the ground. I personally am sick of this tactic of making one's argument. He seems to have succeeded on another board of finding the exact right tone to get by the mods there, and make it completely worthless to spend time there if you disagree. I don't intend to let that happen here.

Here are two (or 4 if you wish) questions I'd like answers to, SF:

What greed do you have to oppose as a teacher's union? Who is the antagonist for the union?

How many work stoppages went on in your 34 years as a teacher/Union rep? If, as you say, no child missed a "day of education" what were they doing during those work stoppages? Can you really claim their education didn't suffer from not having teachers?

Your claim that schools are not businesses is false as well. They have employees, and they provide a service. Their money comes from the state, rather than fees (well, disregarding private schools of course), but they still do essentially work for the taxpayers. They have to bring in money, and distribute it in the best manner possible to provide their service. The more money the teacher's union sucks out of the limited supply, the more the product suffers. This is the parasitic relationship I mentioned before.

SF, I did not attack public education (although there's plenty wrong with it).

For an extended period of my life I wanted to be a teacher, although I admit being part of the union added to my ending my pursuit of that career path.

I did attack teacher's unions, because I think they are a bad thing, and hurt public education. You've yet to actually discuss that, as you cant help but lash out at me personally.

I lost a day to a teacher's strike. In '98 or '99 (can't remember which) the teachers in WA state went on strike. The day off rolled through districts, each district deciding when to take their strike day. Some struck on weekends. Mine did a weekday. It was a controversy among the teachers. They all agreed to strike, but the teachers in districts that took a weekend strike day were calling the teachers in districts taht took a weekday strike day irresponsible. In my district, we knew the strike day was coming, teachers planned accordingly, and thus it was far less disruptive than, say, a snow day.

I just enjoyed the day off.

Teacher's unions exist to give teachers bargaining power against the state. In this case, it's not so much greed as it is bureaucratic monoliths and politics that public school teachers face. The tenure system (which is what I think, when you get to the heart of it, a lot of people here are railing against) is maintained by the unions but its another beast entirely. The reason tenure exists is to preserve academic freedom. Once a teacher at ANY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL is tenured, it is very difficult to fire that teacher. It can be done, but it's hard. And it's meant to be that way, because the system was developed in a time when academics had reason to fear that they would be summarily kicked to the curb if they said something the PTBs didn't like. Probably more of a problem in universities than in secondary and primary schools, but the security is nice so all educators leapt on board.

I'm rather glad teachers have unions as it provides my sister with her desperately needed health care benefits.

halplm wrote:

You think by virtue of being a math teacher you can coach the football team?

I went to a very well-funded public HS. One of our math teachers coached the soccer team. Another did basketball and softball. Track and football were coached by a security guard. Another security guard at my HS coached football at the middle school. The Japanese teacher did driver's ed during the summer.

In a small, rural school, chances are you will have the same teacher for literature and physics. The basic techniques of teaching are generally applicable. You need to make tweaks for the subject matter and setting but the principles don't change.

sauronsfinger wrote:

Lies and just plain ignorance will not be allowed to pass.

SF, it sounds like you are mixing up your own conversational preferences with how people are expected to behave on this site. No, credentials are not required to post at board77. I think there is a minimum age requirement, but that's it.

I know that it can be obnoxious when you have strong feelings about something and are told to ignore negative feedback, but sometimes it makes more sense than getting so carried away, you feel it's your personal duty to trash the person disagreeing with you. Good arguments will hold. They don't need added fanfare, or to be sided with after other viewpoints are shot down because they're written by someone you have issues with.

Since a lot of drawn-out arguments at b77 involve the same people, I think your crusade for truth and enlightenment is falling on deaf ears (well, eyes). No one's budging, so it just devolves into snaps about an individual's personal life, or posts they've made in other forums on other topics, which is beyond pointless imo. I'm glad that passion is being filtered into a career that can have such a positive impact, but just because a messageboard limits our ability to get through to people doesn't mean you need to make up for it with insults. So tone it down. You're not even saying anything about hal that hasn't been said a thousand times before, or by other people. If there is nothing left to discuss but the person themselves, move on.




*E*

/Ranger mode

Okay, next person to continue this personal fight, in this thread or elsewhere on the board, gets tossed in the bikeracks. sf, hal, this applies to BOTH of you and I think you both know from past experience what steps follow that. Debates are fine, ugly personal fights are not. Drop it now.

/Ranger mode

from Feredir

Quote:

I think on the surface you and I agree about unions. They should be used for bargaining and finding what the majority of their members want and fight for that. Am I reading you correctly?

Yes. that is correct.

Quote:

Where I think we might disagree is how some unions do their business. Since you were in the teaching profession I will ask this of you. If a teacher screws up, I mean big time, but he/she is has tenure should they be allotted special protection to avoid firing?

These "special protections" are what is called due process. A teacher who is accused of serious violations of conduct or behavior (other than criminal activity which is handled outside the union or school system by the police and judicial authorities) can be called up on charges and there is a process where hearings are held, evidence presented, witnesses heard, arguments made, and findings take place. Over the 21 years I was my schools Building Representative (union steward) I represented dozens of teachers in front of administrators and assisted them in their defense. Almost all of the time, the matter is quickly resolved and goes no further than that. There were three teachers who did lose their jobs and were fired because of serious violations. One I vividly remember was a teacher with 28 years experience, 2 years away from retirement, who was then fired. And yes, the teacher deserved it. It was not my job to pass judgement upon them but to defend them. That is part of due process and any attorney understands the role.

I have also seen several teachers who were outright terrible at their job and should have been fired but never had a problem with administration at all. It had to do with their lips being firmly attached to the backsides of administration and being their little toadies and fan club members.

What protects children from teachers like that?

Quote:

Should there be performance objectives with punitive results for a lack of performance?
(this does not necessarily mean firing but loss of certain privileges until performance is improved)

I guess you would have to define what "performance objectives mean. Are we talking about an individual teachers perfomrance, the entire staffs performance, an individual students performance, the collective classes performance, the entire student bodies performance? There are big differences in each.

Quote:

I personally think the NEA is likely the most powerful lobbying group in our country and I question how much they really listen to their members. I also question why teachers strike?

I was not in the NEA. I was in the AFT. The NEA is more of an professional educational association while the AFT is a strict union. I guess some would say the AFT is more militant. My attitude was that I was a worker. No better or no worse than a pipefitter, assembly line worker, or bricklayer. My concerns, just like any union member is wages, benefits, hours and working conditions. As a teacher I have the additional concern of educational reforms for the children.

I can tell you that any large organization of millions of people has the problem you indicate - some individual members not being heard by the leaders at the top. However, having said that, there is a structure firmly in place which begins at the local school level, expands to the district level, expands to county or state levels, and then finally national conventions. As a longtime union representative, I attended all of these on a regular basis. Not only did we discuss core union issues, but at least as much time was spent on educational reforms to help kids in the classrooms.

But keep in mind that 99% of school problems with the union are resolved at the local level and need not go any further. If a member claims they are not heard, I would a series of questions to that member. Do they attend the local union meetings? Do they communicate with their union leaders? Do they involve themselves in the union at the local school level? How have they attempted to make their thoughts and concerns known to the union?

Why do teachers strike?
Maybe I can answer a question with a question. Why does any worker strike? In the final analysis, the only real weapon a worker has against management or their employer is their own services and labor. Obviously a strike is not the first line of attack or defense. It is the final and last thing you do and avoid doing at all costs.

During my 34 years, we went on strike four different times. The first was for nearly six weeks and lasted 40 days. The others ranged from a few days to 2 weeks. Not one day of student class time was lost because of any of those job actions. Not one. Students were given the full school year and got their full time in the classroom each and every time.

I hope that answers your questions Freddy. I will be glad to answer any more or elaborate further if you feel more explaination is necessary or if my answers are not satisfactory.

and more questions from Hal regarding education and unions

Quote:

What greed do you have to oppose as a teacher's union? Who is the antagonist for the union?

You asked this question before and I answered it before. But, I will try to do so again.
Teacher unions are not fighting "greed" as you term it - whatever that may mean to you.
We are not against or opposed or fighting any battles against any antagonists. Teacher unions are a collective of members who advocate for their legal rights to have a contract with their employer.

Regarding strikes or work stopages ,please see my answer in the post above to Federir.

Quote:

If, as you say, no child missed a "day of education" what were they doing during those work stoppages? Can you really claim their education didn't suffer from not having teachers?

The State where I live allocates 180 days and a certain number of classroom hours for every student. Even in the year when we were out for nearly six weeks, each student was given their 180 days of classroom education.

If you want to know what the children were doing during those work stoppages, you will have to ask some of them. I was a teacher during those events and not a parent or student who has that information. I can tell you that during the six week strike, the union did set up special union schools where children could go for several hours each day. Teachers on strike volunteered their time and services to provide educational activities for children - and they did not get one dime for their efforts and it cost the union money to rent the space.

Quote:

Your claim that schools are not businesses is false as well. They have employees, and they provide a service. Their money comes from the state, rather than fees (well, disregarding private schools of course), but they still do essentially work for the taxpayers. They have to bring in money, and distribute it in the best manner possible to provide their service. The more money the teacher's union sucks out of the limited supply, the more the product suffers. This is the parasitic relationship I mentioned before

Do understand the difference between a commercial business and a government service?

Fire protection in the persons of the Fire Department are a public service and function of government and are not a business. They are not there to make a profit.

Police protection in the persons of the Police Department are a public service and function of government and are not a business. They are not there to make a profit.

Public education for children in the persons of the Public School System is a public service and function of government and is not a business. It is not there to make a profit.

This is not my opinion. This is not my belief. This is not a fallacy I labor under. This is a fact of life.

You refer to teachers unions sucking money from the system. Do you understand how public education works? The operation of schools is a labor intensive process. The service being rendered is that of the teacher in the classroom to the student in the classroom. It is that service that comprises the largest portion of any school budget. To say you want to spend less on teachers is like saying your local department store sure could make a bigger profit if they only did not have to spend all that valuable money on their inventory. Its nonsensical and pointless to claim this. The delivery of the teachers service IS part and parcel the essence of education. In fact, it is the most important component of the delivery of the service of education to the student.

You use the term "parasitic relationship". Any dictionary will tell you that a parasite is an organism who lives off another and gives nothing in return. I assume you used that term because it is an insult to teachers and expresses you personal feelings about public school teachers. However, aside from your personal animus, teachers perform a job. Teachers give of themselves and their labor and knowledge. Teachers are not parasitic. You have badly misused a term which in and of itself is tinged with ill will.

As I stated in the very beginning of this discussion, a clear understanding of the public school system, the role of teachers in that system, and the role of teachers union is essential to any intelligent discussion of the topic.

SF, thank you for answering my questions and thank you for keeping it on target with Hal.

I guess my biggest disagreement with you will be in the area of the students did not receive less education. Would you agree that any interuption of the learning process will create a problem? Think of it this way. When the kids get back from Christmas or Easter break can you pick up exactly where you left off or do you need to review? I understand that you have to review constantly but the longer the break the further back you need to start.

Police, fire, and nurse unions are prohibited by federal law from striking for obvious reasons. We are able to resolve our contractual issues through fact finding, mediation, and then binding arbitration. Why can't teachers do the same? Why do they have to strike?

Finally, the process you describe for discipline is the same as ours so we agree on that fact.

I do have some other areas of concern that I might start a new thread on because I would like to get a teacher's point of view and is a different topic from unions. Of course this whole thing could really be split because it isn't about the election. Rangers?


freddy

from Feredir

Quote:

I guess my biggest disagreement with you will be in the area of the students did not receive less education. Would you agree that any interuption of the learning process will create a problem? Think of it this way. When the kids get back from Christmas or Easter break can you pick up exactly where you left off or do you need to review? I understand that you have to review constantly but the longer the break the further back you need to start.

The current September through June school year is set up by the old farming calendar of harvest and sowing seasons. There is no educational reason or rationale for it at all.

So if this arbitrary calendar is changed or extended or postponed to weeks or months outside of that calendar where is the harm to the student? There is no objective statistical research to demonstrate any longterm harm to students learning based on teachers strikes. If there is evidence to that, I would be glad to read it and would comment upon it. But I have never seen any presented by even the most anti-teacher persons or groups.

You propose binding mediation. That would be fine with me. Every strike we hve ever been involved in, the union has proposed this and sometimes it happens. But the Board of Education has always been loathe to go down that path because it takes control out of their hands.

But I would be in favor of your idea Feredir

I would be more than happy to participate in any education discussion you want to start and look forward to it.

sauronsfinger wrote:

and more questions from Hal regarding education and unions

You just can't answer questions without demeaning people who disagree with you... sigh...

Quote:

Quote:

What greed do you have to oppose as a teacher's union? Who is the antagonist for the union?

You asked this question before and I answered it before. But, I will try to do so again.
Teacher unions are not fighting "greed" as you term it - whatever that may mean to you.
We are not against or opposed or fighting any battles against any antagonists. Teacher unions are a collective of members who advocate for their legal rights to have a contract with their employer.

You did not answer it before, and you're dodging it yet again. If there is no antagonist, then there is no need for a union. If there is no fighting, why would there be a strike? If there is a strike, to get anything from this antagonist, who pays for the resulting agreement? I know the answer. I know YOU know the answer. Why can't you just state it plainly?

Quote:

Regarding strikes or work stopages ,please see my answer in the post above to Federir.

Are you honestly saying, that the first concern of the teacher's union was the students? There is no way any intelligent person can claim that a teacher's strike helps the students it disrupts. Even if it's just one day. Your trying to claim that a 6 week strike, plus 3 others, had no impact on the students is absurd and bordering on dishonest.

Quote:

Quote:

If, as you say, no child missed a "day of education" what were they doing during those work stoppages? Can you really claim their education didn't suffer from not having teachers?

The State where I live allocates 180 days and a certain number of classroom hours for every student. Even in the year when we were out for nearly six weeks, each student was given their 180 days of classroom education.

I'll echo Feredir's comment about disruption, and add a further one, that it disrupts not just education, but all extracurricular activities related to the school. It also costs the state and taxpayers more money, because schools have to be open longer, non-union employees have to be paid longer, and special circumstances always cost more than what's been planned.

Quote:

If you want to know what the children were doing during those work stoppages, you will have to ask some of them. I was a teacher during those events and not a parent or student who has that information. I can tell you that during the six week strike, the union did set up special union schools where children could go for several hours each day. Teachers on strike volunteered their time and services to provide educational activities for children - and they did not get one dime for their efforts and it cost the union money to rent the space.

What is an "educational activity?" What is "several hours?" What was the purpose of these union schools? How did they fit into the negotiations with the Union? How did they play in the court of public opinion? What did they actually accomplish?

Quote:

Quote:

Your claim that schools are not businesses is false as well. They have employees, and they provide a service. Their money comes from the state, rather than fees (well, disregarding private schools of course), but they still do essentially work for the taxpayers. They have to bring in money, and distribute it in the best manner possible to provide their service. The more money the teacher's union sucks out of the limited supply, the more the product suffers. This is the parasitic relationship I mentioned before

Do understand the difference between a commercial business and a government service?

Actually, I do. Do you understand how money works?

Quote:

Fire protection in the persons of the Fire Department are a public service and function of government and are not a business. They are not there to make a profit.

Police protection in the persons of the Police Department are a public service and function of government and are not a business. They are not there to make a profit.

Public education for children in the persons of the Public School System is a public service and function of government and is not a business. It is not there to make a profit.

whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about a profit? You don't have to make a profit or even try to make a profit to be a business. Granted, schools could certainly be run MORE like a business than they are, as they have no self-imposed incentives to improve their product.

Quote:

This is not my opinion. This is not my belief. This is not a fallacy I labor under. This is a fact of life.

It is indeed. But it is not the whole truth, as you are conveniently ignoreing facts of life you don't like.

Quote:

You refer to teachers unions sucking money from the system. Do you understand how public education works? The operation of schools is a labor intensive process. The service being rendered is that of the teacher in the classroom to the student in the classroom. It is that service that comprises the largest portion of any school budget. To say you want to spend less on teachers is like saying your local department store sure could make a bigger profit if they only did not have to spend all that valuable money on their inventory. Its nonsensical and pointless to claim this. The delivery of the teachers service IS part and parcel the essence of education. In fact, it is the most important component of the delivery of the service of education to the student.

Please tell me where I've stated I think teachers should be paid less? I think teachers are one of the most important jobs in the world. I think they should be paid MORE. I think one of the greatest obsticles to that, is being a PUBLIC service, of course, but that's a different topic.

If, of course, the school board and principle could run their school more like a business, and not be beholden to the teacher's union's every whim, they could fire teachers that aren't good at their job, and hire teachers that are (costs more of course, but worth it). But the Teacher's union is not out for the school's best interest, it is out for its member's best interests, which is NOT the students.

Quote:

You use the term "parasitic relationship". Any dictionary will tell you that a parasite is an organism who lives off another and gives nothing in return. I assume you used that term because it is an insult to teachers and expresses you personal feelings about public school teachers. However, aside from your personal animus, teachers perform a job. Teachers give of themselves and their labor and knowledge. Teachers are not parasitic. You have badly misused a term which in and of itself is tinged with ill will.

You are deliberately misunderstanding my point, which I think was quite clear. The teachers and the schools should be symbiotic, obviously. without teacher's the school dies. without a school, the teachers have nothing. That's why a work stoppage (the kind word for strike), can do nothing but hurt a school. It separates the two symbiotic partners.

My point with the parasite comparison, is that if a business or "organization" if you object to the term so strongly goes into an unhealthy situation, where one part of another is more interested in its own advancement than the advancement of the whole, then everyone suffers. They are feeding on the rest of those in the relationship. That is, taking more than normal, with no benefits for the whole.

Parasite.

Quote:

As I stated in the very beginning of this discussion, a clear understanding of the public school system, the role of teachers in that system, and the role of teachers union is essential to any intelligent discussion of the topic.

According to you, only you have that, and thus everyone else is wrong

Arrogance is so annoying.

I belong to a union and it serves me very well.

Slush funds, of course, are an invitation to corruption whether they are created by the pension fund of a union, the retained earnings of a corporation, or the social security payments we make to the federal government.

An astute analysis, I think, would address ways to reduce corruption in all these institutions, as the problems tend to arise for the same reasons in each of them.

SF, I don't think there needs to be a formal study to determine that any break in the educational process causes the student to forget. Again, when you come back from Christmas or Easter break do you start right where you left off or do you review? You review of course.

Here's another thought. When a strike goes long the district will likely bring in substitute teachers. These teachers will then teach what they can which may or may not be what the kids were learning in the first place. All the while the days count as attended days.

I cannot see how a strike cannot affect the kids. Look at how a strike at GM or Ford causes all the suppliers to shut down. The kids shut down too. We are creatures of habit and if you disrupt that many are like sheep without a shepherd.

I agree that it is set up on the farming calendar but how does that make a difference? We have a few "year round" schools here and I don't see the difference.

Kids lose when there is a strike and I hope you can admit this. Especially when it's an ugly strike and the kids get caught in the middle with adults acting like children. There is just no way to avoid a strike not affecting those involved, no matter where they are in the process.

freddy

Hal - I have answered your questions. If you do not like the answers that is your right. I am not here on your witness stand as a Defendant and you are not the Prosecutor or Grand Inquisitor. Over the years you have a habit of asking questions, getting a direct answer, hating the answer, asking more questions, hating those answers and the entire time crying that your questions are not answered. That is unfortunate.

I think part of the problem is not the answers but the frame of mind you are in to receive them. I really suspect that you are not asking genuine questions to further discussion as Feredir and others have done. Your pattern is to ask questions like some type of TV lawyer in a crafty spider-weaving-a-trap mode. And then you get frustrated and angry that the trap is never sprung the way you thought it was going to be.

So you get angry, say that is not the way you desire the question to be answered, try to ask more questions which are really the same old questions that have already been answered and the whole thing just goes nowhere for you. But its your computer and your post so God Bless you.

And I agree with you completly that arrogance is so annoying. That is a very astute observation. Sadly there are things much more annoying that arrogance. Being uninformed or misinformed or blind to reality combined with arrogance is many times worse. Thinking you know something about a field that is far outside of your own personal area of expertise is also worse. But worse yet is thinking you know something about a field that is far outside of your field of expertise and trying to tell somebody who is an expert in that field that they are wrong. But thats just my opinion.

You are right in one respect: you certainly do not need to know anything to make posts on message boards. No degree in that field of discussion is required. No practical experience on the topic being discussed is required. No credentials in field being discussed are required. No ovious intelligence is required. No factual knowledge of the subject being discussed is required. You learned that lesson very well so the rules are on your side in that respect. The mods that have pointed this out are correct also. You all are on more than solid ground posting your thoughts on education in all of these respects.

It is very obvious from your posts, your questions and your answers that you are interested in trying to bait me into some foolish exchange which will permit you to deluge the mods with more PM's for action. Sorry, but not today. If yu want to discuss education intelligently - like others here have done, I would welcome that opportunity.

Again, you post no discussion, just attacks on me. There is no value in that post, I suggest you remove it.

Freddy...

Quote:

SF, I don't think there needs to be a formal study to determine that any break in the educational process causes the student to forget. Again, when you come back from Christmas or Easter break do you start right where you left off or do you review? You review of course.

The key watchwords in education the last several has been "data driven". Schools want hard facts born from research before making decisions and policy changes. The days are gone when major decisions are made just from seat of the pants hunches or gut feelings. They still can provide theories which are then tested by research, but data is now the king. So its perfectly all right for you or anyone to suspect that you do not need formal studies on this question. But to make your point in the education community, it certainly is necessary. And as I have said previously, I know of not a single objective study which shows any long term damage to students whose education because of a teachers strike.

You are right that there is some review when coming back from a break. However, I always attempted to finish a unit cleanly so we could start afresh after a break. That pretty much neutralized the problem.

Quote:

Here's another thought. When a strike goes long the district will likely bring in substitute teachers. These teachers will then teach what they can which may or may not be what the kids were learning in the first place. All the while the days count as attended days.

This was NOT the case. The district shut down completely. There were no subs brought in and no days counted.

Quote:

I cannot see how a strike cannot affect the kids. Look at how a strike at GM or Ford causes all the suppliers to shut down. The kids shut down too. We are creatures of habit and if you disrupt that many are like sheep without a shepherd.

Teacher strikes are almost always at the very start of the school year. The students are already in shut down mode - if that is the term you prefer to use. For them, nothing has changed or been disrupted because they have already been off for the summer. It is merely an extension of that same summer vacation.

Quote:

I agree that it is set up on the farming calendar but how does that make a difference? We have a few "year round" schools here and I don't see the difference.

I am sorry but I am not sure what you are asking here.

Quote:

Kids lose when there is a strike and I hope you can admit this. Especially when it's an ugly strike and the kids get caught in the middle with adults acting like children. There is just no way to avoid a strike not affecting those involved, no matter where they are in the process.

As I have already stated, absent from hard data, that is your opinion and not a fact of education. You could be right. But there is not data to back it up. Every strike I was ever involved with hadthe support of the students and the community. Even in the six week strike. That is one of the beautiful things that happens when the parents, kids and teachers all view each other as allies.

I would point out to all that the most recent teachers strike occurred in Wayne-Westland Michigan just recently. The teachers #1 demand at the table - smaller class size for children. Money was not the key issue. And there is plenty of hard data to show class size is beneficial to students especially in the lower grades where it has the most dramatic effect.

Hal - your previous post to me started with an insult directed towards me.
And if that were not enough it ended with another insult directed towards me.

I tried honestly to answer your questions. I admitted you were right about not needing any expertise, education, intelligence, experience or facts to voice your opinions about something outside of your own field of expertise.

I further admitted the Rangers and mods were right in defending your right to post on a subject on which you have no expertise, education, experience, credentials or exhibited knowledge of.

You won both points are on solid ground there.

I will be happy to discuss education with you or anyone else. I simply however, will not play Inquisition with you.

I think that is more than fair.

This may certainly not be the experience of all students during a strike, but it is my personal experience. Our teachers went on strike for a few weeks. We, the students, supported them on this, though that may have been more for the drama of it all than out of genuine concern with the issues. At first, we were just sort of shuttled from large area to large area, broken up into grade levels. There was no learning going on, I can assure you of that. We simply hung out all day.

Some teachers behaved very badly. My English teacher threw himself in front of a car and got run over. (He was not seriously injured. Twit.)

They brought in scab teachers for the next week or so. Where they got these "teachers" is beyond me. They were truly the bottom of the barrel. Sort of the freaks of the teaching world, if you will. A teacher freak show.

We were broken up into general classes. Again, I can assure you that NO learning took place during that time. I had a "teacher" tell us in "science" class that, "Biology is what we're studying. Biology is made up of two words--bi and ology. Bi means two. Ology means study of. So this is the study of two--the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom."



We, the students, ended up walking out of school in protest of the crap we were being forced to endure.

Now, truly, our teachers might have been doing this for legitimate reasons. (Unfortunately, I don't remember why they went on strike.) But I think Freddy is onto something; I don't think they should be allowed to strike. Would you put them on the same level of importance as firefighters, police officers, nurses, etc.? I think I would, especially as much as so many parents rely on the schools to be there for their kids while they work.

Car makers go on strike and stop making cars. Eh, so what? Teachers go on strike? Kids miss school and parents are left scrambling. Or they have to attend "school" and be babysat with no education going on at all. (They did not extend our school year, btw. That counted as education.)


Lali

sauronsfinger wrote:

Hal - your previous post to me started with an insult directed towards me.
And if that were not enough it ended with another insult directed towards me.

I tried honestly to answer your questions. I admitted you were right about not needing any expertise, education, intelligence, experience or facts to voice your opinions about something outside of your own field of expertise.

I further admitted the Rangers and mods were right in defending your right to post on a subject on which you have no expertise, education, experience, credentials or exhibited knowledge of.

You won both points are on solid ground there.

I will be happy to discuss education with you or anyone else. I simply however, will not play Inquisition with you.

I think that is more than fair.

You are not discussing anything, you are using this board to try and make your opinion seem godlike, and mine worthless, and that is not what we do here. You have not answered a single question I have asked of you, even though you continue to claim to. Your last post did NOTHING but attack me and my opinion, with no discussion at all.

I have not insulted you, only pointed out your absurd method of "discussion" and "debate."

This whole discussion of education came about from a simple statement I made yesterday, commenting on how teacher's unions are among the worst unions, because they don't actually fight corporate greed or abuse, but they fight students, their families, and the state.

Lets break it down into simple facts:

1. Education suffers with teachers strike. This is indisputable, despite SF's claim that it can't be proven.

2. Teachers go on strike to get things from their employers, who are the duly elected officials of the state. Elected by the very families that they are putting through a large hassle by going on strike.

3. So, the people elect officials to run schools, and the teachers don't accept how they run them, and hold families and the state hostage, to get more, not for the benefit of education or the students, but for themselves.

IMHO, that makes them even worse than other unions, who sometimes have legitimate grievances with corporate greed and exploitation that need to be dealt with.

Lets take this one step at a time shall we.

from Hal

Quote:

1. Education suffers with teachers strike. This is indisputable, despite SF's claim that it can't be proven.

Please prove this assertion with hard data.

Anyone can assert or believe anything. Something that is INDISPUTABLE requires factual data to prove such an assertion.

Please prove this with hard data.