<p>
[quote]
I don't know what the law is but the teachers' union definitely spends huge sums in political ads, at least in California.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is absolutely the law, the Taft-Hartley Act specifically prohibits the use of dues for political purposes. If you see political ads paid for by teachers unions, (I don't doubt that you do) you can be assured that the money comes from donations to a PAC, not union dues. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not go into business for yourself (teaching, I mean) and make more money?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why would I do that? I have an opportunity to make a far greater difference teaching in a public school than I would in business. I am more concerned with making a difference in kids lives than making money. That's why I don't mind putting in the extra time after school helping kids.</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."</p>
<p>Political dues are collected separately. The issue before the SC regards to WA is should you be asked to op in or tell them you opt out? Currently it is assumed op in unless otherwise told. Interesting as I write this I recall the new retirement plan provisions the bush administration just signed. It seems you are now automatically oped in an employers retirement plan, and you have to opt out if you don't want to do it. Hmm? I guess if the political dues is unconstitutional, wouldn't the new retirement plan rules be too? </p>
<p>"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)"</p>
<p>That's because more often than not the gopers don't support educator issues. When the gopers come up with a good idea, they might find support after all. </p>
<p>"and at times have advertised against/for propositions that had nothing at all to do with education."</p>
<p>Maybe on the surface. I know teachers lobby for things like healthcare for children... with really doesn't effect education..directly. </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>And they let themselves be known. Their letters get published in union magazines, their opinions are respected. However at the end of the day it is a democratic process that decides things. If their concerns didn't carry a majority, it doesn't mean they weren't heard. It means the majority of the union don't feel the same way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, it's a matter of opinion. As wharfrat2 stated, the union spent huge sums opposing an outstanding GOP idea - vouchers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually that was Opie but I'll bite. As I have stated on this and other forums before I have no argument with vouchers as long as private schools are required to operate under the same parameters as public schools.</p>
<p>This means that they have to accept all students regardless of ability or income. It means that students with chronic behavior or attendance problems can not be expelled without due process. It means that private schools must accept students with IEP's and 504's, and students for whom English is not their primary language. It means that private schools have to meet AYP for all groups and subgroups in their student body.
It means that all private school teachers must be considered highly qualified.</p>
<p>If the gop is willing to require private schools to adhere to these standards then by all means allow tax dollars to be used to subsidize private school education. Before you object you should be reminded that these are the government enforced guidelines under which public schools currently operate.</p>
<p>Sorry wharf - I didn't mean to misrepresent you.</p>
<p>The voucher debate would be a whole new thread (actually a repeated one) but in the context of this thread, it illustrates the huge amount of money the teachers' union will spend on political advertising that not all of its members would agree to. IMO they want to protect the status quo at all costs.</p>
<p>I don't know any teachers, even non-members, who support vouchers. I'm not saying there aren't any, I just don't know any of them. </p>
<p>I'm feeling like a broken record here. Dues cannot legally be spent on political advertising. It is federal law. Only PAC money can be spent on political ads. Therefore teachers cannot legitimately argue that they are not members because they resent their money being spent in support of causes they don't support.</p>
<p>..and I know plenty of teachers in my State who favor the complete dismantling of the public system in its current state. Many of these teachers are 'veterans'; others less so.</p>
<p>However, wharfrat's posts deserve a more thoughtful reply. I can't do that tonight but will to respond a little later.</p>
<p>In the meantime, a thread begun in The Cafe overlaps with this topic. We were thinking about merging them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It means that all private school teachers must be considered highly qualified.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What public school teachers are is "credentialed." This is not the same thing as "qualified." The presence of credentials does not make someone a good teacher. Being competent at teaching would seem to be "qualified" to me, but I don't think the correlation between credentials and qualifications is very strong.</p>
<p>was it in Alabama that I read in USTODAY ( im at a hotel- it the only paper I saw) that a school teacher sued and won either $200,000 or $20,000 (I can't tell I don't have my reading glasses) because she couldn't get hired in the school district because her kids were in private school?</p>
<p>And I will respond that I have taught countless students who have entered public schools upon reaching high school and they are ill prepared for the level of work and expectations that our system has for students.</p>
<p>I have two in one of my A.P. classes currently. They were completely unprepared for the rigor of A.P. compared to their classmates who came from the public schools in our system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I will respond that I have taught countless students who have entered public schools upon reaching high school and they are ill prepared for the level of work and expectations that our system has for students.
[/quote]
I don't think too many people think that all privates are 'better' than all publics and all students educated in privates are somehow more prepared than those in all publics. There are clearly some publics better than some privates and the quality of teachers in each run the gamut. This doesn't take anything away from the idea of enabling parents to spend their tax dollars where they feel their particular kids will get a better education (at a school meeting certain requirements) rather than forcing them into a singular choice as it is now (short of moving - another thread). I for one, made a decision to move from private to public at around middle school. I investigated many privates first and concluded my kids could probably get a better education at the public than some of the privates. Other privates however, I felt would have been superior to the public however these were quite a commute for me and were costly. I might have considered it a bit more strongly if I had a voucher available.</p>
<p>And why do the unions oppose vouchers so strongly anyway? It would likely result in more teachers being employed as parents are attracted to schools (both public and private) with smaller class sizes.</p>
<p>Actually some unions require teachers to belong to the NEA and to state societies. I once investigated the cost of the negotiation which was estimated to only be about $25 . When asked if I could pay so I would not be a free loader, the rep went into a rage. Unfortunately, the unions do protect mediocre teachers and often inhibit good young teachers from getting additional salary awards for doing a great job. Do they protect teachers from some of the electorate that want them to work 18 hours days and be god and parent and perfect in many ways and be paid minimum wage? Yep , they do that too.</p>
<p>I don't think anyone is arguing against the strides unions have made for workers in this country.
However- when do the parents and kids get to be represented by a union?
As a parent who is involved in SPED education, we don't even get a mailing list to notify parents of meetings </p>
<p>I want to hear the parents who don't come to the board meetings, who don't have the wherewithall to hire attorney, to move to the suburbs or go private.</p>
<p>I want to see the money go into the classrooms
I don't want to vote for taxes for smaller class sizes and then find it is up to the school to decide if they want to use that money for smaller class sizes or for "teacher training"
puleeze- perhaps this years training session will help teachers set up their voice mail? :confused:</p>
<p>some of our schools have PTAs/(PTOs also- but they dont usually affiliate with a larger group) and I am involved with the district PTA for special education parents-however- we can't get a mailing list and we are very careful not to be seen as adversarial, and have shied away IMO of being as much of an advocate as parents need and expect</p>
<p>some schools don't even have PTAS-</p>
<p>while my daughters school pTA is very involved- it also seems to be mainly made of up parents who have students in the gifted program and who are themselves profs at the UW or at Microsoft- they mean well- but their childs experience in the public school system is different than a child whose parents aren't or can't be as involved-</p>
<p>I also can't remember a time when the city or state PTA wasn't a full advocate for what ever the city or state education union wanted- </p>
<p>However, I know quite a few parents involved in the PTAs at the city and state level, and it isn't uncommon to find that they also had quit their jobs years ago as I did, to put their energy into improving the school system, motivated by what their own kids needed, but weren't getting.</p>
<p>Id like to see an organization that would able to be heard- and taken seriously re what is going on day to day in buildings and classrooms- without experiencing repercussions for your child</p>
<p>I think wharf did raise some valid questions about vouchers. Most just offhandly blew wharf off, but didn't address the question. </p>
<p>Look up Bill Gates HS sometime, Lakeside HS in Seattle. Emerald can vouch (unintended pun) for it's reputation and quality. How many special needs kids does lakeside have? Are they equiped for special ed. Do they have remedial programs? None, no and no. So let's put a voucher system in place and at the end of the day, how many special ed kids would be enrolled? Now no disrespect to Lakeside as they do a fine job for the children of the well to do in the greater Seattle area, but they aren't set up in anyway to deal with any child who does not fit their ideal student. </p>
<p>The pro voucher folks always seem to think If I only had a voucher I could get my kid into abc school. That'd be great. Tell you what will happen, all abc school is going to do is add that price of the voucher into the cost to keep those who can't afford it now..out. </p>
<p>You'll also have to prohibit religous schools as now we have a church and state issue. </p>
<p>Ripple effect. Take your idea and stretch it out a wave or two. Is it still the best thing since sliced bread?</p>
<p>Look at healthcare.. as soon as a treatment becomes a mandated benefit the costs of that treatment rise. Do you think private schools will want to deal with folks whom they don't deal with now? Your kidding yourselves. </p>
<p>Wharft's point was a good one, There's no level playing field out there. You expect people to give up security but not yours of course. What would you be willing to give up to have a voucher system? Performance clauses?? Parenting contracts that you will provide the school with a quality child.. free of ANY issues of any kind? :) </p>
<p>You all seem to shake your head in dissappointment over the "system", yet aren't willing to give of yourselves to fix it. As long as the other guy shoulders the burden, your cool with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmmm? You just graduated HS? interesting. fishy? hmmmm. I almost wish I hadn't just deleted all your old pm's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, Opie, there is no need to delete your old PM's ... there is a tool that allow you to save them in various formats. If you really want to read again what I sent you earlier, I'd be happy to resend them. Fwiw, I'm not sure how "fishy and interesting" it would be to read again that I told you knew absolutely nothing about me but that plenty did. :)</p>