The Observation Deck

I asked Dad, who is a retired Lakewood teacher, and it is his recollection that Lakewood has had an active teachers' association since we came here in the late 1950's.

My own thought, as a teacher's kid back then, was that we were lucky to even make it close to the middle class! The only reason we did, is because Dad had to do other part-time work in the summer, etc... Had we relied on a teaching salary alone....

There is, by the way, considerable competition for good teachers in the public sector, particularly between our local suburbs. If one district fails to keep reasonable pace with salaries and benefits, it is not unknown for top teachers and administrators to look elsewhere for employment. The same is true regarding a district being up-to-date with their supplies, facilities, and equipment. A community that invests in its public schools is a community that attracts young families and succeeds.

As far as the number of public employees and their friends and families, as well as retired teachers and their friends and families, not to mention everyone else involved in the public employee system protests would be concerned, I would not call that a small number of people at all. Coverage of these events has revealed many thousands of concerned people out there, putting it out there on the line for their rights.

Make no mistake, this is, bottom line, about fundamental rights.

Just my opinion here, but this I do believe: When the dust from all of these union disputes finally settles in all of these battleground states, I think that we'll discover that a confrontational approach is a great deal more expensive that meeting at a collective bargaining table in the first place.

Collective bargaining? Now THAT'S what I call cooperation!

By the way, I believe that you can see Pete sing "Joe Hill" anytime you like, if you check around the 'net. I just found it, anyway....

All my opinions here, and I just might be right...

Back to MY union-made banjo!

I love to be cooperative!

I agree very much Gary. It is very ironic that someone would say we need more cooperation and to heck with the unions! Unions are cooperation on a grand scale.

I think a big thing people don't get is that the unions have just basically kept up with inflation and maybe a little extra for time served. The real problem is people abandoning their right to unionize and have gotten nothing in return. Less than nothing in fact because raises in many emploment sectors have not kept pace with inflation.

Some of this is ok. We haven't experienced a lot of inflation. We are competing globally so that's just a factor that is real. But the top earners in this country are making a whole lot more than they used to and they're not sharing and they spend a lot of money to keep the government from making them share like they did in the Eisenhower days when a company had to invest in their company and workers or the government would take 90% of profit over a certain amount.

So let's let the teachers be and work for better wages and benefits for everybody. Especially healthcare for crying out loud already. Kasich wants to gut the health clinic system and so does the federal budget. That is a death sentence for a lot of people and will clog the er with people needing routine care. A little off topic maybe but I think it would be a relief for businesses and public employers to pay a flat rate for health insurance and let it get balanced out according to what you make, family size and profit is taken out of the equation.

I have been following this thread since it started and have been interested in some of the positions and responses I have seen. Some are economically and logically sound and some are, well, flawed based on personal preference.

I first of all want to say that I think that teachers are a very important part of the labor market and community. I am on very good terms with several of my teachers from when I was in high school, and I respect them and their work a great deal.

Also, I think that it is important to have a way, in any capacity, to communicate with your employer for pay raises and promotions and working conditions. Whether a union is the best vehicle to do this in the case of teachers and the education system remains to be seen, and is something that really requires a more in depth economic understanding of the workings of labor markets than most people have. Even economic professors are hesitant to cast a hard and fast rule regarding unions because as they are fond of saying "it depends".

There are things in the current education system that I have a problem with. Some of them do not belong on this thread but at least one of them does, and that is the issue of tenure.

My understanding of the workings of tenure is that teachers, after being an employee in good standing for seven years in the district, are given tenure. This then means that they have protections against being fired and laid off and get preference over other non tenured teachers in staff decisions. Essentially what it does is eliminate merit performance as the major factor in continued employment in the district, at least once you reach that seven year bench mark.

For public primary and secondary education, this is completely unnecessary.

First of all, it makes it difficult to bring in new teachers to the district unless another teacher leaves or retires. It is detrimental to ANY field to limit the entry of new workers in any way, especially since they will have had more recent education in the field and will most likely, as a whole, be more energetic.

Secondly, it in some cases, but by no means all, and I do not wish to imply that all teachers fall prey to this, causes some teachers to become complacent and not put forth as much effort as they should to their classes. They are no longer under the pressure of having to perform at their daily maximum or risk firing because of the protections of tenure. There are some teachers who do disservice to their students when they fly by the seat of their pants when teaching. I know Mr. Wheeler is a good example of a diligent teacher who puts in a immense amout of extra effort that should be recognized. I can name at least 5 more off the top of my head without thinking who do the same. But I can also think of several who do not and their classes are not better off for it. Just because most of a group of professionals performs they way they should does not mean all of them do.

Which leads me to my third and final point about tenure. Teachers are really one of the only (if not the only) body of professionals who enjoy this level of protection to their jobs on a non-merit standard. With the exception of the collegiate level, where tenure is earned through publication and contribution to the college and good student evaluations, I cannot think of another profession quite like this one. With that said, I think that it is misguided to believe that because most teachers do what they are supposed to in regards to classroom performance, preparation, and continuing education, that all of them do, but sadly, tenure does not provide a sure fire way to remove teachers who perhaps are not the best for the district. In that sense, it does remove competition within the profession because tenured teachers don't have to fight as hard to keep their job, which leaves motivated and qualified young teachers scrambling for few positions.

That is not how things should work. Rather than have tenure, it would be better to institute contract systems between districts and teachers that must be renewed every few years. On the one hand, this provides the kind of job security that other professions enjoy, but it still requires all teachers, even the ones who would be tempted to be lax, to perform at their best so that their contract can be renewed.

You want to have the best teachers you can possibly have in a school system, not the ones who have been around the longest, that is a completely backwards way of thinking about things. If the best teacher in a field has been teaching for 35 years, awesome, let them keep teaching. But if the best teacher in a field is 25 and has lots of new ideas but is turned away because another teacher waiting to retire and not doing their best has tenure, then that is a crime.

I'm sure you don't mean to say this but it sounds like you think older teachers should be put out to pasture! Which could be illegal with or without tenure due to age discrimination laws. I know even with tenure bad teachers can get fired and all teachers get updated training every year and underperforming teachers can get help without needing to be fired or let go. All professions deserve that kind of respect.

I do think you bring up a great point about young energetic teachers and maybe more experienced teachers who possibly know when to conserve energy to avoid a burnout situation. With experience you learn to do a lot of things more efficiently and also get abetter sense of what's important and what can be a waste of time. That is not to say that some teachers don't loose their edge. It happens and that is where training and peer consultation is important to remain enthusiastic about your job.

I do sympathize with young teachers who are trying to find jobs right now. It is pretty rough out there for everybody.

Ellen Cormier wrote:I'm sure you don't mean to say this but it sounds like you think older teachers should be put out to pasture! Which could be illegal with or without tenure due to age discrimination laws. I know even with tenure bad teachers can get fired and all teachers get updated training every year and underperforming teachers can get help without needing to be fired or let go. All professions deserve that kind of respect.

I do think you bring up a great point about young energetic teachers and maybe more experienced teachers who possibly know when to conserve energy to avoid a burnout situation. With experience you learn to do a lot of things more efficiently and also get abetter sense of what's important and what can be a waste of time. That is not to say that some teachers don't loose their edge. It happens and that is where training and peer consultation is important to remain enthusiastic about your job.

I do sympathize with young teachers who are trying to find jobs right now. It is pretty rough out there for everybody.

I think you misread what I said. In my last few paragraphs I said that if the best teacher for the job had 35 years experience, then that was great, but that just because a teacher was older does not mean they are automatically better. To suggest that I was implying that older teachers should be put out to pasture is extreme and innacurate.

What I am saying, in a more simplified version, is that I do not like tenure because it is not as merit based as it should be. If it were more merit based, then we would be better able to get more qualified teachers regardless of age.

Good discussion--- probably highlights the difficulty in agreeing on common terms which makes intelligent debate much more difficult.
Maybe by recognizing this conundrum some progress can be made.

I think teaching is not the only job that has tenure, or at least the equivalent of tenure.

Professionals often organize as partnerships. A newly hired attorney or accountant is usually an associate, without much job security. After proving his merit, he is taken into the firm as a partner, with good job security, unless the partnership breaks up.

I think what we are talking about is job security, which has an intangible but still real economic value. Were I a teacher and you tried to take away tenure, you would have to pay me a lot more or I would be out the door.

It is true that you can't ship a teaching job overseas (although the Department of Defense does operate elhi schools overseas, and pays well), but I don't see a lot of jobs in teaching coming open; I think most people think our taxes to support the schools are too high and will more and more demand that costs be reined in. I see efficiencies being forced on the educational bureaucracy, and that means fewer, but possibly better, teachers and administrators. I say better teachers because for years we have drawn too many teachers from the bottom of the pool, measured by college admission test results. I think over half the teachers coming out of college are from the bottom third of the student body. Yes, you can find some superb teachers, but someone is hiring some people I would not want teaching my kids.

Additionally, I think we are going to wise up and ask why a teacher can retire, very comfortably, at such a young age; if we raised the retirement age, there would be more paid into the pension fund, and less drawn out. Of course, that means we won't need a lot of new teachers, at least for twenty years or so.

I support a young retirement age for the police and firefighters, because they have a strenuous job; if I get caught in a burning building, I want to be hauled out by a young fit firefighter. not by a heavy, wheezing, 66 year old.

But teaching is not a strenuous job. Even a phys ed teacher never breaks a sweat (except possibly when they're reading about the pending bill). I've seen no reason why a teacher shouldn't work as long as most of us, but then I don't think a teacher should be a buddy to the students.

I do think that job security is important and does have intrinsic economic value when it comes to keeping people in the profession.

However, you raise an interesting point when it comes to talking about hiring from the bottom of the college graudate pool. I feel the reason that so many highly qualified individuals do not choose the teaching profession is because the tenure system in this country does not allow for advancement or job security based on academic qualifications alone. As a doctor or a lawyer, the more education you have and the more qualified you are, the better off and more secure you will be in your job. But in teaching, the current system doesn't place as much value on higher levels of education and continued education in the field as it should. And the pay is not that great because this country does not value education as much as it should. Economically it doesnt make sense for people with high earning potential to go to pricey and elite colleges only to go into a low paying profession that doesn't value their high degrees of education. And the job being rewarding or important is not enough to make up for this.

But I maintain that tenure for public school doesn't make any sense, and that remains my biggest problem with the teacher's union. Even at the collegiate level, it takes so much more to get tenure, and in that case, it is used as a means to keep specialists in a certain field at one particular school. There is no need for that in say, high school.

I would also like to reiterate that I do not think that all teachers are a problem and I certainly do not want anyone to be under the impression that I harbor any hard feelings towards teachers in general. I just do not agree with tenure as there have been cases where I have seen its negative effects.

Thealexa,
Sorry if I came off as extreme in my comments. I meant no harm! Just I think tenure or not is somewhat irrelevant. By the time a teacher gets to tenure it's too late. They're either a magical teacher or just a regular human teacher doing the best they can every day with what they have. I think making better schools has nothing to do with unions or no unions, tenure, money, environment, the parents. All those things contribute to a degree but none will make or break anything.

Good schools depend on good training and using brain based research and sound developmental practice to teach. Children are born to learn, children instinctively want to learn. But yet we continue to insist that the square peg will go into the round hole. It's the definition of insanity. In a way, teaching and learning can and should be easy. Good teachers kind of know these things instinctively without being taught. Its a societal value where jumping through hoops is valued more than natural inquiry and readiness.

And again sorry if my sentences are out of wack. Posting from a phone is tricky.

One more point too is one person's awesome teacher is other person's mediocre teacher. Kids need to be able to get along with all kinds of styles and personalities. And no one likes everyone. The NCLB laws have made it a lot harder for teachers and students to be individuals. I think it has become a little bit of a nightmare to be a student or a teacher right now. I thought it was a little funny when someone said teaching wasn't strenuous! Keeping 30 diverse personalities on task all day everyday is not easy and can be quite mentally demanding.

Anyway, I think making the schools better and whether or not teachers should bargain for conditions are mostly separate issues. But I would guess getting rid of unions would only make schools worse if teachers are not at the discussion table.

It's like we want to do to teaching what we've done to farming. The bigger, better one size fits all approach, everyone will know exactly the same thing at the same time, and be damned if the kids grow up stressed to the max and hate learning! They passed the test and that's all that matters.

I don't want my kids in an over crowed henhouse with no windows and no fresh air standing in an inch of their own filth (this is an analogy folks) to save some people a few bucks.

In Europe they often go to great lengths to recruit the most qualified candidates to fuel their education system. But that is because I believe that their society places a much much higher value on education than we do in this country overall.

Then again, there are other crucial aspects of our educational systems that are vastly different, like Europe's seperation of students into different types of schools at 8th grade. This is certainly not something I think American society would accept, especially since in flies in the face of the American Dream and the "raise yourself up by your own efforts and hardwork" mentality we have. Which is ironic, since some members of the population seem to still look down on the educated, or see them as some kind of threat. But this is delving into issues larger and more unrelated than this thread.

I do not believe that SB5 will have an significant impact on the budget deficit in the state. All it is successfully doing is stirring up bad feeling among citizens of the state and wasting time that might be better spent on reforms that could actually reduce the deficit. Any economist with half a brain would tell you that attacking a large problem such as this in a one sided manner as is the case here is foolish and will certainly not alleviate the problem on its own.

As to a point Ellen made about students viewing teachers in a different light, yes this is very true. Some teachers that I loved, other students hated, but what i think needs to be asked is why those students expressed such a dislike for that teacher. Often times what you will find is that the student doesn't like the high expectations the teacher has, they don't like the workload, or they don't like the fact that the teaher is calling them out on their less than stellar performance and trying to get the student to do better. Many times what I think you will find is a good deal of complaining could be disregarded as general distaste for school.

But once you shift through all of that, there is a general agreement, from what I have seen, among students about who are the good teachers and who aren't. You might even, if you are clever, get a student who says they "hate" the teacher to admit that it isn't true they just don't like the class/doing the work. Basically, it comes down to how the teacher treats the students and if they are actually teaching the class. I can promise that a student would rather have a tough teacher who presses them to learn difficult material well than an easy teacher who makes the class seem like a joke and a waste of time. To that end, a student, regardless of what level, will most likely be able to respect a diligent teacher over a teacher that lets everyone coast by.

Again, this all comes back to a core issue in the philosophy of education in not only this state, but in the whole country. As the years go by I see less and less of a focus on a solid academic foundation that should prepare most students for at least some degree of higher education and more and more focus on just skirting students through the state minimum requirements and calling it a day. It's embarrassing, because I think that so much more could be done with a little more effort and few adjustments to make students from Ohio better prepared for higher education and better able to compete and succeed at out of state schools. Part of this problem is caused by the animosity between unions and other parties and the reliance on standardized testing. The focus on pure education is just lost in the tussle.

I am starting to think that virtually every poster here has a lot more in common with each other than with disagreements they may have.

That we are in a financial crisis in this, and virtually every state, is probably a given.

That we have not valued education, and particularly, an education where standards are there, and yet the academic freedom to explore and evaluate content still remains important...these are, to me, significant concerns. There is a huge push for conformity over individuality from some elements in today's society, and that also concerns me deeply, because there will always be a significant number of people who either cannot, or will not conform to sheep-like behavior.

From the beginning of our public schools, (and we need to remember that public schools are relatively new in the course of world history) teachers have been targeted by virtually every side of philosophical, political, religious, or any other debating points that you might think of, who might disagree with whatever happened to be taught on a given day.

Remember what happened to Socrates in Ancient Greece?

(hint: be careful what you drink)

Now THAT was a poor teacher evaluation, but it certainly illustrates perhaps, the main reason that experienced teachers are tenured.

Creationism, evolution, religious topics, health studies, and philosophy were only five of a myriad of topics where, no matter WHAT a teacher mentioned in class, or for that matter, even failed to mention, someone was going to be upset. There needed to be some rudimentary protection for experienced teachers from knee-jerk administrative actions without there first being at least a due-process examination and hearing-out of all the facts before a teacher could be disciplined or terminated. THAT, to the best of my knowledge, was the fundamental premise for granting tenure to experienced public school teachers. The free pursuit of knowledge, unfettered by polemical guidance, was a fundamental part of public education. Obviously, from time to time, controversial topics, books, and even the free exchange of ideas could place teachers in jeopardy, and indeed, have often done so.

While it is certainly possible that a few tenured teachers could burn out or start to coast late in their careers, the reality of that matter is that the current appraisal processes in many districts allow such teachers to be monitored, mentored, and at times, supported in other ways, to help them through whatever may be going on in their lives. If indeed, they are not doing their job, (in fact, ANY TIME that I've seen that sort of thing happen) the reality would be, that it is not long before that teacher leaves the profession.

By the way, there are quite a few young teachers who discover that they can't cut it, either.

It would not be my desire to directly refute another poster here, but concerning the thought that some jobs might be more "strenuous" than teaching? There's physical strength involved with other jobs, to be sure, but there are other aspects that can make teaching an extremely stressful occupation for many, if not most teachers; at one time or another in their careers.

After a teacher has taught 30 or more years, that time period is well recognized by the profession as being a good career length. Some teachers do go 35, or even 40 years. It's an individual call. The longer you go, the more you draw at retirement.

Regarding the concept of merit pay? There is something about testing and evaluations that teachers learn in college: In order for any evaluation to be valid, it needs to be criterion-referenced...that is, measured against an objective standard of some kind. Up to this point, teacher pay has been based on longevity and education levels, and so, is already "merit-based". Those standards, as one can see, are easy to define and easy to understand..

The "merit pay" that seems to be desired these days, is for "excellent" teachers to be paid more. While on the surface, that might be considered a laudatory concept, the one problem is how would we objectively define what constitutes an "excellent" teacher? By student test scores, many would say...but there are so many variables with that standard to make it laughable, when one really thinks about it. Are those student tests also criterion-referenced, free from cultural, economic, or gender-biases, and fairly given? Do all students come from a similar demographic? What about IQ's? What about parental involvement as well as socio-economic considerations? Also who... will be grading the tests? Are they qualified graders, or just temporary workers given a rubric and hired for the day?

All too often, I'm afraid that the term "Merit Pay" turns out to be words without any real meaning....just another way to turn back the clock, so that a teacher could be arbitrarily fired or shortchanged at the whim of a vindictive administration or some angry parent.

Unions don't exist ONLY for the purpose of seeking better pay and benefits. They also stand by teachers to insure that such unfair, unjust or arbitrary attacks are defended.

All just my opinion, but you might be surprised at how many times I'm right.

Back to the banjo...

Gary Rice wrote:Remember what happened to Socrates in Ancient Greece?

Now THAT was a poor teacher evaluation, but it certainly illustrates perhaps, the main reason that experienced teachers are tenured.

Mr. Rice, I'm sorry but that reference really really made me laugh. Socrates' death was so much more than the removal of an "unsatisfactory" teacher. It was a political move and had so much more to do with his praise of rival Greek cities and his disturbance of the delicate political balance than it did with his teachings. He was killed as a political figure, not as a teacher. He was a critic of democracy, yet his ethics and way of thinking survive, so clearly he was not killed because he taught something people didn't like, but becuase politicians found him speaking out and disturbing the peace. So it could have happened to anyone, teacher or no, and tenure certainly would not have protected him.

Gary Rice wrote:There needed to be some rudimentary protection for experienced teachers from knee-jerk administrative actions without there first being at least a due-process examination and hearing-out of all the facts before a teacher could be disciplined or terminated. THAT, to the best of my knowledge, was the fundamental premise for granting tenure to experienced public school teachers. The free pursuit of knowledge, unfettered by polemical guidance, was a fundamental part of public education. Obviously, from time to time, controversial topics, books, and even the free exchange of ideas could place teachers in jeopardy, and indeed, have often done so.

Yes, all employees regardless of their profession deserve to have protection from aribitary firing. But to my knowledge, teachers are the only ones with protection to this degree. I'm sure if you look you can find other professions that are still popular with less generous protection for those who are members of it.

In some fields, you can be fired for something more trivial than your point of view. Teachers should not look at their protection from indiscriminate firing as an entitlement, but as a priviledge that not a lot of other people have. Everyone deserves the right to not be fired for silly reasons, but teachers are the one of the few who can boast that actual protection.

Gary Rice wrote:While it is certainly possible that a few tenured teachers could burn out or start to coast late in their careers, the reality of that matter is that the current appraisal processes in many districts allow such teachers to be monitored, mentored, and at times, supported in other ways, to help them through whatever may be going on in their lives. If indeed, they are not doing their job, (in fact, ANY TIME that I've seen that sort of thing happen) the reality would be, that it is not long before that teacher leaves the profession.

I believe that we are talking about different things. I am not referring to teachers who are obviously going through a personal crisis. I am talking about teachers who are just not able or qualified to teach what they are teaching, and I have seen some in my school career. I say this not out of malice for teachers in general but out of personal experience. I don't want to go into details on this thread, because my personal experience is unrelated, but if you wish to know the specific instances, ask me personally and I would be happy to talk to you.

At any rate, I don't think tenure helps this problem any way you slice it. This comes down to a more complex administrative process.

Gary Rice wrote:By the way, there are quite a few young teachers who discover that they can't cut it, either.

That is true anywhere and is going to happen in any profession.

Gary Rice wrote:It would not be my desire to directly refute another poster here, but concerning the thought that some jobs might be more "strenuous" than teaching? There's physical strength involved with other jobs, to be sure, but there are other aspects that can make teaching an extremely stressful occupation for many, if not most teachers; at one time or another in their careers.

I know these people are not the favored profession, but do you have any idea of the stress level of say lawyers or scientists or bankers or doctors? Doctors have the highest suicide rate of any profession, and they have people's lives in their hands.

Teachers have tenure and other protections and certainly do not have to worry about the looming threat of malpractice lawsuits. I'm not saying that teachers don't experience stress, but let's put it in perspective. They have as much stress and strain as any other profession on average.

Gary Rice wrote:. Up to this point, teacher pay has been based on longevity and education levels, and so, is already "merit-based".

That is NOT merit based. Longevity has little to do with merit, they are completely different systems of measure. I will concede that education levels should be factored more greatly into hiring practices, but does not automatically indicate merit as a teacher. I know some fantastically intelligent people who I think would be horrific teachers.

Take the collegiate level for instance. I'm sure all of us can cite a brilliant professor who was a terrible teacher and had a bad class despite their endless knowledge in their subject.

Gary Rice wrote: Are those student tests also criterion-referenced, free from cultural, economic, or gender-biases, and fairly given? Do all students come from a similar demographic? What about IQ's? What about parental involvement as well as socio-economic considerations? Also who... will be grading the tests? Are they qualified graders, or just temporary workers given a rubric and hired for the day?

I think the current system of standardized testing is flawed on many levels and when teachers are forced to be evaluated solely on those it has been shown that there are greater instances of teachers cheating on the tests for students (see Freakonomics).

No, I do not think that there is a good system in place to properly evaluate teachers and their ability. But I also don't think anyone is really working on it and instead they are falling back on tenure or standardized testing, both of which I think are not good measures.

Gary Rice wrote:All too often, I'm afraid that the term "Merit Pay" turns out to be words without any real meaning....just another way to turn back the clock, so that a teacher could be arbitrarily fired or shortchanged at the whim of a vindictive administration or some angry parent.

Unions don't exist ONLY for the purpose of seeking better pay and benefits. They also stand by teachers to insure that such unfair, unjust or arbitrary attacks are defended.

I hear this argument all the time and I wonder what evidence anyone has that were tenure to be removed that there will be a statistically significant increase in firings on an arbitrary basis. I think arbitrary is used a little too loosely in this situation. Also, there are federal laws in place to protect against discrimination in hiring and firing practices, so it isn't like tenure and the union are the last bastion of defense that teachers have. They are perks that other professions don't have. I guarantee that in the financial world, there is still obvious discrimination against women in ways you would not ever find in teaching. And this I see as a bigger problem, but it has not deterred many young women from trying to enter the field.


But I think the debate here is less about the possibility of fair or unfair hiring and firing and more about what is best for the students, and while I do not by any means agree with SB5, I think that it raises some important questions about what in the current schematic can be changed to better the system. I don't think SB5 is going down the right path, because it is not going to solve budget issues this way, but I think that everyone involved should now be more reflective of how to better their institutions so that everyone wins.

Thealexa,

Thanks for a well thought out reply. You obviously care a great deal about education, and have great knowledge regarding this topic.

And yes, of course, the students' interests should always come first and foremost.

Just a few points, using the "Socratic method" of responding by questioning...

1) Do you think that the current "going after the teachers and their unions" craze is NOT a "political move", or that teachers are NOT currently having BIG problems for "speaking out and disturbing the peace"?

Some things never change.

2) Do you think that teachers do NOT need protection from, or experience, capricious lawsuits?

3) Do you really think that "longevity" has no "merit"?

4) Are you aware that teachers in the past, in some districts, have been deliberately placed in teaching positions that they might not have been qualified to teach? Are you also aware that some of the SAME people who want these reforms also want business and community leaders to be able to enter and teach in the field of education without any certification at all?

(and these SAME people, just a few years ago, were screaming for MORE training for teachers)

What does that say to you?

You know, don't you?

I sincerely hope that you WILL learn even more about this topic of national interest, as time passes. I also try to learn more every day. Unfortunately, I do not always like what I am learning.

Back to the banjo...