no teachers show up for "back to school night"

[rbell]

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/back-to-school-night-for-neshaminy-sd

Ah, yes...teacher's unions. The ultimate in child neglect.

from the article:

On "Back-to-School Night" in the Neshaminy School District on Thursday night, there was one very important thing missing: Teachers!

...not one single teacher showed up for this important night at Carl Sandburg Junior High, or at the other two schools in this district.

Teachers in the district are currently "working to contract" in their third school year without a new employment deal.
The teachers' union does not want to pay for health benefits. The school board says it does not have the money to pay for such benefits. Both sides are still far apart.
The teachers could go on strike as early as the end of this month.

 

[mcdirector]

That's sad . . .

All I ask on this thread is that someone not jump in and paint all teachers with the same broad and pitifully non-caring brush. We had 100% of teachers at our open house (many worked all summer because their grade levels were changed) and this is our 3rd year with no increase.

 

[billwald]

Logically the school board should hire a new teaching staff.

 

[carpro]

That's sad . . .

All I ask on this thread is that someone not jump in and paint all teachers with the same broad and pitifully non-caring brush. We had 100% of teachers at our open house (many worked all summer because their grade levels were changed) and this is our 3rd year with no increase.

Teachers are not the problem in this case, it's the unions they join.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Teachers are not the problem in this case, it's the unions they join.

Or maybe its the parents/kids who can falsely accuse a teacher and make them liable for, at the least, 10s of thousands in legal fees which effectively forces teachers to join a union in order to protect against such liabilities?

 

[dwmoeller1]

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/back-to-school-night-for-neshaminy-sd

Ah, yes...teacher's unions. The ultimate in child neglect.

from the article:

Ah, yes...tax payers. The ultimate in teacher neglect

If only either statement were that simple...

 

[carpro]

Or maybe its the parents/kids who can falsely accuse a teacher and make them liable for, at the least, 10s of thousands in legal fees which effectively forces teachers to join a union in order to protect against such liabilities?

Do you have evidence that, in this case, it is the reason they didn't show?

BTW Personal liabilty policies are widely available for less than the cost of union dues, without their hammer over your head.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Do you have evidence that, in this case, it is the reason they didn't show?

Not the point. You are placing universal blame on teacher unions. I point out that a large reason that have the power they do has to do with how vulnerable teachers on with regards to pay and liability and how ill-compensated they generally are. Teachers don't generally go into education for the money - they go into it because they want to influences kids lives and minds for the better. Most spend way more time on their job than they are paid for. So when a group of teachers revolt, it might very well be because they have finally taken all they can handle in the way of low pay and benefits for what is an extremely stressful and involved job.

I am not claiming that is the case here (as you point out, I have no real evidence for that), but by the same token, you have no real evidence that the source of the problem is with the union. Just as I shouldn't blame everything on taxpayers or teachers/kids, neither should you blame in all on the teachers and unions. The real story is almost certainly a lot more involved than that...esp. considering the obvious slant of the article (school administration and parents being quoted but no quotes from the union, much less any teacher? C'mon...)

BTW Personal liabilty policies are widely available for less than the cost of union dues, without their hammer over your head.

A million in personal liability for less than $300 a year? Along with all the rest of the support and representation that a union gives? And policy that will cover you for things like being accused of child molesting? Wow, tell me where to go to get that.

As to a union being a hammer over one's head a lot has to do with the individual school. It is quite possible to get involved in the union and change its local character. I am not pro-union by any means, but after having taught in the public system, I certainly understand the reasons for them a lot better.

 

[carpro]

Not the point. You are placing universal blame on teacher unions. I point out that a large reason that have the power they do has to do with how vulnerable teachers on with regards to pay and liability and how ill-compensated they generally are. Teachers don't generally go into education for the money - they go into it because they want to influences kids lives and minds for the better. Most spend way more time on their job than they are paid for. So when a group of teachers revolt, it might very well be because they have finally taken all they can handle in the way of low pay and benefits for what is an extremely stressful and involved job.

I am not claiming that is the case here (as you point out, I have no real evidence for that), but by the same token, you have no real evidence that the source of the problem is with the union. Just as I shouldn't blame everything on taxpayers or teachers/kids, neither should you blame in all on the teachers and unions. The real story is almost certainly a lot more involved than that...esp. considering the obvious slant of the article (school administration and parents being quoted but no quotes from the union, much less any teacher? C'mon...)



A million in personal liability for less than $300 a year? Along with all the rest of the support and representation that a union gives? And policy that will cover you for things like being accused of child molesting? Wow, tell me where to go to get that.

As to a union being a hammer over one's head a lot has to do with the individual school. It is quite possible to get involved in the union and change its local character. I am not pro-union by any means, but after having taught in the public system, I certainly understand the reasons for them a lot better.

http://www.aaeteachers.org/index.php/about-us/true-or-false-nea-says


Smoke screen. The union provides nothing that can't be obtained in other ways for less.

It's about money . It always is. Unions don't care about educating the kids. They don't care about the taxpayers that pay teacher's salaries. They are interested only in money and power over those teachers gullible enough to fall for their lies.

Every teacher that doesn't show up for work should be fired.

As for the teachers thatdon't like the money they're making or any of the other problems you're whining about, they should find another job. One not paidd by tax dollars. Then complain all they like and then stop using kids as bargaining chips for their own personal gain.

The people they stood up pay their salaries.

 

[dwmoeller1]

http://www.aaeteachers.org/index.php/about-us/true-or-false-nea-says


Smoke screen. The union provides nothing that can't be obtained in other ways for less.

Not quite true, but I won't quibble. And thanks for the info. Had no idea there was an organization like that.

Every teacher that doesn't show up for work should be fired.

Showing up for teacher's night has nothing to do with showing up for work. Things like teacher's night are just one of the many many things teachers end up doing that they technically don't have to, and for which they are technically not paid.

As for the teachers thatdon't like the money they're making or any of the other problems you're whining about, they should find another job. One not paidd by tax dollars. Then complain all they like and then stop using kids as bargaining chips for their own personal gain.

What you suggest would be the ruin of public education. Maybe thats not problem for you. If so though, why would you even care what the union does in cases like these?

The people they stood up pay their salaries.

Those people weren't paying for their time that night. That the teachers might have done this without warning is a problem, I would agree (the article gives no clue about that one way or the other - did I mention the article was skewed?). But the issue is almost certainly a lot more involved than you are representing it.

 

[carpro]

Not when a union is involved. It's always about money or power in one way or another.

In the case of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of other sources that tell the same story of strongarm tacts by the teacher's union. It's always about money.

This case is no different.

 

[dwmoeller1]

So not showing up when you aren't getting paid for it anyways is a strong arm tactic?

 

[carpro]

So not showing up when you aren't getting paid for it anyways is a strong arm tactic?

If you say so...

It certainly shows a lack of concern for the welfare of their students and a correspondingly huge concern for their own selfish desires. And striking when it costs the striker practically nothing, as is the case with teachers, is a cowardly way to score points. The only it people hurts are the students and their families.

 

[dwmoeller1]

If you say so...

It certainly shows a lack of concern for the welfare of their students and a correspondingly huge concern for their own selfish desires. And striking when it costs the striker practically nothing, as is the case with teachers, is a cowardly way to score points. The only it people hurts are the students and their families.

Oh boo hoo for the little kids who are getting an education on the public dole.

Failing to show up for something, taking time away from your family, while not being paid is selfish? It seems the selfish ones are the people who get all upset because the teachers finally quit donating their time. Do they really expect to pay them well below what they are worth AND donate their time? Then if they complain they are just whiners and they should go get another job? Which is it - should they be paid for their time and effort or not? Do you just want those who only work in the public system because they can't actually get another job? It makes no sense.

Seriously though, can't you see that such reasoning is reductionism? Such an pattern of thinking would be the downfall of the public education system. If you have no problem with that happening, then at least you are consistent. But for those who care about the public education system, such a response to teachers makes no sense. Do you want to decrease the power of the unions? Then pay the teachers more in accordance with what they are worth. Quit demanding that the sacrifice for your children while you aren't willing to make sure they are paid decently for what they contribute to your children.

I am NOT saying the teachers are right - merely that the story is more involved than you portray it.

 

[carpro]

Oh boo hoo for the little kids who are getting an education on the public dole.

That's a good pretty assessment of the attitude of teachers union.

I am NOT saying the teachers are right - merely that the story is more involved than you portray it.

That it's not about money, as the story said?

You seem pretty sure. Why don't you share your evidence with us?

 

[Deacon]

I pass the school, (Maple Point Middle School in the Neshaminy school district) every day on my way to work.

Last year the kids protested and ran away from school; police were called because teachers wouldn't step in. [LINK]

Parents are frustrated. A co-workers daughter attends the school and reports that the teachers indoctrinate the kids, coercing them toward the teachers position.
But most of the kids are not as dumb as the teachers believe.

Teachers don't want to pay for their health care costs.

I say loose them all and hire new ones.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

So not showing up when you aren't getting paid for it anyways is a strong arm tactic?

These teachers are being paid handsomely.
Average teacher salary: $73345. Teacher salary range: $23163 - $90803.
And that's will full health care provisions.

Not bad - - no holidays, no night shift, weekends and summers off, and tenure to-boot.

Oh now ya got me going!
I love it when once school starts I begin seeing teachers visiting the doctors for their routine doctors visits - because that's when they can use their sick days.

We pay the teachers well because they care.
These teachers have proved that they don't care!

Rob

 

[sag38]

It's time for a lot of things:

Time to fire a bunch of teachers. Time for parents to take responsibility for their children's education. Time to get the federal government out of micromanaging local school systems. Time for unions to be just as interested in education as they are in protecting the rights of their members. Time for a loser pays all costs system (that would stop a lot of these lawsuits against teachers and school systems).

 

[billwald]

In most jurisdictions the kids are required to go to school for so many days and the teachers are paid for at least that many days. If the teachers strike the school year is extended so the pay stays the same.

The problem is that the primary purpose of primary public school is day care. Teachers go on strike and the "free" day care gets screwed up.

 

[targus]

In most jurisdictions the kids are required to go to school for so many days and the teachers are paid for at least that many days. If the teachers strike the school year is extended so the pay stays the same.

The problem is that the primary purpose of primary public school is day care. Teachers go on strike and the "free" day care gets screwed up.

Actually in the Detroit school system they did it a little different.

The last time that the teachers were out on strike for a couple of months - when they finally came back to work they took attendance twice a day...

And counted it as two days !!! :laugh: