This comment is so ignorant it would be offensive if it weren't so pervasive.
Principals are allowed to fire teachers who abuse children, anywhere and everywhere.
Principals are allowed to fire teachers who don't do their jobs, even in states where teachers are lucky enough to be represented by a union. The most protection that a teachers' union will give to a teacher is to have the decision to terminate a teacher go through due process and be arbitrated. This means that evidence will have to be supplied and the decision will have to be agreed to by more than one person. in the case of union representation, these are things that have been agreed to in a legal agreement between two parties. If you advocate for the "right" of principals to fire teachers without going through due process, you are arguing for the right of one party (but not the other) of an agreement to break a legal contract.
Frankly, I would hope that everyone would have the right to defend him or herself and his or her job if accused by a manager/boss of not performing well. Or is arbitrary firing by a biased and uninformed supervisor something you support? If a teacher is genuinely incompetent, then the teacher will be fired. Happens all the time. If a principal complains that the process is just too hard, then that principal should be fired for not having what it takes to run a school.
Getting rid of due process or union representation for teachers will do nothing to solve the education crisis in America. (And there's a big argument to be made that it will make things much much worse.) Example #1: I went to a Catholic school in Connecticut. No unoin representation for teachers. Most were paid abysmally (we're talking less than 2/3 what public school teachers were paid), but the long timers and dept chairs (chosen by the principal) were paid much better. Although it had some talented teachers, the school was rife with piss-poor ones. In my honors Bio class, we literally spent more time discussing how the Genesis account wasn't necessarily contradicted by evolution, than evolution or genetics itself. (For obvious reasons, the school didn't offer AP Bio.) I quit doing work in my AP Lit class when I took an opportunity to rifle through my teacher's desk and found his copy of Cliffs Notes for Moby Dick. My AP US History teacher, a personal friend of the principal and the bishop and chair of the Social Studies dept, was the worst of the lot. She literally stopped teaching in November (she said we were disrespectful...which we were, for obvious reasons), and that class (an AP class) became another study hall. The head of the religion dept, Fr. Bob, was a disgusting pedophile who would seat the attractive girls in the front row, and routinely drop things on the floor and blatantly look up girls' skirts. (He was next in line for principal, and aiming to be a bishop, until without notice he was reassigned to a different diocese; guess why...) When I was a freshman, there was a group of four or five really good teachers that my older brother really liked. Freethinkers. Very intelligent. Very good teachers. By the time I was a senior, all but one had been fired or pressured heavily to quit. The next year, he was gone too.
Example #2: My own school here in Atlanta. No teachers' union. Last year, because of "budget constraints" (in addition to state cuts, the conservative president of the school board's main plank is to reduce the millage rate--why that qualifies someone to be the head of a school board is beyond me), the county did away with a popular program for low-income and low-performing students. It dealt with basic reading and writing and math skills and job training. The class sometimes functioned as a study hall (something the county did away with years before I started teaching...but which I remember really helped me get everything done that I needed to). But more importantly, this teacher worked with these kids on an individual basis. He was very dedicated. He dealt with kids that no one else wanted to deal with (kids who could have benefitted from Special Ed programs, but didn't meet the qualifications): kids with anger management issues; gang problems; absent parents; abusive parents; the works. He put up with kids, parents, other teachers (who often blamed him when his students disrupted other classes), and administrators (who blamed him for having lower pass-rates than other teachers...duh...). He had been doing this for 29 years (one year before qualifying for full retirement benefits). Last spring, when he went down to sign what should have been his last contract, he couldn't find it. When he tracked down the principal, she told him that there wasn't a contract for him, thanked him for his service, and walked away. Additionally, there is also at our school a teacher who is in fact notoriously bad. He teaches political science. He's memorized the textbook, so his students do passably well on the state mandated standardized test. But he does very little else other than play powerpoints (that he got from another teacher) and videos, and hand out worksheets. He is also intolerant or questions, a notoriously strict disciplinarian (like making kids stand with their noses against the wall...the honors and AP kids who take his class are usually the only ones who do this; the others tend to get written up for "refusing to comply with a reasonable request"), and just misinformed (he still maintains that the Statue of Liberty is in Washington DC, and has taken to refering to Arabs--and anyone from the middle east--as "Arabics"). But he hasn't been fired, despite no legal constraints on our principal. (He does happen to coach the football team...hmmmmmm...)
So, how does your well-thought-out solution help my school?
Next thing to think about: if a software corporation has trouble producing a good product, and it is discovered that its employees have extremely low morale, extremely high turnover, work in pretty dismal conditions, have a whole host of duties unrelated to their fields of expertise (which take up as much if not more time than their actual programming work), work 10-20% more hours per year than typical American employees (but squeeze it all into 38 weeks, instead of 50), and are paid much less than similarly qualified people in other fields, what might this corporation consider doing?
sincerely,
DCQ
You're right, it is off topic, but my statement is just the tip of the iceberg. Incompetent teachers that can't be fired are only part of the problem, the due process is so ridiculously involved that it takes forever and costs taxpayers out the wazoo. The Teachers' Unions are what I have a problem with. I think the only way to combat the Unions is to let the schools compete with each other. Let parent's choose what school they send their kids to.
If you're up for a little bit of reading I highly recommend this article. I think it's fair. I've wasted too much time on this when i should be working, but please, read the article. No organization should have that much power, and they should stop selfishly looking out for their own agenda and lobbying for their own interests. They spend so much money on non-education related stuff it's shameful. It's almost like they don't care at all about the kids. All they care about is their own political muscle and their own interests. The unions disgust me.
Right on, IC. I mean, jeez. What most people who think "spoiled teens" should consider, is that teens by-and-large don't really have OTHER bills (like rent, health insurance, etc). They make money, they can spend it however they like.
Yes we were all teenagers at some point.
The problem is that being overly materialistic early in life can set a bad precedent for how life really is. The transition from spending money on whatever you want into spending money on what you need. I went through that transition and it was difficult.
Right now you are carefree and can buy iPods and Blackerrys. But one day very soon rent, car insurance and food will have to occupy the top of the list. Its becoming more accepted for people to go into deep debt to acquire material things that they want. That will only get worse as young people grow older and are used to having things.
The problem is that being overly materialistic early in life can set a bad precedent for how life really is. The transition from spending money on whatever you want into spending money on what you need. I went through that transition and it was difficult.
Right now you are carefree and can buy iPods and Blackerrys. But one day very soon rent, car insurance and food will have to occupy the top of the list. Its becoming more accepted for people to go into deep debt to acquire material things that they want. That will only get worse as young people grow older and are used to having things.
I'm only materialistic when it comes to Apple. Give me a beat up car and an apartment in the burbs, I don't care.
well it was sarcasm that started it (on the other thread) i believe humour (and its lack/lack of understanding) was where it was heading (too lazy to check )
but yeah, i thought hook(er) line and sinker was a well worn phrase!
It will unless principals are allowed to fire teachers who don't do their job or abuse the kids in their class.
It's also about parents, and communites. It's political suicide to not play the game of political correctness.
You can plunk the entire staff of a best performing school into the shell of the worst performing school, and guess what? Both schools will continue to perform as they did before.
Why do teens think they need cellular phones? Why do their parents agree? For that matter, why do most adults think they need to be -- or want to be -- that in-touch? They're waiting for a call from the President? Obviously, independent, accountable thought is a thing of the past....
Times change.
When the telephone first came out, people were writing the same thing. Why do people need to talk to someone? What's the rush? Can't they send a letter? Writing will disappear, etc.
Then radio, then movies, then Tv, then, computers, etc.
Society evolves.
My parents would have loved it if I could have had a cell in the '60's, when I was in H.S., and dating.
I'm sure that when the printing press was invented, people thought that civization was coming to an end if just ANYONE could learn to read, and get a book to read from.
And even Socrates was accused of currupting the youth of his day.
One of the problems we see stated about modern society is that we have lost touch with each other, in the literal sense. In small villages, people spoke to each other constantly, as long as they wern't in the fields during the day.
Having the ability to constantly communicate with one's friends and family, is a good thing. It brings us closer.
My daughter always calls to ask if she can go somewhere, and we know who she's with, and where, and when she will come home. If her plans change, she can't say that she couldn't get to a phone.
Is something wrong with that? I don't think so.
The fact that these phones do more as time goes on is not a bad thing either, and the prices have dropped drastically. I don't know how many people here remember when basic cell cost $1,500, with incoming, and outgoing calls costing $5 a minute.
The problem is that being overly materialistic early in life can set a bad precedent for how life really is. The transition from spending money on whatever you want into spending money on what you need. I went through that transition and it was difficult.
Right now you are carefree and can buy iPods and Blackerrys. But one day very soon rent, car insurance and food will have to occupy the top of the list. Its becoming more accepted for people to go into deep debt to acquire material things that they want. That will only get worse as young people grow older and are used to having things.
Society has always been materialistic.
That's going back to before the dawn of civilization. It's part of what makes us human. Communists, and to a lessor degree, Socialists, have tried to minimize that, but it doesn't work.
Even Kruschev understood that "no one is a born communist". And if you aren't, then Maddona's "Material World" is all we've got!
There isn't a gray area. The music is obtained legally or illegally. There are only two options.
I don't think that was what was meant. That assumes that all the music is downloaded legally or all of the music is downloaded illegally and nothing in between, such as 10% of the downloading was legal, 90% illegal, the reverse, or any other combination. I forget when that was, but supposedly the biggest buyers of music were also the biggest downloaders too.
I don't think that was what was meant. That assumes that all the music is downloaded legally or all of the music is downloaded illegally and nothing in between, such as 10% of the downloading was legal, 90% illegal, the reverse, or any other combination. I forget when that was, but supposedly the biggest buyers of music were also the biggest downloaders too.
I may stand corrected. On a second read it could be that he meant there was no option for checking both illegal and legal downloads.
If you're up for a little bit of reading I highly recommend this article. I think it's fair. I've wasted too much time on this when i should be working, but please, read the article. No organization should have that much power, and they should stop selfishly looking out for their own agenda and lobbying for their own interests. They spend so much money on non-education related stuff it's shameful. It's almost like they don't care at all about the kids. All they care about is their own political muscle and their own interests. The unions disgust me.
"No organization should have that much power, and they should stop selfishly looking out for their own agenda and lobbying for their own interests."
I had to quote you in context, but it is this sentence in particular that I am interested in.
Is it wrong if the AMA looks out for doctor's interests? Or should they spend only their money on healing people. Would it sicken you if this doctor's group worked to protect doctor's salaries?
How about a corporation. ExxonMobil lobbies and supports organizations giving itself a great deal of power. Which, I am sure you would agree, they use to further their own interests. Does it sicken you that they don't only dedicate themselves to extracting and distributing oil?
I could go on: police benevolence organizations, industry trade groups yadda yadda yadda... Why do teachers have this responsibility do be selfless or else disgust you?
Who else do you hold to this same standard?
Furthermore, as a member of a teacher's union (full disclosure), I see the argument that teacher's unions standing up to promote teachers interests also promotes student's interests. As a parent and taxpayer (more disclosure), I want my son's teachers well paid and focused on teaching, not worrying about the political or economic games that are being played outside the school.
I will also apologize for being part of this subtopic on this thread, but the other thread is full of people who are not listening to each other. I am interested in your thoughtful response. I also will read the article you linked to, but have not had the chance yet.
Who ties a product to a contract and then doesn't subsidize it?
That's a rhetorical question. It's also an assumption. Unless they give the first 4 months of service away for free, or charge nothing at all for data service, any "grabber" they might make to a potential customer is minor, like the banks used to do when they gave toasters away to people starting a new account.
My Treo700p is subsidized because you can pay as little as $299 for it with a 2 year contract. There's no evidence that Apple's phones are not being priced at retail.
Wha't the big deal, a lot of high schools get jobs so their parents don't have to pay for all the extra things they want. I did, they might be doing it to.
Comments
and all-you-can-eat competitions.
The Japanese are beating us at that one also.
<sigh> Off topic, but...
This comment is so ignorant it would be offensive if it weren't so pervasive.
Principals are allowed to fire teachers who abuse children, anywhere and everywhere.
Principals are allowed to fire teachers who don't do their jobs, even in states where teachers are lucky enough to be represented by a union. The most protection that a teachers' union will give to a teacher is to have the decision to terminate a teacher go through due process and be arbitrated. This means that evidence will have to be supplied and the decision will have to be agreed to by more than one person. in the case of union representation, these are things that have been agreed to in a legal agreement between two parties. If you advocate for the "right" of principals to fire teachers without going through due process, you are arguing for the right of one party (but not the other) of an agreement to break a legal contract.
Frankly, I would hope that everyone would have the right to defend him or herself and his or her job if accused by a manager/boss of not performing well. Or is arbitrary firing by a biased and uninformed supervisor something you support? If a teacher is genuinely incompetent, then the teacher will be fired. Happens all the time. If a principal complains that the process is just too hard, then that principal should be fired for not having what it takes to run a school.
Getting rid of due process or union representation for teachers will do nothing to solve the education crisis in America. (And there's a big argument to be made that it will make things much much worse.) Example #1: I went to a Catholic school in Connecticut. No unoin representation for teachers. Most were paid abysmally (we're talking less than 2/3 what public school teachers were paid), but the long timers and dept chairs (chosen by the principal) were paid much better. Although it had some talented teachers, the school was rife with piss-poor ones. In my honors Bio class, we literally spent more time discussing how the Genesis account wasn't necessarily contradicted by evolution, than evolution or genetics itself. (For obvious reasons, the school didn't offer AP Bio.) I quit doing work in my AP Lit class when I took an opportunity to rifle through my teacher's desk and found his copy of Cliffs Notes for Moby Dick. My AP US History teacher, a personal friend of the principal and the bishop and chair of the Social Studies dept, was the worst of the lot. She literally stopped teaching in November (she said we were disrespectful...which we were, for obvious reasons), and that class (an AP class) became another study hall. The head of the religion dept, Fr. Bob, was a disgusting pedophile who would seat the attractive girls in the front row, and routinely drop things on the floor and blatantly look up girls' skirts. (He was next in line for principal, and aiming to be a bishop, until without notice he was reassigned to a different diocese; guess why...) When I was a freshman, there was a group of four or five really good teachers that my older brother really liked. Freethinkers. Very intelligent. Very good teachers. By the time I was a senior, all but one had been fired or pressured heavily to quit. The next year, he was gone too.
Example #2: My own school here in Atlanta. No teachers' union. Last year, because of "budget constraints" (in addition to state cuts, the conservative president of the school board's main plank is to reduce the millage rate--why that qualifies someone to be the head of a school board is beyond me), the county did away with a popular program for low-income and low-performing students. It dealt with basic reading and writing and math skills and job training. The class sometimes functioned as a study hall (something the county did away with years before I started teaching...but which I remember really helped me get everything done that I needed to). But more importantly, this teacher worked with these kids on an individual basis. He was very dedicated. He dealt with kids that no one else wanted to deal with (kids who could have benefitted from Special Ed programs, but didn't meet the qualifications): kids with anger management issues; gang problems; absent parents; abusive parents; the works. He put up with kids, parents, other teachers (who often blamed him when his students disrupted other classes), and administrators (who blamed him for having lower pass-rates than other teachers...duh...). He had been doing this for 29 years (one year before qualifying for full retirement benefits). Last spring, when he went down to sign what should have been his last contract, he couldn't find it. When he tracked down the principal, she told him that there wasn't a contract for him, thanked him for his service, and walked away. Additionally, there is also at our school a teacher who is in fact notoriously bad. He teaches political science. He's memorized the textbook, so his students do passably well on the state mandated standardized test. But he does very little else other than play powerpoints (that he got from another teacher) and videos, and hand out worksheets. He is also intolerant or questions, a notoriously strict disciplinarian (like making kids stand with their noses against the wall...the honors and AP kids who take his class are usually the only ones who do this; the others tend to get written up for "refusing to comply with a reasonable request"), and just misinformed (he still maintains that the Statue of Liberty is in Washington DC, and has taken to refering to Arabs--and anyone from the middle east--as "Arabics"). But he hasn't been fired, despite no legal constraints on our principal. (He does happen to coach the football team...hmmmmmm...)
So, how does your well-thought-out solution help my school?
Next thing to think about: if a software corporation has trouble producing a good product, and it is discovered that its employees have extremely low morale, extremely high turnover, work in pretty dismal conditions, have a whole host of duties unrelated to their fields of expertise (which take up as much if not more time than their actual programming work), work 10-20% more hours per year than typical American employees (but squeeze it all into 38 weeks, instead of 50), and are paid much less than similarly qualified people in other fields, what might this corporation consider doing?
sincerely,
DCQ
You're right, it is off topic, but my statement is just the tip of the iceberg. Incompetent teachers that can't be fired are only part of the problem, the due process is so ridiculously involved that it takes forever and costs taxpayers out the wazoo. The Teachers' Unions are what I have a problem with. I think the only way to combat the Unions is to let the schools compete with each other. Let parent's choose what school they send their kids to.
If you're up for a little bit of reading I highly recommend this article. I think it's fair. I've wasted too much time on this when i should be working, but please, read the article. No organization should have that much power, and they should stop selfishly looking out for their own agenda and lobbying for their own interests. They spend so much money on non-education related stuff it's shameful. It's almost like they don't care at all about the kids. All they care about is their own political muscle and their own interests. The unions disgust me.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_how_teachers.html
Right on, IC. I mean, jeez. What most people who think "spoiled teens" should consider, is that teens by-and-large don't really have OTHER bills (like rent, health insurance, etc). They make money, they can spend it however they like.
Yes we were all teenagers at some point.
The problem is that being overly materialistic early in life can set a bad precedent for how life really is. The transition from spending money on whatever you want into spending money on what you need. I went through that transition and it was difficult.
Right now you are carefree and can buy iPods and Blackerrys. But one day very soon rent, car insurance and food will have to occupy the top of the list. Its becoming more accepted for people to go into deep debt to acquire material things that they want. That will only get worse as young people grow older and are used to having things.
Yes we were all teenagers at some point.
The problem is that being overly materialistic early in life can set a bad precedent for how life really is. The transition from spending money on whatever you want into spending money on what you need. I went through that transition and it was difficult.
Right now you are carefree and can buy iPods and Blackerrys. But one day very soon rent, car insurance and food will have to occupy the top of the list. Its becoming more accepted for people to go into deep debt to acquire material things that they want. That will only get worse as young people grow older and are used to having things.
I'm only materialistic when it comes to Apple. Give me a beat up car and an apartment in the burbs, I don't care.
well it was sarcasm that started it (on the other thread) i believe humour (and its lack/lack of understanding) was where it was heading (too lazy to check
but yeah, i thought hook(er) line and sinker was a well worn phrase!
unless.... we're showing our age!!!
Yeah, well, that too!
It will unless principals are allowed to fire teachers who don't do their job or abuse the kids in their class.
It's also about parents, and communites. It's political suicide to not play the game of political correctness.
You can plunk the entire staff of a best performing school into the shell of the worst performing school, and guess what? Both schools will continue to perform as they did before.
The price is already subsidized for the contract. Buying it without a contract (which you can't) would increase the price by a few hundred dollars.
You're just guessing on this one. It's become a popular game to assume that the phone is subsidized, when Apple says it isn't.
But, no one has any proof of this, and so, we'll just have to wait.
Why do teens think they need cellular phones? Why do their parents agree? For that matter, why do most adults think they need to be -- or want to be -- that in-touch? They're waiting for a call from the President? Obviously, independent, accountable thought is a thing of the past....
Times change.
When the telephone first came out, people were writing the same thing. Why do people need to talk to someone? What's the rush? Can't they send a letter? Writing will disappear, etc.
Then radio, then movies, then Tv, then, computers, etc.
Society evolves.
My parents would have loved it if I could have had a cell in the '60's, when I was in H.S., and dating.
I'm sure that when the printing press was invented, people thought that civization was coming to an end if just ANYONE could learn to read, and get a book to read from.
And even Socrates was accused of currupting the youth of his day.
One of the problems we see stated about modern society is that we have lost touch with each other, in the literal sense. In small villages, people spoke to each other constantly, as long as they wern't in the fields during the day.
Having the ability to constantly communicate with one's friends and family, is a good thing. It brings us closer.
My daughter always calls to ask if she can go somewhere, and we know who she's with, and where, and when she will come home. If her plans change, she can't say that she couldn't get to a phone.
Is something wrong with that? I don't think so.
The fact that these phones do more as time goes on is not a bad thing either, and the prices have dropped drastically. I don't know how many people here remember when basic cell cost $1,500, with incoming, and outgoing calls costing $5 a minute.
Yes we were all teenagers at some point.
The problem is that being overly materialistic early in life can set a bad precedent for how life really is. The transition from spending money on whatever you want into spending money on what you need. I went through that transition and it was difficult.
Right now you are carefree and can buy iPods and Blackerrys. But one day very soon rent, car insurance and food will have to occupy the top of the list. Its becoming more accepted for people to go into deep debt to acquire material things that they want. That will only get worse as young people grow older and are used to having things.
Society has always been materialistic.
That's going back to before the dawn of civilization. It's part of what makes us human. Communists, and to a lessor degree, Socialists, have tried to minimize that, but it doesn't work.
Even Kruschev understood that "no one is a born communist". And if you aren't, then Maddona's "Material World" is all we've got!
Take downloading music; either you do it legally or illegally apparently (no gray areas).
There isn't a gray area. The music is obtained legally or illegally. There are only two options.
http://theappleblog.com/2007/04/04/d...er-40-minutes/
There isn't a gray area. The music is obtained legally or illegally. There are only two options.
I don't think that was what was meant. That assumes that all the music is downloaded legally or all of the music is downloaded illegally and nothing in between, such as 10% of the downloading was legal, 90% illegal, the reverse, or any other combination. I forget when that was, but supposedly the biggest buyers of music were also the biggest downloaders too.
I dont think anyone will plunk down $500 for a phone which doesnt last half a day let alone a day.
http://theappleblog.com/2007/04/04/d...er-40-minutes/
Don't know how much credibility there is in this report, but a removable battery is a must. Don't be that stupid, Apple. Damn!
I don't think that was what was meant. That assumes that all the music is downloaded legally or all of the music is downloaded illegally and nothing in between, such as 10% of the downloading was legal, 90% illegal, the reverse, or any other combination. I forget when that was, but supposedly the biggest buyers of music were also the biggest downloaders too.
I may stand corrected. On a second read it could be that he meant there was no option for checking both illegal and legal downloads.
If you're up for a little bit of reading I highly recommend this article. I think it's fair. I've wasted too much time on this when i should be working, but please, read the article. No organization should have that much power, and they should stop selfishly looking out for their own agenda and lobbying for their own interests. They spend so much money on non-education related stuff it's shameful. It's almost like they don't care at all about the kids. All they care about is their own political muscle and their own interests. The unions disgust me.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_how_teachers.html
"No organization should have that much power, and they should stop selfishly looking out for their own agenda and lobbying for their own interests."
I had to quote you in context, but it is this sentence in particular that I am interested in.
Is it wrong if the AMA looks out for doctor's interests? Or should they spend only their money on healing people. Would it sicken you if this doctor's group worked to protect doctor's salaries?
How about a corporation. ExxonMobil lobbies and supports organizations giving itself a great deal of power. Which, I am sure you would agree, they use to further their own interests. Does it sicken you that they don't only dedicate themselves to extracting and distributing oil?
I could go on: police benevolence organizations, industry trade groups yadda yadda yadda... Why do teachers have this responsibility do be selfless or else disgust you?
Who else do you hold to this same standard?
Furthermore, as a member of a teacher's union (full disclosure), I see the argument that teacher's unions standing up to promote teachers interests also promotes student's interests. As a parent and taxpayer (more disclosure), I want my son's teachers well paid and focused on teaching, not worrying about the political or economic games that are being played outside the school.
I will also apologize for being part of this subtopic on this thread, but the other thread is full of people who are not listening to each other. I am interested in your thoughtful response. I also will read the article you linked to, but have not had the chance yet.
Cheers.
Don't know how much credibility there is in this report, but a removable battery is a must. Don't be that stupid, Apple. Damn!
Yeah a fixed battery is only going to cause problems.
You're just guessing on this one.
Educatedly.
Who ties a product to a contract and then doesn't subsidize it?
Educatedly.
Who ties a product to a contract and then doesn't subsidize it?
That's a rhetorical question. It's also an assumption. Unless they give the first 4 months of service away for free, or charge nothing at all for data service, any "grabber" they might make to a potential customer is minor, like the banks used to do when they gave toasters away to people starting a new account.
My Treo700p is subsidized because you can pay as little as $299 for it with a 2 year contract. There's no evidence that Apple's phones are not being priced at retail.
Educatedly.
Who ties a product to a contract and then doesn't subsidize it?
The general impression I've gotten is that the iPhone is already subsidized to make it the current price points.