Teacher Criticisms...(rant)
Replies
-
How long had you been an employee for the federal government? What agency did you for? I know when I worked for the government it would take an act of congress to get rid of someone with more than 3 years of experience.
USPTO, a little over a year. If you didn't meet your quotas you were out, no questions asked. And the quotas were pretty insane, especially if you had a bad supervisor who didn't sign off your work in a timely manner.
I don't know how that agency works with their systems, but I would imagine that someone with more experience than you would be very hard to remove for performance unless it is a RIF (and that's different - teachers have those too BTW). It's kind of the same thing with teachers.
That right there is what people object to. Outwith government employ - and this is pretty much a global issue - if there's an issue with performance and it remains unaddressed, that employee is let go. This sort of protection of sub-standard performers is what really gets my goat, and that of a lot of other people. I cannot see any reason why a government employee should have so much more protection, financially and in terms of job security, than someone in the private sector. If you're incompetent to do your job adequately, you should be dismissed, and a competent person hired to replace you. End of story. As a tax payer, I rather object to paying the salaries of incompetent workers, simply because their jobs are so protected it would take an Act of Congress (or similar!), to remove them. If dismissal is on other grounds, then sure, you should be protected as private-sector workers are - by legislation designed for that purpose - but a situation in which an incompetent, inadequate employee cannot be dismissed is laughable, and makes a lot of people angry. By the way, this doesn't just apply to teachers - I find the level of protection offered to all government employees in most parts of the developed world utterly absurd.
As absurd as it may be, it is part of the 5th amendment to the US constitution. Most government employees have a property right in their jobs and cannot be deprived of that right without due process. Many times that process includes numerous warnings, suspensions, and reprimands before a firing can actually take place. They also are entitled to a hearing to contest the decision. It's not fair, but it's the way the courts have interpreted the due process clause. So, a lot of employers don't take the time to even bother with it unless it's really bad. This results in the so-called "pass the trash" process. Where bad employees are transferred to other offices to "improve", but rarely their work improve. If you don't like it, it's going to take a lot more than b%ing about it to change it. I don't know what the solution is, but teachers and government employees didn't invent the system. Maybe we should blame the courts.
Yes, that is absurd alright. The U.S. Consititution was not written just for teachers, although some may think so. Fifth Amendment Due Process covers everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States. Due process in proceedings against teachers is a creature of contract and state law, and has nothing to do with the US Consititution.
And it's a global problem, that arises in many parts of the developed world. Particularly, it seems, the Anglophone parts. I know the system wasn't created by teachers, but it's situations like this that give rise to the disillusionment and anger felt by many about the education systems of the world. As the human face of that system, teachers, and I know there are great teachers as well as the opposite, are the familiar face, the first port of call, and thus, the scapegoats. It's unjust, but it's human.0 -
I think everyone involved in education gets stereotyped (teachers AND parents)...how often do you hear people say "parents just don't care anymore".."they want the system to raise their kids". Sorry, but I'm killing myself trying to raise a well mannered, educated kid who cares not just about himself but the world around him. We aren't all bad either:)
As the mother of a child with learning disabilities-do I think my child's needs are met? No. But I don't blame the teachers, I blame the system around it. He's in 5th grade but functions about 1.5-2 years behind that. Give him 3-4th grade level work and he's flawless. But he and his teachers are constantly measured by how well he meets a standard that everyone knows he doesn't have the ability to meet, which is unfair to both of them. He does a great job with his modifications, is an honor roll A-B student...but the child works 7 hours at school and sometimes 2 hours at night.
I know what the teachers go through because I volunteer in his school. I walk into those classrooms and do everything I can to help lighten the load and yes-I do go to them when think something has been handled unfairly, I spend an equal amount of time telling them what they are doing right. I hope you teachers know that to the parents and kids who do take the time to notice, you make all the difference in the world.
I feel very sad that a child with learning disabilities is forced to be in the same classroom with others who are 1.5 to 2.0 years ahead of him. From the sound of it, his disabilities are not as severe as some I have seen. I know of one child in my town who was considerably further behind than your child, and the mother went to court to have him sent to a special school where he would be with others like himself and where the learning would be geared to the appropriate level.
I am a firm believer in ability grouping and I don't think mainstreaming a child such as yours is fair to your child or to others in the class.0 -
How long had you been an employee for the federal government? What agency did you for? I know when I worked for the government it would take an act of congress to get rid of someone with more than 3 years of experience.
USPTO, a little over a year. If you didn't meet your quotas you were out, no questions asked. And the quotas were pretty insane, especially if you had a bad supervisor who didn't sign off your work in a timely manner.
I don't know how that agency works with their systems, but I would imagine that someone with more experience than you would be very hard to remove for performance unless it is a RIF (and that's different - teachers have those too BTW). It's kind of the same thing with teachers.
That right there is what people object to. Outwith government employ - and this is pretty much a global issue - if there's an issue with performance and it remains unaddressed, that employee is let go. This sort of protection of sub-standard performers is what really gets my goat, and that of a lot of other people. I cannot see any reason why a government employee should have so much more protection, financially and in terms of job security, than someone in the private sector. If you're incompetent to do your job adequately, you should be dismissed, and a competent person hired to replace you. End of story. As a tax payer, I rather object to paying the salaries of incompetent workers, simply because their jobs are so protected it would take an Act of Congress (or similar!), to remove them. If dismissal is on other grounds, then sure, you should be protected as private-sector workers are - by legislation designed for that purpose - but a situation in which an incompetent, inadequate employee cannot be dismissed is laughable, and makes a lot of people angry. By the way, this doesn't just apply to teachers - I find the level of protection offered to all government employees in most parts of the developed world utterly absurd.
As absurd as it may be, it is part of the 5th amendment to the US constitution. Most government employees have a property right in their jobs and cannot be deprived of that right without due process. Many times that process includes numerous warnings, suspensions, and reprimands before a firing can actually take place. They also are entitled to a hearing to contest the decision. It's not fair, but it's the way the courts have interpreted the due process clause. So, a lot of employers don't take the time to even bother with it unless it's really bad. This results in the so-called "pass the trash" process. Where bad employees are transferred to other offices to "improve", but rarely their work improve. If you don't like it, it's going to take a lot more than b%ing about it to change it. I don't know what the solution is, but teachers and government employees didn't invent the system. Maybe we should blame the courts.
Yes, that is absurd alright. The U.S. Consititution was not written just for teachers, although some may think so. Fifth Amendment Due Process covers everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States. Due process in proceedings against teachers is a creature of contract and state law, and has nothing to do with the US Consititution.
No where did I ever argue that the Constitution was written just for teachers. That is a complete mischaracterization of what I was talking about. Every employee in the United States does not have a property right in their job, so the 5th amendment does not apply to every employee. I do not feel like getting into a legal discussion of who is covered by this and who is not. Most private sector employees can be fired for cause or no cause. I mean people get fired from jobs all the time for no reason other than I don't like you. This is not the case where the is a protected property right. The private employer is not required to give that person a hearing unlike the public sector. Yes, due process applies to everyone in the United States, but not everyone has the same "property" rights under that amendment. It has to do with the fact that the goverment is not allowed to deprive you of your property without due process. I'm done with this argument.
That being said....The issue here is teachers, parents, education not protected property rights. I can give you the case citations if you want to continue to talk about this.0 -
That right there is what people object to. Outwith government employ - and this is pretty much a global issue - if there's an issue with performance and it remains unaddressed, that employee is let go. This sort of protection of sub-standard performers is what really gets my goat, and that of a lot of other people. I cannot see any reason why a government employee should have so much more protection, financially and in terms of job security, than someone in the private sector. If you're incompetent to do your job adequately, you should be dismissed, and a competent person hired to replace you. End of story. As a tax payer, I rather object to paying the salaries of incompetent workers, simply because their jobs are so protected it would take an Act of Congress (or similar!), to remove them. If dismissal is on other grounds, then sure, you should be protected as private-sector workers are - by legislation designed for that purpose - but a situation in which an incompetent, inadequate employee cannot be dismissed is laughable, and makes a lot of people angry. By the way, this doesn't just apply to teachers - I find the level of protection offered to all government employees in most parts of the developed world utterly absurd.
yes, incompetent employees should not be paid. but in education, just because a teacher is not meeting a standard does not make them incompetent. there are an incredible number of facets that go into it because you are working with children. i'll use my husband as an example. he teaches world history, AP, honors and standard. his AP and honors students, primarily come from middle class to wealthy families who work 9 to 5 jobs, are home with them for dinner in the evenings, shuttle them to soccer practice or gymnastics on the weekends, and have had a hand in their education since they were very young. their scores on standardized testing are fine, because they have generally been supported by their families through the entire process of their schooling.
now, his standard classes. they are not standard. these are the students who live in the projects, whose parents either work several jobs to make ends meet and are not available to assist with school work, some of their parents are drug dealers, some of the students are drug dealers and felons, some of the students have very low IQs and should not be held to the standardized testing bar, some of these students came to my husband not being able to read, some of these students just immigrated to the country from various places and cannot speak a lick of english, some of these students' parents had them at the age of 13 or 14 and cannot read or write themselves, some of them are pregnant, some of them are responsible for caring for their younger siblings while their parents are at work, or passed out, or prostituting...i could go on and on.
someone looking at the testing scores of this kind of classroom could easily jump to the conclusion that my husband is an incompetent teacher and is not doing his job. but this just isn't true. you aren't seeing the big picture. education is just not black and white like that. education is not number pushing, as so many would like to make it. your students come to you with their home life and social situation attached. you can't just remove that from the issue.
I do take your point, and I am aware of the issues faced by teachers in the classroom. I'm also aware that students' testing results are not a particularly complete way of measuring teacher performance. That said, how else is it to be measured? If your job is to educate, then how well you educate your students is surely the measure of your success? Difficult situations or not, and again, I think the practise of keeping children at age group levels rather than ability levels is somewhat to blame here, there has to be some measure of how effective teaching is. What would you suggest, as an alternative to test scores, that is simple and low-cost to assess and analyse?0 -
As the human face of that system, teachers, and I know there are great teachers as well as the opposite, are the familiar face, the first port of call, and thus, the scapegoats. It's unjust, but it's human.
thanks for that. it's nice to hear someone other than a teacher use 'scapegoat' and 'unfair' to describe this. i think most of us know the boat we're in, and we're not about to abandon ship, but that sure felt good to hear a little bit of empathy.0 -
There are some people here that would say your child should not be in a regular classroom. I don't understand how they can say that.
Why? If a child copes brilliantly with 3rd or 4th grade work, but is struggling with 5th grade material, being held to a standard, (and his teachers with him), that is beyond his capabilities at the moment, why have him sit and struggle in a 5th grade classroom? Why not have him in a situation, whether that is in a 4th grade classroom, or a classroom geared specially towards his needs, where he can excel and feel proud of himself, as he rightly should, rather than being eternally surrounded by evidence that he is "behind"? Kids aren't stupid - no matter how often you tell a child that he is doing brilliantly, the evidence of his own eyes and observations will make him aware that he is not matching the achievements of the other kids around him. To have a child who works 7-9 hours a day to keep up with a programme that he will be aware is not the same as his peers is a recipe for frustration and self-esteem issues. This mother sounds like she's doing a brilliant job in a difficult situation, but this nonsensical insistence that all be treated exactly alike in educational establishments is HURTING kids at both ends of the spectrum, not helping them.
I couldn't agree more. He is insistent that he wants to finish elementary school with his friends, then we will homeschool. I have no choice, I don't want his idea of learning to be a "sink or swim" mentality. He loves to read, loves math-I can teach him at his level and have him feel successful
0 -
How long had you been an employee for the federal government? What agency did you for? I know when I worked for the government it would take an act of congress to get rid of someone with more than 3 years of experience.
USPTO, a little over a year. If you didn't meet your quotas you were out, no questions asked. And the quotas were pretty insane, especially if you had a bad supervisor who didn't sign off your work in a timely manner.
I don't know how that agency works with their systems, but I would imagine that someone with more experience than you would be very hard to remove for performance unless it is a RIF (and that's different - teachers have those too BTW). It's kind of the same thing with teachers.
That right there is what people object to. Outwith government employ - and this is pretty much a global issue - if there's an issue with performance and it remains unaddressed, that employee is let go. This sort of protection of sub-standard performers is what really gets my goat, and that of a lot of other people. I cannot see any reason why a government employee should have so much more protection, financially and in terms of job security, than someone in the private sector. If you're incompetent to do your job adequately, you should be dismissed, and a competent person hired to replace you. End of story. As a tax payer, I rather object to paying the salaries of incompetent workers, simply because their jobs are so protected it would take an Act of Congress (or similar!), to remove them. If dismissal is on other grounds, then sure, you should be protected as private-sector workers are - by legislation designed for that purpose - but a situation in which an incompetent, inadequate employee cannot be dismissed is laughable, and makes a lot of people angry. By the way, this doesn't just apply to teachers - I find the level of protection offered to all government employees in most parts of the developed world utterly absurd.
As absurd as it may be, it is part of the 5th amendment to the US constitution. Most government employees have a property right in their jobs and cannot be deprived of that right without due process. Many times that process includes numerous warnings, suspensions, and reprimands before a firing can actually take place. They also are entitled to a hearing to contest the decision. It's not fair, but it's the way the courts have interpreted the due process clause. So, a lot of employers don't take the time to even bother with it unless it's really bad. This results in the so-called "pass the trash" process. Where bad employees are transferred to other offices to "improve", but rarely their work improve. If you don't like it, it's going to take a lot more than b%ing about it to change it. I don't know what the solution is, but teachers and government employees didn't invent the system. Maybe we should blame the courts.
Yes, that is absurd alright. The U.S. Consititution was not written just for teachers, although some may think so. Fifth Amendment Due Process covers everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States. Due process in proceedings against teachers is a creature of contract and state law, and has nothing to do with the US Consititution.
No where did I ever argue that the Constitution was written just for teachers. That is a complete mischaracterization of what I was talking about. Every employee in the United States does not have a property right in their job, so the 5th amendment does not apply to every employee. I do not feel like getting into a legal discussion of who is covered by this and who is not. Most private sector employees can be fired for cause or no cause. I mean people get fired from jobs all the time for no reason other than I don't like you. This is not the case where the is a protected property right. The private employer is not required to give that person a hearing unlike the public sector. Yes, due process applies to everyone in the United States, but not everyone has the same "property" rights under that amendment. It has to do with the fact that the goverment is not allowed to deprive you of your property without due process. I'm done with this argument.
That being said....The issue here is teachers, parents, education not protected property rights. I can give you the case citations if you want to continue to talk about this.
I don't know where you went to law school, but you are certainly confused by the 5th Amendment ("Not everyone has the same "property" rights under that amendment." - I don't know where you got that, but it is just plain wrong. EVERYONE has exactly the same rights under the 5th Amendment.) I am sorry but I can also see why you want to be done with this argument. Arguing that the Constitution gives some people more rights than others is absurd, defies hundreds of years of case law, defies the principle of stare decisis, and is just plain WRONG.0 -
That right there is what people object to. Outwith government employ - and this is pretty much a global issue - if there's an issue with performance and it remains unaddressed, that employee is let go. This sort of protection of sub-standard performers is what really gets my goat, and that of a lot of other people. I cannot see any reason why a government employee should have so much more protection, financially and in terms of job security, than someone in the private sector. If you're incompetent to do your job adequately, you should be dismissed, and a competent person hired to replace you. End of story. As a tax payer, I rather object to paying the salaries of incompetent workers, simply because their jobs are so protected it would take an Act of Congress (or similar!), to remove them. If dismissal is on other grounds, then sure, you should be protected as private-sector workers are - by legislation designed for that purpose - but a situation in which an incompetent, inadequate employee cannot be dismissed is laughable, and makes a lot of people angry. By the way, this doesn't just apply to teachers - I find the level of protection offered to all government employees in most parts of the developed world utterly absurd.
yes, incompetent employees should not be paid. but in education, just because a teacher is not meeting a standard does not make them incompetent. there are an incredible number of facets that go into it because you are working with children. i'll use my husband as an example. he teaches world history, AP, honors and standard. his AP and honors students, primarily come from middle class to wealthy families who work 9 to 5 jobs, are home with them for dinner in the evenings, shuttle them to soccer practice or gymnastics on the weekends, and have had a hand in their education since they were very young. their scores on standardized testing are fine, because they have generally been supported by their families through the entire process of their schooling.
now, his standard classes. they are not standard. these are the students who live in the projects, whose parents either work several jobs to make ends meet and are not available to assist with school work, some of their parents are drug dealers, some of the students are drug dealers and felons, some of the students have very low IQs and should not be held to the standardized testing bar, some of these students came to my husband not being able to read, some of these students just immigrated to the country from various places and cannot speak a lick of english, some of these students' parents had them at the age of 13 or 14 and cannot read or write themselves, some of them are pregnant, some of them are responsible for caring for their younger siblings while their parents are at work, or passed out, or prostituting...i could go on and on.
someone looking at the testing scores of this kind of classroom could easily jump to the conclusion that my husband is an incompetent teacher and is not doing his job. but this just isn't true. you aren't seeing the big picture. education is just not black and white like that. education is not number pushing, as so many would like to make it. your students come to you with their home life and social situation attached. you can't just remove that from the issue.
I do take your point, and I am aware of the issues faced by teachers in the classroom. I'm also aware that students' testing results are not a particularly complete way of measuring teacher performance. That said, how else is it to be measured? If your job is to educate, then how well you educate your students is surely the measure of your success? Difficult situations or not, and again, I think the practise of keeping children at age group levels rather than ability levels is somewhat to blame here, there has to be some measure of how effective teaching is. What would you suggest, as an alternative to test scores, that is simple and low-cost to assess and analyse?
Yes, my job is to educate the children...I don't know what the alternative to testing is, but there have been cases in my county where kids have conspired to get low scores on the test because it will hurt the teacher. I think a portfolio system where you have a collection of all the work that kids complete throughout the year is a very effective way to assess performance. It's not cost effective though. I did digital portfolios with my students last year and it was awesome. This year I'm working as the technology specialist for my school so the kids come to me to work on the computers to strengthen their academic skills.0 -
There are some people here that would say your child should not be in a regular classroom. I don't understand how they can say that.
Why? If a child copes brilliantly with 3rd or 4th grade work, but is struggling with 5th grade material, being held to a standard, (and his teachers with him), that is beyond his capabilities at the moment, why have him sit and struggle in a 5th grade classroom? Why not have him in a situation, whether that is in a 4th grade classroom, or a classroom geared specially towards his needs, where he can excel and feel proud of himself, as he rightly should, rather than being eternally surrounded by evidence that he is "behind"? Kids aren't stupid - no matter how often you tell a child that he is doing brilliantly, the evidence of his own eyes and observations will make him aware that he is not matching the achievements of the other kids around him. To have a child who works 7-9 hours a day to keep up with a programme that he will be aware is not the same as his peers is a recipe for frustration and self-esteem issues. This mother sounds like she's doing a brilliant job in a difficult situation, but this nonsensical insistence that all be treated exactly alike in educational establishments is HURTING kids at both ends of the spectrum, not helping them.
I couldn't agree more. He is insistent that he wants to finish elementary school with his friends, then we will homeschool. I have no choice, I don't want his idea of learning to be a "sink or swim" mentality. He loves to read, loves math-I can teach him at his level and have him feel successful
I wish you every possible bit of luck with your plans. My experience was at the other end of the spectrum, but I've always thought the issues are very similar. Sounds like your wee chap is very lucky to have a mother who is willing to make sacrifices and take on the system in order that his experiences of learning should be as positive as possible, and his education best adapted to his personal needs and abilities. :flowerforyou:0 -
"I feel very sad that a child with learning disabilities is forced to be in the same classroom with others who are 1.5 to 2.0 years ahead of him. From the sound of it, his disabilities are not as severe as some I have seen. I know of one child in my town who was considerably further behind than your child, and the mother went to court to have him sent to a special school where he would be with others like himself and where the learning would be geared to the appropriate level.
I am a firm believer in ability grouping and I don't think mainstreaming a child such as yours is fair to your child or to others in the class."
[/quote]
That's something I hear alot of parents say, but in no way is it unfair to other children in the class-he is held to their level, their pace. He's not disruptive, you would never know the child is in the room unless the teacher calls on him. When he can't meet the workload, the work is sent home to me to make up the difference. There is no "ability grouping" in a small school in an incredibly small town- the only other choice is to put him in a special education room with two children who are severely disabled and can't walk, talk and one can't even see. Is their fairness in that? Once again, that mentality is another reason why I will homeschool.0 -
I do take your point, and I am aware of the issues faced by teachers in the classroom. I'm also aware that students' testing results are not a particularly complete way of measuring teacher performance. That said, how else is it to be measured? If your job is to educate, then how well you educate your students is surely the measure of your success? Difficult situations or not, and again, I think the practise of keeping children at age group levels rather than ability levels is somewhat to blame here, there has to be some measure of how effective teaching is. What would you suggest, as an alternative to test scores, that is simple and low-cost to assess and analyse?
man, if there was an answer to your question, this board wouldn't be so much fun! i don't have any answers, and have not claimed to. i just know that it's not right to label a teacher as incompetent or lazy when a student who should have been held back years ago but was passed through the system is now expected to pass an end-of-course test, but does not have the ability to read or write. you can't drop the content and start teaching phonics. it just doesn't work that way.
as far as assessing and analyzing...hmmm...i don't even know if i believe that can really be done with a child mind. all of the assessment we have to do now even is a crock. number pushing just doesn't work with the dynamics of mass numbers of children. the way it works now is that each student has a predicted level they will perform at. a lot of them are predicted to be at level one, which is the lowest. you would think that it would show growth if they reached level two. but no - they *must* reach level three or four to show growth, which is just a big box of stupid. it takes a lot to go from level one to level two, and it is just a slap in the face to the kids that put forth that effort. but that's what we have. it's a bummer for sure.0 -
How long had you been an employee for the federal government? What agency did you for? I know when I worked for the government it would take an act of congress to get rid of someone with more than 3 years of experience.
USPTO, a little over a year. If you didn't meet your quotas you were out, no questions asked. And the quotas were pretty insane, especially if you had a bad supervisor who didn't sign off your work in a timely manner.
I don't know how that agency works with their systems, but I would imagine that someone with more experience than you would be very hard to remove for performance unless it is a RIF (and that's different - teachers have those too BTW). It's kind of the same thing with teachers.
That right there is what people object to. Outwith government employ - and this is pretty much a global issue - if there's an issue with performance and it remains unaddressed, that employee is let go. This sort of protection of sub-standard performers is what really gets my goat, and that of a lot of other people. I cannot see any reason why a government employee should have so much more protection, financially and in terms of job security, than someone in the private sector. If you're incompetent to do your job adequately, you should be dismissed, and a competent person hired to replace you. End of story. As a tax payer, I rather object to paying the salaries of incompetent workers, simply because their jobs are so protected it would take an Act of Congress (or similar!), to remove them. If dismissal is on other grounds, then sure, you should be protected as private-sector workers are - by legislation designed for that purpose - but a situation in which an incompetent, inadequate employee cannot be dismissed is laughable, and makes a lot of people angry. By the way, this doesn't just apply to teachers - I find the level of protection offered to all government employees in most parts of the developed world utterly absurd.
As absurd as it may be, it is part of the 5th amendment to the US constitution. Most government employees have a property right in their jobs and cannot be deprived of that right without due process. Many times that process includes numerous warnings, suspensions, and reprimands before a firing can actually take place. They also are entitled to a hearing to contest the decision. It's not fair, but it's the way the courts have interpreted the due process clause. So, a lot of employers don't take the time to even bother with it unless it's really bad. This results in the so-called "pass the trash" process. Where bad employees are transferred to other offices to "improve", but rarely their work improve. If you don't like it, it's going to take a lot more than b%ing about it to change it. I don't know what the solution is, but teachers and government employees didn't invent the system. Maybe we should blame the courts.
Yes, that is absurd alright. The U.S. Consititution was not written just for teachers, although some may think so. Fifth Amendment Due Process covers everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States. Due process in proceedings against teachers is a creature of contract and state law, and has nothing to do with the US Consititution.
No where did I ever argue that the Constitution was written just for teachers. That is a complete mischaracterization of what I was talking about. Every employee in the United States does not have a property right in their job, so the 5th amendment does not apply to every employee. I do not feel like getting into a legal discussion of who is covered by this and who is not. Most private sector employees can be fired for cause or no cause. I mean people get fired from jobs all the time for no reason other than I don't like you. This is not the case where the is a protected property right. The private employer is not required to give that person a hearing unlike the public sector. Yes, due process applies to everyone in the United States, but not everyone has the same "property" rights under that amendment. It has to do with the fact that the goverment is not allowed to deprive you of your property without due process. I'm done with this argument.
That being said....The issue here is teachers, parents, education not protected property rights. I can give you the case citations if you want to continue to talk about this.
I don't know where you went to law school, but you are certainly confused by the 5th Amendment ("Not everyone has the same "property" rights under that amendment." - I don't know where you got that, but it is just plain wrong. EVERYONE has exactly the same rights under the 5th Amendment.) I am sorry but I can also see why you want to be done with this argument. Arguing that the Constitution gives some people more rights than others is absurd, defies hundreds of years of case law, defies the principle of stare decisis, and is just plain WRONG.
Well, the courts have defined property rights in employment very narrowly. Yes, everyone has the same rights, but not everyone gets the same protections. Employment at will applies to almost all employees. That mean that your employer can fire you for any reason at all. There are three exceptions to this doctrine where you are granted additional protections. 1. Government - state, federal, and local employees are given a property right to their jobs under the 5th and 14th amendment, 2. Union members where the contract provides protection, 3. contract employees like athletes, celebs, etc.0 -
"I feel very sad that a child with learning disabilities is forced to be in the same classroom with others who are 1.5 to 2.0 years ahead of him. From the sound of it, his disabilities are not as severe as some I have seen. I know of one child in my town who was considerably further behind than your child, and the mother went to court to have him sent to a special school where he would be with others like himself and where the learning would be geared to the appropriate level.
I am a firm believer in ability grouping and I don't think mainstreaming a child such as yours is fair to your child or to others in the class."
That's something I hear alot of parents say, but in no way is it unfair to other children in the class-he is held to their level, their pace.
Okay, maybe I am confused. I thought you said he COULDN'T handle their level of work. Sorry if I misunderstood.
He's not disruptive, you would never know the child is in the room unless the teacher calls on him. When he can't meet the workload, the work is sent home to me to make up the difference. There is no "ability grouping" in a small school in an incredibly small town- the only other choice is to put him in a special education room with two children who are severely disabled and can't walk, talk and one can't even see. Is their fairness in that?
To answer that question, I think you would have to look at it from several points of view, including the two disabled children who can't walk or talk. But if your kid can cope in the main stream class, and exhibits no disruptive behavior, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be there. Again, I may be misunderstanding your situation.
Once again, that mentality is another reason why I will homeschool.
[/quote]0 -
How long had you been an employee for the federal government? What agency did you for? I know when I worked for the government it would take an act of congress to get rid of someone with more than 3 years of experience.
USPTO, a little over a year. If you didn't meet your quotas you were out, no questions asked. And the quotas were pretty insane, especially if you had a bad supervisor who didn't sign off your work in a timely manner.
I don't know how that agency works with their systems, but I would imagine that someone with more experience than you would be very hard to remove for performance unless it is a RIF (and that's different - teachers have those too BTW). It's kind of the same thing with teachers.
That right there is what people object to. Outwith government employ - and this is pretty much a global issue - if there's an issue with performance and it remains unaddressed, that employee is let go. This sort of protection of sub-standard performers is what really gets my goat, and that of a lot of other people. I cannot see any reason why a government employee should have so much more protection, financially and in terms of job security, than someone in the private sector. If you're incompetent to do your job adequately, you should be dismissed, and a competent person hired to replace you. End of story. As a tax payer, I rather object to paying the salaries of incompetent workers, simply because their jobs are so protected it would take an Act of Congress (or similar!), to remove them. If dismissal is on other grounds, then sure, you should be protected as private-sector workers are - by legislation designed for that purpose - but a situation in which an incompetent, inadequate employee cannot be dismissed is laughable, and makes a lot of people angry. By the way, this doesn't just apply to teachers - I find the level of protection offered to all government employees in most parts of the developed world utterly absurd.
As absurd as it may be, it is part of the 5th amendment to the US constitution. Most government employees have a property right in their jobs and cannot be deprived of that right without due process. Many times that process includes numerous warnings, suspensions, and reprimands before a firing can actually take place. They also are entitled to a hearing to contest the decision. It's not fair, but it's the way the courts have interpreted the due process clause. So, a lot of employers don't take the time to even bother with it unless it's really bad. This results in the so-called "pass the trash" process. Where bad employees are transferred to other offices to "improve", but rarely their work improve. If you don't like it, it's going to take a lot more than b%ing about it to change it. I don't know what the solution is, but teachers and government employees didn't invent the system. Maybe we should blame the courts.
Yes, that is absurd alright. The U.S. Consititution was not written just for teachers, although some may think so. Fifth Amendment Due Process covers everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States. Due process in proceedings against teachers is a creature of contract and state law, and has nothing to do with the US Consititution.
No where did I ever argue that the Constitution was written just for teachers. That is a complete mischaracterization of what I was talking about. Every employee in the United States does not have a property right in their job, so the 5th amendment does not apply to every employee. I do not feel like getting into a legal discussion of who is covered by this and who is not. Most private sector employees can be fired for cause or no cause. I mean people get fired from jobs all the time for no reason other than I don't like you. This is not the case where the is a protected property right. The private employer is not required to give that person a hearing unlike the public sector. Yes, due process applies to everyone in the United States, but not everyone has the same "property" rights under that amendment. It has to do with the fact that the goverment is not allowed to deprive you of your property without due process. I'm done with this argument.
That being said....The issue here is teachers, parents, education not protected property rights. I can give you the case citations if you want to continue to talk about this.
I don't know where you went to law school, but you are certainly confused by the 5th Amendment ("Not everyone has the same "property" rights under that amendment." - I don't know where you got that, but it is just plain wrong. EVERYONE has exactly the same rights under the 5th Amendment.) I am sorry but I can also see why you want to be done with this argument. Arguing that the Constitution gives some people more rights than others is absurd, defies hundreds of years of case law, defies the principle of stare decisis, and is just plain WRONG.
Well, the courts have defined property rights in employment very narrowly. Yes, everyone has the same rights, but not everyone gets the same protections. Employment at will applies to almost all employees. That mean that your employer can fire you for any reason at all. There are three exceptions to this doctrine where you are granted additional protections. 1. Government - state, federal, and local employees are given a property right to their jobs under the 5th and 14th amendment, 2. Union members where the contract provides protection, 3. contract employees like athletes, celebs, etc.
Fine, but what has that got to do with the 5th Amendment?
Yes, and please give me the case citations.0 -
BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)0 -
How long had you been an employee for the federal government? What agency did you for? I know when I worked for the government it would take an act of congress to get rid of someone with more than 3 years of experience.
USPTO, a little over a year. If you didn't meet your quotas you were out, no questions asked. And the quotas were pretty insane, especially if you had a bad supervisor who didn't sign off your work in a timely manner.
I don't know how that agency works with their systems, but I would imagine that someone with more experience than you would be very hard to remove for performance unless it is a RIF (and that's different - teachers have those too BTW). It's kind of the same thing with teachers.
That right there is what people object to. Outwith government employ - and this is pretty much a global issue - if there's an issue with performance and it remains unaddressed, that employee is let go. This sort of protection of sub-standard performers is what really gets my goat, and that of a lot of other people. I cannot see any reason why a government employee should have so much more protection, financially and in terms of job security, than someone in the private sector. If you're incompetent to do your job adequately, you should be dismissed, and a competent person hired to replace you. End of story. As a tax payer, I rather object to paying the salaries of incompetent workers, simply because their jobs are so protected it would take an Act of Congress (or similar!), to remove them. If dismissal is on other grounds, then sure, you should be protected as private-sector workers are - by legislation designed for that purpose - but a situation in which an incompetent, inadequate employee cannot be dismissed is laughable, and makes a lot of people angry. By the way, this doesn't just apply to teachers - I find the level of protection offered to all government employees in most parts of the developed world utterly absurd.
As absurd as it may be, it is part of the 5th amendment to the US constitution. Most government employees have a property right in their jobs and cannot be deprived of that right without due process. Many times that process includes numerous warnings, suspensions, and reprimands before a firing can actually take place. They also are entitled to a hearing to contest the decision. It's not fair, but it's the way the courts have interpreted the due process clause. So, a lot of employers don't take the time to even bother with it unless it's really bad. This results in the so-called "pass the trash" process. Where bad employees are transferred to other offices to "improve", but rarely their work improve. If you don't like it, it's going to take a lot more than b%ing about it to change it. I don't know what the solution is, but teachers and government employees didn't invent the system. Maybe we should blame the courts.
Yes, that is absurd alright. The U.S. Consititution was not written just for teachers, although some may think so. Fifth Amendment Due Process covers everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States. Due process in proceedings against teachers is a creature of contract and state law, and has nothing to do with the US Consititution.
No where did I ever argue that the Constitution was written just for teachers. That is a complete mischaracterization of what I was talking about. Every employee in the United States does not have a property right in their job, so the 5th amendment does not apply to every employee. I do not feel like getting into a legal discussion of who is covered by this and who is not. Most private sector employees can be fired for cause or no cause. I mean people get fired from jobs all the time for no reason other than I don't like you. This is not the case where the is a protected property right. The private employer is not required to give that person a hearing unlike the public sector. Yes, due process applies to everyone in the United States, but not everyone has the same "property" rights under that amendment. It has to do with the fact that the goverment is not allowed to deprive you of your property without due process. I'm done with this argument.
That being said....The issue here is teachers, parents, education not protected property rights. I can give you the case citations if you want to continue to talk about this.
I don't know where you went to law school, but you are certainly confused by the 5th Amendment ("Not everyone has the same "property" rights under that amendment." - I don't know where you got that, but it is just plain wrong. EVERYONE has exactly the same rights under the 5th Amendment.) I am sorry but I can also see why you want to be done with this argument. Arguing that the Constitution gives some people more rights than others is absurd, defies hundreds of years of case law, defies the principle of stare decisis, and is just plain WRONG.
Well, the courts have defined property rights in employment very narrowly. Yes, everyone has the same rights, but not everyone gets the same protections. Employment at will applies to almost all employees. That mean that your employer can fire you for any reason at all. There are three exceptions to this doctrine where you are granted additional protections. 1. Government - state, federal, and local employees are given a property right to their jobs under the 5th and 14th amendment, 2. Union members where the contract provides protection, 3. contract employees like athletes, celebs, etc.
Fine, but what has that got to do with the 5th Amendment?
Yes, and please give me the case citations.
Due process comes from the 5th amendment0 -
There are some people here that would say your child should not be in a regular classroom. I don't understand how they can say that.
Why? If a child copes brilliantly with 3rd or 4th grade work, but is struggling with 5th grade material, being held to a standard, (and his teachers with him), that is beyond his capabilities at the moment, why have him sit and struggle in a 5th grade classroom? Why not have him in a situation, whether that is in a 4th grade classroom, or a classroom geared specially towards his needs, where he can excel and feel proud of himself, as he rightly should, rather than being eternally surrounded by evidence that he is "behind"? Kids aren't stupid - no matter how often you tell a child that he is doing brilliantly, the evidence of his own eyes and observations will make him aware that he is not matching the achievements of the other kids around him. To have a child who works 7-9 hours a day to keep up with a programme that he will be aware is not the same as his peers is a recipe for frustration and self-esteem issues. This mother sounds like she's doing a brilliant job in a difficult situation, but this nonsensical insistence that all be treated exactly alike in educational establishments is HURTING kids at both ends of the spectrum, not helping them.
I couldn't agree more. He is insistent that he wants to finish elementary school with his friends, then we will homeschool. I have no choice, I don't want his idea of learning to be a "sink or swim" mentality. He loves to read, loves math-I can teach him at his level and have him feel successful
I wish you every possible bit of luck with your plans. My experience was at the other end of the spectrum, but I've always thought the issues are very similar. Sounds like your wee chap is very lucky to have a mother who is willing to make sacrifices and take on the system in order that his experiences of learning should be as positive as possible, and his education best adapted to his personal needs and abilities. :flowerforyou:
Thank you, and everyone for the kind words. I am thrilled but equally terrified to take on the sole responsibility of teaching him, but I've found a school in Pennsylvania that will custom tailor the curriculum to his needs-so I'm hoping that (and my good intentions) will be enough.0 -
BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?0 -
There are some people here that would say your child should not be in a regular classroom. I don't understand how they can say that.
Why? If a child copes brilliantly with 3rd or 4th grade work, but is struggling with 5th grade material, being held to a standard, (and his teachers with him), that is beyond his capabilities at the moment, why have him sit and struggle in a 5th grade classroom? Why not have him in a situation, whether that is in a 4th grade classroom, or a classroom geared specially towards his needs, where he can excel and feel proud of himself, as he rightly should, rather than being eternally surrounded by evidence that he is "behind"? Kids aren't stupid - no matter how often you tell a child that he is doing brilliantly, the evidence of his own eyes and observations will make him aware that he is not matching the achievements of the other kids around him. To have a child who works 7-9 hours a day to keep up with a programme that he will be aware is not the same as his peers is a recipe for frustration and self-esteem issues. This mother sounds like she's doing a brilliant job in a difficult situation, but this nonsensical insistence that all be treated exactly alike in educational establishments is HURTING kids at both ends of the spectrum, not helping them.
I couldn't agree more. He is insistent that he wants to finish elementary school with his friends, then we will homeschool. I have no choice, I don't want his idea of learning to be a "sink or swim" mentality. He loves to read, loves math-I can teach him at his level and have him feel successful
I wish you every possible bit of luck with your plans. My experience was at the other end of the spectrum, but I've always thought the issues are very similar. Sounds like your wee chap is very lucky to have a mother who is willing to make sacrifices and take on the system in order that his experiences of learning should be as positive as possible, and his education best adapted to his personal needs and abilities. :flowerforyou:
Thank you, and everyone for the kind words. I am thrilled but equally terrified to take on the sole responsibility of teaching him, but I've found a school in Pennsylvania that will custom tailor the curriculum to his needs-so I'm hoping that (and my good intentions) will be enough.
You are doing the best possible thing for your kid. We homeschooled and it was the best thing we ever did. Best of luck.0 -
[/quote]"I feel very sad that a child with learning disabilities is forced to be in the same classroom with others who are 1.5 to 2.0 years ahead of him. From the sound of it, his disabilities are not as severe as some I have seen. I know of one child in my town who was considerably further behind than your child, and the mother went to court to have him sent to a special school where he would be with others like himself and where the learning would be geared to the appropriate level.
I am a firm believer in ability grouping and I don't think mainstreaming a child such as yours is fair to your child or to others in the class."
That's something I hear alot of parents say, but in no way is it unfair to other children in the class-he is held to their level, their pace.
Okay, maybe I am confused. I thought you said he COULDN'T handle their level of work. Sorry if I misunderstood.
He's not disruptive, you would never know the child is in the room unless the teacher calls on him. When he can't meet the workload, the work is sent home to me to make up the difference. There is no "ability grouping" in a small school in an incredibly small town- the only other choice is to put him in a special education room with two children who are severely disabled and can't walk, talk and one can't even see. Is their fairness in that?
To answer that question, I think you would have to look at it from several points of view, including the two disabled children who can't walk or talk. But if your kid can cope in the main stream class, and exhibits no disruptive behavior, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be there. Again, I may be misunderstanding your situation.
Once again, that mentality is another reason why I will homeschool.
What I meant by failing to meet their standards is he doesn't score high enough on standardized tests scores. The system doesn't take into account it's a child that has a learning disability, so it looks like the teacher isn't doing her job. Right now he has great teachers who take into account that the pace is too fast for him-but as he gets older I have no clue if they would give him the same lee-way (spelled right?).0 -
BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?
Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.0 -
BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?
Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.
Okay, I think you may want to be more precise. The fifth Amendment protects everyone equally. As you said correctly, that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights not just to the Federal Government which was originally the case) , but also to the states. Any special rights or property rights that teachers have, however, are, as I said before a creature of state legislation and/or contract law, not the US Constitution. You may want to go back and look at what you originally said, because to me it read like teachers have special job protections under the 5th Amendment0 -
I am a teacher and would gladly take the pay of a babysitter!
Let's say that I charge $3/hour/kid. I have 27 kids in my class:
$3 x 27 = $81/hour
I am SCHEDULED to work from 8:45 - 4:15 (though I am usually at school before 8 and leave around 5):
$81 x 7 (taking out my lunch - 30 min.) = $567/day
I work 36 weeks per year, and that does account for summer break and other days off:
$567 x 5 days/week = $2835 x 36 weeks/year = $102,060/year
Now, I also have a MA in education, but I won't charge extra for my extra knowledge of how to better serve your children.
I make less than $40,000/year. So, PLEASE let me charge babysitter rates! I would love that!
^^Haha..>THIS...I CHOSE this undervalued and underpaid field because I am passionate about education. Those teachers who educated the nuckleheads that speak out against teachers are embarrassed.
EDIT: Apparently I'm a thread killer. But I wanted to say factor in the fact that there are no "laws" for the level of education a "babysitter" has to have - that's downright scary!
Nicely said0 -
BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?
Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.
Okay, I think you may want to be more precise. The fifth Amendment protects everyone equally. As you said correctly, that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights not just to the Federal Government which was originally the case) , but also to the states. Any special rights or property rights that teachers have, however, are, as I said before a creature of state legislation and/or contract law, not the US Constitution. You may want to go back and look at what you originally said, because to me it read like teachers have special job protections under the 5th Amendment
I actually said that most government employees have a protected property right under the 5th amendment (14th amendment for the state). Teachers are government employees. So, I never said that teachers have a special right under the 5th amendment to be precise. Yes, tenure is a function of state and/or contract law. But it is tenure and expecation of job security that creates the protected property right that other employees don't have. So, in a sense the 5th/14th amendment create rights for those employees that not everyone has. Thus, it is not the same for everyone because of how the courts have defined "property". Being a state employee means that you are Constitutionally protected from some actions by the state (your employer), so here again you do have more protections than the average Joe. I'm confused where you got that it applies to teachers only. Explain or show me where the "Only teachers get protections under the 5th amendment" is written.
You are very concerned about precise language, but you tend to paint with a very broad brush when you are trashing teachers and the public education system....hmmmmmmm....0 -
BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?
Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.
Okay, I think you may want to be more precise. The fifth Amendment protects everyone equally. As you said correctly, that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights not just to the Federal Government which was originally the case) , but also to the states. Any special rights or property rights that teachers have, however, are, as I said before a creature of state legislation and/or contract law, not the US Constitution. You may want to go back and look at what you originally said, because to me it read like teachers have special job protections under the 5th Amendment
I actually said that most government employees have a protected property right under the 5th amendment (14th amendment for the state). Teachers are government employees. So, I never said that teachers have a special right under the 5th amendment to be precise. Yes, tenure is a function of state and/or contract law. But it is tenure and expecation of job security that creates the property right that other employees don't have. So, in a sense the 5th/14th amendment create rights for those employees that not everyone has
In a sense? Not that I can see. You might just as well say that I own a house because the 5th Amendment gave it to me. I purchased the house through a contract, and yes, the Fifth Amendment protects me from any government taking my house except by due process, but that hardly means that the Fifth Amendment created my property right!
- thus, it is not the same for everyone because of how the courts have defined "property". I'm confused where you got that it applies to teachers only. Explain or show me where the "teachers only get protections under the 5th amendment" is written.
Actually you did say government employees, not just teachers, but you were responding to a question about teachers.
You are very concerned about precise language, but you tend to paint with a very broad brush when you are trashing teachers and the public education system....hmmmmmmm....
I really do not think I have trashed "teachers." I certainly trash the Teacher Unions, and like others on this board I resent the privileged position that teachers have with regards to everyone else, and I trashed the educational system which doesn't work, and is disadvantaging this country with respect to other countries, and I praise brilliant teachers such as Escalante and Gotto who proved the system can work. I also attacked certain teachers, like the one who felt that working parents should take time off from work as vacation so that she wouldn't have to stay late. But I don't think I have said anything with a broad brush that applies to all teachers.
I say what I think. Mea Culpa.0 -
I hear you. I got out after 10 years of teaching at the high school level. The pay was fine - no complaint from me on that end. I didn't do it for the money. But I can tell you now that I wouldn't teach again for any amount of money. I rarely had a class under 40 students. I taught a computer class with only a dozen working computers (yeah, what were the other 30+ students supposed to do?) And how was I supposed to get them proficient with no resources? This isn't a Hollywood film and I'm not a miracle worker. I had parents calling me asking for advice on how to discipline their kids at home! WTH? I taught at-risk students (in a suburban, middle-class setting) and was bullied, sexually harassed, and physically assaulted with no support from admin. I was only able to get help from the police dept. with one student who was 18 years old. The others were underage, so it seemed to be a free pass for them. We lost about half of our teachers within the first few years it seemed. I was tired of hearing people in the community complaining about teachers. It was starting to really impact my health and I knew I didn't want to live my life in dread of waking up each day. Teaching isn't the only job I've had, but it was the toughest, by far. I don't recommend it. It's a shame, because there are so many wonderful kids out there and they aren't getting what they need because the system is totally screwed up. But please don't blame the teachers. The vast majority of them really bleed for this job. My complaint is not money. It's working conditions. I'm sure a bunch of people will flame me and say "if you don't like it, leave." I agree with that, which is why I left.0
-
BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?
Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.
Okay, I think you may want to be more precise. The fifth Amendment protects everyone equally. As you said correctly, that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights not just to the Federal Government which was originally the case) , but also to the states. Any special rights or property rights that teachers have, however, are, as I said before a creature of state legislation and/or contract law, not the US Constitution. You may want to go back and look at what you originally said, because to me it read like teachers have special job protections under the 5th Amendment
I actually said that most government employees have a protected property right under the 5th amendment (14th amendment for the state). Teachers are government employees. So, I never said that teachers have a special right under the 5th amendment to be precise. Yes, tenure is a function of state and/or contract law. But it is tenure and expecation of job security that creates the property right that other employees don't have. So, in a sense the 5th/14th amendment create rights for those employees that not everyone has
In a sense? Not that I can see. You might just as well say that I own a house because the 5th Amendment gave it to me. I purchased the house through a contract, and yes, the Fifth Amendment protects me from any government taking my house except by due process, but that hardly means that the Fifth Amendment created my property right!
- thus, it is not the same for everyone because of how the courts have defined "property". I'm confused where you got that it applies to teachers only. Explain or show me where the "teachers only get protections under the 5th amendment" is written.
Actually you did say government employees, not just teachers, but you were responding to a question about teachers.
You are very concerned about precise language, but you tend to paint with a very broad brush when you are trashing teachers and the public education system....hmmmmmmm....
I really do not think I have trashed "teachers." I certainly trash the Teacher Unions, and like others on this board I resent the privileged position that teachers have with regards to everyone else, and I trashed the educational system which doesn't work, and is disadvantaging this country with respect to other countries, and I praise brilliant teachers such as Escalante and Gotto who proved the system can work. I also attacked certain teachers, like the one who felt that working parents should take time off from work as vacation so that she wouldn't have to stay late. But I don't think I have said anything with a broad brush that applies to all teachers.
I say what I think. Mea Culpa.
When I say "protected property right" - I'm talking about the fact that the government cannot take your property without due process of law. That's what that means. i see that I left off the word protected in one of the sentences. Sorry about that. You do have a protected property right given to you by the 5th amendment for your house.
I was also responding in this post because people what teachers to be the only people that have these protections. I wanted to point out that there are other jobs that have them.
Also, I've seen some very broad statements about teachers from you. You say that all teachers are this and all teachers are that except for the ones that buck the system. Or all kids that don't come from a good environment shouldn't be educated. It's interesting that's all for someone who is concerned about precise language.0 -
When I say "protected property right" - I'm talking about the fact that the government cannot take your property without due process of law.
Hello! If you have truly been to law school you know that EVERYBODY has that protection! Why bring it up just in the context of government workers or teachers?
That's what that means. i see that I left off the word protected in one of the sentences. Sorry about that. You do have a protected property right given to you by the 5th amendment for your house.
Of course I do. No different from anyone else.
I was also responding in this post because people what teachers to be the only people that have these protections. I wanted to point out that there are other jobs that have them.
Whatever.
Also, I've seen some very broad statements about teachers from you. You say that all teachers are this and all teachers are that except for the ones that buck the system.
I have said that teachers are pampered. That is a true statement. They work til three most days, They have summers off. They have Christmas and Spring vacations. They get tenure. They get automatic raises in a recession. What about that statement isn' true?
Or all kids that don't come from a good environment shouldn't be educated.
Excuse me, but if you can find one place where I said that and post it I will send you $50. I never said any such thing. I grew up in a housing project and I went to an Ivy League school then to a professional school. I am DEEPLY concerned about education of poor kids. What I said was that kids who DO NOT WANT TO BE IN SCHOOL SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO BE THERE. I never said, and never would say that anyone from a poor background shouldn't be educated. I also said stop wasting public money force feeding kids who do not want to learn. That goes for poor and rich alike.
I sure hope you don't teach reading comprehension.
It's interesting that's all for someone who is concerned about precise language.
[/quote]0 -
I do take your point, and I am aware of the issues faced by teachers in the classroom. I'm also aware that students' testing results are not a particularly complete way of measuring teacher performance. That said, how else is it to be measured? If your job is to educate, then how well you educate your students is surely the measure of your success? Difficult situations or not, and again, I think the practise of keeping children at age group levels rather than ability levels is somewhat to blame here, there has to be some measure of how effective teaching is. What would you suggest, as an alternative to test scores, that is simple and low-cost to assess and analyse?
This is the crux of the problem with public (and many private) schools. Political Correctness. The school system is far more worried about what how kids and parents feel than about doing their job. And of course there is the pressure from the Unions to put as many diffent ability levels in one class as possible to make sure classes are small, and more teacher jobs are available.
I have recounted many times my own experience in high school many years ago. We had a tracked system. I had classes with the same kids every class. There were no stupid or obnoxious kids in my class. Even though I was poor and lived in a housing project, I was accepted to two Ivy League schools, and attended one. Full scholarship. Other kids in my class were accepted at other Ivy schools and really good non-Ivy schools.
Meanwhile, the kids in the lowest track learned a trade and all of them did well in life. This was the perfect system. IT WORKED. Then they changed it because self-esteem became more important than learning. If my old high school had been available for my kids, I would have sent them in a heart beat. But like everything else, it was corrupted by political correctness and the Unions.
We homeschooled instead. My kids skipped high school. My son age 19 went to community college starting when he was 12, got his associates degree when he was 17, his BA with honors when he was 19 and is not in his first year of law school. My daughter age 16, started Community College when she was 10 and has already earned her Associates Degree but has not received it yet. Both my kids did considerably better in the Community College than the vast majority of the kids there who were much older than they were, and had graduated from high school. Conclusion : High school is a waste of time. Yes, I will write a book about it.
By skipping high school and paying a modest amount for community college courses instead, we managed also to skip the first two years of college. Both my kids have started or will start as juniors at our state university. We chose the state university because of the smooth transition and acceptablity of all Community College courses at state U. Both my kids realize that a BA means very little nowadays, but that what is really important is graduate or professional school. My son is already in law school and my daughter has her mind set on a particular graduate program.
Keeping out of and away from the deadly high school system saved my kids from intellectual stagnation, and kept them on the right academic track. Until high schools start offering something better than what we (and many, many others) found, I consider it a useless waste of time, and certainly a waste of public money. Bytheway, we are in a school district that is considered one of the best in the State of Connecticut. The reality is, however, it sucks.0 -
[/quote]When I say "protected property right" - I'm talking about the fact that the government cannot take your property without due process of law.
Hello! If you have truly been to law school you know that EVERYBODY has that protection! Why bring it up just in the context of government workers or teachers?
That's what that means. i see that I left off the word protected in one of the sentences. Sorry about that. You do have a protected property right given to you by the 5th amendment for your house.
Of course I do. No different from anyone else.
I was also responding in this post because people what teachers to be the only people that have these protections. I wanted to point out that there are other jobs that have them.
Whatever.
Also, I've seen some very broad statements about teachers from you. You say that all teachers are this and all teachers are that except for the ones that buck the system.
I have said that teachers are pampered. That is a true statement. They work til three most days, They have summers off. They have Christmas and Spring vacations. They get tenure. They get automatic raises in a recession. What about that statement isn' true?
Or all kids that don't come from a good environment shouldn't be educated.
Excuse me, but if you can find one place where I said that and post it I will send you $50. I never said any such thing. I grew up in a housing project and I went to an Ivy League school then to a professional school. I am DEEPLY concerned about education of poor kids. What I said was that kids who DO NOT WANT TO BE IN SCHOOL SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO BE THERE. I never said, and never would say that anyone from a poor background shouldn't be educated. I also said stop wasting public money force feeding kids who do not want to learn. That goes for poor and rich alike.
I sure hope you don't teach reading comprehension.
It's interesting that's all for someone who is concerned about precise language.
What type of professional school did you attend (just curious)?
I find it interesting that you attack me instead of actually addressing the arguments. If I've truly been to law school and I can't read.....blah blah blah.
What you are failing to understand is:
1. Not all jobs are considered to be property.
2. Jobs of government employees are considered to be property.
3. If your job is not considered to be property it is not protected by the constitution. (Except for civil rights violations those apply to everyone)
If you don't own property the constitution doesn't apply to you because you are not a person that falls under the coverage of the constitution. This is what I mean by not applying to everyone equally. You have to be in a situation where the constitution applies otherwise it doesn't protect you equally.
Maybe you didn't directly say that kids from poor environments shouldn't be educated, but you certainly seem to have a bias against kids who may struggle in school for one reason or another. (kids with disabilities, kids with lack of motivation, kids that don't have strong support systems, etc.)
I"m not in the business of writing kids off. I think that kids have to be given the benefit of the doubt over and over again because they are kids. You want to write kids off. You think that the education system will be fixed by only educating the few rather than the masses. What are we supposed to do with all those uneducated people?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions