"Don White" wrote in message
...

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
snip
Note that we really don't need your trade / laws / people at all, we are
just good neighbours.
Try it sometime.


Now you're showing your stupidity again. Before you go flapping your
gums
about not needing our trade.....find out who *uses* our electricity, our
natural gas & oil.

Yep...we are indeed using you. Thanks.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:33:59 -0500, DSK wrote:

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized right up to the end.


John H wrote:
The magic words...the end.


Do you have a problem understanding plain English, or is your
Clinton-hating gland jazzed up to the point where you can blame the
unions when a non-union plant goes out of business?



You're really full of ****.


You're probably correct.


And have been all along.


Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...


Of course, political willpower. Whose?

Who has been running the country for over 4 years now, watching and
doing nothing about the increasing decline of U.S. manufacturing?

DSK

*When* did all the textile plants leave?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
*When* did all the textile plants leave?


Duck, dodge, prevaricate, backpedal...

A larger number have closed up in the last 4 years in NC than in the
previous 15.

Gee, must be Clinton's fault... yeah, that's the ticket!

DSK

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:44:49 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

The simple truth is that the NEA/AFT leadership is so out of touch
with the everyday teacher that these same teachers see little value in
contributing.

You're not in any position to make a statement like that. The NEA grows
substantially every year and now has around 3 million members, making it
the largest union in the USA. I'm not that familiar with the AFT.

I'm not?

How - interesting.

Don't question authority except when it is on the other side of the issue.

Krause shows his elitest leftist colors again.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:34:12 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
*When* did all the textile plants leave?


Duck, dodge, prevaricate, backpedal...

A larger number have closed up in the last 4 years in NC than in the
previous 15.

Gee, must be Clinton's fault... yeah, that's the ticket!

DSK

And you actually blame said closures on Bush? And North Carolina was even one of
those damn red states! So all those people lost their jobs because of Bush, and
all those people voted for that demon.

Damn, no wonder they lost their jobs.


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:19:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..

~~ snippage

Tom, do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skill or commitment to the job deserve the same pay increase every year?
Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the good ones? Should
the
bad teachers be protected by the union so they keep their jobs?

This is a interesting subject and one that can take up terabytes of
bandwidth if the discussion turns - um - difficult. :)

Let's start with the first comment - to wit:" do you believe that all
teachers in a school district, regardless of skill or commitment to
the job deserve the same pay increase every year?
You have to separate this question into two because the first is
totally different than the second.

OK. Fair enough

New questions so I understand where you are coming from on these 2 points:

1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skills deserve the same pay increase every year?

2. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
commitment, deserve the same pay increase every year?



How do you judge commitment?


It is self evident to the principal who runs the school. Talk to your wife.
She will confirm this.

Commitment to the job is evident during my job appraisals and always has
been.


Is it hours after school doing
additional extra help?


I do not understand your question. If you mean does *x* amount of after
hours work equate to one being a good teacher, the answer is obviously "no".
See my example below of a football coach.

Committing to a non-paying coaching or
mentoring position?
How about Union commitment - doing all the dirty
work in the organizational trenches so that teachers aren't beat to
hell by administration's and Board of Educations?

Union commitment? Bzzzzzz. No credit. Self satisfying. Self gratifying.



Is bringing home
reams of papers to correct on a weekend commitment or a function of
the job? Are you in it for yourself or in it for the thrill of
teaching kids?

I guess you missed my point. And I thought your wife was a teacher.



It's a subjective value and nothing that can be objectively valued.
Is a gym teacher who does his/her job competently who has little or no
out of school commitments or homework assignments less committed to
teaching than a language arts teacher with tons of papers to read and
correct?

Nope. I can cite an elementary school gym teacher who was totally committed
to his job. My wife knew it as did the principal.

This aunt's rocket science Tom...so stop trying to make it that.


Let's move to the second two - this is where the rubber meets the
road. To wit: Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the
good ones?

First, you have to define the objective goals. How does one define
acceptable, or outstanding, teaching? How do you define the skill set
needed to acceptably teach a mixed classroom? How do you define a
"bad" teacher?

Again the answer is quite evident.

A *bad* teacher? One who skates by. One who gives little concern over her
students performance. One who leaves at the bell and does not *punch* in
again till the next school day.

Should that person *deserve* the union negotiated pay increase as the
committed and skilled teachers? I say no. Are you saying yes?

If your wife was a teacher perhaps you can also ask her.


The simple answer is testing, but that is also a false value. A
teacher with all high level learners will do much better on a standard
test than a teacher of equal skill who has a mixed class of special
education mainstreamers and middle skill level learners. Or a teacher
with a mix of high, middle, low and Speds.

A good teacher cannot be defined by testing. It is a start however.


How do you judge the relative value of a Language Arts teacher vs. a
Math or Science teacher - is one more worthy of money than another?
Is one easier to teach than the other?

Then there is a whole matter of seniority - it costs more for teachers
with long term skill sets. Are these more valuable teachers than
those who are first timers? How do you define it?

If you find the answers to these questions, I know somebody who would
really like to talk to you. :)

In the end, they all got the same pay increase and the bad teachers
continued to do a bad job teaching the students.

Is that what the union is all about?

No - or at least it shouldn't be.

We agree.

Unions should be about making sure
the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.

Later,

Tom


Actually unions are not needed in the teaching profession, amongst others.

If we use your definition however (Unions should be about making sure the
field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.) then I guess the
teachers union is falling flat on it's face. ;-)

Gee, must be Clinton's fault... yeah, that's the ticket!



John H wrote:
And you actually blame said closures on Bush?

Of course not, poor baby. He's been so worried about terrorism, and busy
making up nicknames for his new Cabinet, how could we expect him to
actually do anything about the economy?

Especially when so many people like yourself will swallow all sort of
bull**** about how they haven't really lost a million jobs.

It's remarkable... you seem to expect to be taken seriously, and yet you
have no intention whatever holding Bush & Cheney accountable for anything.

Try this on your Descartes: The President is either responsible, or he's
irresponsible.

DSK

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:49:27 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:19:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

~~ snippage

Tom, do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skill or commitment to the job deserve the same pay increase every year?
Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the good ones? Should
the
bad teachers be protected by the union so they keep their jobs?

This is a interesting subject and one that can take up terabytes of
bandwidth if the discussion turns - um - difficult. :)

Let's start with the first comment - to wit:" do you believe that all
teachers in a school district, regardless of skill or commitment to
the job deserve the same pay increase every year?
You have to separate this question into two because the first is
totally different than the second.

OK. Fair enough

New questions so I understand where you are coming from on these 2 points:

1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skills deserve the same pay increase every year?

Wrong question again. It is assumed that any teacher performing at any
grade level has the skills to teach. In CT, a skills test must be
passed to obtain a teaching position.

But to be straight forward, if you equate skill to years taught, then
yes - two year teachers should be paid the same - thirty year teachers
should be paid the same.

2. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
commitment, deserve the same pay increase every year?

How do you judge commitment?

It is self evident to the principal who runs the school. Talk to your wife.
She will confirm this.

Heh - I just showed it to her and she still is laughing.

What if you have an administrator who is biased towards, oh say,
younger teachers? Or male teachers over female teachers? Or having
affairs with one or the other? Or believes that participation in
mandatory "after school events" such as group mountain climbing, bike
riding and other participatory sports are essential to the proper
running of a school?

How about an administrator who, in the throes of divorce, makes
improper advances towards staff members and threatens unsatisfactory
evaluations?

You mean those kind of administrators?

Commitment to the job is evident during my job appraisals and always has
been.

Really? Gee - never has been in my career. I did my job because I
got paid to do my job. I got paid to be the best engineer I could be.
I was never, EVER, committed to any company for anything other than
doing my job. No extras unless I was paid for them. If I committed
extra hours to a project, it was pretty much because I was interested
in the problem - not because I was committed to anything.

I did work my years of eighty hour weeks and it damn near killed me.
But it sure as hell wasn't because I was committed to the damn company
- it was because I was being paid a lot of money to get things done.

Is it hours after school doing additional extra help?

I do not understand your question. If you mean does *x* amount of after
hours work equate to one being a good teacher, the answer is obviously "no".
See my example below of a football coach.

Committing to a non-paying coaching or mentoring position?
How about Union commitment - doing all the dirty work in the
organizational trenches so that teachers aren't beat to hell by
administration's and Board of Educations?

Union commitment? Bzzzzzz. No credit. Self satisfying. Self gratifying.

So attending a meeting in which a teacher is falsely accused of
mistreating a student and scripting the event is not important? Or
helping straighten out three consequitive payroll FUBARs isn't
important? Or filing harassment charges against an administrator who
made sexually suggestive remarks to a subordinate?

It's the same type of commitment ON TOP OF being a competent teacher.

Is bringing home
reams of papers to correct on a weekend commitment or a function of
the job? Are you in it for yourself or in it for the thrill of
teaching kids?

I guess you missed my point. And I thought your wife was a teacher.

I didn't miss your point - I understood it very well. And you didn't
answer the question - what is commitment - how do you measure it?

It's a subjective value and nothing that can be objectively valued.
Is a gym teacher who does his/her job competently who has little or no
out of school commitments or homework assignments less committed to
teaching than a language arts teacher with tons of papers to read and
correct?

Nope. I can cite an elementary school gym teacher who was totally committed
to his job. My wife knew it as did the principal.

So can I and he works less than any other teacher in the school
because he just doesn't have the time to do anything other than what
he is contracted to do during his working hours. He has a wife with
rapid advance MS and is trying to hold a family of three together
along with huge medical bills and a mortgage. Works his day job and
two evening jobs to keep afloat.

I'd call that commitment - wouldn't you?

By the way, this was the same teacher who was called up and
reprimanded for leaving five minutes early by an administrator who
felt that male teachers weren't worth squat. He was defended by the
Union President and won the grievance.

This aunt's rocket science Tom...so stop trying to make it that.

You are certainly right - it's not rocket science and it sure as hell
isn't my aunt's rocket science. (Sorry - couldn't resist).

It goes much beyond the mathematical certainty of science and enters
into the realm of humanity - feelings, frailty and emotion -
misunderstandings and failures to communicate. All those things that
you can't objectively measure and are entirely subjective.

Let's move to the second two - this is where the rubber meets the
road. To wit: Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the
good ones?

First, you have to define the objective goals. How does one define
acceptable, or outstanding, teaching? How do you define the skill set
needed to acceptably teach a mixed classroom? How do you define a
"bad" teacher?

Again the answer is quite evident.

A *bad* teacher? One who skates by. One who gives little concern over her
students performance. One who leaves at the bell and does not *punch* in
again till the next school day.

Should that person *deserve* the union negotiated pay increase as the
committed and skilled teachers? I say no. Are you saying yes?

I'm saying that you can't differentiate that way because it's entirely
subjective. Is a teacher who works hard at teaching, tries their
best, puts in tons of hours but is, to put it delicately, a poor
teacher that obtains less than optimal results worth more than a
teacher who just presents material, tests for it and obtains superior
results?

How do you judge who is worth more? Are you saying that in your
criteria the former is worth more than the later?

If your wife was a teacher perhaps you can also ask her.

Insulting me is not rational discussion.

The simple answer is testing, but that is also a false value. A
teacher with all high level learners will do much better on a standard
test than a teacher of equal skill who has a mixed class of special
education mainstreamers and middle skill level learners. Or a teacher
with a mix of high, middle, low and Speds.

A good teacher cannot be defined by testing. It is a start however.

How can it be a start if you can't define it objectively?

How do you judge the relative value of a Language Arts teacher vs. a
Math or Science teacher - is one more worthy of money than another?
Is one easier to teach than the other?

Then there is a whole matter of seniority - it costs more for teachers
with long term skill sets. Are these more valuable teachers than
those who are first timers? How do you define it?

If you find the answers to these questions, I know somebody who would
really like to talk to you. :)

In the end, they all got the same pay increase and the bad teachers
continued to do a bad job teaching the students.

Is that what the union is all about?

No - or at least it shouldn't be.

We agree.

Unions should be about making sure
the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.

Actually unions are not needed in the teaching profession, amongst others.

If we use your definition however (Unions should be about making sure the
field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.) then I guess the
teachers union is falling flat on it's face. ;-)

I disagree - in terms of personnel matters, contract legalities,
health insurance benefits, Unions have great merit. Our local here
has done great things for both kids, teachers AND, believe it or not,
Administrators who, in one instance that I personally know about,
benefitted from Union representation in a particularly difficult
parent/teacher kerfuffle.

I am not anti-Union - I believe that they have a place in the worker's
world.

I do believe that Unions have lost their way and it's time for a
different approach to Labor problems in the US.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:49:27 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:19:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...

~~ snippage

Tom, do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless
of
skill or commitment to the job deserve the same pay increase every year?
Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the good ones? Should
the
bad teachers be protected by the union so they keep their jobs?

This is a interesting subject and one that can take up terabytes of
bandwidth if the discussion turns - um - difficult. :)

Let's start with the first comment - to wit:" do you believe that all
teachers in a school district, regardless of skill or commitment to
the job deserve the same pay increase every year?
You have to separate this question into two because the first is
totally different than the second.

OK. Fair enough

New questions so I understand where you are coming from on these 2 points:

1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skills deserve the same pay increase every year?

Wrong question again. It is assumed that any teacher performing at any
grade level has the skills to teach.


And that is the problem. Perhaps it can be traced back to Unions....eh?


In CT, a skills test must be
passed to obtain a teaching position.

That test shows that basic skill levels have been obtained....nothing more.

Are you content with "basic level" teachers Tom? Not me,



But to be straight forward, if you equate skill to years taught, then
yes - two year teachers should be paid the same - thirty year teachers
should be paid the same.


I never equated the skill level to number of years taught.

You did a good job skirting my original question, so I will ask it again:

1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skills deserve the same pay increase every year?




2. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
commitment, deserve the same pay increase every year?

How do you judge commitment?

It is self evident to the principal who runs the school. Talk to your
wife.
She will confirm this.

Heh - I just showed it to her and she still is laughing.

So? How does that address the question? Is she still laughing?



What if you have an administrator who is biased towards, oh say,
younger teachers? Or male teachers over female teachers? Or having
affairs with one or the other? Or believes that participation in
mandatory "after school events" such as group mountain climbing, bike
riding and other participatory sports are essential to the proper
running of a school?

How about an administrator who, in the throes of divorce, makes
improper advances towards staff members and threatens unsatisfactory
evaluations?

You mean those kind of administrators?

We are taling about the masses...the norm.

One persons opinion does not represent the masses.



Commitment to the job is evident during my job appraisals and always has
been.

Really? Gee - never has been in my career.

So? It has been in mine.

I did my job because I
got paid to do my job.

Then you had non commitment. My point made.


I got paid to be the best engineer I could be.
I was never, EVER, committed to any company for anything other than
doing my job. No extras unless I was paid for them. If I committed
extra hours to a project, it was pretty much because I was interested
in the problem - not because I was committed to anything.

I did work my years of eighty hour weeks and it damn near killed me.
But it sure as hell wasn't because I was committed to the damn company
- it was because I was being paid a lot of money to get things done.


Sounds like you have some personal issues to deal with.



Is it hours after school doing additional extra help?



I do not understand your question. If you mean does *x* amount of after
hours work equate to one being a good teacher, the answer is obviously
"no".
See my example below of a football coach.

Committing to a non-paying coaching or mentoring position?
How about Union commitment - doing all the dirty work in the
organizational trenches so that teachers aren't beat to hell by
administration's and Board of Educations?

Union commitment? Bzzzzzz. No credit. Self satisfying. Self
gratifying.

So attending a meeting in which a teacher is falsely accused of
mistreating a student and scripting the event is not important?

When did I say that?

Or
helping straighten out three consequitive payroll FUBARs isn't
important? Or filing harassment charges against an administrator who
made sexually suggestive remarks to a subordinate?

Again, when did I day that?



It's the same type of commitment ON TOP OF being a competent teacher.

Is bringing home
reams of papers to correct on a weekend commitment or a function of
the job? Are you in it for yourself or in it for the thrill of
teaching kids?

I guess you missed my point. And I thought your wife was a teacher.

I didn't miss your point - I understood it very well. And you didn't
answer the question - what is commitment - how do you measure it?

I already answered that.


It's a subjective value and nothing that can be objectively valued.
Is a gym teacher who does his/her job competently who has little or no
out of school commitments or homework assignments less committed to
teaching than a language arts teacher with tons of papers to read and
correct?

Nope. I can cite an elementary school gym teacher who was totally
committed
to his job. My wife knew it as did the principal.

So can I and he works less than any other teacher in the school
because he just doesn't have the time to do anything other than what
he is contracted to do during his working hours. He has a wife with
rapid advance MS and is trying to hold a family of three together
along with huge medical bills and a mortgage. Works his day job and
two evening jobs to keep afloat.

I'd call that commitment - wouldn't you?

By the way, this was the same teacher who was called up and
reprimanded for leaving five minutes early by an administrator who
felt that male teachers weren't worth squat. He was defended by the
Union President and won the grievance.

This aunt's rocket science Tom...so stop trying to make it that.

You are certainly right - it's not rocket science and it sure as hell
isn't my aunt's rocket science. (Sorry - couldn't resist).

LOL. Regardless, you come across as confrontationa and bitter in this
thread and there is no need to be.



It goes much beyond the mathematical certainty of science and enters
into the realm of humanity - feelings, frailty and emotion -
misunderstandings and failures to communicate. All those things that
you can't objectively measure and are entirely subjective.


Yep...it all boils down to common sense.


Let's move to the second two - this is where the rubber meets the
road. To wit: Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the
good ones?

First, you have to define the objective goals. How does one define
acceptable, or outstanding, teaching? How do you define the skill set
needed to acceptably teach a mixed classroom? How do you define a
"bad" teacher?

Again the answer is quite evident.

A *bad* teacher? One who skates by. One who gives little concern over
her
students performance. One who leaves at the bell and does not *punch* in
again till the next school day.

Should that person *deserve* the union negotiated pay increase as the
committed and skilled teachers? I say no. Are you saying yes?

I'm saying that you can't differentiate that way because it's entirely
subjective. Is a teacher who works hard at teaching, tries their
best, puts in tons of hours but is, to put it delicately, a poor
teacher that obtains less than optimal results worth more than a
teacher who just presents material, tests for it and obtains superior
results?

How do you judge who is worth more? Are you saying that in your
criteria the former is worth more than the later?

If your wife was a teacher perhaps you can also ask her.

Insulting me is not rational discussion.


I never insulted you or your wife. Donn't throw that old excuse on me.




The simple answer is testing, but that is also a false value. A
teacher with all high level learners will do much better on a standard
test than a teacher of equal skill who has a mixed class of special
education mainstreamers and middle skill level learners. Or a teacher
with a mix of high, middle, low and Speds.

A good teacher cannot be defined by testing. It is a start however.

How can it be a start if you can't define it objectively?

It can...by testing. A start but not a final answer.



How do you judge the relative value of a Language Arts teacher vs. a
Math or Science teacher - is one more worthy of money than another?
Is one easier to teach than the other?

Then there is a whole matter of seniority - it costs more for teachers
with long term skill sets. Are these more valuable teachers than
those who are first timers? How do you define it?

If you find the answers to these questions, I know somebody who would
really like to talk to you. :)

In the end, they all got the same pay increase and the bad teachers
continued to do a bad job teaching the students.

Is that what the union is all about?

No - or at least it shouldn't be.

We agree.

Unions should be about making sure
the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.

Actually unions are not needed in the teaching profession, amongst others.

If we use your definition however (Unions should be about making sure the
field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.) then I guess the
teachers union is falling flat on it's face. ;-)

I disagree - in terms of personnel matters, contract legalities,
health insurance benefits, Unions have great merit. Our local here
has done great things for both kids, teachers AND, believe it or not,
Administrators who, in one instance that I personally know about,
benefitted from Union representation in a particularly difficult
parent/teacher kerfuffle.

I am not anti-Union - I believe that they have a place in the worker's
world.

I do believe that Unions have lost their way and it's time for a
different approach to Labor problems in the US.

Later,

Tom

I have already stated my position on unions and their worth in the education
field in another thread.

Have a nice evening Tom.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:24:19 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:49:27 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:19:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
om...

~~ snippage
~~ snippage ~~
Wrong question again. It is assumed that any teacher performing at any
grade level has the skills to teach.

And that is the problem. Perhaps it can be traced back to Unions....eh?

Actually, no. In this state, CEA argued and lobbied unsuccessfully
against the Praxis which was the brain child of a former Dept of Ed
Commissioner who was a real...um...innovator.

In fact, the Praxis test and the whole mentoring system has failed
miserably allowing poorly qualified teachers into the system.

Kind of curious that.

In CT, a skills test must be
passed to obtain a teaching position.

That test shows that basic skill levels have been obtained....nothing more.

Are you content with "basic level" teachers Tom? Not me,

I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. Everybody has to have a
basic level of understanding of anything before they can become
proficient at it. My first job as an engineer was checking drawings
and compiling/checking data points for Senior Engineers. It only
through the use of those basic skills that one gains experience and
technique.

I'm satisfied with basic skills under supervision which is pretty much
how it works now.

But to be straight forward, if you equate skill to years taught, then
yes - two year teachers should be paid the same - thirty year teachers
should be paid the same.

I never equated the skill level to number of years taught.

You did a good job skirting my original question, so I will ask it again:

1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skills deserve the same pay increase every year?

All teachers are not paid the same in any school district in CT. It's
based on years of service and education. And by definition a thirty
year teacher is, in theory, paid more than a two year teacher because
of experience, education and in-service skills.

Let me try it this way. If you mean that a two year teacher with a BS
degree should be paid the same as a two year teacher with a BS/MS,
then no - the two year teacher with the BS/MS should be paid more than
the teacher with the BS. That is a skills based criteria.

If you mean that a two year teacher with a BS/MS should be paid the
same as a thirty year teacher with a BS/MS, then no - the thirty year
teacher should be paid more because of seniority which translates to
experience and skills related to that experience.

Does that make more sense?

2. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
commitment, deserve the same pay increase every year?

How do you judge commitment?

It is self evident to the principal who runs the school. Talk to your
wife.
She will confirm this.

Heh - I just showed it to her and she still is laughing.

So? How does that address the question? Is she still laughing?

What if you have an administrator who is biased towards, oh say,
younger teachers? Or male teachers over female teachers? Or having
affairs with one or the other? Or believes that participation in
mandatory "after school events" such as group mountain climbing, bike
riding and other participatory sports are essential to the proper
running of a school?

How about an administrator who, in the throes of divorce, makes
improper advances towards staff members and threatens unsatisfactory
evaluations?

You mean those kind of administrators?

We are taling about the masses...the norm.

One persons opinion does not represent the masses.

Commitment to the job is evident during my job appraisals and always has
been.

Really? Gee - never has been in my career.

So? It has been in mine.

I did my job because I
got paid to do my job.

Then you had non commitment. My point made.


I got paid to be the best engineer I could be.
I was never, EVER, committed to any company for anything other than
doing my job. No extras unless I was paid for them. If I committed
extra hours to a project, it was pretty much because I was interested
in the problem - not because I was committed to anything.

I did work my years of eighty hour weeks and it damn near killed me.
But it sure as hell wasn't because I was committed to the damn company
- it was because I was being paid a lot of money to get things done.

Sounds like you have some personal issues to deal with.

Now see, that's not at all fair or even true.

Being totally dispassionate about any company is the best way to make
money - you see beyond the BS and can make decisions based on reality.
I always, without fail, went with the money. The four times I changed
companies, it was because (1) the money was better (2) the
responsibilities were greater (3) the perks were better.

Now is you mean commitment as in staying the length of the contract,
then yes - I never changed in the middle of the contract even if there
was mucho money involved. It was a matter of personal integrity.
It's different than commitment although they share similar meanings.

The only thing I am loyal (read committed) to is my family, country,
the Corps and myself. :)

Is it hours after school doing additional extra help?

I do not understand your question. If you mean does *x* amount of after
hours work equate to one being a good teacher, the answer is obviously
"no".
See my example below of a football coach.

Committing to a non-paying coaching or mentoring position?
How about Union commitment - doing all the dirty work in the
organizational trenches so that teachers aren't beat to hell by
administration's and Board of Educations?

Union commitment? Bzzzzzz. No credit. Self satisfying. Self
gratifying.

So attending a meeting in which a teacher is falsely accused of
mistreating a student and scripting the event is not important?

When did I say that?

You did - look above. Bzzzzzzz - no credit - self satisfying - self
gratifying? :)

Or
helping straighten out three consequitive payroll FUBARs isn't
important? Or filing harassment charges against an administrator who
made sexually suggestive remarks to a subordinate?

Again, when did I day that?

Look, you obviously have an opinion that is diametrically opposed to
mine. And that's fine. My opinions are based on my personal
experiences and observing the experiences of a lot of teacher's who
are my friends.

~~ rest snipped ~~

Have a nice evening Tom.

Back at 'cha.

Nice chatting with you.

Later,

Tom