The Observation Deck

What's your take on this?

I am extremely reluctant to comment on a segment of anyone's commentary, because context is everything, in the evaluation of someone's remarks.

First and foremost. What is the job of a union?

To represent its membership, of course.

After that initial task is achieved, other laudable goals can be sought, but primarily, a union MUST primarily serve the interests of its membership. There are strict federal and state guidelines regarding what labor and management are supposed to do, and that's the way it is.

Now, the end of that video clip seemed to strongly support three points: The right to due process, employee rights, and collective bargaining.

Now think about this for a moment..why would any of these points stir controversy?

Just because these rights have been either limited, or have been virtually stripped away from so many private sector businesses, (only to have many of them go overseas or outsource anyway) does that make it equally right to try to strip these rights from those who work in the public sector? I think not.

Roy, I guess at some point, people need to decide which side they're on, in the struggle for employee rights and dignities.

I know which side I'm on.

Do you?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news/ec ... n&hpt=Sbin

It looks like the United Farm Workers will be recruiting workers at Tower City and the Cleveland high schools. The farms and ranches may have to hire extra bunkhouse stewards to keep new workers from tearing up the place.

I wish I could give you more of the speech, that's all I could find. I don't know if you watched from here or went into YouTube itself...I can tell you that this is the top NEA lawyer and he was retiring.

I'm not sure you're seeing what I'm seeing. He speaks of the tremendous power of the union and why they have that power...when he mentions the students (after the applause), it feels like an afterthought.

The priority should be the children, whether that's in terms of education or safety.
The NYC rubber rooms shouldn't have to exist. Bad teachers should be fired for poor performance, but union power makes it too hard.

Roy,

So much of what we are presented with these days is one-sided, due to the "fairness in media" rulings being done away with in the 1980's. Nowadays, it seems hard to know who to believe, so many people listen to media reflecting their own point of view, whether that would be liberal, conservative, or whatever.

I've never been that way. Instead, I try always to look at what's right and what's wrong. I still dare to believe that there are cut-and-dry truths in this world that need to be supported.

Whenever people say that a teacher's union would not "support children", frankly, while they MIGHT be TECHNICALLY correct in some cases. (and that has made some teachers unions targets of critics) that is indeed a specious argument, at best. After all, virtually any union's stated purpose is ENTIRELY to support its membership. At the SAME time, teachers, as teachers, DO support children wholeheartedly, so it really becomes an apples and oranges discussion.

Their union exists to help the teachers with their rights. The teachers exist to help the students with their knowledge. It's that simple.

I agree with you that our priority should always be with the children. At the same time, I firmly believe that teachers have a right to negotiate for the best labor package that they can get. Here in Lakewood, the teachers already showed their willingness to listen to economic circumstances in working with the Board in a problem-solving way. (and thereby help out our children in the process) Some may say that more could have been sacrificed, others might say the teachers deserve even more than they got, but that's what collective bargaining is all about, and that's why we have unions to represent the teachers in that process.

As for those infamous "rubber rooms", I've never heard of anything like that going on around here, but there are times in-between the discovery of a potential problem, and the investigation and final resolution of an issue, where it may be advisable to immediately remove a teacher from the classroom, yet not have enough evidence for dismissal. In such cases, a temporary reassignment to a non-teaching role might be necessary. How that would be handled, would vary from state to state and district to district. The fact remains that everyone, including the student, the teacher, and whomever else there might be, is entitled to due process of law, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. At the same time, the safety, protection and interests of the children always must come first.

Teachers can be, and are, sometimes terminated. They are sometimes found innocent too. The union simply makes sure that the process is fairly pursued.

Gary Rice wrote:After all, virtually any union's stated purpose is ENTIRELY to support its membership. At the SAME time, teachers, as teachers, DO support children wholeheartedly, so it really becomes an apples and oranges discussion.

I'm not so sure about it being an apples/oranges. They are connected.

If a union demand for wages/benefits will harm the education of the students (by forcing a district to cancel classes, increase class sizes, etc.) I'd be willing to bet 9 times out of 10, the teacher's side with the union.

Gary Rice wrote:The teachers exist to help the students with their knowledge.

I think that's disputable, but that's best saved for another time.

Gary Rice wrote:The fact remains that everyone, including the student, the teacher, and whomever else there might be, is entitled to due process of law, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. At the same time, the safety, protection and interests of the children always must come first.

I agree, however don't you think this:


might be just a little excessive?

Roy:

In a word, no.

If in fact, a hypothetical case, theoretically as alluded to above, were to transpire, the very fact that it did take so many twists and turns would be indicative to me that there would be two sides to that particular story. Remember too, that your example appears to be from a New York diagram and is therefore, not an Ohio issue.

You know the old saying about there being two sides to every story...

Normally, (reflecting here on my own experiences with real cases involving honest teaching problems) I would say that they are generally solved much more quickly and simply.

There must be a logical procedure in place to insure that teachers, students, and the district all have the opportunity to address issues, as well as to correct them, if possible. That there could be nightmare scenarios would of course, be conceivable, but I would certainly think, be very rare.

In my experience over the years in the profession, the truth would be that if an experienced teacher discovers that they really can't cut the mustard for whatever reason, they generally will not stay in the field. They will either find other work, or perhaps, have to take a disability, but they will shortly be gone from the profession without undue drama. The reality would seem to be that many of these kinds of problems are probably weeded out in the first few years, before tenure takes effect. That's why those trial time periods exist.

If you survive and do well after 4 years of college, practicums, student teaching evaluations, and 3 years of probationary teaching (I would suggest, probably after 3 MINUTES! ) then chances are, you will be a good teacher.

The type of issue that is illustrated with your diagram seems to arise when someone decides to go after a teacher for some vague reason that may be unrelated to competency. (although of course, competency could be questioned) At that point, grievances at several levels, and yes, even the courts, may need to come into the picture, in order to get to the root of the matter.

Now let me ask you this. Are you REALLY saying that teachers should just be arbitrarily fired on someone's opinionated say-so, without being able to defend themselves, or without having the opportunity to correct whatever problem might need correcting?

If so, then you and I really have nothing further to discuss here...

...particularly if you honestly think it "disputable" that teachers exist to help students with their knowledge. That's the whole point of being a teacher.

As a final counter-point to answer your first point: Time and again, I have seen teachers' associations and school boards find common ground for the benefit of the children. (as happened here in Lakewood) Negotiations do not have to become a zero-sum game.

Back to the banjo...

how hard is it to fire a teacher in Lakewood or Bay Village or Westlake?

New York is the biggest city in America: its successes and faults aren't really relevant when discussing blanket sentiments about Unions, Teachers, zoning, or ideology.

Ryan,

In most, if not all public school districts in Ohio, there are clearly stated procedures in place for dealing with teacher competency questions. How the process would proceed or be handled would depend on the type of concern brought forth. If it were a question of teaching deficiency, then there are generally opportunities offered for the teacher to be provided some assistance, and opportunity to improve, before dismissal would be considered. If there would be a more serious question, for example, related to child safety, obviously then there would be other procedures followed. Of course, there are also state and federal laws involved.

The personnel (human resources) procedures are often spelled out in the negotiated agreements that districts conclude with the various teachers' associations, and may vary from district to district.

Roy and Gary and Ryan---

Let me throw in a couple of pennies---

The issues raised are important and they are out in the community; in fact are a microcosm of the larger political debate that has been ongoing on this issue for about 90 years.

That having been said---how civilized and elegant is it that we have two eloquent advocates for a position debating this on our Deck?!

(Ryan always adds the dill)

Stan

Stan,

Thanks, I guess...

So, are us other guys like... the ketchup and mustard?

If so, metaphorically at least, should there then be a hot dog involved?

Maybe not. Debating's not really much of a picnic for me anymore.

Back to the banjo...

Gary Rice wrote:Now let me ask you this. Are you REALLY saying that teachers should just be arbitrarily fired on someone's opinionated say-so, without being able to defend themselves, or without having the opportunity to correct whatever problem might need correcting?

No, I'm saying union contracts (not even all union contracts) create an excessive number of hoops that the school district must go through to remove bad (in some cases criminally bad) teachers. Granted I've never gone through the criminal justice system, but I'll bet its not as complicated.

Gary Rice wrote:If so, then you and I really have nothing further to discuss here......particularly if you honestly think it "disputable" that teachers exist to help students with their knowledge. That's the whole point of being a teacher.

Perhaps I phrased that wrong. That is why the teachers exist. Its what knowledge they attempt to impart that I see as an issue.

- I had a teacher in high school who we could easily trick into spending an entire class period talking about her personal life (or any subject except what the class was supposed to be about). It was a course required for graduation. To be honest, the only thing I still remember from that class (besides some of the personal stuff about the teacher) was taught by a substitute.
Pretty sure I got an 'A' in that class.

- Most of what I remember of school wasn't learning, it was ingest, hold and regurgitate on the test. I don't remember being taught how to think, just what to think. The only exception to that was probably math and guess what, I haven't touched trigonometry, algebra, functions, proofs or calculus since getting out of each of those classes.

I've learned more useful information outside of school than inside it.

post-industrial value "creation" is mostly the creation of legalese and procedural proliferation.
This continues the trend: the greater information technology grows, the greater the proliferation of people who make it their jobs to out-shyster each other. It has been that way since the beginning of time. advances in printing presses, telegraphs, telephones, radio, fax yield the same result.

have a school board. a few dozen teachers in the district. they school board has the power to vote to fire someone or negotiate terms for their dismissal. the principal, superintendent, and PTA have the power to order the board to vote.

procedural rules for keeping documentation of performance, etc etc.

Roy,

Ah, WHAT is being taught? NOW I think we have arrived at the crux of the matter.

As for your own experiences? I believe that it was up to you, the students, to alert either your parents or the administration, if you felt that there was a problem with your teacher back then.

Period.

As to whether you believe that you have benefited from school or not, or whether you simply ingested facts or not, you certainly seem to know how to think and, of course, write well now.

That came from someplace.

The only question that I would have for you, is whether you presently apply your own standards of critical thought towards your own point of view? Do you therefore feel that you approach things polemically only, or from a spirit of open inquiry?

As Stan said, this is not a new discussion. In one form or another, it's been going on, ever since the public schools were established. When the Supreme Court took sectarian prayer out of the buildings, however, all of the old traditional animosities ratcheted up into high gear.

The public school discussion, for those outside of the schools, has turned into a cultural clash rivaling any dispute our country has ever faced. Inside the buildings, however, every effort is made to keep a balanced and orderly process of education going on, while outside forces compete for influence in the classrooms.

The issues are many and complex. What should be taught and how? Whom do you include in a history survey course, and what should be emphasized? * Do you teach Evolution or Creation? Both? Do you enforce strict testing accountability, or provide academic freedom to pursue interests at the level of one's own capability? What about God? People might be surprised to learn that God, for example, never really left the public school building. Students and teachers can study about, and discuss God virtually all they want to. It is mainly sectarian prayer and corporate worship that the courts seem to look out for. Even in Christianity, let's face it, there are at least 3 common ways to say the Lord's Prayer...No matter how you did it, some Christians would feel uncomfortable, and of course, the public schools are supposed to be for EVERYBODY, and not only Christians.

Conservatives have certainly tried to influence the schools, but frankly, so have liberals.

Sometimes these groups even find themselves on the same side of one issue or another!

The fact is, I believe that education should NOT be influenced by undue polemics, be they left or right wing, but rather by the spirit of an open and impartial inquiry, from which a student can develop and test their own hypotheses.

I suppose we'll never see the end of outside groups trying to influence what happens in your public schools, but we certainly can and should keep a watchful eye on what goes on in our classrooms. Teachers have to do a delicate balancing act, in order to educate today's students.

* There was a HUGE issue for many years even as to how the Civil War would be taught in the North and in the South. Textbook makers were often kept real busy with different versions of their books, as there was little agreement even as to what that war was to be called, for years after the conflict ended! Then there were issues as simple (and as profound) as the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimac(k)...remember that first ironclad ship struggle? Well, it turns out that the "Merrimac(k)" was the name of a union ship, captured and rebuilt by the South, and then re-christened as the C.S.S. Virginia. In the North, the position taken was that the captured ship was legally still a U.S. Naval vessel taken by insurgents, and therefore never lost her name, while in the South, of course, the position sometimes taken was that she fought honorably under the Southern flag, as the Virginia.

The Monitor vs. the Merrimack....or the Monitor vs. the Virginia? In a nutshell, that pretty much sums up the problem that we have with public education...

By the way, more to your other point Roy, wasn't it Mark Twain that said something about never letting school interfere with one's education?

Back to the banjo...

(By the way Ryan, you might be amazed at how much cutting-edge, computer-age technological savvy there is going on with the Lakewood Schools!)

Gary Rice wrote:As for your own experiences? I believe that it was up to you, the students, to alert either your parents or the administration, if you felt that there was a problem with your teacher back then. Period.

I can't argue with that. All I can possibly say in my defense is I didn't know then what I know now.

Gary, I believe you to be one of the few people I've really engaged with here, that I can make this suggestion to and believe you might do it, rather than just laugh, attack and ridicule me for it.

Today, 5PM, Fox News
See how today's textbooks have been stacked against history
I'd like to ask that you be open-minded enough to get past any animosity towards the host.

If you are genuinely interested and can't get to a TV, let me know.