|
|
Post by bob on Aug 21, 2006 21:36:29 GMT -6
But if you keep disagreeing with the SD when you using false info like this And is this a bait and switch like last year's P.E. proposal that turned into an increase in class sizes? Is there another true "end game" that we don't know about yet? I am going to have a long year of correcting it around here. Congrats on passing that Labor History class. Unions look out for their memebers, that's why they have them. I don't expect the union to look out for my kids' education. Teacher Unions are a fact of life in this system. We can either work with them or try to destroy them. CRAFT/CFO wants a war with them. The only loser in that war are our kids. As of today, no. If I get that choice job in 203, I just might be. |
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Aug 22, 2006 7:07:26 GMT -6
Lacy's Quote:
Bob's Quote:
I thought that this was a forum for people to express their OPINIONS. Lacy's statement started out with "I don't believe", which is one correct way of beginning to express something as an opinion and not pass off the information that follows as a fact. So, bob, congrats on passing that English class.
Unions definitely were formed to look out for their members but we might do well to take a look at some possible advantages of discontinuing their use in the education environment.
One possible advantage (for both the student and the GOOD teacher) could be that if a teacher's wages were based on their performance a teacher could actually make a higher wage than what they make due to a Union dumping all teachers together and getting a standard wage for all. Maybe a dashboard needs to be created to determine which teachers are producing and which are not. Personally, I believe that if you simply poll (or set up voting booths at the end of the year for) the parents whose children were taught by certain teachers and tally up the results, you find out pretty darn quick who the good teachers are, who the ok teachers are, who the mediocre teachers are and who the sucky teachers are. Pay them accordingly and then the teachers and the children will both win.
Teachers that maintain their excellent standards will have higher salaries and will be able to demand higher salaries. Teachers that suck get fired. Hey - this is starting to sound like the real world.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 22, 2006 7:17:58 GMT -6
Thank you. This is why I am for the dashboard but not at the expense of the classtime. I also think that this is one of the reasons why the union looked down on it.
Guess what would happen in this scenario? Teachers would grade easier becaue a happy parent is one whose kid gets an A. Mkae it easier on the kids, keep the parents happy equals keep their job.
Well, I believe that most of the SD is Evil/Unions are evil group would rather destroy the SD so they don't have to pay a few extra dollars for a top notch education.
Did I pass the CRH English class? Well, since I don't like the way you teach even though you taught me something, I would still fire you.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 22, 2006 7:25:46 GMT -6
FYI,
I started this thread partly because of the wording of the headline. I thought it was odd the were even using the word "Possible" , as most everyone knows they will need one...
unless of course someone like BB turns philanthropic and donates land.......
of course it's "possible" I win the LOTTO and donate to the SD too.
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Aug 22, 2006 8:03:48 GMT -6
Did I pass the CRH English class? Well, since I don't like the way you teach even though you taught me something, I would still fire you. It has been my experience (also, I learned in Psych class) that when one lacks the intellectual capacity or the verbal skills to have a meaningful dialogue, one of the things that could happen is that person will act out with hostility. Thanks for that lesson in Psych, bob... you were obviously paying attention in that class - they taught you that concept very well as you have displayed it time and again on this board. As for my statement about needing a dashboard for teachers. It is my understanding that the dashboard that the district wanted to utilize is for the monitoring of the children's education, not the determination of a teacher's abilities, so I don't see that as being the reason that the Union would not like the idea. More likely the Union doesn't want the teachers to have to spend extra time to learn a new technology or procedure. For the record. I am not necessarily against the dashboard idea. I simply do not know enough about it to be for or against it. Most likely it will not affect my children as they are older so I would probably back it if it seemed that the majority of people whose children would be affected by it wanted it. What I don't understand is the hour of class time being taken away to talk about the findings. It seems a bit counter productive to take away learning time to improve learning. As for the use of subs to do the first hour, once a week: As a former substitute teacher I can tell you that there is not a thing that ANY substitute teacher can't do in that first hour of class that the teacher does. It is the easiest hour of the day when one subs. If the real issue of dissent to the dashboard was the loss of one hour of LEARNING time than this is probably a pretty good compromise. However, if the dissent that the school board heard from the parents had more to do with babysitting issues then in that case the public would be paying for babysitting. Furthermore, if the dissent that the district heard had more to do with not liking the dashboard idea in general, then it would be another example of the SB trying to push something that the people do not want. Since I am not privy to the type of responses that were received I can not make this determination. To bring this thread back around to what its title indicates, it will be interesting to see the wording on the 2009 referendum. Will the funding of the 3rd HS be linked to funding for the subs? Will it be linked to funding for the dashboard? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 22, 2006 8:15:04 GMT -6
I <3 (heart) irony.
dialougue? Is that French for dialog/dialogue?
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Aug 22, 2006 9:53:23 GMT -6
Thanks for running my post through the spell check, bob. Sometimes I forget that tool is available to us on this site. I should use it more often, as I admit I do have atrocious typing skills. I'm curious as to why you didn't catch the other 5 typos I made and have since corrected.
Bob, you seem to be concerned that everyone on this site understand my post completely and have done us all the great favor of making sure everyone knows I made a typo. Since you have gone out of your way to do this I am going to assume that you want all the viewers of this board to understand all of the points I have made and that you agree with me. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Aug 22, 2006 14:52:53 GMT -6
But if you keep disagreeing with the SD when you using false info like this And is this a bait and switch like last year's P.E. proposal that turned into an increase in class sizes? Is there another true "end game" that we don't know about yet? "I am going to have a long year of correcting it around here." (quote from Bob) Bob, I don't want you to end up like Jack Nickolson's character in the Shining. Take it easy. "Congrats on passing that Labor History class. Unions look out for their memebers, that's why they have them. I don't expect the union to look out for my kids' education. " (Quote from Bob) Then why slam someone for disagreeing with the Union? They aren't looking out for my kids or your's. It's very hard to follow your arguments/positions when you contradict yourself. You know what they say..."All work and no play....... |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 22, 2006 15:59:04 GMT -6
It was proposed but it didn't happen because the SD got more money from the state. Instead of telling the whole truth, you thought you start a false story out there, in order to slam the SD again.
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Aug 22, 2006 16:33:12 GMT -6
Was that the same money from the state that the district got to improve Waubonsie after the voters turned down that proposal when it was tied to a 3rd high school referendum last year?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 22, 2006 18:08:35 GMT -6
I think you all should learn about state budgets and the allocation of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Aug 22, 2006 19:28:21 GMT -6
It was proposed but it didn't happen because the SD got more money from the state. Instead of telling the whole truth, you thought you start a false story out there, in order to slam the SD again. Bob, It was proposed and I didn't realize it didn't happen. Don't accuse me of "starting false stories and slamming the school district". I don't appreciate your insults. You constantly accuse people of things on this forum. What are you so afraid of? |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 22, 2006 20:19:06 GMT -6
This thread has degenerated to the point of losing it's point; which was I found it ironic that they (the SD) would even use the word "possible" as to lead us to believe there was a possibilty that they would not need it.......but opening a new HS is going to take funds, hence a almost certain need for a ref in '09.
This thread is now locked.
|
|
