It's not the kids who would be the problem. It's little Johnny's and Jane's parents who demand the best and complain the loudest. As a parent, are you willing to let your child "miss out" on the better teacher?


BTW, my colleague with experience(its her first year in this subject) will match or better me in a few years. We work together to make sure we are working on the same page and the kids get comparable education. I am glad to have her as a colleague.

ernest_t_bass;741892 wrote:Again... The "general public" only wants a level playing field RIGHT NOW, when we are in the dumps. And I'm OK with that, and I agree with that. The hypocrisy will come when the economy is booming... no one (in the private sector) will truly want public sector employees to have a level playing field. No one (in the private sector) will fight for a level playing field, like they are now. They might say, "OK, that's fine," when public employees are the ones fighting, but no one will actually go out of their way (in the private sector) to give public sector employees more money. To disagree with this is absurd.

But, isn't it YOUR responsibility, as an INDIVIDUAL to get the best possible conditions that you could?
If not, why not?

Some would say that with a union, you've already got an unlevel playing field in your favor, regardless.

So I'm reading your thoughts as: Well if the union cannot be my mouthpiece, I'm playing on an unlevel playing field.
Would I be right or wrong in that?

georgemc80;742281 wrote:It's not the kids who would be the problem. It's little Johnny's and Jane's parents who demand the best and complain the loudest. As a parent, are you willing to let your child "miss out" on the better teacher?


BTW, my colleague with experience(its her first year in this subject) will match or better me in a few years. We work together to make sure we are working on the same page and the kids get comparable education. I am glad to have her as a colleague.

I'm sure schools have a system for such things (like the Columbus schools have their lottery for certain elementary schools). A similar system gets set up for certain classes...and if your kid doesn't get it, oh well. Not much you can do if it's a fair shot for everyone. Can they still yell and stomp their feet? Yep. But unless you've got a cowardly group of administrators who won't stand by the system, they'll eventually realize they aren't entitled more than anyone else.

But money means entitlement...It seems to be the way of the world.

Another factor to be considered: Everyone is mentioning at least a decade's worth of change. There is no way any situation, private or public could adjust to the insane amount of change you are suggesting.

I am amazed at the condescending comments on here that are being made to those who oppose SB5. Take the recent topic of "what students will get what teachers" in the new regime, for example. Yeah, let them learn at an early age (how early?) what life is all about, according to some.

BRF;742330 wrote:I am amazed at the condescending comments on here that are being made to those who oppose SB5. Take the recent topic of "what students will get what teachers" in the new regime, for example. Yeah, let them learn at an early age (how early?) what life is all about, according to some.

If the discrepancy is THAT drastic between two teachers, then one of them isn't making themselves very valuable as an educator. If they are continually allowed to be employed there, the board is not doing its job, and will probably lose that job.

I hope you didn't think I was being condescending. This is a serious issue, and so far, there is no ideal solution without a problem attached to it.

As such, it needs to be hashed out, which is why discussion on it is good, but it IS unfortunate that some cannot address it with the goal of true solution in mind.

For what it's worth, there have been condescending posts on both sides. It just seems that a couple who oppose SB5 have done more of a drive-by comment.

You just gotta let it roll off your back. The world, and the people in it, can be ugly.

OTrap: we good....oh wait, wait....WE'RE GOOD!

georgemc80;742140 wrote:Where does it end? If a district has great teachers, teachers will still separate themselves from others. A hierarchy will develop. Is it fair that some students get into one teacher's class and not another's?

....

It doesn't end. No it's not fair and it can't be made fair.

I would fight like crazy to get my child into the better teachers classroom. It's done in the private schools now. Parents know who the quality teachers are and fight to get in their classroom.

There are ways of earning that right.

I'm not intending to be condescending, either, and if it comes across as such...my apologies. I just get frustrated at what APPEARS to me to be a lack of thinking outside the box.

I worked with an editor who had done things the same damn way for 30 years, so ANY change was like pulling teeth. It was very aggravating and frustrating to have new, better ways of gathering information (computers, can you believe it) and he fought all the way.

It's that PERCEIVED attitude I'm responding to. If that attitude is wrong, then please tell me. Change is hard; nobody is saying otherwise. But change can also be a very good thing if it's done right. There's a lot of opportunity here to create something new and hopefully better.

Systems that do nothing but perpetuate themselves tend to become stagnant and obsolete. I think we've seen that in some of the things the education system (as it exists without SB5) continues to do.

I said this before: being in a union system can make you complacent because, honestly, you don't have to think for yourself beyond the work right in front of you. You are abdicating your authority to someone else on the more important decisions that affect you (salary, benefits, working conditions, etc.)

Complacency can also spark a lot of anxiety when change does eventually happen -- and I sense a lot of that in some of the posts here. Understandable, but it is something I believe can be easily dealt with by becoming part of the new process as much as possible.

Writerbuckeye;742232 wrote:
That's how life works on a lot of things, so why should it be any different in a school setting?

because they are kids. Sheesh

Writerbuckeye;742232 wrote:
I'm not intending to be condescending, either, and if it comes across as such...my apologies. I just get frustrated at what APPEARS to me to be a lack of thinking outside the box.

See to me, it appears to be a knee jerk reaction with very little thinking(especially outside the box) involved.

Well, on balance, the unions do all the thinking for union employees when it comes time to negotiations. Right?
That is part a subtle part of the sense of security.

Alot of people are very well and good with somebody else being their mouthpiece and quick on their feet. Alot of people are very comfortable letting somebody else be aggresive or even progressive for them.
Alot of people squirming at the very thought of doing this on their own. They don't think that 1. they can do it 2. they will not be able to accomplish their own means 3. they won't make enough of an impact.

It's a hard rut that is dug and even harder to get out of. Been there and done that.
In many respects, I think it was easier for me to quit smoking. (meaning that I'm talking personally, not about any of you)

CenterBHSFan;742462 wrote:Well, on balance, the unions do all the thinking for union employees when it comes time to negotiations. Right?
That is part a subtle part of the sense of security.

Alot of people are very well and good with somebody else being their mouthpiece and quick on their feet. Alot of people are very comfortable letting somebody else be aggresive or even progressive for them.
Alot of people squirming at the very thought of doing this on their own. They don't think that 1. they can do it 2. they will not be able to accomplish their own means 3. they won't make enough of an impact.

Isn't that what we call representative democracy?

Isn't that one of the main reasons the unions were born? (collective bargaining)

But let's just yank that all away and make it fairer for the private sector.

BRF;742476 wrote:Isn't that what we call representative democracy?

Similar to one, yes. The difference?

Taxpayers money gets spent, but tax payers (the majority of them) don't do the voting, and are not represented by these union leaders.

BRF;742476 wrote:Isn't that one of the main reasons the unions were born? (collective bargaining)

Before the labor protection we have in place now, Unions were incredibly necessary. They formed, in a way, through the same process that gangs have formed.

Gangs used to be set up for the sole purpose of protecting the ethnic neighborhoods that the police wouldn't bother to protect. It was the neighborhood's own little "law enforcement" and "micro-military" all wrapped into one.

However, with the progression of racial acceptance (it's not complete, but it's further than it was in the 1970s), law enforcement has had more of a protective presence in ethnic communities, and the communities often even have people who grew up there now on the force. As such, gangs are not necessary for those communities, and they have resorted to self-service instead.

I would contend that Unions are very similar. When they began, they were in place to protect the people that the law didn't do a good job of protecting. However, with the progress of labor laws, the Unions are far less necessary, if at all, and they have, in large part, resorted to the same thing as the gangs: self-service. They're just as interested in fattening their own bank accounts as they are trying to help the little guy, and they do it the whole time by vilifying the corporation, claiming they're the greedy ones.

Just as I have a lot of respect for the original purpose of gangs, I have a lot of respect for the original purpose of Unions. Both, however, are damn-near completely obsolete.

BRF;742476 wrote:But let's just yank that all away and make it fairer for the private sector.

For what it's worth, fair = fair. If it's more fair (equal, even, etc.) for one party, it's more fair for both.

Glory Days;742434 wrote:because they are kids. Sheesh


See to me, it appears to be a knee jerk reaction with very little thinking(especially outside the box) involved.

Kids get exposed to "life" every single day -- and often it's things a lot tougher than losing out on a preferred teacher. You can't protect them from all the conflict that's around them, and I would hope you wouldn't want to. It's a great teaching tool to give them the skills to cope with things beyond their control.

I don't really see how this bill has anything to do with kids crying if they don't get the best teachers. Isn't that a good thing? If no wants to be taught by a particular teacher, than that teacher needs to find another job.

Writerbuckeye;742564 wrote:Kids get exposed to "life" every single day -- and often it's things a lot tougher than losing out on a preferred teacher. You can't protect them from all the conflict that's around them, and I would hope you wouldn't want to. It's a great teaching tool to give them the skills to cope with things beyond their control.

I would hope you want the best education you can for your kid. I am sorry, but a kid losing out on good teacher isnt the same as not getting the car they want when they turn 16.

Glory Days;742928 wrote:I would hope you want the best education you can for your kid. I am sorry, but a kid losing out on good teacher isnt the same as not getting the car they want when they turn 16.

We all want the best education for our kids. But let's be clear on this: The existence of teachers unions in our public government-run schools does not guarantee, insure, nor improve the likelihood of quality education.

Glory Days;742928 wrote:I would hope you want the best education you can for your kid. I am sorry, but a kid losing out on good teacher isnt the same as not getting the car they want when they turn 16.

How about losing a loved one in an automobile accident, or dad losing his job in a poor economy and the entire family has to pull together? I wasn't talking about inane life lessons...but the important ones.

Writerbuckeye;742948 wrote:How about losing a loved one in an automobile accident, or dad losing his job in a poor economy and the entire family has to pull together? I wasn't talking about inane life lessons...but the important ones.

not getting the best teacher you can for your kid isnt a life lesson to little johnny who doesnt know the difference. and i am not saying people should be able to choose. but parents will notice which teachers are being paid more etc. i wouldnt put it by anyone to sue the school for little suzie not being put in Mrs. Smith's class etc.

Glory Days;742952 wrote:not getting the best teacher you can for your kid isnt a life lesson to little johnny who doesnt know the difference. and i am not saying people should be able to choose. but parents will notice which teachers are being paid more etc. i wouldnt put it by anyone to sue the school for little suzie not being put in Mrs. Smith's class etc.

Life isn't fair. Stop crying.

sleeper;742959 wrote:Life isn't fair. Stop crying.

You are right, life isnt fair. Deal with the public sector the way it is.

Glory Days;742976 wrote:You are right, life isnt fair. Deal with the public sector the way it is.

I have no problem with good teachers being paid the wage they rightfully deserve. I'm more after the terrible teachers that the union protects and this bill gets rid of them.

Glory Days;742976 wrote:You are right, life isnt fair. Deal with the public sector the way it is.

That's the beauty of it being the "public" sector -- we don't have to. We can change it...and are.

Writerbuckeye;742997 wrote:That's the beauty of it being the "public" sector -- we don't have to. We can change it...and are.

You won't be "changing" it for long Writer....it WILL be repealed in November

http://lakecurrents.com/release-room/20110413/wenzel-strategies-poll-majority-favors-repeal-ohio-senate-bill-5

54% of independents favor repeal

51%-38% of all voters favor repeal

Ty Webb;743107 wrote:You won't be "changing" it for long Writer....it WILL be repealed in November

http://lakecurrents.com/release-room/20110413/wenzel-strategies-poll-majority-favors-repeal-ohio-senate-bill-5

54% of independents favor repeal

51%-38% of all voters favor repeal

We'll see, lots of time until a vote (assuming it gets on the ballot).

In the meantime, this is the same polling outfit that came up with this:

Wenzel Strategies reports that a recent poll indicates that not even one person in 10 believes Barry Hussein Soetoro has shown that he is eligible to be president of the United States.

Wenzel Strategies, an independent public opinion research firm based in Ohio, conducted a nationwide telephone poll using a randomly selected sample of all adults. The survey, including 1,095 respondents, was conducted March 15-17, 2011, and carries a confidence interval of 95 percent and a margin of error of +/- 2.93 percentage points—Bob Unruh

Now, I don't understand why Obama hasn't simply released the long version of his birth certificate, and I don't know why he keeps hiding all the documentation from his college days, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that this poll is anywhere close to being accurate.

Even I don't REALLY believe he was born outside the US. I just want to see the information (I'm curious why he's gone to such great lengths to hide so much).

However, when you conduct a poll like this, your credibility as a polling entity has to be questioned.

http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/blog/polls/poll-only-9-believe-obama-has-documented-his-eligibility/