My February issue was delivered to the wrong address, and I only received it perhaps a week and a half ago. I received the March issue yesterday.
I've said repeatedly that when a union is legally entitled to my money, as they are in California, they should be legally limited in what they can do with it; they should be required to focus only on member pay, benefits, and working conditions. I would not have near as much disgust with the CTA and NEA if they had to adhere to such strictures.
If you've read other recent posts here at RotLC you're aware that California is in a little bit of a budget pickle--we blow too much money on social engineering, we run businesses out of the state, and we tax the remaining businesses and people at rates higher than just about any other state in the union. Education is going to take a big hit in the upcoming budget, and if certain tax extensions don't pass, it's going to take an even bigger hit. I would say that's a pretty big deal and will definitely have an impact on my pay, benefits, and working conditions.
So what are the cover stories for the last two issues of the union mouthpiece rag? February's is about successful support for new teachers (won't be any of those next year anyway, after all these budget cuts and pink slips) and March's is about school programs for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students.
Looking at the table of contents in each magazine, the first reference I see to budget cuts or education funding is on page 34 of the February issue and page 32 of the March issue.
Remember, these people are entitled, by law, to my money, ostensibly so they can "represent" me before my employer.
4 comments:
I have found that most teachers' organization that label themselves as "national" feel the compelling need to address the rights of groups they consider to be politically marginalized. For example, I belong to the National Art Education Association and the Texas Art Education Association. The only reason I belong to either is because as sponsor of the National Art Honor Society I must be nationally affiliated and because I want my students to be able to compete in state art competitions, I have to be affiliated with the state organization. Whenever I get publications from these groups, their different attitudes are clearly revealed. The State pubs are based on what people are actually doing in the region at every level from elementary through college. But the national publication seems to need to address minority issues, gay issues, transgender issues as if art produced by such people is somehow different. Excuse me, isn't that stereotyping? And by that right, do they deserve access to grants, scholarships or other funding that is blocked to teachers who are limited by the fact they are not minority and not gay?
I am willing to bet that there has never, not once, ever been a transgender K-12 student.
@maxutils, are you kidding me? If you're defining "transgender" as a post-operative male-to-female (or vice versa), then you're probably right. But that doesn't mean that there aren't kids in high school, even earlier perhaps, who feel like they may not belong in the gender they were born into.
But that doesn't mean their art is any more different than their math or science or foreign language. So why are they entitled to special segments that address just their world view? If we did this with religions, the ACLU would have a field day.
Post a Comment