Start of school is just around the corner. Therefore the news stations find it necessary to interview any teacher that will stand still long enough for the camera.

And, what do they talk about? Well, about how self-sacrificing they are, because they're coming in "on their own time" to prepare their classrooms.

gag!

Let me remind you teachers, you get paid a 12-month salary to do a 10-month job. Well, maybe nine and one-half months with all the holidays, breaks and "professional days".

Why, exactly shouldn't you come in on "your own time" to prepare your classrooms?

And, when interviewed by the journalists, why can't you talk about all the innovative programs and teaching methods you've researched over the summer?

I appreciate what you do, and sympathize with you about some of the children you'll be facing the end of this month.

But stop the dam whining about coming in "on your own time", for pete's sake!

Yoss, having two sisters who are teachers (one is now retired) I have to defend them some. Yes, I still razz them about working 10 months a year, but they do sacrifice. Their day is often longer than other workers, especially considering time at home grading papers and preparing lessons. My younger sister, who is an art teacher in a poor neighborhood, gets very little support from the school system in obtaining supplies. She will provide crayons and other art materials for her students out of her own pocket, just so they can experience something different in their lives. She finds it very rewarding. My older sister, who taught kindergarten and first grade, often did the same. In their district in PA, teachers are required to take a number of courses during their certification period in order to retain certification. This also comes out of their own pocket. The school district does not contribute anything. How many people on this forum take courses for their job and get some reimbursement from their employers? I bet there's a good number. My daughter is working on her Master's and her employer refunds her tuition. I also know several others who also are working on advance degrees who get reimbursement.

I know my sisters were very frustrated by the school district and their union for lack of support, but they never thought of going into any other field. That's dedication.

My dad has been an elementary school teacher in Wash. Co. for over 25 years and he is always going to school to do something for the classroom or the school in general. He teaches summer school and attends workshops every summer. He never gripes and complains about going in on his own time, he believes it's an essential part of his job.

Like iron horse defends, I must say that a GOOD teacher's work day ends (if at all) around 9pm. Although they do not work every month of the year, the hours they put in are overwhelming. I do think it depends on which grade level you teach to determine how much time to spend preparing a classroom.

In general, I think a teacher works approx the same amount of hours in a year as someone in a 9-5 job. It is also much tougher for a teacher to take sick and vacation days. If you figure like I do, a typical 9-5 job will give you +/- 12 vacation and +/- 12 sick days per year. If used, these days make up a little over a month's time once weekends and holidays are factored. Factor the extra hours grading papers, etc. that a teacher puts in and it is about even if you ask me.

I do agree with Yoss that there are excess gripers, but give them a break when they must deal with all the young ones.

I think maybe Yoss' point is that in what other profession do you hear the workers, when interviewed, constantly talk (brag? complain?) about how many hours they have to work? Now, if I'm a teacher and someone says I have it easy and don't work much, then I'd defend myself and set them straight. But I would not bring it (hours worked) up on my own any more than a mechanic, secretary, or engineer did. It should not be the first thing discussed all the time.

Teaching, like most jobs, has its unique challenges, its common challenges, its unique rewards, and its common rewards. Teachers are not forced at gunpoint to take the job -- they volunteer for the job. Should they have to spend their own money for basic supplies? No. Should they be subject to abusive and disruptive kids? No. Should they have the power and excess protection they have through the unions? No.

JMO.

Absolutely! Do you have any idea what parents try to pull?

I can't go into those details because I've only substituted a couple times, but ask any teacher, and the parents are the ones about which they worry most (esp. elem. teachers).

Biggins,

I speak very often with a substitute teacher, and hear quite a bit at my kid's school. I know there are some whacked parents out there, no question. But I also know there are some teachers who are bad, even as agreed by other teachers as well as many parents, yet there is almost nothing you can do to get rid of them or discipline them and force them to improve. That is wrong.

Same with support personnel. At my child's school we had some janitors who were so lazy it was pitiful, but they got to keep their job and they knew they were pretty much untouchable. Parents had to do some of the work around the school because the janitor was unable or unwilling to do it. When we finally got a janitor who was great and worked really hard and made that school look 100% different we could not keep him because another (lazy) janitor had seniority and nothing could be done to keep the good one.

This is relatively common in government. I knew a courthouse janitor who got the job done better than it had been done in a long time in 4 hours and goofed-off for 4 hours -- and his supervisor still told him not to work so hard as he'd make the other guys look bad. A city roads guy and his crew played "ride and hide" as they called it several hours a week. Our taxpayer dollars at work.

I guess I'm only accustomed to the GOOD teachers, but I know there are a few bad teachers. My dad and other teachers are held back because of these bad teachers. From what I've heard from my dad there are many more honest GOOD teachers than bad, but of course there are some like that in every profession.

I was not considering support personnel, but I can agree with you there. I would also go to say that not all of them are lazy, but they exist like in every profession.

As for government, my first day of work I completed my first assigned task in under 2 hours. When I told my supervisor I was finished, she didn't believe me and thought I had done the assignment incorrectly. As it turns out, this what I thought to be very simple task was supposed to take me 4-5 full days of work. My supervisor was in shock that I had completed the task and had nothing for me to do the rest of the week. It has been a similar situation for every task since I took this job.

GOOD! We parents (and our kids) are the ones whom they are getting paid to serve!

If my kid's teacher doesn't like k*ssing my a$$, well then, she can just k*ss my a$$! j/k

More seriously, though - teachers do work their butts off and do indeed have to put up with a lot of grief. Understandably so, because they're entrusted with our Nation's most valuable resource - our children, our future. But still, they do deserve lots of respect.

But Snoopy is right too. All professionals are expected to work long hours and make lots of sacrifices in order to get the job done, and for most of us, what recognition we do get (if any) is always too little and too late.

I feel sorry for the teachers who have to follow someone else's teaching agenda. Some of the teachers have great ideas, but must use the prescribed method or else.

And if they need supplies, talk to the PTA. It usually has money earmarked for teacher/classroom use, and many times goes unused b/c the teachers never come to the meetings and never know about the funds.

Biggins, your dad wouldn't happen to teach 3rd grade and be a huge Yankees fan, would he??

I have a lot of respect for teachers. They are obviously in the profession for the love of the kids, because it surly can't be the money! They have gone through school and gotten their 4 year degrees (atleast), yet don't make nearly as much as the computer professionals with the same amount of schooling.

I agree but then again... We also have to be on the watch for totally wacko teachers trying to teach our kids according to their own warped agenda using their own warped methods. The edible condoms incident comes to mind for example.

We do need to encourage and allow for excellence, but no way can teachers go pushing whatever personal agenda they may have. The local community has a right and responsibility to see to it that our kids are being taught what, and to some extent how, we choose. On the other hand, I strongly object to State and Federal gov't dictation of curricula.

Teachers are dedicated professionals doing what dedicated professionals of all kinds do (except maybe Lawyers hehe) - working long hours for too little rewards and gaining too little recognition for their extraordinary efforts. They certainly aren't hourly workers who punch in and out every day and watch the clock. They get the job done, no matter what it takes - as is expected of every professional employee.

We just need to get rid of the NEA and the Dept of Educ....
let it go back to being a local thing..
and get rid of the bureaucracy....if both of the above happened, most schools could cut their staff to just teachers, 1 principle, 1 asst. principle and a pt nurse & a receptionist...
...

Here's an interesting article. But most liberals still oppose vouchers to open schools to some competition, then say conservatives don't care about kids' education. How can you care about kids and not help their parents get them out of bad schools?

Note how the unions won't comment....

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040922-122847-5968r.htm

excerpts:

More than 25 percent of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools, a new study reports.

In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools.

In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.

Michael Pons, spokesman for the National Education Association, the 2.7-million-member public school union, declined a request for comment on the study's findings. The American Federation of Teachers also declined to comment.

Yes Snoopy - all that is wrong in the world is due to the liberals. This article was simply about teachers sending their own kids to private schools, and you made it into a political thing.

I don't disagree that the public schools in this country need some major improvements, but one might be to pay teachers what they deserve . Teachers' salaries are rarely commensurate with their efforts, therefore, you often times get really crappy teachers.

If you privatize every public school, then certain questionable curriculums/teachings can be pushed, that are not always appropriate for the classroom. Often times, private schools are private because they teach certain things that are not always appropriate for public schools, i.e. a particular religion. Instead of opening schools up for competition, why not improve the system we have?

We've tried for decades to improve the school systems we have and thrown billions of dollars at the problem, but with little improvement -- and in some cases they have gotten worse. How long does it take till we try somethign different? Monopolies or virtual monopolies rarely improve because there is little incentive to do so.

Competition in a free market is the reason most products and services improve -- improve or die is usually how it goes. Please show me any example you have of where this is not true.

And it is mostly liberals who oppose school choice, and it is certainly a political issue -- I didn't make it that way, it just is.

The free market would be better able to regulate teacher salaries if parents had a choice where to send their kids.

You mention religion as perhaps not being an appropriate subject, but who are you to decide what is appropriate instruction instead of the parents?

What is so wrong with giving parents a choice? Why are people afraid of that? How would you like to be forced to buy groceries from only one government-supported store unless you paid $5000 a year more to go to another store that was not tax-supported?

Finally an intelligent comment. Oh - you weren't serious?

What I don't get is how do these poor, underpaid teachers come up with the money to afford to send their kids to private schools? I sure can't! The current system discriminates against the poor, who cannot afford to put their kids in private schools. Vouchers are only FAIR.

And the public schools teach plenty of things that are questionable if not downright offensive to many ... including specific religions (humanism, atheism and/or paganism to name a few).

Now you're insulting my intelligence? How christian-like of you, Mr. nice guy. At least I base my beliefs on facts, not fairy tales.

Most liberals strongly promote and believe in choice -- well, at lease some choices. They really want "a woman's right to choose" whether to kill her unborn child or not, the right for homosexual to "choose" to marry another homosexual of the same sex, etc.

But they don't want to give parents the right to "choose" which school their kids go to unless they're willing to forfeit all tax-based subsidies that the government gives out.

Again, please show me any example you have of where competition does not help products and services to improve.

If teachers don't like the current crop of public schools for their own kids, why should I??

What are you anti-voucher people afraid of?

Snoopy i understand your points, and they are good ones. Yes, I am all for choice, but what about the poor families that can't afford to send their kids to the privatized schools - so they receive a poor education? Now the quality of basic education in this country will be dependent upon the wealth of the parents?

I agree that there have been many failed attempts at improving education across the board - and I don't necessarily have a solution either - maybe principals, or school officials need to more closely watch what exactly is going on in the classroom. I don't know, but I personally feel that if education is privatized, some kids will suffer.

The Libs don't mind forcing people to stay in the public school because they've got control of the public schools. Public schools are already teaching the kind of liberal nonsense that they'd like everyone to believe. If the Liberals didn't control the public schools it'd be a different matter... but they use the public schools for basic brainwashing, thanks in no small part to their control of the teachers' labor union and the national P.T.A.

PHISH you take offense way too easily - I was just jerking your leg - playin' around, for heaven's sake.

Written like a true smart a**!
If the teachers are all paid sooooo poorly how come they can afford private schooling? And is 37k such a bad salary for this area? They have an easy to get 4 year degree...heck I know an english major who does not know the 8 parts of speech...oh--and do not forget 10weeks off in the summer...heck, I want a job that I get paid not to work for 3 months...and have all the holidays off....
And more Monitoring? oH GOOD--another money grubbing program...let's see each school will need 2-3 additional people to MONITOR..another 60k per school at least...hmmmm..do I see an increase in taxes appears to be the only goal of the teachers union????

Fairy tales? Did you purposely open this can of worms on a simple education forum? I think you better move this comment fast, before I change the topic of this board entirely...

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

I never said I had the perfect solution - what's your perfect solution txexpatriot? You honestly think that some children won't be negatively affected if all schools went private? There are intelligent kids out there, with a lot of potential, but they'll never get to use it because they can't afford a college education. So what happens when you have to pay for grade school education?

As you said, you know an english major who does not know the 8 parts of speech - and that reflects the college education! What do you think will happen to students in grade school that can't afford the private school?

Phish,

You're assuming there won't be any private schools that would be fully funded by the voucher amount. I don't make that assumption.

Let's say right now the WCPS charges $5000 per student per year to educate a child ( I don't know the exact number but I think I'm in the ballpark). If the vouchers are equal to that $5000 I would guess there will be private schools that charge that exact amount the same way there are auto collision shops that charge exactly what the insurance company pays the car owner for the collision work. They get more business that way. And how often is the government more efficient at providing services than private enterprise?

As opposed to what BMIC and Snoopy want to use it for: brainwashing of another kind.

If we were all in BMIC and Snoopy's class room, we would have Bible Study from 9am-3pm and to hell with the separation of church and state. And all of the little kiddies would be perfectly indoctrinated God-fearing little Christian NRA disciples.

Not that its my job to defend anyone but youve been a member for about 2 hrs now. Posted 4 times and in every one of your posts youve had something negative to say about people who have been here far longer than you. Are you a psychic? or are you just making assumptions based on your whole 2 hrs here?

Byte-me is obviously a liberal flame-artist. Unlike Phish, who at least has the guts and ability to debate issues intelligently and without name-calling (most of the time ), this person is showing all the signs of being nothing more than just a hate-filled liberal. 4 posts and 4 flames, what a way to get respect!

Notice how he/she immediately assumes I want to control the content of all schools, a clear indication of paranoia as I've said no such thing. I want all parents to be able to have a choice in what school their kids attend and what the curriculum is. If Byte (God forbid ) had kids, I'd want him/her to have a choice in where the kid went to school. I don't wanna choose, I want the parents to have the freedom to choose. Maybe freedom of thought is a foreign concept to Byte.

uh-uh-uh Byte... separation of church and state wasn't actually found in any LEGALLY BINDING document until the idiotic Supreme Court ruling in the 1950s (or was it 60s? sometime in the time frame...)


That can of worms might not be good to open here... just thought I'd remind you.

So what's your point? The laws are the laws, whether we agree with them or not. And what's up with you and this can of worms stuff? This whole forum is one big open can of worms! You might as well get used to it! No topic is usually off limits in any board. Some aren't appropriate for the particular topic we're discussing, but we've all hijacked the board at one time or another.

well in THAT case...

The only thing found in the Constitution from our great founding fathers states that the government will not declare a particular national religion. It protected the freedom of religion to the general population, left it in their hands. Thereby, essentially saying that if people want to pray in school, so be it. If the teacher thinks a particular scripture verse will teach a significant lesson in human rights, so be it to be used.

With that whole separation of church and state mumbo-jumbo, I was actually threatened with detention for using biblical scripture in my verbal English report in a high school freshman honors english lit class. Uh, hello? Can you find the idiotcy behind that one?!?!?! Separation of church and state apparently pertains only to a Christian deity and religion. I can tell you that on more than one occasion, separation of church and state allowed my teachers to push an atheist view of the world on me constantly. In science class, I couldn't dare voice my belief of the Creation story w/o being sharply reminded that any answers on a test pertaining to Creation would not tolerated or passed.


Don't talk to me about Separation of church and state without expecting me to laugh in your face about it...

I don't think you should have been threatened with detention for using biblical scripture, but the question remains, was it relevent to the teacher's curriculum? And even though you may not agree with the teacher's curriculum, that's what is taught and tested.

You can't give biblical answers in a science class - science is based on fact. Religion is based on theory and faith, and a very small amount of history. Religion in a public school doesn't belong simply because it can be debated, based on your religious beliefs. Schools are there to teach the facts, and the facts only. If you want to be taught religion, then attend a private school. Or else if you want religion taught in schools, then all religions should be taught - christianity, judaism, buddhism, muslim, etc.

Wow, this went from Whiney Teachers to a Can of Worms over the past few weeks!

I think some people misunderstand the private school system. They aren't all religious institutions, although many parents prefer to send their kids to a school that teaches their own family beliefs along with academics. The voucher system would give parents a choice of whether to send their kids to a private school of their choice, or a public school. They aren't forced into a school that they don't approve of...it's their CHOICE!

Regarding the public school teachers being able to afford to send their kids to private school...I have friends that are public school teachers and send their kids to private schools because of what they've seen in their own schools, ie: drug dealers, bullying, etc. Maybe it's just the teachers that I know, but these are good people and don't have an "agenda." These parents/teachers make sacrifices in their budgets to provide a private school education for their kids. Both spouses work outside the home, the teachers work summer jobs (they just don't lounge around the pool or go on vacation all summer like many people seem to think) and they don't live in the most expensive houses in the neighborhood and drive new cars.

I find it insulting that the good public school teachers have to be lumped into one catagory of "liberal, whiney, control all the schools and brainwash the kids" type teachers" just because they teach in a public school.

Just don't get it, do you? I don't want to USE the public schools for anything. I want to be allowed to CHOOSE where my kids go to school and to a certain and of course limited extent, what kinds of things they're taught. I'd rather they were not taught the atheistic version of the sciences nor certain aspects of paganism that have been incorporated into some schools' "environmental" curriculum.

You don't want your kids to learn about the world from a Christian perspective, then don't send them to a Christian school. We're talking about CHOICE. Right now, unless I start making an awful lot more money, I have no choice but to send my kids to an Atheist school.

Bible Study all day long is obviously not a valid option, nor one which either Snoopy or I would want. But then again, your post wasn't meant to be taken seriously in the first place, was it? Just another stupid ad hominem attack.

We already pay for grade school education: it's called income tax.

I would just like to be able to use my child's portion of the education budget to send her to the school of MY choice. Not an amount based on my income, a flat amount equal to that which goes with every other child. Most voucher programs don't even do that: they only give back a portion of your child's education dollars.

Actually, speaking as a Christian, I believe that you have that completely backwards. In my opinion the Bible tells us the truth: Science is nothing but our feeble attempt to comprehend that portion of it which we are able. History demonstrates that science - scientific theories and so-called scientific "facts" - always change, while God and the Universe He created does not.

What passes as scientific fact depends on who you ask. To today's High School science teacher and the High School science curriculum, Darwinian macroevolution is a "fact". To the rest of the scientific world, it is an old theory that has been DISproven, as have a few of its replacements in recent decades. ... and that's just ONE example.

If you study science (and I don't mean just memorize the "facts" that others have discovered), you will find that it is largely devoted to explaining the exceptions that exist to practically every "rule" scientists have posited. The more we learn, the more we realize we DON'T know.

BMIC, you know I respect your beliefs, and your opinions, and your freedom to believe in whatever you want to believe in, so please don't take this personally, I'm just looking for some answers.

I'm going to assume for just a moment that the Bible does in fact tell us the truth. But does it also tell us how to make penicillian? Does it tell us how to derive power from nuclear fission. Does it tell us how to prevent disease? Does it tell us how to produce more food per acre?

And I wasn't aware that evolution was ever disproven, unless you're speaking of a group of religious people who say that evolution doesn't exist, merely because they say so.

In my very humble opinion, religious people who rely 100% on the Bible are as bad as scientific people who say that there is no supreme being.

If I sat around all day, and didn't do any scientific research, we'd all still be wearing loin cloths and walking everywhere, living to the ripe old age of 37.

----------------

We really, really do need a religious forum for intelligent discussion of beliefs and philosophies.

if you study the discoveries that archaelogists (sp?) and the likes are documenting these days, and for the past decades, you will find that the Bible, in every cicumstance, has yet to be disproven. In fact, every time someone has set out to disprove a particular "story" from the Bible, the story has in fact wound up proving itself.

That was speaking as someone who wrote a 29 page paper on my findings as a college student, by the way. As religious as it sounds, I urge you to do the research over a period of time, because that's exactly what you'll find.




My English paper was written on a the differences between how a novel we read what viewed during its generation (late 1800s/early 1900s) and how its viewed today. We were to use examples from the lifestyle of then vs. today. My paper/verbal report only had two small references to biblical scripture, both to describe the morals that people by those days lived by and one of which quoted and oft used scripture in the early schoolroom.

Science is the easiest subject to debate in the world! Nuft said on that issue...

You're so funny! And you don't even realize it!

Anyway, your post proved nothing, at least not to me. So you wrote a 29-page paper in college. Good for you!

How do you debate something scientific that's easily provable, such as the freezing/boiling point of water? Remind me again how you prove any god exists?

I'm not saying science doesn't have an important place. It is a very useful tool that we can and should use. What I am saying is that science does not trump religion. The two are not mutually exclusive, they are complimentary.

Darwinian macroevloution has indeed basically been disproven. There are simply no transitional forms. If evolution occurs, it definitely is not the gradual process of natural selection from a multitude of forms. Punctuated equilibrium is something you may have heard of and is a flawed attempt to explain the lack of transitional forms. It assumes that there were quick jumps in the evolutionary process. There are those who, in deference to Charles Darwin, try to justify the two, but for the most part Darwin's basic theory has been abandoned. Overall, Evolution is as much of a religious belief as is Creation. Creation fits the facts at least as well as evolution. Evolution presupposes that God doesn't exist, and wrestles with a variety of issues. Creation explains it all perfectly.

Yes, I see women popping out of a man's rib all the time!

I understand the theories of both sides, but I'm looking for a meaurable, scientific result to prove that a god exists. Since there isn't one (for either side), that's why I remain an agnostic.

I pray to Him, and the tornado passes over me. I cry out to Him, and I regain control of my car on the icy road instead of plunging to my death off the side of the mountain. A money order from an anonymous person arrives in the mail the very day I find I have no food nor money for groceries for my family for the next week. I beg Him for healing, and my Lupus remits. Need I continue?

God has proven Himself to me.

Since when does the boiling point of water disprove the existence of God?

Please, it's an example of something that's provable to anybody. An undisputed fact, if you will. Somebody's good fortune does not prove the existence of a god to me.

It only happened once. And you obviously don't even know the passage you're misstating since you describe it inaccurately.

And - oh yeah - Like I see ape-women all over the place!

I didnt mean for you take me so literally, dear.

Science has a multitude of good uses... medicine, power, safety...

And yes, some points are point blank, no questions asked. To me, freezing/boling points are suffice to call facts. The fact that a tree has rings for each year of its life, again suffice to call fact. But other things are constantly debated. How a drug aeffects certain people / how animals in the laboratory tell us anything about human results / what the center of the Earth is like....

So many debates take place in science, and a lot of them eventually lead to theory-based fact. In the years / decades / centuries prior to those theories are debates...

Science complements religion. Religion, in some instances, sparks the scientific debates found in our world today. Either way you look at it, religion and science go hand in hand. I do think that someone who can't take the facts from both sides is condemned to live in total and utter distrust, sickness, and naivety.

Have you ever seen a sicilian woman?!

Sure it did.

Of course we're ignoring superheating and supercooling of liquids. Of course, science has managed to explain those exceptions to the "rules" of boiling and freezing points, respectively. Just one illustration of just one of my points.

Science imperfectly describes the universe, but it's usually good enough to serve our needs. Just be careful the next time you microwave a cup of water.

Thank goodness you chose one of the things that most people have heard of the exceptions to. There are lots of other scientific "facts", the exceptions to which are not quite so familiar.

whoa, sorry BMIC, I was coming from a different area when I said that. Didn't mean to inadvertently suffocate a perfect example of scientific exceptions...