<p>"I see an organization that is entirely out of whack with its membership --not the mention the system and "customers" it pretends cynically to serve-- "</p>
<p>Wait Xiggi, I thought this was about teachers, not our government?</p>
<p>Are you by chance a member of that wonderful group the EFF? </p>
<p>They screwed up our kids big time in our district. Their best friend is Walmart. Sorry I've seen their "help" first hand. Their agenda isn't education, it's something else. If the Walton family stopped funding them, they'd disappear. That group is exactly why I support teachers unions. To keep these nutjobs at bay.</p>
<p>"the point is the union is using this money for purposes that it has every reason to believe are in the interest of the vast majority of teachers." </p>
<p>Things like M& O levys, Class size inititives, Building Bonds, Health Care for children, and so on.. all evil things to be sure. Blow it up as big as you want, doesn't make the EFF right or true, no matter what font you put it in. The EFF keeps rolling out initatives that the voters keep rejecting, not everybody in WA is as crazy as these folks.</p>
<p>"and fails to represent an extremely large minority that is coerced in paying dues that are blatantly spent on supporting political forces they categorically oppose"</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>I get 3,500 divided by 70,000 and come up with half a percent. That's an extremely large minority? :) Ok.</p>
<p>And xiggi before you jump on the EFF bandwagon. Let me tell you a story.</p>
<p>Our school board had two (of five) EFF members a few years ago. They got into a disagreement with the current super (he told them no on an issue) so they fired him and hired someone whom had never been a super before and came with a court ordered sealed file from the last district. They did not interview any other canidates (against district policy). The new super began to hire like minded people at very high salaries. Unless of course you feel a school district PR person SHOULD make $112,000 a year. </p>
<p>This super bloated the administration in the district, we within a year or so had more 6 figure administration people than we ever had before. Spent textbook monies on things besides textbooks. And then along with the eff school board began the assualt on the teachers. </p>
<p>This super drove several good prinicpals away to other districts because they REFUSED to treat their teachers the way the super wanted.</p>
<p>Eventually these things and many others lead to the longest strike in state history. </p>
<p>As the strike ended the voters removed the SB members they could and began a recall of the others. With a new school board coming on, the super was going to be let go. The old board in their last meeting gave the outgoing super around $380,000 of taxpayer money they didn't have to. It was just the EFF's way of saying screw you to the community. Yea, they're all about the kids... </p>
<p>Prolog, the new board followed procedure and interviewed several canidates (along with educators) and we found a pretty good guy. In fact he is a finalist for Super of the year nationally (final four). He is a good guy, a great listener, his efforts are well thought out and he includes those involved with the process. </p>
<p>Things are working better and the people in this community at least KNOW what the EFF is about. They aren't welcome here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I get 3,500 divided by 70,000 and come up with half a percent. That's an extremely large minority? Ok.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmmm! Inasmuch as that was not the point at all**, try this little shortcut straight from the SAT tips I used to post:</p>
<ol>
<li>Drop as many "zero" as you can => 35 over 700</li>
<li>Reduce => in this case divide by 7 => 5 over 100</li>
</ol>
<p>Now read 5 over 100 aloud! Now write that down: write 5 ... draw a line ... write 100 under the line. Is it 5% or 1/2%! </p>
<p>Oh my god, between you and the I.S. Weaver who declared that "his" membership of 2,700,000 teachers represented *10% * of the US population, we should not have many problems identifying the sources and causes of the inability of high schoolers to understand percentages as soon as their calculators die. </p>
<p>Allow me to add 1/2 of a :D</p>
<p>** as far as the point I made ... do you think that ALL teachers are automatically ultra-liberals who are de facto supporters of the politicans supported by the NEA? What is the percentage of policical spending that is NOT going to liberal causes? What is the percentage of the NEA membership that is NOT liberal?</p>
<p>Yeeeees it is 5%. My bad, good thing I'm not a teacher huh? Still if our president can claim a 1% margin of victory a mandate... a 95 to 5% difference might be significant. </p>
<p>"do you think that ALL teachers are automatically ultra-liberals who are de facto supporters of the politicans supported by the NEA? What is the percentage of policical spending that is NOT going to liberal causes? What is the percentage of the NEA membership that is NOT liberal?"</p>
<p>No I don't think they are all ultra liberals xiggi.... I think they opperate on a democratic basis and they choose via votes on the issues they have infront of them. They have debate, they have discussion.</p>
<p>Just cause you don't like how their vote on what and who to support turns out..doesn't make it a bad organization. It makes it an member driven organization. I would imagine more than 5% disagree with what the national does, but do they disagree with everything? </p>
<p>I mean, I disagree with my taxdollars being used to blow people up, but that is only a part of what goes on with my taxdollars. </p>
<p>Besides with some the label Ultra liberal anymore is applied to what many people used to call middle of the road. I guess "I don't support the troops" either. ;) </p>
<p>But yes, feel free to enjoy the math error. You certainly got me there.</p>
<p>Opie, the short answer to your question is: No, I am not a member of EFF. This said, should someone be ashamed to support their views and ... actions? Should someone be ashamed to support an organization that is financed by conservative foundations? </p>
<p>It seems that the biggest "problem" with those conservative foundations is that they do represent the who’s who in the support of national vouchers, school choice, and the scrutiny of the use of money by unions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
teaching is both a composite of learned or learnable skills and (more importantly, in my view) a gift and an art.
[/quote]
I think there's a lot of truth in this. Most of us have probably been exposed to teachers with the 'gift' and some passion for their profession and those that had neither. What I'd like to see is for those with the gift, the passion, and the ability to produce results to be paid more than those who don't fall into this category, even if the former are younger and might have fewer years in service.</p>
<p>One of the points I was trying to make in my earlier post is that I think there are a number of people (not all) who enter the teaching profession by default as opposed to others I've known who've basically wanted to teach their entire life. I think this results in a number of teachers who neither have the gift nor the passion nor the ability to achieve good results. This phenomenon may be compounded by the fact that teachers are so ubiquitous and everyone has been exposed to that career when compared to other career choices.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This super bloated the administration in the district, we within a year or so had more 6 figure administration people than we ever had before. Spent textbook monies on things besides textbooks. And then along with the eff school board began the assualt on the teachers. </p>
<p>This super drove several good prinicpals away to other districts because they REFUSED to treat their teachers the way the super wanted.</p>
<p>Eventually these things and many others lead to the longest strike in state history.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously, you were there and I was graduating from HS on the other side of the country. This means I have no grounds to dispute your story. However, is it possible that the laws of the State of Washington that restrict across-the-board cost of living increases and the impossibility to use unfunded TRI contracts played the largest role in that fiasco? In addition, would you be kind enough to explain how this type of strike was possible in your state? Aren't strikes illegal in your bucolic neck of the woods?</p>
<p>Hmmm? :) You just graduated HS? interesting. fishy? hmmmm. I almost wish I hadn't just deleted all your old pm's. </p>
<p>"In addition, would be kind enough to explain how this type of strike was possible in your state?"</p>
<p>Contract expired. and SB would not continue to talk under old contract, so they confiscated classroom keys and effectively locked out the teachers. Teachers were not allowed onto school property at risk of arrest. </p>
<p>You cannot "technically" strike under contract. But the courts tend not to rule on this issue, many times over. Instead this time the courts decided to end the strike by forcing the SB to work under the old contract while negoications continued. Thus the strike was over. Teachers went back to work and were paid under old contract, until a new one was worked out, after elections and the removal of the old school board and super. Things have been fairly good since. </p>
<p>"However, is it possible that the laws of the State of Washington that restrict across-the-board cost of living increases and the impossibility to use unfunded TRI contracts played a role"</p>
<p>Could you explain this sentence a bit better? What are you looking for me to answer? by across the board what do you mean..government employees, teachers or law enforcement, fire or what? Are you talking about tri schedule grandfathering or what?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"and fails to represent an extremely large minority that is coerced in paying dues that are blatantly spent on supporting political forces they categorically oppose"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First, federal law prohibits the use of union dues for political purposes so that is a specious argument. Second, where is that "extremely large minority" when it comes time for the union to negotiate a contract? Sure, this minority claims to disagree with the union or say that the union does not speak for them but they fail to either understand or admit is that they owe their salary and benefits to the contract that unions have negotiated on behalf of all teachers not just those who are members. If they are so resentful of the union, why don't they try to negotiate their own salary and benefits package and see what they get?</p>
<p>I am a teacher, a member of our local union, state teachers' association, and the NEa and proud of it. As for that "extremely large minority" I'll gladly say to them they are welcome, they can continue to freeload off the dues I pay each year.</p>
<p>As for those of you who are critical of teacher salaries I would say, you do it.
Do what I do for 45 weeks a year and tell me I make too much or have it easy because I get summers off. Grade 268 essays for an A.P. course over a two week period and tell me I make too much. Stay with a group of students who have asked for additional help, or who need to make-up a test or whatever for an additional hour or two a day, EVERY day, for no additional pay, then go home and grade the aforementioned essays for two hours that evening and tell me I am overpaid. With regard to the earlier post that made mention of $70,000 salaries I can tell you that at the top of the scale in our school system I will not make that much.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I'm not nearly as bitter as this post may make me sound. I knew what I was getting into when I went into teaching. I do it because I love it, but do not dare tell me that teachers are overpaid or that unions only exist to protect poor teachers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
federal law prohibits the use of union dues for political purposes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know what the law is but the teachers' union definitely spends huge sums in political ads, at least in California. I had to hear/see them repeatedly during certain propositions. They're not endorsing a particular candidate but they're clearly endorsing a proposition which is usually aligned with a particular political party (always the Dems) and at times have advertised against/for propositions that had nothing at all to do with education.</p>
<p>There are certainly members of the teachers' union who oppose much of this spending on political positions for which they might not be aligned with.</p>
<p>Almost the entire funding of the vote-no side during the California voucher initiative in the 1990s was from the California teacher union. This is a matter of public record, but the filings that revealed this happened after the election. </p>