BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Harryk

John H wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:23:12 -0400, wrote:

On 3/29/2011 9:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:56:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:13:35 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:20:14 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:02:00 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:29:51 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:35:42 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:12:34 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:12:26 -0400, wrote:

I enjoy bantering with Plume. The naivete of youth is always
refreshing.
Gee I didn't realize senility was considered an advantage! LOL
I am not the one who has trouble remembering what we were talking
about ;-)
What were we talking about? Oh wait...
Don't ask me, I am senile, now where did I leave my teeth? ;-)

It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.
Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.
School teachers.
Be sure to let us know when a system is devised that actually is capable
of judging teachers on merit. It sure as hell isn't the standardized
testing bull****.
They don't want to see any merit based pay. This "testing" thing is
just a red herring.
The unions are not opposed to merit pay that is determined by fair
testing on the basis of merit.
We will see. Scott just signed the bill yesterday that will do that.
So far the school union seems pretty much opposed.
You tend to end up with a comment like that... "we'll see." Basically,
that means you don't know and just guessing.
The only thing we "will see" is whether paying younger teachers who
perform better actually raises achievement overall.
The adverse reaction of the union is a fact.
Why the discrimination against older teachers? Are you claiming that
only the young ones are capable of teaching well?
The problem is, you can't get rid of a teacher who is not performing
so they keep moving up through the system, sucking up money you could
be using to attract new teachers.
The problem is that this is intellectually dishonest. Sorry. I know
that's harsh. This is a tiny percentage of the problem.
Can you quantify "tiny percentage". Why is it intellectually dishonest?
Because you say so? Ya right.

And she's obviously never been a teacher in a system with union involvement.

I wonder if she's been in a system with freeloading, racist, incompetent
teachers like you were?