The Observation Deck

I object to the notion that public workers are the problem. As was printed online last year during the levy campaign, I make about $42000 a year. I show up, work my tail off, and then go home for a few more hours to work a bit more. I spend my summers, unpaid, developing myself as a professional and planning for the year ahead. My students perform well, parents and administrators have few qualms about my work, and I am proud to be a public servant. In talking with the community, they point again and again to the fine work that we are all doing in their employ. Lakewood is proud of us and we are proud to work in Lakewood. We do so much that goes beyond our contract, and you don't hear much complaining from the ranks about our pay and work hours.

In turn, Kalish and other elected representatives repay us by singling us out as a significant obstacle on the way to balancing the books. Never mind the global economic collapse brought about by the kind of rampant corruption and shenanigans propagated by the likes of our governor's former employer, Lehman Brothers and other similar "investment" firms. And even if it wasn't the banker's fault, though this seems to be the case, and it was the fault of regulators, insurance companies, and shoddy deal-making, I still find it absurd that these same people would turn and point the finger at public workers as the source of our budget woes. I don't even need a union to be pissed off at stances such as the one that confronts us today in the form of Senate Bill 5. But it is the labor union, fought for so fervently in the buried history of our country, that has provided the only check to the kind of corporate/government power grabs that will inevitably follow any passage of this bill. To take away the rights of workers to strike, the only non-violent form of protest that laborers have the opportunity to wield in redress of their grievances, takes away a vital check in the machinery of greed.

I'm not upset about my salary, work hours, or the ridiculous state testing and subsequently ridiculous mandates of an outmoded education system tied to standardized testing and that measures nothing of any value (ok, I am upset about that one;-). It's that I need the labor union, faults and all, to protect what I think is a pretty nobel attempt to do something good for the children of this country. Every one of us just wants to help kids. And to be called to the floor as some kind of public whipping boy is unconscionable.

*** I reiterate that my views do not reflect anyone's view but my own. ***

Oops. I wrote Kalish instead of Kasich. No offense meant to our former superintendent.

Hi Sean….

There’s a thousand things I could say but I won’t. I just have a couple questions.

I need the labor union, faults and all, to protect what I think is a pretty noble attempt to do something good for the children of this country.

What I would like to know is this. What specific aspect of your union representation is beneficial to the children you teach? My wife teaches at a non-government (“private”) school. She does not have union representation. How is it that my wife’s students are disadvantaged by her lack of union representation, relative to your students who have a union-represented teacher?

My wife is a Montessori teacher and both my daughters attended Montessori schools. My oldest was in the very first graduating class at the Montessori High School at University Circle (MHS). My youngest is a sophomore there now. None of their teachers is unionized. I sure hope that doesn’t put them at a big disadvantage!

You seem rather mercenary to me when you bemoan “ridiculous state testing and subsequently ridiculous mandates of an outmoded education system tied to standardized testing that measures nothing of any value.” The reason I say this is because (1) you seem very passionate about adolescent education, (2) the way you just characterized traditional education is as a travesty, and (3) you do it anyways! “Nothing of any value?” Sean how do you support that for even a second? Especially when you do seem to have your student’s best interests at heart….

Let me know when you have a professional day and I will take you over to MHS. I bet you would fall in love. Education there is very experiential, holistic, and supports community service. No tablet computers but many of them just ventured through Glenville for a week trying to learn how to make things better. Juniors and seniors undertake the International Baccalaureate. I bet you would fall in love. But you will have to take a pay cut and give up your pension in favor of a 403(b). And of course no tenure.

Sean, thanks for putting yourself out there. I really respect you for that.

Tim

Good Morning Tim,

I see that we meet again.

I've no intention of going two against one on you, as I'm sure that Sean is more than capable of taking care of himself in this discussion.

That point made, I would simply offer to you my answer to your question.

How does a teacher's union benefit children?

In my opinion, indirectly, but without a doubt in my mind.

A union exists primarily, of course, to better the lot in life of those who are unionized. There are any number of places on the web where you can find what teaching conditions were like a hundred years ago. Teachers frequently taught 8 subjects without a break from dawn to dusk in one-room school houses, and virtually every aspect of their personal dress codes and lives were under 24/7 scrutiny. In quite a few communities, teachers were not even permitted to date!

And of course, they were paid peanuts, with no hope of medical or other benefits. Beginning public school teachers still make relatively little, even today, compared to many comparable college graduates in the private sector.

The thing is, states began to make rules that teachers had to return to college for more and more and MORE education...With that, came the necessity to pay the more educated teachers more money. Additional pay for longevity came along, and with that, came the possibility that higher paid teachers could be fired so that cheaper new teachers would be hired, so it became necessary to tenure those more experienced staff, in order to protect their jobs so that they would not be fired except through due process and just cause.

I would simply point out here that even with non-unionized schools (and many private schools DO have unions, by the way) oftentimes these days, similar benefits are offered to the staff because the unions blazed the trail with the templates.

The fundamental question that seems to be on the table in Ohio is simply this. Does an American worker, whether in the public or private sector, have the right to join with others in a union to bargain for better working conditions and even to strike if necessary? I would say, as the government seems to, that, except in the case of certain critical public safety issues, yes.

A business leader, educational administrator, or any sort of boss, might be either beneficent or draconian. One way or the other, there needs to be some insurance of workers' rights to bargain for a better life and due process protecting workers from arbitrary and capricious dismissal.

Do students benefit from better working conditions for staff? I certainly believe that they do. If a staff feels that they are a respected part of the process, rather than being simply underpaid employees, that certainly reflects on the respect that students, their parents, and the communities feel about one of their most precious assets...their teachers.

By the way, teacher's unions often offer scholarships and numerous other programs to assist students, so it's not always strictly a self-interest issue. If teachers don't stand up for their own rights, who else will? Just remember though, for the individual teachers, that children are the reason that they do what they do. That they also want a better life for themselves in no way interferes with that fact.

By the way, I too think that standardized testing goals are sometimes ridiculous for the simple reason that I believe that testing should be used to measure individual gains, and not some group attainment. It would be as if we penalized toddlers for not all learning to speak by a certain month, or for not learning to tie their shoes at the same moment of time in their lives. People do not achieve at the same time or at the same rate. Some of the proponents of those tests seem to want to assure something that, to me, seems contrary to good sense. These are, after all, children and schools and not cattle and stockyards. Children should not all be forced through the same cattle chute at the same time. The passing of proficiency tests needs to be seriously re-examined, at least in my opinion.

Back to the banjo.

So, you're against it on general principle or is there something specific you see yourself losing that you are against?

Tim, sorry for the lag in response.

I'll start by saying that I believe in public education. While I have no qualms about the many fine private or charter schools, I've chosen to cast my lot in public education because I believe in the role that it plays in educating any and all of our citizens. Public schools work to educate the poor, the rich, the middle class, the able and those with special needs. I attended both private and public schools growing up (my father was in the navy and we moved a bunch) and I had good and bad experiences in both. This might sound odd, but as the son of a long, long, line of military men, and as one who didn't join the military because I wanted to be the first in my family ever to graduate from college, I have in me a desire to carry on my family's tradition of service to our country. It might sound hokey, but I teach because I want to serve.

Being a public employee, however, means that I am constricted to some extent in the kind of autonomy and latitude that is probably at work every day in the Montessori schools or thousands of other mission based prior schools (by mission I do not suggest to mean solely religious. Mission as in the mission of a Montessori or KIPP in their approach to curriculum and pedagogy). Largely, the mission of public schools is not created at the highest levels by educators, but rather, our mission is dictated by politicians and the interests (some private, some corporate, some altruistic) that they are beholden to. While the tides of political favor shift and go through their cycles, educators are often called to fall in line to the whims and demands of each passing fad or crisis. I don't think that this is very good for education.

My belief is that the teachers union serves as a vital check on the dictates of political popularity and interests. While I am an outspoken critic of some of the shortcomings of my union, and often agree with many of the criticisms that are put out there, I need the union to work towards keeping the teachers' voice in the conversation and to ensure that our education system doesn't become a direct wing of the government (I have many international teaching contacts and often discuss the abuses of education perpetrated by a centralized government in regards to state mandated propaganda materials and blatant misrepresentations of history in their course materials.) As I believe is the instance with the current legislation, sometimes the education system can become a pawn of political posturing and power broking. Some may argue that the left has done the same type of political maneuvering as we see today. And I believe that they are undoubtedly correct when doing so. To me, a need the union because I need a collective body to represent my interest as an educator, and WAY more importantly, to look after the best learning interests of our students.

Do I think the union needs some work? Absolutely, that's why I became involved more deeply with the union in my last two years. While I feel that I need a representative body at the table when big moves are made, I also recognize that I have the opportunity to work with my union to suggest changes, challenge assumptions and long-held practices, and to join in the chorus in such instances as I find myself in agreement and solidarity with my co-workers.

*** more in the morning. I'm beat. ***

Roy,

Both. More in the am. sorry.

This bill is the set-up for the state budget that will be passed. It is the hammer and Kasich and the legislature will be making massive cuts in state funding to local schools, city's and county's. They will make the local boards of education and councils swing the hammer. Their hands will be clean. The careers and financial futures of our neighbors who have chosen public service is bleak.

In turn the economic fall out will effect nearly all of us. For instance, with solid middle-class citizens earning and spending less my clients will sell fewer products and services and will spend less on my services. I'll have less the spend so... The snowball will keep rolling down hill until...

How will this solve our governments revenue short fall problem? We "the middle-class" will have less taxable income and the government revenue short falls will continue to grow, how is HB5 a solution?

To turn this back towards our Lakewood Schools, what will our boards response be? How vigorously will they swing the hammer?

Bill

If someone could send me a PM about how to properly quote a segment of someone's previous post, I'd appreciate it. Every time I hit the quote button in the editor, I seem to do it wrong. Until then, please forgive my use of traditional quotes for now.

Tim wrote,

"You seem rather mercenary to me when you bemoan “ridiculous state testing and subsequently ridiculous mandates of an outmoded education system tied to standardized testing that measures nothing of any value.” The reason I say this is because (1) you seem very passionate about adolescent education, (2) the way you just characterized traditional education is as a travesty, and (3) you do it anyways! “Nothing of any value?” Sean how do you support that for even a second? Especially when you do seem to have your student’s best interests at heart…."

My original post, as quoted by Tim above, was a bit of venting. While the image of a mercenary is appealing, (I do like the idea of stealth and sleek ninja-esque maneuvering as I grow increasingly older and more rotund ), my statement was more of an addendum than a central point. The simple fact, as I see it, is that the testing methods that we currently have in place to measure student and, by proxy, teacher effectiveness are woefully outdated and insufficient. These standardized tests ultimately fail to measure the skills that are needed as our kids go into a modern collegiate and professional environment. Rote memorization, simplified questions requiring simple answers, and a lack of application, evaluation and creativity are clearly problematic issues in our current testing system. To be fair and honest, the kind of teaching used in Montessori schools are a direct refutation of the kind of "learning" being measured on our state tests, and public education would do well to learn from and borrow some of the effective pedagogy that the Montessori model uses. I called the standardized test "outmoded" because, in today's internet age, access and use of information has grown vastly and is more reliable than ever before. I am working towards creating a change in our statewide assessment systems to more accurately reflect the skills and content that a modern citizenry requires. To this end, I have been involved in designing the Ohio Model Curriculum and served as a committee member for the Ohio Performance Assessment Pilot. Lakewood City Schools, particularly with the immense help of Melanie Wightman and other forward-thinking educators and administrators, has had a seat at the table as we work towards shifting to a more rigorous and relevant assessment model here in Ohio. Rather than being dictated to from on high, Lakewood has positioned itself as an important voice in creating valid and appropriate teaching and learning models and methods at the state level. I believe that the best follow-up to criticism is action to effect change. Lakewood City Schools is doing just that.

Tim, I do believe that there are travesties in our education system, and many of us are working to fix these things in the best interest of our students, teachers, parents, and wider community. I have put myself out here, as you noted, because I want to be open and proactive instead of secretive and reactive. I think that conversations like these benefit both the participants and the casual read who chooses not to join in the conversation. I know that I learn quite a bit from these exchanges, as well as live conversations with parents, teachers, students, and community members.

To go back to the union issue, Roy had asked if I was against the bill on principle or in a more specific sense. I don't see how I could split my objection into component parts. The principle includes the specifics. The general principles that I outlined in my previous post play out in specific contexts. With this current legislation, I fear that I will lose my ability to be a voice in the conversation. I fear that we will put in a merit pay system based on the outmoded assessments that I mentioned above. I dread the idea of having larger classes and fewer opportunities to meet with my students during my planning period. I am hesitant to embrace a change, though an improved model of teacher effectiveness is needed in some form, that measures teacher effectiveness in a way that will force more "teaching to the test", especially when that test doesn't reflect much of value in a wired and connected world of infinite learning resources. The world has changed, and our education system needs to reflect the important things that we are learning about the implications of a tremendous shift in the way that we live our lives, conduct business, and learn. Though the teachers' union has a long way to go to meet these needs and promote change, I would rather be part of the solution than give up or give in.

Lastly, I appreciate that our society provides opportunity for citizens to choose a private option. But let's not pretend that this option is available to everyone, or even most. I'm frankly not feeling like looking up the number, but we spend far less at the local level than the $10,000 to $20,000 per child that it costs to go to the school that you described in your initial response, Tim. If you make that kind of money and want to send your kid there, good for you and them. Perhaps if I had that kind of money I would do the same. Maybe I wouldn't. But I'd appreciate the choice. On the other hand, and perhaps too personally biased, I want to teach the kids that grew up like me. As the first member of my family to go to college, I now want to help other kids like me get through the same door. I love being a public servant, but I object to being a public whipping boy.

I was thinking of having a sit-down meeting about this issue next week. Much in the same vein as the snow removal meeting did last night. Any takers or ideas on that one? The Root? Saturday midday?

Thanks Tim and Roy for pushing back a bit. It serves us all well to make use of this forum to engage each other in civil and public discussion of these significant issues to our community.


*** Again, this is only me talking. I do not seek or intend to represent the views of anyone else. I'm just your neighbor from Mars (Avenue, that is ). ***

On a more humorous, but no less acerbic, note...

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/04/jo ... the-c.html

PS. Thanks to Roy and Jim for help with learning how to do the fancy quote box.

(Been working on this for a couple days. Figure I'll post it and go from there rather than keep revising it.)

Sean, you weave a tapestry that makes it hard to disagree with you. I feel like you are one of the people I could have an honest, intellectual debate with, when we disagree.

I think we are not so dissimilar either. I am also a public employee. I make roughly the same amount as you do (within 10%, provided the number you mentioned above was your gross). I'm unsure about your benefits, though, I imagine they can't be that different.
And, I'm not in a union.

Regarding unions in general:

I hope you understand the degree of respect I have for teachers (even if I now find my own education to have been somewhat lacking, particularly in history). I have no doubt that you care about your students and that you and your fellow teachers want nothing more than to see them succeed.

But unions do not care the same way. The union itself (not the teachers represented by it, mind you) cares only about its own power.



I do not deny that unions have an important function, but as with many things, when it is not used properly, it becomes a hazard. Right now, the unions are pushing into the territory of being hazardous to the economy. States like California, Illinois and New York are already deep in the hole. New Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin are trying to stem the bleeding before it gets too bad. (On the private side, the union pensions were a massive contributor to the GM bankruptcy. I wish I could give you a specific URL for this, but I've heard/read that up to $3000 of the cost of a new GM car going directly to union health-care and pension obligations. That's a hefty chunk of change.)

I am also greatly concerned by the political affiliations the unions are creating, whether official or not. The number of socialist organizations coming out of the woodwork is staggering and many of them are interested in the complete destruction of our way of life. Not exactly flattering company to keep.
(Let me know if you're interested in seeing video footage.)

In regards to public unions:
There's one thing I'd like people to keep in mind. When the union negotiates with a local/state/federal government, they aren't negotiating with their money...their negotiating with our money. I'm not saying there's no concern for what monies are committed, but there is going to be less concern than if the union was negotiating with a profit making organization.
Think of it this way: I have a sandwich. You want to buy my sandwich. I say its $5 and you only have $2. I tell you, "You can use some of the money from this wallet to pay for it. I don't know who it belongs to. I won't tell." Do you take the money? If you do, is it the full $5 or only the $3 you need?

Also, when unions have as much money as they do and can get friendly politicians elected, what's going to happen when negotiation time comes around? Do you really think that politicians going to be tough on them?


[i](I do not support everything mentioned in this video, but I think it makes a point in its beginning.)

In regards to SB-5 specifically:
Plain Dealer article, Sunday March 6, 2011
I'm not in love with everything I've heard about it.

• I am currently in favor of eliminating the step-increases. Merit raises combined with some kind of cost-of-living/inflation based system would be my personal solution. I find nothing about the cost-of-living mentioned. That would be a concern to me.
• Removing seniority-based layoffs also makes sense to me. I heard LIFO (Last in, First out) mentioned and I think that's not a good way to run things. The most recent hires are potentially the one's with the most current training. (I had a teacher who refused to use computers when I was in high school in 1997!)
  Now, if a teacher sucks, new or old, they should be gone.
• The whole medical/retirement thing I'm iffy on. On medical, I honestly don't know enough about it. On retirement, personally, if I had the ability, I'd un-enroll in OPERS. I think I can invest that 10% of my paycheck better myself. Even if without the matched contribution from my job, at least I have some control.

Bottom line:
Tough times call for tough decisions. How would you deal with the budget issue? What services would you cut back or taxes would you raise? Nothing anyone does will be popular.

Roy:

In all candor...

(and let me take a moment to sincerely compliment you on your depth of reflection, as well as your participation on this 'deck, by the way)

What part of "due process, employee rights, and collective bargaining" could you possibly have an issue with? We've been over this ground before about that video that you posted, and I still fail to see what the issue is with your point of view regarding all of this. You certainly have a right to your opinions concerning public employee unions. I would simply point out that many of the advantages that workers in virtually every field of endeavor in this country have benefited either directly, or indirectly, by victories won for them by unions.

I can understand your potential concerns regarding a "difference of degree" perhaps, but as to the fundamental principles of being able to bargain in the first place, do you really believe that ability should be taken away from any employee, whether public or private? (Remember that, to arrive at an agreement, BOTH sides have to agree, so its not that a union is able to achieve anything without the other side signing off. It's the "give and take" of negotiation that often results in win--win situations for all concerned)

Standing up for the American worker does not necessarily mean that one is slipping down a slide into "socialism", any more than being a "conservative" means that one necessarily has "fascist" tendencies. (although many epithets like these seem to have been hurled around with gusto in the last few years)

Everyone:

It really seems as if there are two very valid topics under discussion here.

What is being taught and tested in our schools.

and...

...whether unions contribute or detract from the educational discussion, and of course, whether they contribute to the benefit of children.

First of all, I do believe that this has been one of the better interchanges on the 'Deck concerning this topic, that I've seen in a long time. There seems to be a very high level of honest interaction involved here that I, for one, certainly appreciate, and find refreshing.

I too, am a firm believer in the concept of public education. At the same time, the nagging questions of exactly what should be offered as "public education" and how that information would be evaluated can be topics of serious controversy. Delicate topics, such as how to handle religious questions, health education, science and creationism, and what should be emphasized in American history classes, have all been at the forefront of the public education discussion in recent years.

Because of these, and other areas of discussion, I think it to be a good idea that there be some system of community checks and balances constantly evaluating and addressing what works, and what needs improving, in our public schools. To that end, unions, parent groups, as well as advocacy organizations and others, do indeed provide a significant counterpoint to top-down only ill-considered directives from politicians and agenda-minded "reform" movements.

In a democracy, it is essential that each citizen be given a place at the table of public education.

These days, testing, for example, has become a significant issue. In the '60's there was a feeling by many in this country that there was not enough accountability in our schools, and that we were graduating way too many people who never should have received a diploma. A testing and accountability movement arose in reaction to that perception. Today, some feel that the testing pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Teaching to the test, and covering topics for content in a time frame, rather than mastery, have become serious issues in some schools. I don't need to remind parents about the pressures that this constant testing regimen puts on students, as well, and particularly students who, for one reason or another, have had difficulty fitting in to a uniform expectation model. There have been huge amounts of dropouts in many school districts, oftentimes resulting in collateral issues extending well beyond the classroom walls. The "No Child Left Behind" Law was designed to address this, but has not done so to the extent that many feel could have been done.

As a trained teacher, (retired) I know, for example, that I could design a test that all students could either pass, or fail, depending on my choice of questions, or how I might phrase them. There are also elements of cultural bias that can enter into testing outcomes, as well as many other subjective factors, including how a student might feel on a given day, or, their ability to perform under pressure during a test. Tests should really be tools for remediation, rather than a cause for punitive retribution.

In my opinion, testing has oftentimes become a nightmare in schools today. I am actually also a huge fan on the Montessori system of open inquiry and the freedom to explore individual academic interests. That has become increasingly difficult with the lock-step curricular requirements in many of our schools, especially with all of the one-size-fits-all testing going on.

Granted, in a test-and-standards-free environment, there is that potential for a teacher to spend hours in a field, figuratively smelling flowers with the children, but on the other hand, is that always necessarily such a bad thing either, especially when compared to turning our children into neurotic pressure cookers in the currently fashionable educational atmosphere of "success or else!"?

There's a fine balance to be struck with all of this somewhere, to be sure, but this one thing I do believe: It's high time that the pendulum swings away from the one-size-fits-all educational model that is so prevalent today.

We do need all sides in this critical discussion of course, and to me, yes, that does include the unions.

(By the way, if we think that it's costly to do "collective bargaining" with public employee unions at the present time, I can just imagine how expensive this epic battle is about to get; for all sides involved...)

All just my opinion and I may be wrong, however unlikely that may be.

Back to the chalkboard, err, I mean the banjo...

Gary Rice said:

All just my opinion and I may be wrong, however unlikely that may be.

The good natured, yet confident attitude of Gary's quote I think is reflective of the best of this debate.

Roy and Tim have eloquently and emphatically put forward their case.

Likewise, Sean and Gary (with some help from Bryan) have put forward their side.

While I side with Sean, Gary and all the public employees who keep Lakewood nice and protect my safety (hehe, don't mean to tilt the deck!) what I most appreciate is the vigorous and intellectual debate on the Deck on this issue.

Would that that be the case in our State and nationally.

Stan

Roy Pitchford wrote:
I.

Sean, you weave a tapestry that makes it hard to disagree with you. I feel like you are one of the people I could have an honest, intellectual debate with, when we disagree.

I hope you understand the degree of respect I have for teachers (even if I now find my own education to have been somewhat lacking, particularly in history). I have no doubt that you care about your students and that you and your fellow teachers want nothing more than to see them succeed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II.

I am also greatly concerned by the political affiliations the unions are creating, whether official or not. The number of socialist organizations coming out of the woodwork is staggering and many of them are interested in the complete destruction of our way of life. Not exactly flattering company to keep.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.

In regards to public unions:
There's one thing I'd like people to keep in mind. When the union negotiates with a local/state/federal government, they aren't negotiating with their money...their negotiating with our money.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV.

Also, when unions have as much money as they do and can get friendly politicians elected, what's going to happen when negotiation time comes around? Do you really think that politicians going to be tough on them?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V.

In regards to SB-5 specifically:
Plain Dealer article, Sunday March 6, 2011

[list][*]I am currently in favor of eliminating the step-increases. Merit raises combined with some kind of cost-of-living/inflation based system would be my personal solution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI.

Tough times call for tough decisions. How would you deal with the budget issue? What services would you cut back or taxes would you raise? Nothing anyone does will be popular.

========================================================

Sorry for the goofy quoting of Roy's post, but I'm halfway to getting it right. Anyway, I've added roman numerals so that I can break down my response a bit more. I've got to say that I can't get too much further into the specifics, as it would take too much of my time to research everything, and I've got about 5 hours of papers to grade tonight. Anyway, here it goes...

I. Roy, if it's hard to disagree with me, then don't . If you respect teachers to the degree that you say you do, than join me in fighting this legislation. You can't say that you respect teachers and then support the dismantling of our protections, rights, and finances.

II. The bogey man of socialism that destroys our way of life. I'm not buying it. I'm more scared of the bogey man that is publicly destroying my way of life and is the cause of this debate. This line of hyperbolic rhetoric is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

III. When does the public money become my money? I've always assumed that once I fulfilled the obligations of my legal contract, than the money is mine. The cartoon video that was in Roy's post says that I pay my dues with public money. That's a pretty far reach, considering I have the option to participate or not participate in the unions, and my dues come out of MY wallet because i CHOOSE to do so. If it's always public money, than I have to admit that some of it is going to a pretty healthy video game hobby I have. By extrapolating along this line of reasoning, the government is funding video games for teachers. See, Glenn doesn't have the monopoly on Straw Man arguments.

IV. To turn the phrase a bit.... "Also, when WEALTHY CORPORATE AND PRIVATE FINANCIERS LIKE THE KOCH BROTHERS have as much money as they do and can get friendly politicians elected, what's going to happen when negotiation time comes around? Do you really think that politicians going to be tough on them?" Of course not. That's why we're seeing tax breaks at the top and an attack on teachers, police, and firefighters at the bottom. My example isn't hypothetical, it's what's really happening to us right now.

V. To eliminate step raises is to nullify the worth of the experience and professional development that I increase on a yearly basis. I'd say that I become more valuable to the district with every year of experience I gain. I'm more efficient than I was, a bit wiser than I was, and increasingly more capable of honing my skills in the classroom. As for merit pay, I think I need to see how the system would work before I passed judgment. As it stands now, we are about to pass a merit pay system in this state WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PLAN AS TO HOW IT WILL WORK. This seems to me like a train wreck itching to happen. I can think of no more irresponsible part of this legislation. Where's the plan? Who's making it? Who does it apply to? Nobody knows because there isn't a plan.
This isn't like campaign rhetoric, in which people can afford to be vague. This is pending legislation that is being bum's rushed into law.

VI. I'm not a politician or economist, just a teacher trying to serve in a district that is very vocally in support of the work that we do. I don't know how I would fix the budget. I do know that raising taxes shouldn't be seen as some kind of a nuclear option. I've also read many proposals put forward that don't have to include the destruction of my rights, working conditions, or bank account. But to debate this as a financial issue seems grossly inaccurate to begin with. As noted throughout this thread, this is a political power grab and should be seen clearly for what it is. We can't shy away from the Wisconsin governor's fake phone call with his master and all that the conversation says about the real motives of this move to break the unions. While the call was a prank, what the governor said was not. I am absolutely convinced that it is not budget woes that bring us to this point today.

So Roy, Tim, are you with me? Can you join me in fighting at least this version of the legislation? Like I suggested earlier, this thread is taxing my time right now and the format does not leave much room for point-by-point debate without fracturing into chaos. I'd love to sit down in person and discuss all of this. Takers?