http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/23/paige.terrorist.nea/index.html

So nice to see the Bush administration taking the war on terrorism mantra "you're either fer us or again' us" to its logical conclusion. Whose going to get labeled as a terrorist organization next, the friggin' Boy Scouts?

which is not only the largest teachers union but also a major player in Democratic Party politics.


That sums the entire article up for me.

An administration official said the secretary was "clearly joking"


somebody on the board is way too partisan

Well that's a pretty crappy joke then... I don't know but there's nothing very funny with calling the NEA a terrorist group.

maybe you had to be there. sometimes jokes are like that

somebody on the board is way too partisan

In light of the way the Administration loves to tar people who oppose the way its handling (or mishandling) the war on terror, I see nothing funny about tagging any innocent organization as terrorist. It'd be like calling one "Communist" during the McCarthy era.

An administration official said the secretary was "clearly joking"
Administration offiicials also said there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the war in Iraq was over last May. Pardon me if an "administration official" clearing this up doesn't impress me.

And frankly, there's nothing funnier than a high-ranking government official making light of terrorims AND bagging on teachers. Maybe his second choice for a "joke" was to say, "I'd love to work more closely with the NEA, but the rank-and-file membership is too busy gang-rapping 12-year-old boys with a broom handle." I'm clearly joking, so it's OK.

To complete how this things normally work, up next we need "compassionate conservative" to come in here and say, "It's just like those damn dummycrats to try and take something of context and attack us God-fearing Republicans." You gotta love irony.

was there a sale on ass sticks this week?

The local porn shop did have dildo's on sale this week... I went to buy porn.

he's apologized. Personally, I think if he had called them "communists" it would have been better, but then again, I think the NEA is evil.

His "apology":
"It was an inappropriate choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms. I also said, as I have repeatedly, that our nation's teachers, who have dedicated their lives to service in the classroom, are the real soldiers of democracy, whereas the NEA's high-priced Washington lobbyists have made no secret that they will fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children regardless of skin color, accent or where they live. But, as one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better."

he's apologized. Personally, I think if he had called them "communists" it would have been better, but then again, I think the NEA is evil.

I think calling a group of teachers terrorists is evil. Particularly since this idiot is in charge of the Federal portion of money spent on teaching.

It'd be like the postmaster general calling postal workers evil. Or your station manager saying that conservative talk show hosts are evil.

It just chaps my hide when either party or anyone for that matter....says something, has it taped, and then plays the "it was taken out of context" card or the "it was a joke" card. Like the coach of Colorado's assinine statments about the kicker being "awful". Later he says those were taken out of context.....well I saw it and uh, not sure how any context could've made the statements any more thoghtful. I just hate that shit. If a Dem was in office the Reps would rip him for it and vice versa. The admin Should never poin t fingers at the opposition and cry "why are they attacking me?" Well they did it to Clinton, and they did it to Bush before that, and Reagan before that. So as far as Im concerned STFU about "they're playing dirty stuff so we have to." Like Bush and the Admin doesnt know the videos on the internet rip Kerry, "Oh, but we dont support that." If you stand idely by while something goes on, in this case a loophole in the campaign advertising rule where you have to claim one fo your ads and thus pay for it, you are negligent no matter what party it is.

Saw Kucinich on Bill Maher the other night and I liked him too. But Like I said before Ill vote for almost anyone before Ill vote for Bush. Not nader though, his remarks the last two days have been ludicrous. "The two party's are exactly the same." "Relax and Rejoice" If the two were ever further apart it was before i paid attention, when i had to be home when the streetlights came on, and when all I wanted to be was picked at the rink when it was ladies choice. Nader just loves the spotlight.

His "apology":
"It was an inappropriate choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms. I also said, as I have repeatedly, that our nation's teachers, who have dedicated their lives to service in the classroom, are the real soldiers of democracy, whereas the NEA's high-priced Washington lobbyists have made no secret that they will fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children regardless of skin color, accent or where they live. But, as one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better."

I'lll believe this once the Bush administration actually starts making "rock-solid improvements" in the way children are educated.

Several states have already opted out, and several more are considering opting out of the farce that is "No Child Left Behind" because the cost of implementing it greatly exceeds the funding being provided to implement it.

i believe thats called "unfunded mandates".....nice that that term is so prevelent during the current admin. BTW Schwarzenegger said he "would" raise taxes in an emergency budget criseeees. I have more respect fro him now. At least he can read the writing on the wall even in English.

I think calling a group of teachers terrorists is evil. Particularly since this idiot is in charge of the Federal portion of money spent on teaching.

It'd be like the postmaster general calling postal workers evil. Or your station manager saying that conservative talk show hosts are evil.

No, actually it would be like the postmaster general calling the postal union terrorists. Or a station manager calling the radio and television union terrorists.

He wasn't talking about the teachers, he was talking about the NEA. I know plenty of teachers who don't belong to the NEA. I know other teachers who belong solely because they believe (wrongly) that it's the only way to get cheap liability insurance.

I'lll believe this once the Bush administration actually starts making "rock-solid improvements" in the way children are educated.

Several states have already opted out, and several more are considering opting out of the farce that is "No Child Left Behind" because the cost of implementing it greatly exceeds the funding being provided to implement it.

It can't be an unfunded mandate if there's no mandate to begin with. States don't have to take part in NCLB. They merely get additional federal dollars if they do. There's no penalty for opting out, and that choice is left entirely to the state.

Frankly, I wish we had more government programs that said "if you want to do this, fine. But if you're going to spend our money, we expect results." I fail to see how that's such a bad idea.

No, actually it would be like the postmaster general calling the postal union terrorists. Or a station manager calling the radio and television union terrorists.

He wasn't talking about the teachers, he was talking about the NEA. I know plenty of teachers who don't belong to the NEA. I know other teachers who belong solely because they believe (wrongly) that it's the only way to get cheap liability insurance.

The NEA is an organization made up of teachers. Therefore, he's calling those teachers who are part of the NEA "terrorists". One of which happens to be my Wife.

Geez Cam, you're so partisan that you can't even admit when the Bush admin really screws up. Remind me to get your SS uniform starched and ready. :)

no, I think it was a mistake to call the NEA terrorists. But in Paige's apology (which is really more of a clarification) he stated he was referring to the union officials, not the rank and file teachers.

I can't possibly imagine how anything any administration comes up with could be worse than "Standards of Learning." For those of you not familiar with SOL, it replaces actual education with metrics.

no, I think it was a mistake to call the NEA terrorists. But in Paige's apology (which is really more of a clarification) he stated he was referring to the union officials, not the rank and file teachers.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Cam.

blackadars wife is a terrorist

It can't be an unfunded mandate if there's no mandate to begin with. States don't have to take part in NCLB. They merely get additional federal dollars if they do. There's no penalty for opting out, and that choice is left entirely to the state.

Frankly, I wish we had more government programs that said "if you want to do this, fine. But if you're going to spend our money, we expect results." I fail to see how that's such a bad idea.

The way I heard it was that the federal government would pull money that they're already giving to the states if the states opt out. But at the same time they're not giving enough(any?) extra money to cover the additional costs of the new program. So it's kind of a screwed-if-you-do, screwed-if-you-don't situation.

blackadars wife is a terrorist
He's just worried because he's harboring and a terrorist ;)

SI

no, I think it was a mistake to call the NEA terrorists. But in Paige's apology (which is really more of a clarification) he stated he was referring to the union officials, not the rank and file teachers.

And that makes it better? Calling those who represent the teachers' interests in Washington "terrorists" is just fine?

Really, this is just plain silly. 3rd graders on the playground call each other "terrorists" when they're pissed at each other, but I expect better of high-ranking federal officials. He should know better, period. And when people get caught saying such moronic things they should apologize for their poor judgment - and what Paige issued was most certainly not an apology.

Dola-

He's just worried because he's harboring and a terrorist ;)

SI

Oh, "harboring" is what they're calling it these days, eh? ;)

My wife's a teacher as well, and from someone who has seen the tactics they employ to scare teacher's into the union, I can certainly understand referring to the officials as terrorists.

It can't be an unfunded mandate if there's no mandate to begin with. States don't have to take part in NCLB. They merely get additional federal dollars if they do. There's no penalty for opting out, and that choice is left entirely to the state.

Frankly, I wish we had more government programs that said "if you want to do this, fine. But if you're going to spend our money, we expect results." I fail to see how that's such a bad idea. Unfortunately, that isn't what I'm reading. Basically, the feds are blackmailing the states with "go along with our program or lose all federal funding". Similar stuff has been used with alcohol and speed limit laws- but anyone professing as being for more control at a state level probably shouldn't be enacting a law like this.

"In an attempt to defuse resistance to the plan, Paige has dispatched senior officials to states challenging the law. Ron Tomalis, a senior Paige adviser, met with Utah lawmakers earlier this month and told them that they would lose $106 million in federal money if they refused to cooperate with Washington...

In Utah, meanwhile, the superintendent of the state's largest school district has calculated that he will have to spend $182 million over the next 10 years to implement all the provisions of No Child Left Behind. The Jordan school district currently receives about $2.2 million a year in federal Title I funding." Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52720-2004Feb18.html)
So, the school districts have a choice of lose the federal funding they rely on or lose even more for implementing the program. And, it's not like they are cooking the books here. If it was something like "We'd have to spend $25M over 10 years and we receive $2.2M per year" then they're probably just jonesing for more cash, but this is an order of magnitude higher!

SI

What SI said. And its not like Utah is some flaming liberal state that has a kneejerk reaction against anything proferred by the Bush administration - they hardly come more conservative than Utah!

First off, woo! This kinda debate is just going to fuel interest in my own academic research, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. PAIGE!

On a personal note away from that though, 1) Is there any massively unionized group in America that needs a union voice more than primary and secondary teachers? 2) We certify teachers, and then we insist on policing the classroom and taking control of what goes on in the classroom. Why wouldn't a union get pissed off when you invade a professional environment with bureaucratic standards?! If there is a profession that is being certified, you either get rid of of the required certification system and make them bureaucratic machines, or you freakin train them better in the certification process. The problem is, we demand that teachers are both bureaucrats and professionals, which is complete BS. If the administration thinks that the passing of uniform assessment tests is what is important, they should also not give this money to states that require teachers to be certified. If we are only aiming to pass specific tests, you don't need that much resources into teaching teaching methods.

And that makes it better? Calling those who represent the teachers' interests in Washington "terrorists" is just fine?

Really, this is just plain silly. 3rd graders on the playground call each other "terrorists" when they're pissed at each other, but I expect better of high-ranking federal officials. He should know better, period. And when people get caught saying such moronic things they should apologize for their poor judgment - and what Paige issued was most certainly not an apology.
What part of "no, I think it was a mistake to call the NEA terrorists" do you not get? Should I use smaller words? Looks like you're the proud recipient of a public school education. :)

You anti Bush guys are funny. :)

Unfortunately, that isn't what I'm reading. Basically, the feds are blackmailing the states with "go along with our program or lose all federal funding". Similar stuff has been used with alcohol and speed limit laws- but anyone professing as being for more control at a state level probably shouldn't be enacting a law like this.


So, the school districts have a choice of lose the federal funding they rely on or lose even more for implementing the program. And, it's not like they are cooking the books here. If it was something like "We'd have to spend $25M over 10 years and we receive $2.2M per year" then they're probably just jonesing for more cash, but this is an order of magnitude higher!

SI

The "lose $106 million if they don't cooperate with Washington" means if they decide to opt out of the NCLB act, they'll lose the $106 million they currently receive as part of the NCLB act.

Again, it comes back to this: if you take the money, you have to take the conditions with which it comes. If you don't want the federal control (and believe me, I'd love to see less of it), don't suck at the federal teat.

I'm actually against the NCLB act, not because of its provisions (which I like), but because I don't believe the federal government needs to be paying for public education to begin with. It adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already burdensome process.

First off, woo! This kinda debate is just going to fuel interest in my own academic research, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. PAIGE!

On a personal note away from that though, 1) Is there any massively unionized group in America that needs a union voice more than primary and secondary teachers? 2) We certify teachers, and then we insist on policing the classroom and taking control of what goes on in the classroom. Why wouldn't a union get pissed off when you invade a professional environment with bureaucratic standards?! If there is a profession that is being certified, you either get rid of of the required certification system and make them bureaucratic machines, or you freakin train them better in the certification process. The problem is, we demand that teachers are both bureaucrats and professionals, which is complete BS. If the administration thinks that the passing of uniform assessment tests is what is important, they should also not give this money to states that require teachers to be certified. If we are only aiming to pass specific tests, you don't need that much resources into teaching teaching methods.

I look forward to reading your fair and balanced research. :)

Wow.

Is this the kind of stuff that keeps people up at night?

triple dola: here's a quick look at the $182 million price tag you referenced.

source: (http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jan/01302004/utah/133940.asp)

The state's fiscal analyst derived the potential price tag from a Jordan School District analysis that projected implementation costs of $182 million for Utah's largest district. The tab includes $15 million for teacher raises, $28 million for training aides and $8 million for full-day kindergarten. None of those is mandated in No Child Left Behind.

Seems a bit misleading to me.

I look forward to reading your fair and balanced research. :)

Ha, well we would all be kiding ourselves, myself included, if we didn't say what fuels our passions drives what research we do. That being said, my current arena is Teacher opinions on specific policies and how they affect their notion of themselves as professionals.

So yea, as you can see it corresponds to my feelings in this area. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of my work, I find that there is very little unity in the primary and secondary ranks for a teacher as a professional in conflict with policies such as accross the board assessment testing.

I expect that my thoughts about the system are either wise thoughts by a lone cynic, or the ramblings of a soon to be academic coot.

But yea, I will press on, gauging how teacher's place themselves on the professional scale, all the while in the back of my head praying that we someday put that money towards better teacher training.

I look forward to reading your fair and balanced research. :)

:eek: Fox News is going to sue you now!

It is funny what some of you guys choose to attack (for the sake of attacking). How about turning your energies to the real problem of increasing federalism mandates or non-mandates (unfunded or funded), it doesn't matter. Anyone who looks to Washington for local solutions is much more of a fool than Paige.

:eek: Fox News is going to sue you now!

I called Bill O'Reilly a weenie in the Washington Post and didn't face any legal troubles. I'm bulletproof, baby.

No, actually it would be like the postmaster general calling the postal union terrorists. Or a station manager calling the radio and television union terrorists.

He wasn't talking about the teachers, he was talking about the NEA. I know plenty of teachers who don't belong to the NEA. I know other teachers who belong solely because they believe (wrongly) that it's the only way to get cheap liability insurance.

Right...substitute terrorists for evil.

What part of "no, I think it was a mistake to call the NEA terrorists" do you not get? Should I use smaller words? Looks like you're the proud recipient of a public school education. :)

I "get" that you think it was a mistake. But by pointing out that he was targeting NEA officials and not rank-and-file teachers you seemed to be suggesting that there was a distinction to be made. If that wasn't your intent, then I'd like to better understand what you meant by including that tidbit.

No - you needn't use smaller words on my account. Just use the same words better. :)

(And yes, I am the proud recipient of a public school education.)

First off, woo! This kinda debate is just going to fuel interest in my own academic research, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. PAIGE!

On a personal note away from that though, 1) Is there any massively unionized group in America that needs a union voice more than primary and secondary teachers? 2) We certify teachers, and then we insist on policing the classroom and taking control of what goes on in the classroom. Why wouldn't a union get pissed off when you invade a professional environment with bureaucratic standards?! If there is a profession that is being certified, you either get rid of of the required certification system and make them bureaucratic machines, or you freakin train them better in the certification process. The problem is, we demand that teachers are both bureaucrats and professionals, which is complete BS. If the administration thinks that the passing of uniform assessment tests is what is important, they should also not give this money to states that require teachers to be certified. If we are only aiming to pass specific tests, you don't need that much resources into teaching teaching methods.

Not to mention doing all this and then paying them roughly the same wages as garbage collectors.

Right...substitute terrorists for evil.
Wuss, Paige didn't call the NEA "evil". He called them terrorists, and since the quote was originally talking about the postmaster general or a station manager, I assumed you were comparing them to Paige, in which case you would have wanted to get the quote correct.

For the record, it was me calling the NEA evil.

Wuss, Paige didn't call the NEA "evil". He called them terrorists, and since the quote was originally talking about the postmaster general or a station manager, I assumed you were comparing them to Paige, in which case you would have wanted to get the quote correct.

For the record, it was me calling the NEA evil.

Right. Truth be told, I almost went back and edited the post substituting the words.

BTW, since the Bush administration joyfully equates the word "terrorists" with the word "evil" we're both splitting hairs here, anyway.

targeting NEA officials and not rank-and-file teachers you seemed to be suggesting that there was a distinction to be made
Isn't it obvious?? Forty years ago, the leaders of the Teamsters bilked the rank-and-file of billions of dollars of their pension to fund many mob-related activities, including building half of Las Vegas at the time. The Teamsters bosses were federally indicted in the late 1960s or early 1970s (plus many mob bosses). You could have called many of the union leaders evil or whatever, which did not apply to those rank-and-file that were not in the know. For your information, NEA is a left-leaning special interest group with a powerful staff of lobbyists in Washington. They do not represent all of the teachers in the same way that NOW does not represent all of the women.

Not to mention doing all this and then paying them roughly the same wages as garbage collectors.

the wonderful thing about this country is that if you don't like your job... you can simply get another one.

Besides, you're wrong. Garbage collectors in Alabama start out at $18,000 a year. (http://www.adeca.alabama.gov/content/wdd/acins/socc/151.html) Teachers start at $28,000 a year. (http://parca.samford.edu/report38.html)

I find you typically argue from a position of greater strength when you rely on facts, not empty hyperbole. :)

Wuss is one of our great partisans with blinders, despite his assertion to the contrary. :)

triple dola: here's a quick look at the $182 million price tag you referenced. Seems a bit misleading to me.
As I said, it's possible they cooked the books but that also states that only $50 of the $200M is unmandated. Again, $150M is a far cry from the $25M they would recieve. Not only that, but I think you can find quite a few studies that show full day kindergarden will benefit students and increase their scores in the long run. And I would think that raising teacher salaries would attract better teachers, again, likely increasing test scores. No, these aren't mandated but they seem like good ways to help meet the standards.

SI

BTW, since the Bush administration joyfully equates the word "terrorists" with the word "evil" we're both splitting hairs here, anyway.

Terrorists aren't evil?

I "get" that you think it was a mistake. But by pointing out that he was targeting NEA officials and not rank-and-file teachers you seemed to be suggesting that there was a distinction to be made. If that wasn't your intent, then I'd like to better understand what you meant by including that tidbit.

No - you needn't use smaller words on my account. Just use the same words better. :)

(And yes, I am the proud recipient of a public school education.)

Right. Like it or not, Cam, the NEA is an organization made up of teachers. To condemn the NEA, like it or not, is a slap at the majority of teachers who are quite happy members of the organization. Does the NEA have all the answers on how to improve education? Maybe not.

Is every member of the NEA completely thrilled with the union? Probably not. Then again, I work at a Fortune 500 company where not everybody is thrilled with their employer either.

Do conservatives have a lock on how to improve education? Hardly...conservatives would like to rob the public schools of needed funds in favor of the ridiculously more expensive dream that everyone would have the ability to go to private schools (and if you think school vouchers would really work to achieve this, I strongly suggest you take a look at the price of a private school education vs. public). The numbers are staggering.

all terrorists are evil, but not evildoers are terrorists.

The NEA is evil, but it is not a terrorist organization. To quote Michael Graham: "Al Qaeda isn't nearly as bad at terrorism as the NEA is at educating our children."

Isn't it obvious?? Forty years ago, the leaders of the Teamsters bilked the rank-and-file of billions of dollars of their pension to fund many mob-related activities, including building half of Las Vegas at the time. The Teamsters bosses were federally indicted in the late 1960s or early 1970s (plus many mob bosses). You could have called many of the union leaders evil or whatever, which did not apply to those rank-and-file that were not in the know. For your information, NEA is a left-leaning special interest group with a powerful staff of lobbyists in Washington. They do not represent all of the teachers in the same way that NOW does not represent all of the women.

I'm aware of the difference between union leadership and rank-and-file members, and I also know what the NEA is about, thanks. My point was that Cam seemed to be suggesting that calling one "terrorists" was better than calling the other "terrorists." That implied distinction is why I was asking him for clarification in my last post.

My point being that, regardless of one's position on the NEA, calling any of them "terrorists" seems extreme, and Paige of all people should know better.

US average salary of teachers is over $40,000 and the average starting salary is $25,000. Too bad in many school districts, not even half of the employees are teachers but bureaucrats and support. What if there were less local bureaucrats, less state bureaucrats and far less federal bureaucrats? Do you think teachers would make even more and that there would be bigger schools and perhaps, more school choices? Nahhh, the NEA wouldn't think of that.

Terrorists aren't evil?

By John Ashcroft's definition of the word terrorist, the Sons of Liberty would be terrorists.

Preying on the innocent, whatever the form, is evil...but there are more ways to prey on the innocent than crashing a plane into the side of skyscraper, or blowing up a truck bomb in Kirkuk.

Right. Like it or not, Cam, the NEA is an organization made up of teachers. To condemn the NEA, like it or not, is a slap at the majority of teachers who are quite happy members of the organization. Does the NEA have all the answers on how to improve education? Maybe not.

Is every member of the NEA completely thrilled with the union? Probably not. Then again, I work at a Fortune 500 company where not everybody is thrilled with their employer either.

Do conservatives have a lock on how to improve education? Hardly...conservatives would like to rob the public schools of needed funds in favor of the ridiculously more expensive dream that everyone would have the ability to go to private schools (and if you think school vouchers would really work to achieve this, I strongly suggest you take a look at the price of a private school education vs. public). The numbers are staggering.

Last I checked, I could send my kid to half a dozen great private schools in the Oklahoma City area for less than the state and federal governments are currently spending to educate my children.

As to the NEA rank and file... ignorance of the ideology is no excuse. If you're paying your dues, you should be aware of where your money is going. If you have no problem with the NEA ideology, then I think you're a selfish individual who's putting your profession at odds with a good education. If you're in the NEA because you mistakenly believe you have to join, or that it is the only source of liability insurance, then you need to educate yourself on the other alternatives, because you're supporting an institution that does not have a student's best interest at heart. When you call yourself the National Education Association and you're not as interested in education as you are strengthening the union and advancing ideology, in my opinion that's evil.

the wonderful thing about this country is that if you don't like your job... you can simply get another one.

Besides, you're wrong. Garbage collectors in Alabama start out at $18,000 a year. (http://www.adeca.alabama.gov/content/wdd/acins/socc/151.html) Teachers start at $28,000 a year. (http://parca.samford.edu/report38.html)

I find you typically argue from a position of greater strength when you rely on facts, not empty hyperbole. :)
Really? I was going to make some wiseass remark to the opposite. When I was flying back at Christmas, I was talking to a guy on the plane, looked about 30ish with a 5ish yo kid sitting next to him, it sounded like a good estimate. I had been hearing in Rockford how that city's economy had been shattered and it was the common topic of conversation with most I met (yes,I'm that yammering idiot who just picks up a conversation with random people on planes and busses but I can kindof get away with it because I'm young and it seems most people enjoy the role of "veteran telling someone life lessons"). However, he was the best off of anyone I talked to on that trip. He said he gets paid $60K a year which more than takes care of himself and his son and that seemed like pretty good pay for someone as young as he was. I'm guessing he was more the exception than the rule, tho. Learn a new thing every day. More when I'm trying to avoid studying on nights like tonight. :)

SI

US average salary of teachers is over $40,000 and the average starting salary is $25,000. Too bad in many school districts, not even half of the employees are teachers but bureaucrats and support. What if there were less local bureaucrats, less state bureaucrats and far less federal bureaucrats? Do you think teachers would make even more and that there would be bigger schools and perhaps, more school choices? Nahhh, the NEA wouldn't think of that.

A fair argument. Of course, the bulk of the funding for education (something like 93%) comes from state and local sources. Really, the Federal government doesn't have as much of an impact on education as anyone would like you to think (particularly in an election year). :)

So if the problem is going to be fixed (and for the most part, I think the problems lie in funding inequities), it will be fixed at the local, not
Federal level.

I called Bill O'Reilly a weenie in the Washington Post and didn't face any legal troubles. I'm bulletproof, baby.
I'd love to see this in print. You have a link handy? ;)

SI

i love how its ok to attack the dems, but to oppose as unpatriotic, questioning and pointing out flaws or bad business is not democratic but divisive, but to give it to the peeps in power is downright criminal....

im not saying it wont be the same WHEN the dems are in but it drives me nuts when those who get in wash their hands of their past sins in their mind's eye. ITs crap. Like reps didnt hammer Clinton when he was in.

NCLB doesnt work, Teachers now focus on teaching for the test instead of teaching the kids information that flows together. Private school it is for my kids, someday.

I'd love to see this in print. You have a link handy? ;)

SI

It was in a Howard Kurtz column, but I don't know that it's still archived. Here's a link (http://www.instapundit.com/archives/010099.php) to Instapundit quoting me, which is where Kurtz got my name and quote.

For the record, Cam, and Buccaneer:

*Here are the median wages in the Phoenix area for

Elementary/Middle School Teachers
$14.61/hour (non-experienced)
$15.62/hour (experienced)

Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors (for the dimmer of those on the right wing, this is long hand for garbage collector):

Median wage: $15.62/hour.

You got me. A guy with big muscles and GED doesn't make more money than a teacher with 4 years of college (and the resultant student loans, depending on how they financed their education) and a teaching certificate.

And exactly who is quoting facts and who is quoting hyperbole now, Cam?

*Source: US Department of Labor, 2001 Survey.

The NEA and its political action committee donated $3.1 million to federal candidates and the two political parties in the last presidential election cycle, the AP reported. About 90 percent of those donations went to Democrats.

I'm guessing I understand now why this was blown out of proportion. It's Election Year! And the hits will only keep coming.

The question is, "Who's looking out for you?" You weenie's! :D

Last I checked, I could send my kid to half a dozen great private schools in the Oklahoma City area for less than the state and federal governments are currently spending to educate my children.

As to the NEA rank and file... ignorance of the ideology is no excuse. If you're paying your dues, you should be aware of where your money is going. If you have no problem with the NEA ideology, then I think you're a selfish individual who's putting your profession at odds with a good education. If you're in the NEA because you mistakenly believe you have to join, or that it is the only source of liability insurance, then you need to educate yourself on the other alternatives, because you're supporting an institution that does not have a student's best interest at heart. When you call yourself the National Education Association and you're not as interested in education as you are strengthening the union and advancing ideology, in my opinion that's evil.

I'd like to see some numbers on your first assertion.

As for the second, we've already seen in the Department of Fatherland, er, Homeland Security, exactly what happens when the Bush administration gets a free hand in dealing with municipal, state and Federal unions. I can certainly understand why the unionized teachers are reluctant to put their fate in the hands of the men who brought you the Halliburton Criminal Probe and meetings with Enron a couple of months before they went tits up.

So, does the NEA generally use the tactic of calling it's opponents NAZI's? Isn't that somewhat terroristic? ;)

who is looking out for me? talk about fertilizing the divide in america, huh? See the wealthy are more apt to vote then the poor...why? I cant even count the ways, but ill say first and foremost is the ability for the very very wealthy to pay for a campaign, appeal to their "peers" and get those peers to vote to keep what? The status Quo. If we dont look out for EVERYONE than eventually your homelesseness (doesnt effect you), hunger (doesnt effect you), joblessness (not you), hopelessness (not you), dependent on the gov't (not you) run rampant. BUT we can run up deficits in trade and budget, shirk our responsibilty to take care of it, neglect Social security reform, not change health care, ship our jobs overseas, continue to scare the world, run our children's education into the ground AND LUCKILY, fortunately, and gratefully we'll be able to say, when we pass it on to our kids, "It didnt effect me." What a wonderful world that'll be.

Is the word "terrorist" a bad word since 9/11? This looks like the PC Police gone awry.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/23/paige.terrorist.nea/index.html

So nice to see the Bush administration taking the war on terrorism mantra "you're either fer us or again' us" to its logical conclusion. Whose going to get labeled as a terrorist organization next, the friggin' Boy Scouts?

I agree 100% with the jist of his message which gets overlooked by the media getting excited over his misuse of a word. Talk about blowing a bad joke out of proportion. Thank God I'm not a politician.

For the record, Cam, and Buccaneer:

*Here are the median wages in the Phoenix area for

Elementary/Middle School Teachers
$14.61/hour (non-experienced)
$15.62/hour (experienced)

Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors (for the dimmer of those on the right wing, this is long hand for garbage collector):

Median wage: $15.62/hour.

You got me. A guy with big muscles and GED doesn't make more money than a teacher with 4 years of college (and the resultant student loans, depending on how they financed their education) and a teaching certificate.

And exactly who is quoting facts and who is quoting hyperbole now, Cam?

*Source: US Department of Labor, 2001 Survey.

Interesting stuff. It would appear that in some areas of the country, garbage collectors earn as much as teachers. In others they earn less, and I'm sure in some parts of the country they earn more (although I can't find any specific instances).

But you really have a problem with this? Why shouldn't a guy with the third riskiest job (http://www.wasteage.com/ar/waste_garbage_collection_rated/) in the country make a living wage?

Anyway, I don't want to get too far off track... but I found your attitude interesting.

I don't have time to peruse the websites of Oklahoma City's private schools, but I did find this tidbit (http://www.parentcenter.com/refcap/learning/schoolsuccess/8148.html) :

Nationally, the average tuition for a private school is $3,116. (Public schools spend an average of $6,500 per pupil, roughly twice the amount.)

My dad went to Phillips Andover growing up. There was no way he could afford to send me to school there (boarding tuition was $17,000 when I applied). However, my parents were able to send me to a local Catholic high school for around $2500 (late 80's, early 90's).

originally posted by CamEdwards
My dad went to Phillips Andover growing up. There was no way he could afford to send me to school there (boarding tuition was $17,000 when I applied). However, my parents were able to send me to a local Catholic high school for around $2500 (late 80's, early 90's).

One thing you conservative guys are absolutely right on is the school choice issue. But you're never gonna get there with $1200 vouchers. They need to blow up the public school system entirely. If the gov't spent 80% of the national average spent on public schools on school choice and private tuition, we'd have the education problem solved in ten years.

If Bush said "jump", they'd go "how far"...

One thing you conservative guys are absolutely right on is the school choice issue. But you're never gonna get there with $1200 vouchers. They need to blow up the public school system entirely. If the gov't spent 80% of the national average spent on public schools on school choice and private tuition, we'd have the education problem solved in ten years.
Ding, ding, ding -- we have a winner.

I love how the Bush administration screwing up (and give me a break that you guys wouldn't be all over Kerry or Edwards for something similar) turns into the age-old FOF teachers are idiots for joining the union argument. I won't even enter this again as I am tired of seeing the same statistics misquoted and same arguments over and over.

Cam: I think trash collectors are more important to my life than radio personalities, but you won't find me bitching and moaning when yourself or some organization attempts to get you more money.

So the NEA calls the NCLB what it is, crap. So they try to get teachers more money. So they are calling out my district to pay me (8 years experience and a master's degree) more than 40K. What a bunch of terrorists!

1.) Can you (mis)read more into Cam's post than you already have?

2.) Do you need a masters to teach? If not, then stow it.

todays Hooli post brought to you by Snapple.

I love how the Bush administration screwing up (and give me a break that you guys wouldn't be all over Kerry or Edwards for something similar) turns into the age-old FOF teachers are idiots for joining the union argument. I won't even enter this again as I am tired of seeing the same statistics misquoted and same arguments over and over.

Cam: I think trash collectors are more important to my life than radio personalities, but you won't find me bitching and moaning when yourself or some organization attempts to get you more money.

So the NEA calls the NCLB what it is, crap. So they try to get teachers more money. So they are calling out my district to pay me (8 years experience and a master's degree) more than 40K. What a bunch of terrorists!

Trouble is, bashing the NEA is a lot easier for conservatives to do than really coming up with solutions to the problem. It's the standard conservative answer to everything. Don't like funding for controversial art projects, bash the National Endowment of the Arts. Don't like scientists exposing the Bush Administrations use of junk science to discredit global warming, bash the National Academy of Sciences.

The NEA represents a wonderfully easy straw man for them to knock down, when the real answer is that we've been cutting public funding for education, primary, secondary, and collegiate, pretty much continually for 20 years, and we haven't begun to address the issue of funding inequities between rich and poor districts (and still won't with vouchers, btw) and schools are now failing because of it. But conservatives don't want to hear that; instead, it's easier to bash the teachers' union, because *heaven forbid* it actually gives the teachers a seat at the table in discussing reform. :mad:

1.) Can you (mis)read more into Cam's post than you already have?

2.) Do you need a masters to teach? If not, then stow it.

todays Hooli post brought to you by Snapple.

Answer to #2: The material I learned and was exposed to during my master's degree program has made me a better teacher. There are some teacher's who go through cookie cutter master's degree programs, I didn't. Just like any master's program you get out of it what you put into it.

I am not trying to say that having more education has no worth. On a personal level I applaud you for it.

I am just saying that it is not reasonable to throw in "I have a masters degree for gosh sake" if they don't have some reason to compensate you for holding one. I mean, do you hold some special designator or needed certification because of the Masters?

Trouble is, bashing the NEA is a lot easier for conservatives to do than really coming up with solutions to the problem. It's the standard conservative answer to everything. Don't like funding for controversial art projects, bash the National Endowment of the Arts. Don't like scientists exposing the Bush Administrations use of junk science to discredit global warming, bash the National Academy of Sciences.

The NEA represents a wonderfully easy straw man for them to knock down, when the real answer is that we've been cutting public funding for education, primary, secondary, and collegiate, pretty much continually for 20 years, and we haven't begun to address the issue of funding inequities between rich and poor districts (and still won't with vouchers, btw) and schools are now failing because of it. But conservatives don't want to hear that; instead, it's easier to bash the teachers' union, because *heaven forbid* it actually gives the teachers a seat at the table in discussing reform. :mad:

Holy shit, could you be more wrong? Go back and look at how much education spending has increased since the 1960's. We haven't been cutting funding at all, we've been adding to it at an exponential rate.

Conservatives aren't opposed to the National Endowments for the Arts because of controversial art projects... they're opposed to government subsidies for arts to begin with. As to global warming, I think you'd find some conservatives supporting the NAS, others opposing it. It's one of those issues that seems to cross party lines.

If Bush said "jump", they'd go "how far"...

And if Dean/Kerry/CNN/NY Times said, "Black helicopter!", liberals would say, "Where!"

It's like taking candy from a baby. :)

As to global warming, I think you'd find some conservatives supporting the NAS, others opposing it. It's one of those issues that seems to cross party lines.

I thought we decided to let the Europeans lead on this issue and see what findings they come up with with the Kyoto Treaty.

Give them 20 years to experiment, then we'll readdress this issue. Sounds fair.

And if Dean/Kerry/CNN/NY Times said, "Black helicopter!", liberals would say, "Where!"

It's like taking candy from a baby. :)

not really... a baby has more letters to learn than the letter R

I am not trying to say that having more education has no worth. On a personal level I applaud you for it.

I am just saying that it is not reasonable to throw in "I have a masters degree for gosh sake" if they don't have some reason to compensate you for holding one. I mean, do you hold some special designator or needed certification because of the Masters?

My dad worked for Monsanto and part of their pay scale was based on the level of education of their engineers so I am not quite sure how this is a teacher's only phenomenon. A master's degree in your subject area should make you a better teacher. We could argue all night about people we know that have master's degrees and didn't get anything from them. But yes I believe holding a master's degree in mathematics and having master's hours in education makes me more valuable then my teaching counterpart who does not. (And I think I should be compinsated more.)

"Aaaaaargh"













[whump whump whump whump whump] :)

My dad worked for Monsanto and part of their pay scale was based on the level of education of their engineers so I am not quite sure how this is a teacher's only phenomenon. A master's degree in your subject area should make you a better teacher. We could argue all night about people we know that have master's degrees and didn't get anything from them. But yes I believe holding a master's degree in mathematics and having master's hours in education makes me more valuable then my teaching counterpart who does not. (And I think I should be compinsated more.)

Do they need you to be more valuable? If you left would they settle for and be satisfied with a person with only their bach?

A common falacy is that more education should net a person more pay in their current job. This is not isolated to teaching. In many cases, a person needs to find a new position to turn their education into more income.

My dad worked for Monsanto and part of their pay scale was based on the level of education of their engineers so I am not quite sure how this is a teacher's only phenomenon. A master's degree in your subject area should make you a better teacher. We could argue all night about people we know that have master's degrees and didn't get anything from them. But yes I believe holding a master's degree in mathematics and having master's hours in education makes me more valuable then my teaching counterpart who does not. (And I think I should be compinsated more.)

We could also argue that our country encourages as many people to get (Masters) degrees as possible so those industry's that need (Masters) degrees have more to choose from.

On a related note, Monsanto seemed to compensate the Master's degree. Is that a private industry?

Oh, and....wait Fritz said.

Too bad in many school districts, not even half of the employees are teachers but bureaucrats and support. What if there were less local bureaucrats, less state bureaucrats and far less federal bureaucrats? Do you think teachers would make even more and that there would be bigger schools and perhaps, more school choices? Nahhh, the NEA wouldn't think of that.

I've been substituting this year, and while I see this kind of argument made all the time, I see no evidence of it at the schools, nor at the district office. The district I have been subbing in has two high schools, two junior highs, and about a dozen elementary schools. Typically, this is what I have seen as far as non-teachers working at the schools:

Elementary Schools:
1-2 Secretary-types
1 Principal
1 Nurse
1 Librarian
1-2 Custodian types
1 Counselor, who typically covers 2-3 schools
A few part-time yard duty/crossing guard types to watch students before and after school, and during lunch

Junior High:

About the same, although there is also a vice-principal

High school:

2-3 Secretary-types
1 Principal
3 Vice Principals
1 Nurse
1 Librarian
4 Counselors
1 Attendance office clerk
Several custodians (hard to tell because the campus is so big)

I don't know how many people there are at the district office, but it can't be very many, because the place is not very big. I do know that they only have three payroll clerks serving the entire district.

My sister-in-law works at the district office in another district (a smaller one, probably half the size), doing truancy and suspension/expulsion cases, and she told me recently that there are only 12 people working in the district office in a district that has 1 high school, 2 junior highs, and 6 elementary schools. So that's barely more than 1 district-level administration employee per school, which does not seem like an excessively large bureaucracy to me. And note that these "bureacrats" are responsible for all the basic functions that any business has to perform: accounting, payroll, purchasing, human resources, management. From what I have seen, public schools (at least around here) have as lean a management and administrative support staff as any private sector company I have worked for.

I've been substituting this year, and while I see this kind of argument made all the time, I see no evidence of it at the schools, nor at the district office. The district I have been subbing in has two high schools, two junior highs, and about a dozen elementary schools. Typically, this is what I have seen as far as non-teachers working at the schools:

Elementary Schools:
1-2 Secretary-types
1 Principal
1 Nurse
1 Librarian
1-2 Custodian types
1 Counselor, who typically covers 2-3 schools
A few part-time yard duty/crossing guard types to watch students before and after school, and during lunch

Junior High:

About the same, although there is also a vice-principal

High school:

2-3 Secretary-types
1 Principal
3 Vice Principals
1 Nurse
1 Librarian
4 Counselors
1 Attendance office clerk
Several custodians (hard to tell because the campus is so big)

I don't know how many people there are at the district office, but it can't be very many, because the place is not very big. I do know that they only have three payroll clerks serving the entire district.

My sister-in-law works at the district office in another district (a smaller one, probably half the size), doing truancy and suspension/expulsion cases, and she told me recently that there are only 12 people working in the district office in a district that has 1 high school, 2 junior highs, and 6 elementary schools. So that's barely more than 1 district-level administration employee per school, which does not seem like an excessively large bureaucracy to me. And note that these "bureacrats" are responsible for all the basic functions that any business has to perform: accounting, payroll, purchasing, human resources, management. From what I have seen, public schools (at least around here) have as lean a management and administrative support staff as any private sector company I have worked for.

There are seven states that have more administrative employees than teachers. Oklahoma is one of them. You should probably include the vast bureaucracy at the state department of education in your figures. After all, it's state funding paying those salaries as well.

There are seven states that have more administrative employees than teachers. Oklahoma is one of them. You should probably include the vast bureaucracy at the state department of education in your figures. After all, it's state funding paying those salaries as well.

OK, here are the numbers on the "vast" state department of education bureaucracy in California:

Number of public schools: 8,915
Number of teachers: 306,940
Number of public school students: 6,147,375
Number of California Department of Education employees: 2,673
Number of DOE employees not linked to schools for deaf/blind: 1,650
Number of DOE employees per school: 0.185
Number of DOE employees per teacher: 0.0054
Number of DOE employees per student: .00027

Sources:

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd/empinfo/demo/dept.pdf
http://www.cde.ca.gov/resrc/factbook03/facts.htm

1.) Can you (mis)read more into Cam's post than you already have?

2.) Do you need a masters to teach? If not, then stow it.

todays Hooli post brought to you by Snapple.

I know that at least in Massachusetts and New York teachers are required to get a masters degree within a few years of getting their initial certification (I think it's 5 years, but would have to look it up to be sure). I would assume that these are not the only two states with this kind of requirement.

The garbage collectors are getting paid as much as teachers because they have a strong union.

I think Unions are interesting. Notwithstanding corruption, unions are really about benefits. Getting more benefits for their members. When the NEA says they are concerned about the level of education children receive, i don't believe it. I think they are concerned about getting better benefits for thier members.

Now, there is nothing wrong with this. i think workers organizing to maximize their bargaining power is a smart idea. But it is annoying when unions say that they are about something other than benefits for their members.

My dad worked for Monsanto and part of their pay scale was based on the level of education of their engineers so I am not quite sure how this is a teacher's only phenomenon. A master's degree in your subject area should make you a better teacher. We could argue all night about people we know that have master's degrees and didn't get anything from them. But yes I believe holding a master's degree in mathematics and having master's hours in education makes me more valuable then my teaching counterpart who does not. (And I think I should be compinsated more.)

So, does having more knowledge make you a better teacher? Does knowing calculus help you teach second graders that 2+2 = 4? Are you more valuable to those 2nd graders than a high school graduate? Should you be compensated significantly more beacause you hold a Masters?

Also, does having a Master's degree make you a better teacher? Having the knowledge and being able to share that knowledge in a way that others easily understand are two DIFFERENT things. I know many people who are very smart, hold advanced degrees, but could not convey that knowledge to others to save their life.

I'm not quite sure I agree with your assessment that holding a Master's degree in your subject area will necessarily make you a better teacher. Does it give you a better chance to be a good teacher, certainly. It means you have at least SOME of the tools it takes to be a good teacher, but it does not in and of itself make you a better teacher.

OK, here are the numbers on the "vast" state department of education bureaucracy in California:

Number of public schools: 8,915
Number of teachers: 306,940
Number of people named Pete on the payroll just because Pete Wilson liked the name: 732,422
Number of public school students: 6,147,375
Number of California Department of Education employees: 2,673
Number of DOE employees not linked to schools for deaf/blind: 1,650
Number of DOE employees per school: 0.185
Number of DOE employees per teacher: 0.0054
Number of DOE employees per student: .00027

Sources:

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd/empinfo/demo/dept.pdf
http://www.cde.ca.gov/resrc/factbook03/facts.htm
http://www.cde.ca.gov/resrc/peoplenamedpete/facts.htm



amazing

The garbage collectors are getting paid as much as teachers because they have a strong union.

I think Unions are interesting. Notwithstanding corruption, unions are really about benefits. Getting more benefits for their members. When the NEA says they are concerned about the level of education children receive, i don't believe it. I think they are concerned about getting better benefits for thier members.

Now, there is nothing wrong with this. i think workers organizing to maximize their bargaining power is a smart idea. But it is annoying when unions say that they are about something other than benefits for their members.

You have to believe that with 90% of the NEA's money going to the Democrats that their is no realistic way the NEA could possibly support anything a non-Democrat administration is doing. Thus the problem and probably why Mr. Paige is so very frustrated with them right now. It's all Washington insider and lobbyist stuff. That's the thing Mr. Paige forgets.

Why would any union give significant amounts of money to Republicans? Republicans have thoroughly demonstrated over the last four years that they are on a mission to eradicate employee rights and benefits.

But it is annoying when unions say that they are about something other than benefits for their members.
Y'know, if you managed to boil down that pearl of wisdom into such few words, and if I managed to get a kick out of the simple yet profound nature of it, I can't help but wonder why that point seems to be so often lost on union leaders/members/p.r. flacks/etc?

(note: criticism not limited to the NEA by any stretch of the imagination)

Why would any union give significant amounts of money to Republicans? Republicans have thoroughly demonstrated over the last four years that they are on a mission to eradicate employee rights and benefits.


spoken like a true Deaniac...... (AKA, uber liberal)


(sorry, i had to jump in, when i see a good argument like this with people using facts and articles to back up they're case. Then someone says something stupied like this i gotta call them on it. Back to the discussion please :) )

I'm against No Child Left Behind as flawed policy not only because of the gross underfunding, but because of its subversion of state policies in some cases.

As for the NEA, I have mixed feelings about teachers unions and their self-serving motives.

spoken like a true Deaniac...... (AKA, uber liberal)


(sorry, i had to jump in, when i see a good argument like this with people using facts and articles to back up they're case. Then someone says something stupied like this i gotta call them on it. Back to the discussion please :) )

OK, I was exaggerating a bit, but the truth is that Republicans did work very hard to change overtime rules so that millions of people would no longer be eligible for overtime pay. If that is not being hostile to workers, I don't know what is. And the Republicans have a decades-old hostility to unions in general.

Why would any union give significant amounts of money to democrats? Democrats have thoroughly demonstrated over the last fourty years that they are on a mission to provide to people who don't work a stardard of living that union members labor to maintain.

yum

There are seven states that have more administrative employees than teachers. Oklahoma is one of them. You should probably include the vast bureaucracy at the state department of education in your figures. After all, it's state funding paying those salaries as well.

I came from a school district in New Jersey with a budget times the city budget, but every year, they cried more poverty and started cutting programs to make the district resemble some poor urban ghetto. It must've worked, because they were part of a state settlement that got them more money, but it seems to me the whole scheme is about cute lingo, superlatives and nothing else to back it up.

If we really cared about the children, getting into teaching wouldn't be this overly arcane process. If you argue someone with a masters who is passionate about their field is less likely to be a good teacher than someone who openly tells students, "Look, I don't care if you people get it or not. I'm just here to get a check." Or the myriad stories I can discuss regarding the gaffes of the education establishment, I would tell you that there has to be a better way.

Unlike other fields that have drastically changed over the years, schooling has just begun a major change and in some levels, hasn't changed much at all. I think that's problematic. We can't harken back to the Ye Days of Olde when things were different, sepia colored our memories and there is some fondness for what was then hell, but now some sort of nostagic hinterland.

It really is about the kids, but with all the rankling in the public debate sphere, too many of them lose out before they even get started. Until policymakers start to focus on them, rather than saving their own jobs, bureaucracies or whatever special interests they're kow-towing to this month, things will stay stagnant.

Quick story from today in class. A new Asian-American student just started this week at our school from California. The ESL (English as a second language) teacher comes into my room and asks for Jason. He says "What's up?" You see Jason has lived in the United States for his entire life. He was pulled out of math class for the full period to be tested on his language skills due to the NCLB act and the different assessments it entails. What a quality use of her time (ESL teacher) and his time missing my class.

Basically the solution presented by No Child Left Behind is continuous testing at every grade level. So instead of your child getting a 190-day education (or whatever the school year length happens to be), they get a 180 education (or 10 less than a normal school year) and 10 days of bureaucratic nonsense to prove that a high achieving district is indeed "meeting the standard".

Want to know the real difference between private and public schools? (Besides the private schools not allowing poor or minority students that don't meet their standards) They don't have to be regulated by state and federal burrocratic mandates, so they don't have to waste time whoring themselves to crap like NCLB and instead their teachers are given an opportunity to teach. Which somewhere beneath all of the rhetoric spewed throughout this whole topic is the point the NEA (the "terrorists") was trying to make with the education secretary.

Ive missed a bunch of stuff so im gonna do bullets to address the stuff i remember:

1. Is liberal a bad word? Without Liberals = All of us being of the same mindset we would have no dissent and thus would be like Fatherland.

2. Black Helicopters .......... maybe not but the Patriot Act Technically could allow for sucha thing without a public explanation. Remember you could be held without an attorney and without a public trial. A stretch maybe, im not worried, but it is now a possibility. I am not fully fledged against something similar but what it is is way f'd up.

3. I wish all teachers had masters. Too many teachers come out of substandard training and then are responsible for NOT JUST TEACHING but shaping our children. For many families teachers spend up to 80% of the same amount of time with a kid (an entire days worth of teachers + After school) as a parent so teachers are extrememly important to our countries future. There is a great disparity among the funding of schools in low income areas thus attracting a less "talented" teacher (as a trend) and therby continuing to have those kids swim in a cesspool for a school and learn in substandard conditions from substandard teachers. Some are thinking now, "If a kid wants out he'll learn anyways. He'll work harder." Well that boils down again to the "doesnt effect me" thought. We are Humans and not everyone will Fihgt the fight necessary to make through all the crap that we leave them with to end up being additions to our future society. but hey, doesnt effect me, I live in the burbs, go to well funded schools - new ones) and my kids learn. In jacksonville Fl some kids, due to the mandated magnet program have to wake at 4am to be bussed through 3 different schools to make it to their final destination. They dont get hom sometimes til 8pm. They are at an inherent disadvantage whihc will rear its head when the competition becomes competitive as a jr. in HS. Dont think so? Youre probably a republican then.

4. Constituitonal Gay Marriage Ban announced Bush'll pursue today......nice I thought if it doesnt effect me i dont care. I guess this is more a religious thing. Glad to see it blur into our "state". More Church and state. Nice. What if im not Christian? Guess eventually Ill have to pack up my mates, board a ship and hope to land in the "new world". God forbid there be persecution there. Hey maybe they'll just go away! Homosexuals will just all wake up one day and realize I DONT love him / her! thank goodness we didnt get married! whew! Now I can get married to a person of the OPPOSITE sex and hope Im not part of the 63% of Heterosexual marriages that end up divorced in the US. Thank goodness for that Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban. While were at it the BAN that the fore Fathers put on un-natural born citizens being able to run for office should defintiely remain!!! we would want to persecute them too. Were equal opportunity persecutors.


Thank you very much

And that makes it better? Calling those who represent the teachers' interests in Washington "terrorists" is just fine?

...
For all those who think he was calling teachers terrorists, give it a rest. He clearly was referring to the tactics of the Union Reps. Lets face it. Public Education in the United States is in a deplorable condition. Yes there are exceptions, but there are more than the fair share of failures. That needs to change. I don't know how to fix it, but I do know that the Teacher's Unions are more interested in their self preservation than in improving education in this country. I feel they are taking the position "We'll fix education as long as we protect our position as caretakers". The tactics he was talking about are more than evident if you read any of the propoganda released by these organizations. They portray their opponents as "Anti Education" or "Anti Child". It is deplorable. That rhetoric is why he referred to them as terrorists.

My sister is a high level rep in a State Wide Teachers Union. I am a conservative Democrat, and well let's just say we have to avoid politics on hollidays.

For all those who think he was calling teachers terrorists, give it a rest. He clearly was referring to the tactics of the Union Reps.

That was precisely my point - even if he wasn't directing his ire at the teachers themselves, do you really think it is OK for a high ranking administration official to equate the actions of the Union Reps (who are, supposedly, representing the interests of the teachers) with those of murderous terrorists? If so, on what basis is that justified?

I stand by my position that this was a stupid comment, a morally bankrupt metaphor made all the more stupid by its issuance during an election year (when such things are magnified a hundred fold). He should know better.

I am saying that the tactics and rhetoric of the teacher's unions are deplorable, and they really do terrorize their opponents with the threat of demonizing them by painting them as "Anti-Child", or even "Anti-Teacher". In that light, and in a joking tone, calling them terrorists isn't even a stretch. I think it was a stupid thing for him to say in front of a bi-partisan bunch of Governors, but I certainly can see what motivated his statement.

I am saying that the tactics and rhetoric of the teacher's unions are deplorable, and they really do terrorize their opponents with the threat of demonizing them by painting them as "Anti-Child", or even "Anti-Teacher". In that light, and in a joking tone, calling them terrorists isn't even a stretch. I think it was a stupid thing for him to say in front of a bi-partisan bunch of Governors, but I certainly can see what motivated his statement.

Yeah the NEA is the only special interest who does that. I don't recall hearing them call the NRA terrorists, and if you think the NEA is more dangerous than the teacher's union...

Yeah the NEA is the only special interest who does that. I actually make no such claim.


I don't recall hearing them call the NRA terrorists, and if you think the NEA is more dangerous than the teacher's union...
You are correct. They didn't call the NRA terrorists. I am no fan of the NRA. I do see a difference between most of their ridiculous rhetoric and that of the Teachers' Unions though. That is the NRA is typically preaching to the their membership. They demonize their opponents by characterizing them in ways that energize their base. An example would be "Those Senators are out to take away our guns". The political leaders of the various Teacher Associations often use rhetoric to perpetuate or actually create a public perception that their opponents are somehow against education, or even moreso against children. It is a slight distinction, and I am speaking in generalizations, but I believe there is a difference in the basic rhetoric of the two.

I do think the NEA is making something out of nothing though. Do not think for a second that someone in the leadership of the NEA hasn't called President Bush or most likely the Secretary of Education himself a nazi. It's called an exaggeration. People use it as a form of humor all the time. The problem here is where he said it. Both sides do it behind closed doors amongst like minded company.

Oh and I tried to identify a single typo that would have made your last sentence coherent, but was unable.

Oh and I tried to identify a single typo that would have made your last sentence coherent, but was unable.

I try to stay away from the debates on the board for exactly this reason. How exactly does a personal attack furthur your argument one way or the other? Feel free to respond, but I am done with this thread.

Terrorists aren't evil, they are just regiously un-enlightened. We shall convert those heathens yet!

I try to stay away from the debates on the board for exactly this reason. How exactly does a personal attack furthur your argument one way or the other? Feel free to respond, but I am done with this thread.
I, in no way, meant that as a personal attack. I really truly wasn't sure where you were going with it. You said "..., and if you think the NEA is more dangerous than the teacher's union..."

Since the NEA IS a Teachers' Union it clearly cannot be more dangerous. I thought maybe you meant to say "If you think the NRA is more dangerous than the teachers' union...". Yet that really didn't seem like it would be reasonable for you to think that was my position. So I started looking for another single typo that would resolve the sentence with the content of the thread. I was unable to, and commented as such. Apparently I expressed my thought so poorly as to offend you. I am sorry that is the case. I intended no harm.

In looking back at your quote now, I think you probably meant to say "and if you think the NEA is more dangerous than the NRA...". Now that makes sense. My response would be "I am actually not sure". The NRA is out to make sure that law abiding citizens can legally and easilly obtain and own any firearm available on the market. They want no laws to constrain that essential premise, and subscribe to the "Slippery Slope" theory that gun laws will gradually erode the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms. Therefore they oppose some ideas/thoughts/concepts that to the rest of us seem like pretty much common sense. So they are dangerous in that they do oppose laws that are seemingly unrelated to firearms. I personally don't think any additional gun laws are going to make us any safer. Therefore, they are whackos, but I don't generally think they will do much harm. The teachers' unions are essentially out to protect business as usual. Even if business is bad. I am of the opinion that public education in America is in shambles. What we are doing now isn't working. I think it needs to change. I am not sure what those changes are, but changes are in order. The unions oppose change. They are out to protect their members and themselves. Since they represent an obstruction to any real change to a failed but very important system, I do guess I would have to say they are more of a problem than the NRA.

Now that I have said that, maybe I am more of a whacko than I originally thought. I mean I actually came out in favor of the NRA. How'd that happen?