Jury Nullification

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Mon Jun 25, 2001 4:28 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

I don't say this to be disrespectful; however, it's difficult to understand if you are not a teacher or someone in a school.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I went to public school for 12 years... granted that was, well... a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

Fine... Say I don't understand. I'm an intelligent human being, willing to listen... you're a teacher... educate me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

If your town didn't underspend per pupil then you are indeed a lucky system.

Yes, it's a small, but fairly well-off community that is part of a regional school system. My town pays (and has paid for many years) a much higher price per pupil into the regional school system so that our young folks (as well as those from the other towns in that system) can have a better than average chance/education. It shows in the number that go on to college and the ranking of the students in the SATs and MCAS scores. I don't really have a problem with funds going to educate the children... I just don't particularly care for some of the crap they're being taught.

(Don't get me wrong, I have friends who are teachers and they have specifically brought textbook issues before the school committee, parents and taxpayers to point out errors and problems in how the modern texts advocate a certain "point of view". Some of those teachers are wonderful people and educators that are way underpaid, IMNSHO.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Thank you for you statement about my financial status as a teacher. I wish it were that simple for a Manny Ramirez to give a few bucks out of his 26 million/yr, but since we are public servents, we must rely on the people of the town/cities to deem our worth, which they must think is crap.

Not all of us do...

I take interest in many different issues. But they all come back to some key fundamentals... in this case, it's that I want new, well-informed, contributing citizens to join society and the only way for that to occur is through education... either in a school setting or at home or both. Perhaps as you educate me on "how things are 'THERE'", you can also take away a different point of view (hopefully with enough eveidential backup to convince you of the validity) that will give some pause for thought when teaching certain subjects or "facts".

mikemurphy · Post by **mikemurphy** » Mon Jun 25, 2001 9:03 pm

Panther,

[QUOTE]
How very, ummmmmm, "King George-ish"!

Response:

Those states entered into an agreement in 1776, 1781, and 1789. It has nothing to do with being King George-ish. There were no rights other than slavery that were being stepped on here. It was more of a "if I don't get to do it my way, I'm taking my toys and leaving" mentality.

Not to debate your facts concerning their ranking in the world, but as a history person, I would love to see those stats somewhere. Could you tell me where you got those? Secondly, the reason the South was so well-off, was because they had so much free labor, which of course, as you well know, England and France abhored. Pressure from their two biggest trading partners surely would have changed the way the South did business (just speculation).

However, the means of self-sustaining their country lies not in their agricultural base, but in their industrial base. The South had only two or three industrial areas of note in 1860 (Richmond and Mobile). Some could argue Atlanta as well. None of these could rival the North's. Then let's talk about their economy. Their largest trading partner was the North. It is doubtful, they could have sustained the loss of that market.

mike

mikemurphy · Post by **mikemurphy** » Mon Jun 25, 2001 9:31 pm

Panther:

Well, first, unlike the monopolies you and the Cato Institute want to equate with public schools, I don't get to choose what it is I produce, or the "raw materials" I have to work with. Factory jargon aside, I can walk in on any given day to a classroom whose intelligence range, emotional stability, parental supervision, economic wherewithal, and so on varies wildly. I don't get to say, "you, you, and you don't belong here. Get out." Private schools can and do just that. So there we are, trying to learn US or World History, and in the meantime I'm to help them understand that they have responsibilities to one another as neighbors, American citizens, and human beings. Further complicating the picture is the fact outside my classrom the message they get bombarded with is, "Take care of #1 first, no matter whom you've got to step on along the way"...kind of like Libertarianism without the ten-cent philosphical vocabulary. That's quite an audience and quite a challenge, particularly when you throw in the attacks from the right, calls for "acountability" from the politicians (now THERE'S irony for you!), the people that think they can do it better ("Those who can't do..."), and let's not forget comparatively low wages, buildings that leak, and books that are just outdated if we're lucky.

That's the backdrop, and we can go from there. Bear in mind that your 12 years gives you a perspective, but that of a 6-18 year old, and unless you're going to tell me that you've maintained the same thinking all along (I know you haven't), then you've got to think a bit more into what you're claiming as experience.

Mike

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 3:13 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:
"Take care of #1 first, no matter whom you've got to step on along the way"...kind of like Libertarianism<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sort of thinking is precisely what is unappetizing about the notion of getting back to "traditional" or "original" American Values. Of course it's important to prevent the government from unreasonably restricting The People. But the notion of total individualism denies the fact that when everybody is dependant on everybody else unless you're subsistance farming or hunting. It's a matter of striking a balance between having the moral decency to care about people you don't know, and giving people the freedom to live their lives as they choose. Communism goes to far trying (and failing) to solve the first problem, and anarchy goes to far trying (and failing) to solve the second. We're somewhere in between and always have been. In the days of the founding fathers we were more interested in independance than in compassion. We're somewhat more interested in the latter now.
Personally I think that a system that endorses a myopic, selfish view is morally reprehensible, and we're better off now than before.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 3:44 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

Those states entered into an agreement in 1776, 1781, and 1789. It has nothing to do with being King George-ish. There were no rights other than slavery that were being stepped on here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait a minute! YOU wrote: "Just because they declared it (their secession and subsequent creation of the CSA -ed) and were able to gather up forces to defend it, doesn't mean squat."

You don't see how that statement can be equated to King George in 1775-6? King George could have said the same thing... and in fact, did have a similar attitude over the rebelling colonies. He didn't like what they did, so denied the validity and your statement is basically along the same lines.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

It was more of a "if I don't get to do it my way, I'm taking my toys and leaving" mentality.

So what was it that ticked you off? The fact that they left or the fact that they took all their toys with them?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Not to debate your facts concerning their ranking in the world, but as a history person, I would love to see those stats somewhere. Could you tell me where you got those?

Time on the Cross, Fogle, R.W. and Engerman, S.L. (Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA: 1974)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Secondly, the reason the South was so well-off, was because they had so much free labor, which of course, as you well know, England and France abhored. Pressure from their two biggest trading partners surely would have changed the way the South did business (just speculation).

It is indisputable that the abhorable institution of slavery was well on its way to an inevitable demise well before the War for Southern Independence started. However, I must point out that 1) the labor wasn't without costs and 2) an extremely small percentage of the population owned slaves. (But still, that small percentage included free blacks who also owned slaves!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

However, the means of self-sustaining their country lies not in their agricultural base, but in their industrial base. The South had only two or three industrial areas of note in 1860 (Richmond and Mobile). Some could argue Atlanta as well. None of these could rival the North's. Then let's talk about their economy. Their largest trading partner was the North. It is doubtful, they could have sustained the loss of that market.

Good... Let's talk about that northern industrial base. It wasn't doing too well... In fact, it was cheaper for the South to purchase those goods (such as textiles) from their European trading partners than from the North. AND the U.S. Congress continuously granted subsidies to the north to shore up their "industry". That was one of the main reasons for the split in Congress and the sentiments across the South. The South was paying 2/3 of the Federal budget, yet that money's distribution was nearly 3/4 to the North. Additionally, the "wealth" of the north at that time came not from their industrial base, but in no small part from companies such as the Massachusetts Bay Company, which made money running slaves through the slave & rum triangle. The U.S. Congress put heavy tariffs on the export of the Southern raw materials to make the sale of them more beneficial to the north. The South didn't like that, because it hurt their trade with Europe, the Western territories and Mexico. That was also a major bone of contention in the South. Once they had seceeded and they weren't bound by the tariffs, their trade picked up tremendously... however, the advent of the War reduced productivity and the economy.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 3:54 pm

First, I never said public schools were a monopoly... just that I don't like or agree with some of the things that are being taught there. There are a number of teachers who I know that agree with that accessment.

Second, I find it just as ironic as anyone that politicians are calling for accountablitity from any other group! AND I disagree with politicians setting standards for any other group in the manner that they have with the teachers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

So there we are, trying to learn US or World History, and in the meantime I'm to help them understand that they have responsibilities to one another as neighbors, American citizens, and human beings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A tough job, no doubt about it, but if it's so damn bad, why do you stay?

(Side note: I don't blame the teachers for all the ills of children... just some of them... There's plenty of "blame" to go around.

)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Further complicating the picture is the fact outside my classrom the message they get bombarded with is, "Take care of #1 first, no matter whom you've got to step on along the way"...kind of like Libertarianism without the ten-cent philosphical vocabulary.

It seems that you and Valkenar both think this is the Libertarian (and my) philosophy. But that isn't a valid analogy. It is obvious that neither of you actually knows what the Libertarian (or MY) philosophy is...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

That's the backdrop, and we can go from there. Bear in mind that your 12 years gives you a perspective, but that of a 6-18 year old, and unless you're going to tell me that you've maintained the same thinking all along (I know you haven't), then you've got to think a bit more into what you're claiming as experience.

Fine. I've already said so before... You're a teacher, I'm listening... educate me. So far, all I've read is a bunch of bitchin' and moanin' and rhetoric.

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:46 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It seems that you and Valkenar both think this is the Libertarian (and my) philosophy. But that isn't a valid analogy. It is obvious that neither of you actually knows what the Libertarian (or MY) philosophy is...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm fairly well acquainted with the Libertarian philosophy actually, and while obviously they don't advertise "every man for himself" as their slogan, it eventually comes down to that in practice. Libertarianism is too wedded to a shaky theoretical framework (economics).

Incidentally, I never mentioned Libertarianism in my post. I quoted Mike Murphy, and perhaps I should have edited out the use of the word Libertarian. I was talking about the attitude that some express, yourself included, that we should get back to the way things were (at least in some respect) in the days of the founding fathers. I wasn't asserting that you are a Libertarian.

mikemurphy · Post by **mikemurphy** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 9:02 pm

Panther:

I don't see the statement being equated to King George at all. The founding fathers had many more concrete reasons for going to war than the rebels in 1860. Debate them if you wish, but number-wise they don't stack up. It didn't matter what George thought, it was his actions that mattered. Lincoln gave NO reason for the South to break away; nor did his predecessors.

And nothing "ticked me off" as you say. The fact was that they were acting like spoiled children who couldn't get their way, but on a much higher scale.

Thank you for the book title, I'll look it up.

The money made from slaves far outweighed the "cost" it took to purchase and house them. And you are correct about the percentages; however, it was the higher, influential class that owned them, and they carried the weight when it came to secession etc. And yes, some free Blacks did owen slaves of their own, but the percentage is so small that it is not even worth mentioning.

Quote:
Good... Let's talk about that northern industrial base. It wasn't doing too well... In fact, it was cheaper for the South to purchase those goods (such as textiles) from their European trading partners than from the North. AND the U.S. Congress continuously granted subsidies to the north to shore up their "industry". That was one of the main reasons for the split in Congress and the sentiments across the South. The South was paying 2/3 of the Federal budget, yet that money's distribution was nearly 3/4 to the North. Additionally, the "wealth" of the north at that time came not from their industrial base, but in no small part from companies such as the Massachusetts Bay Company, which made money running slaves through the slave & rum triangle. The U.S. Congress put heavy tariffs on the export of the Southern raw materials to make the sale of them more beneficial to the north. The South didn't like that, because it hurt their trade with Europe, the Western territories and Mexico. That was also a major bone of contention in the South. Once they had seceeded and they weren't bound by the tariffs, their trade picked up tremendously... however, the advent of the War reduced productivity and the economy.

I would love to debate these issues with you at depth, especially the amount of the budget supplied by the South, the actually money being made by slave-trading and the rum triangle, and the supposed tariff on exports as you say; however, I do not have the books on hand that is necessary to look up the info.

mike

mikemurphy · Post by **mikemurphy** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 9:31 pm

Panther:

I'd still like to hear what it is you disagree with in terms of what is being taught. You mentioned one item which I disagreed with from experience, so what are the others?

quote:
First, I never said public schools were a monopoly... just that I don't like or agree with some of the things that are being taught there. There are a number of teachers who I know that agree with that accessment.

quote:
Second, I find it just as ironic as anyone that politicians are calling for accountablitity from any other group! AND I disagree with politicians setting standards for any other group in the manner that they have with the teachers.

Don't you think that it should be the teachers who should have a say in setting up the standards? Because they don't at present in any system I've heard of. Very rarely do you have what I would consider "qualified" people on school committees, and these are the people who set our standards. Or worse yet, college professors who haven't seen the inside of a public school since they were in elementary school.

quote:
Fine. I've already said so before... You're a teacher, I'm listening... educate me. So far, all I've read is a bunch of bitchin' and moanin' and rhetoric.

THAT'S the point. It's not bitchin, nor is it rhetoric. It's the truth and people either don't want to hear it, or don't want to do anything about it. You've been to town meetings, how many times have you heard teachers or representatives for the education field get up in from and plead their cases in much the same manner? I've heard in many times and I look around at all the unsympathetic faces in the crowd and wonder why. You want the answers, here they are, but you won't want to spend the money to get there:

1. Lower class sizes to no more than 20 per class. Studies show that lower class sizes promote better academic achievement.

2. Higher qualified teachers. You can't do that unless you decided to pay teachers what they are worth. Whether you like it or not, we are professionals who have many years of higher education under our belts and we get paid like crap

3. Allow the teachers (professionals) in on the decision-making process when it comes to what the kids should be learning and how it should be done. Believe it or not, we know. Do you ask a lawyer information about surgery? No you don't. So don't elect officials to superivise school systems that have no experience other than than own days in school to draw from.

4. Early retirement. Why do other state officials get to retire at 55 years of age and teachers have to go into their 60s in most cases. The burn-out factor is just as real in the schools. Allow for young, energetic teachers to enter the field and take the place of some of these teachers who have been teaching for 30+ years.

5. Alternative education for those children who do not wish to be a productive part of public schools. Why not force some of the private schools to take some of these screw-ups? Because their test scores would drop considerably, yet we are forced to deal with them day after day, and then we are forced to take the blame when MCAS scores come in and we are not in the top ten.

6. Take standardized tests as a means of graduation out of the mix, especially for SPED, alternative, and vocational students. Come up with a viable option for those students.

7. More technology and support for the schools. It's great that a school gets new computers, but then has no one to show them how to use them or fix them. It's a shame when the kids are more apt on the systems than some of the teachers.

8. Stop insulting teachers by forcing them to test every year or two. Does anyone else have to retest. Content knowledge is only 1/4 of the puzzle. The other part is that innate ability to teach, something you can't be taught.

Do you want me to go on? This is NOT bitchin' as I said before; however, people don't want to listen to the solutions because they may find they are wrong. School committees and administrators like to
get up in front of people and throw all the buzz words out there, but the real shame of it all is, they don't have the faintest idea of what is happening in the school system either. When is that last time I've seen a school committee member in my school? Answer? NEVER. I hardly see the superintendent unless there is a major problem.

I do my job because I enjoy teaching. There are moments when it is all worthwhile. You get a good class and it's a great year. It's really the outside factors that kill the love of the job. People criticizing me and my profession who have no right.
Let me ask you a question, would you feel good if someone shot down your profession who has no working knowledge of what you do, and then forced changes year after year on that profession making your job even harder. AND THEN, having to deal with bomb threats and gun-carrying youngsters every day you go to work. I don't consider it bitchin', but you tell me, do I have the right?

mike

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 10:20 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

I don't see the statement being equated to King George at all. The founding fathers had many more concrete reasons for going to war than the rebels in 1860. Debate them if you wish, but number-wise they don't stack up. It didn't matter what George thought, it was his actions that mattered. Lincoln gave NO reason for the South to break away; nor did his predecessors.

And nothing "ticked me off" as you say. The fact was that they were acting like spoiled children who couldn't get their way, but on a much higher scale.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're correct. There is no further reason to discuss or debate this. Your mind is made up and you've resorted to vilifying those you dislike.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The money made from slaves far outweighed the "cost" it took to purchase and house them.

Obviously. That is true with any economic decision. However, with the invention of the cotton-gin, the need for slave labor (or indentured white labor for that matter) was not only reduced, but quickly headed toward elimination.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

And you are correct about the percentages; however, it was the higher, influential class that owned them, and they carried the weight when it came to secession etc. And yes, some free Blacks did owen slaves of their own, but the percentage is so small that it is not even worth mentioning.

So an entire population went to war because 1% wanted them to. Hmmmm...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I would love to debate these issues with you at depth, especially the amount of the budget supplied by the South, the actually money being made by slave-trading and the rum triangle, and the supposed tariff on exports as you say; however, I do not have the books on hand that is necessary to look up the info.

Fine. But be cautious about only using sorces "written by the victors".

mikemurphy · Post by **mikemurphy** » Wed Jun 27, 2001 4:48 am

Panther,

We could debate the Civil War for years as some historians have done, but just to set matters straight. I neither villified nor implied my dislike for anyone. I merely stated facts that you may wish to argue, that is your perogative.

As for the cotton gin, I would disagree with your assessment. Eli Whitney's invention only support the theory that more slaves, the cotton gin, AND the opening of more territory equals more $$ for the plantation owners.

And yes the minority did dictate what the South decided to do.

And please don't assume I don't know how to research material. I have read plenty concerning the Civil War from a Northern, Southern, and Foreign perspective. The facts still don't lie.

Thanks,

mike

PS
Still waiting for your reply concerning education (what the real discussion is about)

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed Jun 27, 2001 2:57 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

We could debate the Civil War for years as some historians have done... I merely stated facts that you may wish to argue...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. I won't argue with you concerning the War for Southern Independence (or as my Granny called it until the day she died a few years ago, the War of Nawthurn Agreeshun

). But I do wish to point out that stating that "they were acting like spoiled children who couldn't get their way" is much more an opinion than a fact. As your opinion and one which is held by many northerners (as well as those who've been indoctrinated into "the South was baaaaad, so
we had to fight" school of thought), there's nothing to discuss. However, as a "fact", I don't agree with the assertion. Regardless, we'll drop the debate about State Sovereignty and that little historical time period.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

And please don't assume I don't know how to research material. I have read plenty concerning the Civil War from a Northern, Southern, and Foreign perspective. The facts still don't lie.

Lies, damn lies and statistics... Out of curiosity, what "Southern" perspectives have you read? Interesting if you have read true Southern perspectives and done that research and haven't at the very least changed it to "the War between the States", if not "the War for Southern Independence".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Still waiting for your reply concerning education (what the real discussion is about)

It's coming... I'm just debating with myself (and losing

) whether to continue it here or start a new thread.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed Jun 27, 2001 4:28 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

I'd still like to hear what it is you disagree with in terms of what is being taught. You mentioned one item which I disagreed with from experience, ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That one was a pretty important one... The history and founding of our nation and what that means is a cornerstone for future generations. I maintain my firm belief that teaching an incorrect, yet modern "PC" version of our history, founding and principles is an egregious violation of the trust that our ancestors and the citizenry place in the hands of those charged with teaching our children. You disagree with my points about what our system of government is, yet as you quickly point out in other instances, the historical facts are there to support my position. In this instance, in your classroom, you have the power to shape those minds following your beliefs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

so what are the others?

I'll come back to this very shortly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Don't you think that it should be the teachers who should have a say in setting up the standards?

Would you also suggest that we have the chemical companies set their own standards for how much waste they can put into the air and water?

How about pharmacuetical companies establishing their own standards of safety for new drugs introduced onto the market?

Should auto makers set their own safety standards?

Further, should we allow baby car-seat makers to make their own rules regarding safety standards for those products?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Very rarely do you have what I would consider "qualified" people on school committees, and these are the people who set our standards.

This leads me to believe that you feel that the average citizen who gets elected to the local school committee isn't intelligent enough to "understand" your perspective.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Or worse yet, college professors who haven't seen the inside of a public school since they were in elementary school.

Yet here you mention a group that, by definition, must have a certain amount of intelligence and logic, but you think they're even worse for the job.

Hmmmmm...

Who do you think would be "qualified" to be on the local school committee?

Childless accountants? They could be disinterested third parties who could look at the issues from a cost/benefit perspective. The parents and teachers probably wouldn't appreciate the cold, calculating, logical, bean-counter view of things. Can't say I'd blame them either...

Parents? Seems that parents would want to get the best education for their children. But the childless accountants might have a problem with the blatant conflict of interest.

I bet you think it should be teachers... guess we shouldn't mention any potentials for conflict of interest.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

THAT'S the point. It's not bitchin, nor is it rhetoric.

Prior to this post where you enumerated your position, well...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

It's the truth and people either don't want to hear it, or don't want to do anything about it. You've been to town meetings, how many times have you heard teachers or representatives for the education field get up in from and plead their cases in much the same manner? I've heard in many times and I look around at all the unsympathetic faces in the crowd and wonder why.

Because merely standing up and saying "we want more money. You have to give us more money. We need money to buy 'X'. We don't have any 'Y'. It's for the chiiiiiildren." gets real old, real quick. Especially when there is extra money given to specifically, buy 'X', fund 'Y', and make sure that the required needs are met.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

You want the answers, here they are,

Specifics. Thanks...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

but you won't want to spend the money to get there:

Maybe. Maybe not. But you've already decided whether I will or not without my input...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

1. Lower class sizes to no more than 20 per class. Studies show that lower class sizes promote better academic achievement.

In general, I agree with this. It means hiring more teachers, which is fundamentally the goal of the teacher's unions. But we had classes of ~30 students 25, 35, 45 years ago and yet the students of those times did much better in the basic skills of the "3 Rs" than current students.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

2. Higher qualified teachers. You can't do that unless you decided to pay teachers what they are worth. Whether you like it or not, we are professionals who have many years of higher education under our belts and we get paid like crap

Interesting that you feel that you need higher qualified teachers. I kind of find that surprising. Regardless, after that first line, I couldn't agree more with this point. Teachers should be paid to as the professionals that they are... and should be held accountable as professionals are.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

3. Allow the teachers (professionals) in on the decision-making process when it comes to what the kids should be learning and how it should be done. Believe it or not, we know. Do you ask a lawyer information about surgery? No you don't. So don't elect officials to superivise school systems that have no experience other than than own days in school to draw from.

To be a part of the decision-making process. That should be the case, by all means... IMNSHO. To have the final say? No.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

4. Early retirement. Why do other state officials get to retire at 55 years of age and teachers have to go into their 60s in most cases. The burn-out factor is just as real in the schools. Allow for young, energetic teachers to enter the field and take the place of some of these teachers who have been teaching for 30+ years.

But wait. There's a shortage of good qualified teachers around the country! Shouldn't we utilize good teachers regardless of age discrimination? And I hate to tell you, but those of us in the private sector that know all too well that we'll be working to 60 years old or beyond, general lack sympathy for anyone who wants early retirement and a full pension out of the public coffers. Besides, as perviously stated, with the need for more good teachers, there should be room for those young energetic teachers to be hired anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

5. Alternative education for those children who do not wish to be a productive part of public schools. Why not force some of the private schools to take some of these screw-ups? Because their test scores would drop considerably, yet we are forced to deal with them day after day, and then we are forced to take the blame when MCAS scores come in and we are not in the top ten.

I agree with an alternative for students who are disruptive on a continuing basis. There are already special classes for those who are either "challenged" (just being "PC" here) or "gifted". I suspect that those programs aren't funded to the extent that you would like. Perhaps they aren't funded at all in some school systems, I don't know. Forcing private schools to take some of the "slow" students... They're private and their teaching is a contractual agreement between them, the student and the student's parents. We don't have control over such a private institution in this contractual regard... and neither should we have. OTOH, the contractual obligation in the public schools is between the school system, the students and the public at large that funds the school system.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

6. Take standardized tests as a means of graduation out of the mix, especially for SPED, alternative, and vocational students. Come up with a viable option for those students.

Generally, I agree with this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

7. More technology and support for the schools. It's great that a school gets new computers, but then has no one to show them how to use them or fix them. It's a shame when the kids are more apt on the systems than some of the teachers.

Couldn't agree more. But when I've tried to donate PC(s) that weren't being used after we upgraded, the schools didn't want them. They wanted "newer, better PCs". In fact, they wanted what I just upgraded to! Sorry, but there's no need for a K-12 school to have the same high-end PC/workstation that I use to do engineering on, especially when what they're turning down is the previous version high-end PC/workstation that was used for professional engineering for a couple of years! I do agree that someone should be the "sys admin" for the school. Perhaps some extra pay for one of the teachers? Perhaps another position? Perhaps a private citizen volunteer who's a geek? I don't know what's the best answer and suspect that it depends on the school, but I do agree that the computers need to be kept in good repair for usage. However having someone there to show the teachers how to use the computers seems a little crazy. If the teachers are going to be teaching the students how to use the computers, then it seems to me that the teachers should learn how to use them first. (more on this coming...)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

8. Stop insulting teachers by forcing them to test every year or two. Does anyone else have to retest. Content knowledge is only 1/4 of the puzzle. The other part is that innate ability to teach, something you can't be taught.

OK... You want to be paid and treated like professionals and I agree(d). All the professionals I know (myself included) spend considerable time and effort (mostly outside of work hours) taking courses, honing skills, learning new skills, getting knowledge and certifications... all of which shows up on the job during the projects. The idea of teachers being "retested" has come about because a number (not all) have gotten by for a very long time without "keeping current". In other professional fields, if you don't keep current, you may very well find yourself looking for work... Teachers (for the very good reason of preventing politically motivated retaliation) have (generally at some point, but not always) tenure. IMSHO is that the "retesting" is somewhat of a backlash because of some abuses. I don't necessarily like it or think it's right, simply because I have problems with rules that are instituted against everyone because a few are the problem. Certainly with teachers the knowledge is only 1/4 of the equation... I've seen the "teacher's manuals".

And it's also true that there is a special skill that some people have to teach.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Do you want me to go on? This is NOT bitchin' as I said before; however, people don't want to listen to the solutions because they may find they are wrong.

Agree. This wasn't "bitchin'"... You had specific items and I adressed each of them. However, just because someone has a different view of each or any of those items doesn't necessarily make them "wrong".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

School committees and administrators like to get up in front of people and throw all the buzz words out there, but the real shame of it all is, they don't have the faintest idea of what is happening in the school system either.

Lack of information or lack of caring? I don't know for your school system.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

When is that last time I've seen a school committee member in my school? Answer? NEVER. I hardly see the superintendent unless there is a major problem.

While I don't like this from the school committee members, I can understand that many of them run for that position because they genuinely care and want to help, BUT that in many cases they have jobs that they go to that happens during school hours. Not an excuse, an observation. However, I would have a problem if the superintendent of my school system was never seen in the schools! That (IMNSHO) is unacceptable and unconcionable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I do my job because I enjoy teaching. There are moments when it is all worthwhile. You get a good class and it's a great year.

Great. Thank you. It's good to have people who are dedicated to teaching. (Now if I could just get you to teach about a Constitutional Republic...

)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

It's really the outside factors that kill the love of the job. People criticizing me and my profession who have no right.

Maybe they don't. Maybe they do. Your employer is the public who pays your wages. While you think you're underpaid and I might agree, the fact is that, just as in a Dilbert cartoon, even though your boss may be a complete idiot, the fact that they're the boss does give them a right to criticize your work. Right or wrong in the assessment is a different story, but the right to criticize is part of the employment agreement.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Let me ask you a question, would you feel good if someone shot down your profession who has no working knowledge of what you do, and then forced changes year after year on that profession making your job even harder.

No. And I don't expect you to either. I would (and have in the past) change jobs. Which is also your perogative. Whether you or I agree with it or not, the fact is, that is the nature of your employment. Personally, I would strongly suggest getting an alliance of parents that support your positions to act, in part, as your advocates in front of the school committee. It never hurts to have allies.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

AND THEN, having to deal with bomb threats and gun-carrying youngsters every day you go to work.

Both are felonys. On the first case, I watch the news, listen to the radio and read the papers. Everytime there's a bomb threat at a school (even if it's in East-nowhere, US) we hear about it for days on end. AND even moreso if it's a kid bringing a gun to school! Even though it isn't that common an occurance, when it happens we get bombarded with it on every station. So, give us a break... IF you face "gun-carrying youngsters every day you go to work", then you'd be calling the cops every day you go to work... and we'd be constantly hearing about how such-and-such school that you work in is a virtual war zone. Tossing out that kind of emotionalized propaganda does nothing but make me wonder what your agenda is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I don't consider it bitchin', but you tell me, do I have the right?

Sure you have the "right" to bitch... You also have the right to seek other employment and I have the right to wonder about, disagree with, and question your bitchin as long as I'm part of the group which is acting as your employer. If you want to have constructive solutions, you first need a constructive dialog.

Brat · Post by **Brat** » Thu Jun 28, 2001 4:42 pm

Mike Murphy,

Why dont you just do like my father did when he got fed up with the B.S. of teaching high school. He changed careers. You dont seem to be very happy in yours. I have all the sympathy in the world for people like policemen, teachers and emergency medical workers whose jobs are stressful, low paying, and thankless. But at the same time these jobs have been that way for years and I seriously doubt that anyone who enters these fields does so without the knowledge of the afformentioned. When I went to college, I specifically avoided majoring in various areas (criminal justice, education, social work, hospitality management, political science) because there was little opportunity in these fields and knew that if I did that I would be faced with what you are now. I hear people whining all the time about their career field all the while I doubt that anyone twisted their arms and forced them into it. I am a network administrator for a brokerage firm. I make $55,000.00 per year. My job has its bad points like everyone elses but at the end of the week I pick up my fat check then go home and do what really makes me happy with the capital to do it. And I bet I paid the same amount for my degree that you did for yours. Life is full of choices and we either have to live with the ones we make or make different ones.

mikemurphy · Post by **mikemurphy** » Thu Jun 28, 2001 9:34 pm

Brat,

Thanks for the response and your input.

QUOTE
Why dont you just do like my father did when he got fed up with the B.S. of teaching high school. He changed careers. You dont seem to be very happy in yours.

Response
First of all, this is where things get kind of mixed up. Panther and I have been having a deep exchange of ideas and complaints (which I will rely to his latest shortly), so unfortunately it sounds like I am sitting at work wishing I were somewhere else. I love my chosen career, but it doesn't mean that it's perfect as we can all see. It needs a lot of work, and hopefully change will happen, but it needs to be brought up to the right people to initiate change and to end the myths that have surrounded education for generations that some people now take as Gospel.

Quote
I have all the sympathy in the world for people like policemen, teachers and emergency medical workers whose jobs are stressful, low paying, and thankless. But at the same time these jobs have been that way for years and I seriously doubt that anyone who enters these fields does so without the knowledge of the afformentioned.

Response
You'd be surprised at what rookie teachers don't know about the profession. And just because these conditions have been the same for countless years, doesn't mean we have to sit back and like it.

Quote
When I went to college, I specifically avoided majoring in various areas (criminal justice, education, social work, hospitality management, political science) because there was little opportunity in these fields and knew that if I did that I would be faced with what you are now.

Response
I'm sorry you chose your career based on that assumption. Perhaps you could have been the world's greatest teacher or policeman. Who knows? But I certainly don't begrudge you the choice for your chosen career and for whatever reason. :-)

Quote
I hear people whining all the time about their career field all the while I doubt that anyone twisted their arms and forced them into it. I am a network administrator for a brokerage firm. I make $55,000.00 per year. My job has its bad points like everyone elses but at the end of the week I pick up my fat check then go home and do what really makes me happy with the capital to do it. And I bet I paid the same amount for my degree that you did for yours. Life is full of choices and we either have to live with the ones we make or make different ones.

Response
Or try to make the changes in the one's we have chosen and not run away from them because society or whomever has placed roadblocks in our way. I don't turn away from a confrontation. If everyone else faced it head on, maybe we would get someplace!

mike