Blogging will resume when I feel up to it.
Update, 3/31/05: I don't feel up to it at all. But I'm going to give it a try.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Lies of Omission From the CTA
It's that time of the month again, and gracing my mailbox today was none other than California Educator magazine, the mouthpiece rag of the California Teachers Association.
I thought I'd take a gander through the pages and read up on the union's spin on, and justification for, the soon-to-be-rubber-stamped increase in my union dues of $180 per year. Here on page 4, in the President's column? No, no mention of it there. Here on page 6, with the cover story about gender equity? No, nothing there. Turn turn turn, nothing.
What do I find on page 21, though? A column entitled "Don't sign the governor's petitions". Here's what part of that article says:
Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. This measure would silence the voices of teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees in the political process by entangling unions in useless paperwork. It would require unions to get prior consent each year on a specified written form before using dues for political contributions. CTA's position: Teachers and other public employees would no longer be allowed to raise their voices in defense of public education.
Imagine that! Poor CTA, having to actually get my permission before spending money they extorted from me on causes I don't support! At least they finally admit, though, that they're spending dues money for political contributions.
Nothing I can find on increasing my overall dues 20% (and CTA dues even more). They don't want their members to know. Of course, what would it matter if the teachers did know? They have no ability to veto the move anyway. The Education Wonks and I have regaled you many times with stories about the anti-democratic nature of the CTA. What they do tell you about, and what they don't tell you about, in the March 2005 issue just adds more credence to those views.
I thought I'd take a gander through the pages and read up on the union's spin on, and justification for, the soon-to-be-rubber-stamped increase in my union dues of $180 per year. Here on page 4, in the President's column? No, no mention of it there. Here on page 6, with the cover story about gender equity? No, nothing there. Turn turn turn, nothing.
What do I find on page 21, though? A column entitled "Don't sign the governor's petitions". Here's what part of that article says:
Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. This measure would silence the voices of teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees in the political process by entangling unions in useless paperwork. It would require unions to get prior consent each year on a specified written form before using dues for political contributions. CTA's position: Teachers and other public employees would no longer be allowed to raise their voices in defense of public education.
Imagine that! Poor CTA, having to actually get my permission before spending money they extorted from me on causes I don't support! At least they finally admit, though, that they're spending dues money for political contributions.
Nothing I can find on increasing my overall dues 20% (and CTA dues even more). They don't want their members to know. Of course, what would it matter if the teachers did know? They have no ability to veto the move anyway. The Education Wonks and I have regaled you many times with stories about the anti-democratic nature of the CTA. What they do tell you about, and what they don't tell you about, in the March 2005 issue just adds more credence to those views.
And These People Dictate How To Teach?
Working on the public dime, I understand the need for local, state, and even federal government to have some oversight into what goes on in classrooms. However, given some of the idiocy that sometimes comes from politicians (and I do not count NCLB as part of that idiocy), I sometimes wonder if they shouldn't spend just a day in a random urban classroom before passing any education-related legislation. At least then they might know of which they speak.
And then idiocy like this happens.
I've blasted NYC schools before (here), but they just keep going one step further. Excerpt:
NEW YORK - City officials recalled preparation material for math tests that had been sent to teachers after discovering they were filled with math and spelling mistakes.
And then idiocy like this happens.
I've blasted NYC schools before (here), but they just keep going one step further. Excerpt:
NEW YORK - City officials recalled preparation material for math tests that had been sent to teachers after discovering they were filled with math and spelling mistakes.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
A Humorous View of The Dark Side of Campus Political Correctness
Read this short article, which talks about and links to Evan Coyne Maloney's hilarious documentary Brainwashing 101. Maloney makes the kind of documentary that that more famous guy would make if he weren't so dishonest--or intent on attacking the President.
Two Organizations You Should Know About
I've already mentioned Protest Warriors. They're the good guys.
I've already spent way too many electrons mentioning the California Teachers Association. They're the bad guys.
You probably already know about the ACLU, who are usually the bad guys but every once in awhile, perhaps only by accident, they get something right.
Then there are two others you should know about.
Go to the NoIndoctrination.org web site. Here's part of what's on their Mission Statement page:
NoIndoctrination.org is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that collects and disseminates information to promote the importance of multiple and contrasting points of view in higher education. Our mission will be accomplished in the following ways:
1. To give a voice to the voiceless.
2. To inform the public about the frequent lack of balance in higher education.
3. To educate the public about academic freedom and open inquiry.
4. To notify college administrators and support organizations about possible indoctrination.
View or leave a posting. Look up your university and see if anyone's posted a complaint. Or be the first on your block to do so!
The next is FIRE, the Foundation For Individual Rights in Education. From their About page:
The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience -- the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.
FIRE goes after schools with unconstitutional speech codes, among other malfeasance, and often with surprising results. Their blog, The Torch, is accessible from the main page. High school seniors planning on going to college should order the FIRE Guides relating to free speech, due process, student fees, religious liberty, and first year orientation and thought reform.
The antidote to hate speech, or any speech you disagree with, is not censorship. It's more speech.
I've already spent way too many electrons mentioning the California Teachers Association. They're the bad guys.
You probably already know about the ACLU, who are usually the bad guys but every once in awhile, perhaps only by accident, they get something right.
Then there are two others you should know about.
Go to the NoIndoctrination.org web site. Here's part of what's on their Mission Statement page:
NoIndoctrination.org is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that collects and disseminates information to promote the importance of multiple and contrasting points of view in higher education. Our mission will be accomplished in the following ways:
1. To give a voice to the voiceless.
2. To inform the public about the frequent lack of balance in higher education.
3. To educate the public about academic freedom and open inquiry.
4. To notify college administrators and support organizations about possible indoctrination.
View or leave a posting. Look up your university and see if anyone's posted a complaint. Or be the first on your block to do so!
The next is FIRE, the Foundation For Individual Rights in Education. From their About page:
The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience -- the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.
FIRE goes after schools with unconstitutional speech codes, among other malfeasance, and often with surprising results. Their blog, The Torch, is accessible from the main page. High school seniors planning on going to college should order the FIRE Guides relating to free speech, due process, student fees, religious liberty, and first year orientation and thought reform.
The antidote to hate speech, or any speech you disagree with, is not censorship. It's more speech.
When Should Students Be Suspended?
No doubt each school or district has rules or punishment guidelines that dictate which offenses by students are "suspendable" and which are not. For example, fighting at school certainly merits a suspension, whereas chewing gum in my class (which should merit beatings, many many beatings**, this late in the school year) almost certainly does not.
Kimberly of Number 2 Pencil (link is in the left column) disagrees with me about so-called "zero tolerance" policies. If I understand her position correctly, she doesn't think they should exist at all. I support them to a moderate degree but think they are often abused and applied without thinking. "Zero tolerance" for drugs or weapons on campus is a good thing. Classifying a butter knife in a student's lunch bag as a weapon is stupidity.
And after having mentioned all that, I'll say that this post has nothing to do with zero tolerance!
But it does have to do with suspension. Click here (and in the update here) and read about a student who was suspended for taking pictures of his principal, who was violating state law. Click here to learn the outcome.
As I said in my comment in Joanne Jacobs' post: One way to avoid looking like a fool in front of your students is not to be one.
**This is an in-class joke. I do not in any way advocate or use physical violence towards my students. Although sometimes I should :-)
The fact that I think it necessary to put this disclaimer here should tell you much about the sad state of affairs in our society.
Kimberly of Number 2 Pencil (link is in the left column) disagrees with me about so-called "zero tolerance" policies. If I understand her position correctly, she doesn't think they should exist at all. I support them to a moderate degree but think they are often abused and applied without thinking. "Zero tolerance" for drugs or weapons on campus is a good thing. Classifying a butter knife in a student's lunch bag as a weapon is stupidity.
And after having mentioned all that, I'll say that this post has nothing to do with zero tolerance!
But it does have to do with suspension. Click here (and in the update here) and read about a student who was suspended for taking pictures of his principal, who was violating state law. Click here to learn the outcome.
As I said in my comment in Joanne Jacobs' post: One way to avoid looking like a fool in front of your students is not to be one.
**This is an in-class joke. I do not in any way advocate or use physical violence towards my students. Although sometimes I should :-)
The fact that I think it necessary to put this disclaimer here should tell you much about the sad state of affairs in our society.
Protest Warriors
When was the last time you saw a bunch of conservatives here in America flooding the streets, throwing bricks through windows, overturning squad cars, and setting garbage cans on fire?
You haven't. That's how the crazies and lefties act. Remember, for them, the end justifies the means. By Any Means Necessary.
I draw your attention to Protest Warrior, a fantastic group of patriotic Americans. From their web site:
"ProtestWarrior HQ is a new way for fellow liberty-lovers across the planet to mobilize against the left within their own cities. As you know, those on the left usually carry the loudest microphones...but they go silent quickly when truth is thrown back in their face." The weapon of choice for the Protest Warrior is the sign, emblazoned with words of truth.
Gotta love this kid, a high school senior, who certainly showed some juevos in challenging lefty orthodoxy at his school. I know I wouldn't have remained as calm as he apparently did.
You haven't. That's how the crazies and lefties act. Remember, for them, the end justifies the means. By Any Means Necessary.
I draw your attention to Protest Warrior, a fantastic group of patriotic Americans. From their web site:
"ProtestWarrior HQ is a new way for fellow liberty-lovers across the planet to mobilize against the left within their own cities. As you know, those on the left usually carry the loudest microphones...but they go silent quickly when truth is thrown back in their face." The weapon of choice for the Protest Warrior is the sign, emblazoned with words of truth.
Gotta love this kid, a high school senior, who certainly showed some juevos in challenging lefty orthodoxy at his school. I know I wouldn't have remained as calm as he apparently did.
Teaching Disrespect For The Military
I honestly don't understand the impulse that some people have against the military. Did this vile hatred exist before Vietnam, and people just mostly kept it to themselves? Or did Vietnam make it OK to denigrate the national service of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines? Or would the lefties not mind the military so much if it were enforcing their world view?
I just don't know.
I already related here about learning that anti-military brochures being found on a table in my school's counseling office.
This story cries out for an explanation that doesn't make the teacher look like a fool. Boys and girls, can you say "inappropriate"? I knew you could.
And now we have this story (available on any number of sites) about an intellectual "ambush" which took place in--you guessed it--Seattle. (Aside: what is it about Seattle that makes them nuts up there? Is it all the rain? What? And with as many Army, Navy, and Air Force bases in the vicinity, you'd think they'd like the economic boost). Students rehearsing some kind of skit about US servicemen and women killing civilians? Adults dressed like prisoners in some Abu Ghraib diorama? But wait, there's more. This was supposed to be a forum in which the war was going to be discussed from several angles, with uniformed servicemembers present.
Are the lefties so far gone now that civil discourse no longer has meaning for them? Does their message justify any means necessary (to borrow from a lefty hate group) to get the word out? I'm wondering if denigrating police officers is next. And then FBI or ATF or INS agents. And then abortion doctors.
Oops! Wrong side of the political divide.
I've always believed that people can think what they want, even hate whom they want. Legal restrictions are placed only on their actions, not their thoughts. It would be nice but naive to think, though, that common courtesy would guide some of their actions. It would be nicer, and even more naive, to think they wouldn't so blatantly indoctrinate students in these acts of hatred--a term they so often rail against.
Update, 3/26/05, 9:43 am: As if on queue, a teach-in is held in Berkeley. Go here to read about this obviously balanced and unbiased presentation, and wonder what it would have been like outside (or even inside) if opposing viewpoints had been on display.
The idea of the anti-war teach-in—four different presentations given to four groups of about 300 students—was hatched by students studying social justice and social action in CAS, Berkeley High’s Communication Arts and Sciences school. The project was guided by CAS teacher Joanna Sapir.
I just don't know.
I already related here about learning that anti-military brochures being found on a table in my school's counseling office.
This story cries out for an explanation that doesn't make the teacher look like a fool. Boys and girls, can you say "inappropriate"? I knew you could.
And now we have this story (available on any number of sites) about an intellectual "ambush" which took place in--you guessed it--Seattle. (Aside: what is it about Seattle that makes them nuts up there? Is it all the rain? What? And with as many Army, Navy, and Air Force bases in the vicinity, you'd think they'd like the economic boost). Students rehearsing some kind of skit about US servicemen and women killing civilians? Adults dressed like prisoners in some Abu Ghraib diorama? But wait, there's more. This was supposed to be a forum in which the war was going to be discussed from several angles, with uniformed servicemembers present.
Are the lefties so far gone now that civil discourse no longer has meaning for them? Does their message justify any means necessary (to borrow from a lefty hate group) to get the word out? I'm wondering if denigrating police officers is next. And then FBI or ATF or INS agents. And then abortion doctors.
Oops! Wrong side of the political divide.
I've always believed that people can think what they want, even hate whom they want. Legal restrictions are placed only on their actions, not their thoughts. It would be nice but naive to think, though, that common courtesy would guide some of their actions. It would be nicer, and even more naive, to think they wouldn't so blatantly indoctrinate students in these acts of hatred--a term they so often rail against.
Update, 3/26/05, 9:43 am: As if on queue, a teach-in is held in Berkeley. Go here to read about this obviously balanced and unbiased presentation, and wonder what it would have been like outside (or even inside) if opposing viewpoints had been on display.
The idea of the anti-war teach-in—four different presentations given to four groups of about 300 students—was hatched by students studying social justice and social action in CAS, Berkeley High’s Communication Arts and Sciences school. The project was guided by CAS teacher Joanna Sapir.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
ALL Tests Are Unfair
Go read this post at Number 2 Pencil to learn more about how the University of California system continues to shame itself. Kimberly says it best:
Classic misunderstanding of test bias. The results of using PSAT score as a cutoff don't agree with the politically-correct version of how UC officials think the world should work; thus, the test is allegedly unfair.
Classic misunderstanding of test bias. The results of using PSAT score as a cutoff don't agree with the politically-correct version of how UC officials think the world should work; thus, the test is allegedly unfair.
The Coming Republican Schism
In a TechCentral Station column, Ryan Sager sums up my view on the current overreaching of the Republican-controlled Congress:
In coming years, political historians might look back and try to pinpoint the day or week or month that the Republican Party shed the last vestiges of its small-government philosophy. If and when they do, the week just past should make the short list. For it was in this last week that the Republican-controlled Congress made it clear that it sees no area of American life -- none too trivial and none too intimate -- that the federal government should not permeate with its power.
It can all be summed up in two words: steroids and Schiavo.
Go read the whole thing.
The Republicans were a good minority party in Congress. In fact, they were a pretty good majority party in Congress--under a Democrat president. However, proving the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Republicans have now shed Reagan's small government philosophy and are extending the government arm into the furthest reaches of private lives.
Either Republicans believe in small government, in keeping government off the backs of the people, of minimally-intrusive government, or they see government as a power by which "correct" views can be forced upon the citizenry. This latter view sounds very Democratic to me. Social engineering is not the role of government, no matter which party is in power--Republicans used to believe that.
I fear a schism coming, one in which the libertarian wing of the party (of which I am firmly a member) can no longer tolerate the excesses of the we've-got-the-power,-the-end-justifies-the-means wing. The American center deserves better than it's getting from both major parties, especially from the Republicans.
I expected more from them. I expected them to live up to the party's ideals.
Update, 3/22/05, 3:38 pm: I thought that perhaps I should be very clear about what it is I'm addressing in this post.
I'm sympathetic to Terri Schiavo's parents. Additionally, there's no such thing as "artificial feeding". We all need food--it's not like her stomach isn't working. Forcing someone to die of starvation and dehydration seems sick and cruel to me, whether or not they're aware of what's happening to them. In a case like this, I'm not sure that Dr. Kevorkian wouldn't have the answer. Is this how you put a pet "to sleep"?
What I am sure of, though, is that the Congress should have no say in this issue at all. This is a family issue and at most a state issue. I can find nothing in Congress' enumerated powers that could possibly justify their interference in this case. Is the Congress going to get involved every single time a state makes a decision that the majority in Congress disapproves of? I hope not, because the Republicans will not be in charge of the Congress forever.
In "standing up for life" in this one case, the Republican Congressional majority casts away any credibility it ever had with regards to federalism. Protecting Terri's life might be the right and moral thing to do, I'm honestly not sure in this case. But I am sure that throwing out the Constitution is not the right way to save her life.
And on a completely different note: I wonder how many anti-death-penalty, pro-abortion people there are chanting for this woman's death.
Update #2, 3/22/05, 3:53pm: Click here for an extremely short work of fiction which reminds me, however tangentially, of this issue.
Update #3, 3/22/05, 7:45pm: While I'm not a big fan of the Associated Press, they have a short article about the concerns I've expressed above.
Update #4, 3/23/05, 11:16am: USAToday carries an interesting article discussing the hypocrisy of both Democrats and Republicans on this issue. And Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post sums up the situation this way: We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.
Update #5, 3/25/05, 2:35 pm: Glenn obviously read this posting and wrote the 2nd paragraph of this post on Instapundit.
In coming years, political historians might look back and try to pinpoint the day or week or month that the Republican Party shed the last vestiges of its small-government philosophy. If and when they do, the week just past should make the short list. For it was in this last week that the Republican-controlled Congress made it clear that it sees no area of American life -- none too trivial and none too intimate -- that the federal government should not permeate with its power.
It can all be summed up in two words: steroids and Schiavo.
Go read the whole thing.
The Republicans were a good minority party in Congress. In fact, they were a pretty good majority party in Congress--under a Democrat president. However, proving the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Republicans have now shed Reagan's small government philosophy and are extending the government arm into the furthest reaches of private lives.
Either Republicans believe in small government, in keeping government off the backs of the people, of minimally-intrusive government, or they see government as a power by which "correct" views can be forced upon the citizenry. This latter view sounds very Democratic to me. Social engineering is not the role of government, no matter which party is in power--Republicans used to believe that.
I fear a schism coming, one in which the libertarian wing of the party (of which I am firmly a member) can no longer tolerate the excesses of the we've-got-the-power,-the-end-justifies-the-means wing. The American center deserves better than it's getting from both major parties, especially from the Republicans.
I expected more from them. I expected them to live up to the party's ideals.
Update, 3/22/05, 3:38 pm: I thought that perhaps I should be very clear about what it is I'm addressing in this post.
I'm sympathetic to Terri Schiavo's parents. Additionally, there's no such thing as "artificial feeding". We all need food--it's not like her stomach isn't working. Forcing someone to die of starvation and dehydration seems sick and cruel to me, whether or not they're aware of what's happening to them. In a case like this, I'm not sure that Dr. Kevorkian wouldn't have the answer. Is this how you put a pet "to sleep"?
What I am sure of, though, is that the Congress should have no say in this issue at all. This is a family issue and at most a state issue. I can find nothing in Congress' enumerated powers that could possibly justify their interference in this case. Is the Congress going to get involved every single time a state makes a decision that the majority in Congress disapproves of? I hope not, because the Republicans will not be in charge of the Congress forever.
In "standing up for life" in this one case, the Republican Congressional majority casts away any credibility it ever had with regards to federalism. Protecting Terri's life might be the right and moral thing to do, I'm honestly not sure in this case. But I am sure that throwing out the Constitution is not the right way to save her life.
And on a completely different note: I wonder how many anti-death-penalty, pro-abortion people there are chanting for this woman's death.
Update #2, 3/22/05, 3:53pm: Click here for an extremely short work of fiction which reminds me, however tangentially, of this issue.
Update #3, 3/22/05, 7:45pm: While I'm not a big fan of the Associated Press, they have a short article about the concerns I've expressed above.
Update #4, 3/23/05, 11:16am: USAToday carries an interesting article discussing the hypocrisy of both Democrats and Republicans on this issue. And Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post sums up the situation this way: We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.
Update #5, 3/25/05, 2:35 pm: Glenn obviously read this posting and wrote the 2nd paragraph of this post on Instapundit.
Monday, March 21, 2005
A New Link
I've been reading Discriminations for quite some time; in fact, it's one of the dozen or so blogs I read daily. I enjoy it so much that I've decided to add it to my list of links, over in the left column. From the web site:
who? Discriminations is the joint production of John and Jessie Rosenberg. John is one of the world's older grad students, now completing a 30-year overdue dissertation at Stanford on discrimination. Jessie, who has adopted Honorary Founding Blogger status, is an 18 year old (!) first year grad student in applied physics at Caltech. She doesn't have time to sleep, much less blog.
what? John's focus, not surprisingly, will be on the theory and practice of discrimination, and how it is reported and analyzed.
Jessie's will be discriminating thoughts on ... whatever catches her fancy or attracts her attention.
I haven't seen anything from Jessie in a long time, but John's analysis more than makes up for that absence. I hope you enjoy the commentary on that site.
who? Discriminations is the joint production of John and Jessie Rosenberg. John is one of the world's older grad students, now completing a 30-year overdue dissertation at Stanford on discrimination. Jessie, who has adopted Honorary Founding Blogger status, is an 18 year old (!) first year grad student in applied physics at Caltech. She doesn't have time to sleep, much less blog.
what? John's focus, not surprisingly, will be on the theory and practice of discrimination, and how it is reported and analyzed.
Jessie's will be discriminating thoughts on ... whatever catches her fancy or attracts her attention.
I haven't seen anything from Jessie in a long time, but John's analysis more than makes up for that absence. I hope you enjoy the commentary on that site.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
More on the CTA Money Grab
The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation went to work to challenge CTA's proposed dues increase, the one specifically intended to raise money to challenge the governor's proposals.
The Sacramento Bee (free registration required) reports that an initiative is in the works to require public unions to get written permission from members before spending dues money for political purposes. Any such proposal gets a big "thumbs up" here at Right On The Left Coast!
It's good to know I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness.
The Sacramento Bee (free registration required) reports that an initiative is in the works to require public unions to get written permission from members before spending dues money for political purposes. Any such proposal gets a big "thumbs up" here at Right On The Left Coast!
It's good to know I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness.
In Order To Form A More Perfect Union
I've had this idea in my mind for several years now, one that involves significantly reducing my union dues while simultaneously increasing my local union's bargaining position with the district.
Too good to be true? Only if you're a CTA fan!
I could find out how much of my over $80/month in union dues goes to CTA and NEA, but I'd probably get angry knowing the exact amount. I do know, though, that it's well over half. The people who represent me the most and are closest to me--my local union--see very little of that $80. Of course, they aren't out fighting Governor Schwarzenegger's proposals, either. So here's my plan.
Take the current *local* union dues I pay and add $7. That amount would be my new union dues, and would be close to what my Teamster father (retired railroad machinist) paid in union dues after 40 years (see previous post for more details). My local union will get to keep the amount it currently gets so under my plan, it suffers no financial loss. The additional $7/month would go to retain the best labor law firm in the county. My union has over 2000 teachers/counselors/etc. as members, so that would be $14,000/month, or $140,000/year, as a retainer for the law firm. That should pay for some quality work.
As I see it, here are the benefits of this plan. We get adequate representation when negotiating with the district, rather than just having teacher/unionists do the negotiating. We stand a better chance of getting better contracts, since the district would be less likely to pull the wool over attorneys' eyes than over teachers' eyes. Members wouldn't required to support the political views of unions with which they disagree, as so many of us CTA/NEA members currently are. And lastly, members keep more of their own money.
Everyone wins! Except CTA, of course. Is that such a bad thing?
Too good to be true? Only if you're a CTA fan!
I could find out how much of my over $80/month in union dues goes to CTA and NEA, but I'd probably get angry knowing the exact amount. I do know, though, that it's well over half. The people who represent me the most and are closest to me--my local union--see very little of that $80. Of course, they aren't out fighting Governor Schwarzenegger's proposals, either. So here's my plan.
Take the current *local* union dues I pay and add $7. That amount would be my new union dues, and would be close to what my Teamster father (retired railroad machinist) paid in union dues after 40 years (see previous post for more details). My local union will get to keep the amount it currently gets so under my plan, it suffers no financial loss. The additional $7/month would go to retain the best labor law firm in the county. My union has over 2000 teachers/counselors/etc. as members, so that would be $14,000/month, or $140,000/year, as a retainer for the law firm. That should pay for some quality work.
As I see it, here are the benefits of this plan. We get adequate representation when negotiating with the district, rather than just having teacher/unionists do the negotiating. We stand a better chance of getting better contracts, since the district would be less likely to pull the wool over attorneys' eyes than over teachers' eyes. Members wouldn't required to support the political views of unions with which they disagree, as so many of us CTA/NEA members currently are. And lastly, members keep more of their own money.
Everyone wins! Except CTA, of course. Is that such a bad thing?
Friday, March 18, 2005
CTA To Extort An *Additional* $20/month From Teachers
In a money grab that would be criminal if done by anyone else, the California Teachers Association will compel its members to pony up an *additional* $180 per year so it can build up a war chest with which to fight Governor Schwarzenegger, so says a report available on the Education Intelligence Agency website.
I immediately sent my local union the following email:
Here are some numbers from the EIA:
At current membership levels, the increase would put more than $54 million in the union's campaign war chest, in addition to the approximately $11 million already available. Full-time teachers currently pay $533 per year to CTA, of which $36 goes into the union’s ballot initiative fund. CTA will also be seeking cash from the National Education Association, its parent affiliate, which has its own initiative fund for just such a purpose.
Currently I pay over $80 per month in combined dues to my local union, the CTA, and NEA. For those of you not from California, this state is effectively a closed-shop state, not a right-to-work state. If I choose not to be a union member, I *still* have to make a donation to a union-approved charity in an amount equal to my union dues--and then only if I can prove that I'm a member of a "religious body whose traditional tenets or teachings include objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations"! Otherwise, I'm still required to be an "agency fee payer", which means I get a small portion of my union dues reimbursed each year. Guess who decides what proportion I get reimbursed? CTA, of course!
Before he retired, my father was a railroad machinist; his local union was affiliated with the Teamsters. He made more money than I did and paid significantly less in union dues than I did. I say it again--he was essentially a Teamster! Now the CTA wants me to pay over $100 in combined union dues so they can wage a fight with which I disagree, and do so with my money!
I've previously posted (here) that the CTA leadership isn't even chosen by the members. The EducationWonks have pointed out that the CTA leadership appears not to want members to contact them--and with this proposal, we can certainly see why! Something needs to change, and it isn't my mind.
Update, 3/19/05 9:29 am: According to the Sacramento Bee (registration required), CTA's President Barbara Kerr made the following arrogant statement, showing she thinks that money is hers and not mine:
"The governor could solve this with the Legislature. He could save teachers the $60 a year," she said. "All he has to do is work with the Legislature and come to a fair agreement for our students."
This is what happens when money is forcibly taken and not earned. If the governor really wanted to reform education and challenge this union, he'd fight to make California a right-to-work state. I don't understand the morality of compelling people to join an organization they don't want to join.
I immediately sent my local union the following email:
> http://www.eiaonline.com/Of course, I expect to have to carry through on my threat to change to agency fee payer status because I don't think my local union leaders see anything wrong with CTA's taking more of my money.
According to this website, which is usually correct, CTA is planning on
raising our dues by $180 in order to raise money to fight the governor's
proposals. As with choosing the CTA leadership, the membership
won't be consulted at all.
This is egregious. I hope and expect that the [local union]
Association will take appropriate action to challenge this theft. CTA is
a shakedown organization that has long since abandoned any principles of
doing what is right. Teachers in [local union] should have the option of *not*
being members of CTA or of NEA, with a corresponding reduction in monthly
dues deductions from our paychecks. Should this option not be offered,
agency fee payer status--or even donation to charity--will be the only
remaining options.
Here are some numbers from the EIA:
At current membership levels, the increase would put more than $54 million in the union's campaign war chest, in addition to the approximately $11 million already available. Full-time teachers currently pay $533 per year to CTA, of which $36 goes into the union’s ballot initiative fund. CTA will also be seeking cash from the National Education Association, its parent affiliate, which has its own initiative fund for just such a purpose.
Currently I pay over $80 per month in combined dues to my local union, the CTA, and NEA. For those of you not from California, this state is effectively a closed-shop state, not a right-to-work state. If I choose not to be a union member, I *still* have to make a donation to a union-approved charity in an amount equal to my union dues--and then only if I can prove that I'm a member of a "religious body whose traditional tenets or teachings include objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations"! Otherwise, I'm still required to be an "agency fee payer", which means I get a small portion of my union dues reimbursed each year. Guess who decides what proportion I get reimbursed? CTA, of course!
Before he retired, my father was a railroad machinist; his local union was affiliated with the Teamsters. He made more money than I did and paid significantly less in union dues than I did. I say it again--he was essentially a Teamster! Now the CTA wants me to pay over $100 in combined union dues so they can wage a fight with which I disagree, and do so with my money!
I've previously posted (here) that the CTA leadership isn't even chosen by the members. The EducationWonks have pointed out that the CTA leadership appears not to want members to contact them--and with this proposal, we can certainly see why! Something needs to change, and it isn't my mind.
Update, 3/19/05 9:29 am: According to the Sacramento Bee (registration required), CTA's President Barbara Kerr made the following arrogant statement, showing she thinks that money is hers and not mine:
"The governor could solve this with the Legislature. He could save teachers the $60 a year," she said. "All he has to do is work with the Legislature and come to a fair agreement for our students."
This is what happens when money is forcibly taken and not earned. If the governor really wanted to reform education and challenge this union, he'd fight to make California a right-to-work state. I don't understand the morality of compelling people to join an organization they don't want to join.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
What Should I Teach?
I'm in a quandary.
One of the courses I teach is called "pre-calculus". In accordance with California's mathematics framework, our district has combined the trigonometry standards and the few math analysis standards into the one pre-calculus course. So far, no trouble.
Let me stop here and explain how much I like California's math standards. Like 'em, like 'em, like 'em! Like 'em so much I want to be them for Halloween! (Don't remember where I heard that before, but now that I've used it, I should probably promise never to say that again.) They're not perfect--in fact, they might be somewhat too stringent in pushing Algebra I down to 8th grade--but it's good we have them. They're not fuzzy, either. They state in certain terms exactly what students are supposed to know and be able to do at each pre-8 grade and in each named course after that.
I follow the standards religiously. If the standard says my students are supposed to know something, I teach it. If the standard doesn't say they're supposed to know it, but I think it's something they should know, I wait until the end of the school year and if I've covered all the standards and there's still time left over, then comes the good stuff. I have the standards cross-referenced with the sections of the textbook that address them. I'm way too into this!
The problem arises when the calculus teacher expects that students will know something that I didn't cover. "They've got to know this!" he says. "Then you teach it to them. I've got to cover these standards here." "But they don't need to know that for calculus!" "Perhaps not, but they do need to know it for my course." We're very friendly when we have these discussions, but I see his frustration. There are pre-calc topics he doesn't cover that I do--topics that are in the standards--but he covers topics I don't so that when the students get into his AP Calculus class, he can move that course along a bit quicker.
Some of the math teachers at my school have what I consider to be peculiar beliefs. They think we should cover a little bit of geometry at the end of Algebra I so that the geometry classes go faster. Why do we want geometry classes to go faster? So we can cover some Algebra II at the end of the geometry courses. Why do that? Well, you get the idea.
There is one advantage I can see to that plan. When standardized testing comes around in April, our students will have covered more of the standards in each course than would students who started learning the material in September as opposed to late in the last school year. Still, some course somewhere would have to be compressed, and the standards are pretty stringent the way they are now. Which course should be compressed? Why, whatever one is below the one I'm teaching, of course!
So, what should I do? Should I teach to the standards--the standards that the students will be tested on in April? Or should I teach what the calculus teacher "needs" to have taught? Would I be depriving the students who won't go onto calculus by cutting out material they're supposed to learn and covering material needed for calculus? Am I short-changing my students who will go on to calculus?
One of the courses I teach is called "pre-calculus". In accordance with California's mathematics framework, our district has combined the trigonometry standards and the few math analysis standards into the one pre-calculus course. So far, no trouble.
Let me stop here and explain how much I like California's math standards. Like 'em, like 'em, like 'em! Like 'em so much I want to be them for Halloween! (Don't remember where I heard that before, but now that I've used it, I should probably promise never to say that again.) They're not perfect--in fact, they might be somewhat too stringent in pushing Algebra I down to 8th grade--but it's good we have them. They're not fuzzy, either. They state in certain terms exactly what students are supposed to know and be able to do at each pre-8 grade and in each named course after that.
I follow the standards religiously. If the standard says my students are supposed to know something, I teach it. If the standard doesn't say they're supposed to know it, but I think it's something they should know, I wait until the end of the school year and if I've covered all the standards and there's still time left over, then comes the good stuff. I have the standards cross-referenced with the sections of the textbook that address them. I'm way too into this!
The problem arises when the calculus teacher expects that students will know something that I didn't cover. "They've got to know this!" he says. "Then you teach it to them. I've got to cover these standards here." "But they don't need to know that for calculus!" "Perhaps not, but they do need to know it for my course." We're very friendly when we have these discussions, but I see his frustration. There are pre-calc topics he doesn't cover that I do--topics that are in the standards--but he covers topics I don't so that when the students get into his AP Calculus class, he can move that course along a bit quicker.
Some of the math teachers at my school have what I consider to be peculiar beliefs. They think we should cover a little bit of geometry at the end of Algebra I so that the geometry classes go faster. Why do we want geometry classes to go faster? So we can cover some Algebra II at the end of the geometry courses. Why do that? Well, you get the idea.
There is one advantage I can see to that plan. When standardized testing comes around in April, our students will have covered more of the standards in each course than would students who started learning the material in September as opposed to late in the last school year. Still, some course somewhere would have to be compressed, and the standards are pretty stringent the way they are now. Which course should be compressed? Why, whatever one is below the one I'm teaching, of course!
So, what should I do? Should I teach to the standards--the standards that the students will be tested on in April? Or should I teach what the calculus teacher "needs" to have taught? Would I be depriving the students who won't go onto calculus by cutting out material they're supposed to learn and covering material needed for calculus? Am I short-changing my students who will go on to calculus?
More on Environmentalism--from the NY Times???
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_13_oxblog_archive.html#111085751001405314
Just go read it. It's quite good, fitting as it does with the points I made a few weeks ago in my environmentalism postings.
Just go read it. It's quite good, fitting as it does with the points I made a few weeks ago in my environmentalism postings.
Media, and the Need For Blogs
From the March 14th OpinionJournal.com:
What Liberal Media?
"U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday," Reuters reports:
The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.
Now, a newsman might say in his industry's defense that the media were simply reporting the facts, and the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, was simply a more appealing candidate than President Bush. Which we guess would explain why Kerry won . . .
See also
Update, 3/24/05 1:58pm: Now there's this backpedaling. Glenn has it right; why weren't they saying this before the election?
Keep in mind, this is from al-Reuters. But of course, the mainstream media are not left-leaning!
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
What An Impressive Union. Not.
This was an extremely snarky post I wrote because I got my pink slip. I'm not proud of it--so I'm deleting it.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
RateMyTeachers.Com
The EdWonks are reporting that a teachers union in Ireland wants to have the website RateMyTeachers.com blocked from school computers. Of course, the reason given is that given the anonymous nature of the postings, there is a corresponding lack of accountability for the comments.
As the Church Lady used to say on Saturday Night Live, "Well isn't that special."
I agree with the EdWonks--making an issue of this is the surest way to get students to flock to that website! Had they left well enough alone, and ignored the site and any comments about it, it couldn't possibly have become a problem. But draw attention to it and, well, you draw attention to it! I addressed the topic of drawing attention to something negative here.
I check RateMyTeachers every few months. Most of the scores I ignore--I'm either the worst teacher ever or I walk on water without getting the soles of my shoes wet. Sometimes the comments can be illuminating, and I'm secure enough in my professionalism to take appropriate criticism even if it comes from a 15-yr-old. My favorite score, though, is a nuking. I got a 4 for easiness (out of 5), but 1's for helpfulness and clarity. Huh? How could I not be clear if I'm so easy? This is why you have to take these things with a grain of salt.
Want some real fun? See what your students are saying about your colleagues!
Want to see how you rate in the eyes of students or even parents? If you're in the US (don't want to offend my silent legions of international readers) go to http://us.ratemyteachers.com/ Actually, if you're in the UK, Ireland, or Canada, you can click to your country's site from that same page. Everyone should be able to navigate from that point.
Happy hunting!
As the Church Lady used to say on Saturday Night Live, "Well isn't that special."
I agree with the EdWonks--making an issue of this is the surest way to get students to flock to that website! Had they left well enough alone, and ignored the site and any comments about it, it couldn't possibly have become a problem. But draw attention to it and, well, you draw attention to it! I addressed the topic of drawing attention to something negative here.
I check RateMyTeachers every few months. Most of the scores I ignore--I'm either the worst teacher ever or I walk on water without getting the soles of my shoes wet. Sometimes the comments can be illuminating, and I'm secure enough in my professionalism to take appropriate criticism even if it comes from a 15-yr-old. My favorite score, though, is a nuking. I got a 4 for easiness (out of 5), but 1's for helpfulness and clarity. Huh? How could I not be clear if I'm so easy? This is why you have to take these things with a grain of salt.
Want some real fun? See what your students are saying about your colleagues!
Want to see how you rate in the eyes of students or even parents? If you're in the US (don't want to offend my silent legions of international readers) go to http://us.ratemyteachers.com/ Actually, if you're in the UK, Ireland, or Canada, you can click to your country's site from that same page. Everyone should be able to navigate from that point.
Happy hunting!
Monday, March 14, 2005
Baseball Players, Steroids, and Congress?
Later this week certain big-name baseball players are supposed to testify before Congress on the subject of steroid use in the major leagues. I was afraid no one was ever going to question the utility of this, but fortunately columnist George Will and Senator John McCain have finally, if belatedly, come to their senses and have asked:
Why the heck is Congress getting involved in this at all?
If a crime is being committed, the FBI can investigate. Why does Congress need to hold hearings? For the children??? Because kids look up to these guys??? Give me a freakin' break!
I was listening to a local talk show on the way to work this morning and the DJ's hit the nail on the head. Did Congress subpoena Eric Clapton to ask about cocaine use in the music industry? or Keith Richards? or anyone freakin' else?? No, of course not. Has Congress subpoenad Matthew Perry (late of Friends) or the rehabbed Olsen twin or anyone else in Hollywood about drug/alcohol abuse? No, of course not.
So why are they bringing some of baseball's biggest names to testify? There can only be one answer. They want to grandstand, wag their fingers, and look and feel like they're doing something important. Republicans and Democrats participating in this should both be ashamed of themselves.
What is Congress' stake in this? Why would any member of the Congress of the United States care if major leaguers are using steroids? If the league doesn't care--and make no mistake about it, the league doesn't care--why should the Congress? Which of Congress' enumerated powers are they exercising in this instance? Is there a power I missed somewhere, the power to regulate major league baseball? Congress has clearly overstepped its bounds here. I hope people start realizing this and insist that their members of congress get back to debating laws and stop trying to make a show.
PS
I do *not* support the illicit use of steroids at all. What I object to is Congress' sticking its nose into a company's business just because they think it'll play well on tv--and to heck with the Constitution in the process.
Update, 3/18/05 6:36 am: This guy said it all and more, better than I did, and in fewer than 150 words.
Why the heck is Congress getting involved in this at all?
If a crime is being committed, the FBI can investigate. Why does Congress need to hold hearings? For the children??? Because kids look up to these guys??? Give me a freakin' break!
I was listening to a local talk show on the way to work this morning and the DJ's hit the nail on the head. Did Congress subpoena Eric Clapton to ask about cocaine use in the music industry? or Keith Richards? or anyone freakin' else?? No, of course not. Has Congress subpoenad Matthew Perry (late of Friends) or the rehabbed Olsen twin or anyone else in Hollywood about drug/alcohol abuse? No, of course not.
So why are they bringing some of baseball's biggest names to testify? There can only be one answer. They want to grandstand, wag their fingers, and look and feel like they're doing something important. Republicans and Democrats participating in this should both be ashamed of themselves.
What is Congress' stake in this? Why would any member of the Congress of the United States care if major leaguers are using steroids? If the league doesn't care--and make no mistake about it, the league doesn't care--why should the Congress? Which of Congress' enumerated powers are they exercising in this instance? Is there a power I missed somewhere, the power to regulate major league baseball? Congress has clearly overstepped its bounds here. I hope people start realizing this and insist that their members of congress get back to debating laws and stop trying to make a show.
PS
I do *not* support the illicit use of steroids at all. What I object to is Congress' sticking its nose into a company's business just because they think it'll play well on tv--and to heck with the Constitution in the process.
Update, 3/18/05 6:36 am: This guy said it all and more, better than I did, and in fewer than 150 words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)