Quoted from 129

I  If I only kept the students who truly wanted to learn Biology (my subject) I would have about 5 students per class.  Nobody goes into a restaurant and trashes the place, no body goes to the movies and beats up the pocorn vendor.  But kids come into school EVERY DAY and REFUSE to learn.  So why are they coming?  So, if you think I make too much money because I work more hours than I get paid for with kids who don't care if I do my job (not to mention my job depends on them doing well, even though they sleep through class or go to the bathroom for 10 minutes everyday during my class) maybe you should become a teacher and ask for less money.  By the way, if you can read this, thank the underpaid, underappreciated teacher that taught you.

If the parents were able to choose what Biology teacher or school in a way of a voucher, maybe we wouldn't have this problem.  That would solve a mutual problem.  Teachers wouldn't teach kids that didn't want to learn, and parent would be able to choose another school where another teacher may be able to inspire them to learn.  Teachers wouldn't want that though.  Most would rather those kids be sleeping or going to the bathroom during class stay right where they are, because at least their parents are paying their school taxes, which pay your salary.  

Let's not forget, this isn't a one way problem.  You might not be teaching the kids you claim don't want to learn, in a way they learn the best.  I can't recall anyone I know going to school saying " I don't want to learn how to add or spell today".  But parents are denied the ability to find out, since we are trapped by where we choose to live as to who we have teach our kids.  As a teacher you're not trapped.  If you don't like the district you are teaching in, you can bide your time until another one opens in a "better" district.  Usually in the suburbs.  That's why you have all the young inexperienced teachers in the inner city schools earning small salaries while the veterans end up in the suburban schools soaking up the big money.  It's the unspoken seniority system set up by the union.  

The problem I have with teachers is the total disregard for the taxpayer.  They want to picket, and where t-shirts in the schools, voicing your displeasure with a current contract or lack their of, as if it is the fault of the students.  Not to mention the fact that the residents cannot turn around and tell the disgruntled teachers to go screw themselves and hire scab teachers.  

mnaborln, I am glad to hear that you are dissatisfied with the current tax funded educations system.  Though, you are expressing that feeling under an alias on a message board.  I doubt you would make that same assertion in front of the colleagues you work with.  If you did, you would find yourself eating alone in the faculty lounge.

No one is bashing your profession, in fact we have all agreed your profession is a noble one.  You are fairly new in your career and must have know all of these things going into it.  And as for those kids....I'm sure they are a handful, that is why it was not my choice to go into teaching.  You could have made the same choice.  No complaints here, I was just stating facts.  I will admit, in hindsight about 30 years too late, I wish I had beelined it for a public sector job, my husband has said the same thing.  Nothing like heading towards fifty to make you realize how close retirement is.  Depending on the size of your family you can also tack several thousand $$ to your income per year for the cost of health insurance.  We, for a two person plan with CDPHP pay $110 per WEEK.  Thats only our part, the company pays the other half.  If you hang in there you will see how valuable your benefit package is even though your pay is not the greatest right now.  In my insurance business I worked with school administrators and teachers to help plan their retirement so I do know a bit about what I'm saying.  Most of my clients ended up with more spendable income when they retired then when they worked.

Quoted Text

As a teacher you're not trapped.  If you don't like the district you are teaching in, you can bide your time until another one opens in a "better" district.  

Quoted Text

What Employment at Will Means
As are many employees only after the fact, you might be surprised to learn in advance that U.S. employers may legally fire you for just about any reason, no reason or even an unfair reason. That's partially because there are relatively few labor laws that protect workers from wrongful termination and none that generally protect from workplace "unfairness" per se. But it's more so because most states consider employment to be "at will" in legal jargon.

In plain English, the Employment At-Will Doctrine means that employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee under the doctrine, you may quit your job whenever and for whatever reason you want, usually without consequence. In turn, at-will employers may terminate you whenever and for whatever reason they want, usually without consequence.

Either party may end the relationship without prior notice, but neither party may breach contracts. Employers cannot violate state or Federal laws, and generally cannot rightfully terminate employees who refuse to do something that is contrary to public policy and sound morality, such as breaking the law. But with these few exceptions aside, it's pretty much open season on employees year round.

Although you may "legally" quit at any time without prior notice, you might deprive yourself of termination benefits, such as  accrued vacation pay, if you don't give at least the minimum notice documented by your employer. U.S. employers typically require minimum notice in the form of a resignation letter submitted at least two weeks in advance, and document the requirements in employee policy manuals or similar documents.

In the absence of contracts (such as collective bargaining agreements) that either waive or enforce it, the Employment At-Will Doctrine is typically enforced under common law.
It was the outcome of the 1908 case of Adair v. United States that set the U.S. Supreme Court precedent for employment at will. Contact your state's labor office to find out if it upholds the Employment At-Will Doctrine.

Your employer might require you to sign an agreement that documents the terms of employment at will, to ensure you agree in writing. If written correctly, it's a legal and binding contract, backed by the common law. Alternately, the terms might be in a policy manual or similar document, and you likely agreed in writing to abide by company policies when you hired on. In the absence of explicit, signed contracts, some states consider policy manuals and such to be binding, implied contracts.

So that would be the politicians lining their vote boxes??????

Quoted Text

Employment at Will or Employment at Whim?
Although it may seem so, employment at will does not necessarily mean "at whim" in most states, at least not for employers. According the Uniform Law Commissioners, a slew of lawsuits starting in the 1980s shot holes in the Employment At-Will Doctrine, spawning the Model Employment Termination Act. Although employment is still at will on both sides of the fence, states that have adopted the Act now require employers to at least show "good cause" for terminating you. But that's only if you're covered by the Act.

Even if a state hasn't adopted the Act, it might have related laws. An employment at-will agreement might define good cause for termination, as might a policy manual. Still, good cause or not is often a matter of interpretation by the courts or arbitrators.

For example, if you get fired for allegedly violating a company policy and you fight it, a court might consider one or more of the following, to determine whether or not your employer honestly had good cause.

If your employer made you aware of the policy and warned you about the consequences of violating it beforehand
Whether or not your employer gave you a chance to explain your side of the story
Whether or not it's a frivolous policy and if you really did anything wrong to hurt the company or other employees
Your employment record at the company
How your employer disciplined other employees for similar violations
Whether your employer enacted the policy before or after you violated it
Whether or not violating company policy was described as good cause for termination in an agreement, employee handbook or similar document
But the Employment At-Will Doctrine is so strong in the U.S., that the courts have sometimes upheld it even though employers proved only weak cause for termination. As long as employers don't violate other laws, the courts tend to uphold the at-will common law.

That doesn't mean there's no hope for remedy, as employees have also sued and won. Consult with an attorney (or union representative) who specializes in this matter, if you think your employer terminated you without good cause. Even if you bypass the courts through voluntary or mandatory arbitration, it's still a good idea to have an attorney sitting on your side of the table. You can bet your ex-employer will.

And unfortunately your profession and mine are similar in that they affect people via emotions(or the perception that "I pay and I deserve at least, blah blah blah")this after all is America.....I'm a nurse...no matter what, if a patient is complaining of pain and I bring them a pain pill without a smile on my face because I have a personal problem on my mind or most likely a patient that is truly in more pain and with more complications than them, I am considered a 'bad' nurse.....oh well, nothing I can do about that moment at work....
and there are times I smile and greet you and encourage you only to lambaseted for something I wasn't there for and didn't even have control over......I have decided to be a duck...I let it roll off my back....you will always get my smile even if I dont like you and/or I am not having a good day...but, dont be my direct boss on those days.....employment at will goes both ways......and frankly that's one less nurse in the system---too bad
These scenarios dont happen all the time, but they can be frequent enough to say "I should have been a kite maker".....

I'm sure when you have to call little suzie/bobbys parents about their behavior or lack there of, not to mention the (oooh) counselor...you are now the 'bad' teacher, my little suzie/bobby wouldn't do that......but, if the kid doesn't learn now they will learn later, this is America and they wont starve, and there is always American Idol

Humans(people) can be mean and get even meaner when money/emotion is involved---I say remove the money and put chickens in it's place.....

One thing I always remember is---I do what I do(be a nurse) because that is what I do...when it no longer becomes a 'thing from in me', it will be time to find a new career....I see that coming up the lane for me.....maybe I will be a teacher----of pottery....

I thought teachers were supposed to set an example to the students that they teach. For example: Is there a dress code for teachers? I am only asking since I know of a young female elementary school teacher who dresses with short skirts and skimpy tops and then tells her students what bar she went to on the weekend and what her favorite drink is. Now she is probably not in the majority, but when the parents approached the principle of the school, they were told that they have addressed the issue with the teacher, but that there was really nothing they could do. They even contacted the superintendent and received the same answer. And why? The teachers are protected by the union, that's why.

UNIONS PROTECT BAD BEHAVIOR!!! ALL UNIONS!!

So no sympathy here. It is truly all about the money and the benefits NOT the kids!

When I was still working my biggest problem with the union was that they were constantly saving the jobs of workers who should have been fired instead of reinstated to their job. The union also killed the merit raise because it was unfair to the slugs who never did a days work and therefore would never get a merit raise.

Shadow you are correct. And this pattern still follows today. That is why they(union employees) get promotions or raises by seniority and not merit.

And that is why at the state you have to take a civil service test to self promote. There are some dumb people who are excellent test takers and some smart people who are terrible at it. So taking a written test is the plumb line for advancement. Not productivity or merit or smarts or attendance.

Quoted from CICERO

If the parents were able to choose what Biology teacher or school in a way of a voucher, maybe we wouldn't have this problem.  That would solve a mutual problem.  Teachers wouldn't teach kids that didn't want to learn, and parent would be able to choose another school where another teacher may be able to inspire them to learn.  Teachers wouldn't want that though.  Most would rather those kids be sleeping or going to the bathroom during class stay right where they are, because at least their parents are paying their school taxes, which pay your salary.  

Let's not forget, this isn't a one way problem.  You might not be teaching the kids you claim don't want to learn, in a way they learn the best.  I can't recall anyone I know going to school saying " I don't want to learn how to add or spell today".  But parents are denied the ability to find out, since we are trapped by where we choose to live as to who we have teach our kids.  

Au contraire my friend, you do have an option.  You can send your kid to ANY school that you want.  I repeat ANY.  Now, you may like the the fact the you will have to pay for them to go there on top of paying school taxes for where you live, but it is possible; the opportunity exists.  But, a school is not allowed to refuse a child that lives in its district.  It does not matter if the student comes in everyday and says to me, "F%#^ you, you blankety blank."  That student will be back in 5 days (after a vacation we call suspension) to do it all over again.  But if he doesn't like me, he can at least have his schedule changed or (to the extreme) go to another school.  Once again, people are bashing my job without knowing all of the facts.  I have yet to bash your jobs, I simply keep defending mine.

If you think kids don't come in and specifically say, "I don't want to learn this and I won't do it," then you have obviously never been a teacher or sat in a classroom as an observer.

If I can just leave my job (to escape students I don't like) you can just as easily move to escape a school district you don't like.  If you think it is easy to pick up and leave a CAREER (not just a job) then I want your job.

I don't know anything about unions protecting bad employees that don't deserve their promotions.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist I just mean it is not something I pay attention to.  What I do know is that my union is good for a few reasons: 1.  My job does not become political - meaning I won't get fired or demoted simply because my superintendent doesn't like me or that I don't attend football games. 2. It ensures that someone with the same EXPERIENCE I have doesn't make more than me.  I don't mean that they shouldn't make more if they do a better job.  I mean they shouldn't make more because they're sleeping with the superintendent or principal.  It stops favoritism. 3.  If allegations of misconduct are brought against me, I know that I won't be fired without a thorough investigation and proof of my wrong-doing.  Yes teachers can get fired.  4. My union protects me from being fired because I make too much money.  Big corporations cut from the top down to save on the big salaries.  They lose they're jobs because they are making the money they DESERVE.  That won't happen to me.  5. My union protects me from parents that have never taught, were jerks in school themselves, and can't understand why their kid has to complete 30 required state labs.  I can't be fired because they don't like the system ( that I did not create).

Just because your job may not have a union, why is it my fault?  Is this communism?  Because you don't have a union I can't either?  Do you hate the 8-hour work day?  You can thank unions for that.  I understand some people have to put in over time but the vast majority of us are glad that we don't have to work 14 hours a day.  Would you prefer to get no lunch break?  If you like eating lunch, thank unions that made the government pass laws.  My ex-wife is a pharmacist and doesn't get a lunch break when she is the only pharmacist on because the company won't close the pharmacy.  She has to eat while working standing up.  I'm not sure how the company is able to skirt the law like that.

Here is why the merit system is not good in teaching:  I don't know how much you follow it, but education today (in NYS but also nationally with No Child Left Behind) is so results-driven, it should be a crime.  The government does not really care how much you child learns.  They care about how well they do on tests and the reason is simple: International Competition.  To put it bluntly, the United States sucks compared to other industrialzed nations and we (the government) are embarrassed.  So what are we going to do?  We're going to make kids take tons of tests so that we can get better scores and move up in the international standings.  Now apply this to merit pay.  Teachers would be teaching to the test.  In actuality this already happens because we have to get students to pass.  But it would become even worse because teachers would se a dollar attached to the test results.  This does not necessarily mean we would be greedy.  It means if merit pay were the ONLY way to get a raise, we would have to teach our students how to TAKE a test, rather than the matieral that is on the test.

Does anyone know what No Child Left Behind says?  It says that all children need to pass all subjects.  If a school district does not meet certain expectations, they are in trouble.  And get this:  Schools have certain categories in which they have to do well.  For example, some of the categories are minorites, special ed, and poor, and overall graduation.  So if a poor, learning disbaled, minority student doesn't graduate in 4 years, he or she hurts us in FOUR categores.  We are now consider to be subpar in 4 categories because of 1 student.  It DOES NOT matter if the student's mother is a crack addict and he or she has 4 brothers to take care of and comes to school once every 2 weeks.  He or she has to pass just like everyone else.

If the school is below standard in any ONE of those categories:  After the first year you are given a year to improve.  After 2 years, the state tells you what to teach, when to teach it, and for how long to teach it.  After 3 years, the state comes in, fires you because not enough of your kids passed, replaces the administration, and replaces everyone with people that have no experience in YOUR district.  All because Johnny Numbnuts and his pals decided to smoke pot behind the bleechers instead of taking their exams.  But I make too much money and get too many benefits for doing my absolute best to teach him anyway.

We're not saying you're making too much money what we really want is a cap put on how much the school district sucks out of the taxpayers every year and then blames the teachers salary for having to raise the tax again. The school district along with the state is going to have to find a way to hold down spending and cap taxes because the taxpayer can't afford anymore tax hikes. Schdy County is the number 8th most taxed county in the country and you as a teacher think that this is fair. Read the article by Joe Suhrada in today's paper and just look at prestigious places in this country who pay far less tax than we do and have far more to show for it and we live in an area with no infrastructure and much of the town has no sewers. How in the world will this ever change when most of our tax dollars go to fund high school taxes. We also would like to see the County Council cut spending and lower taxes so it's not just the school taxes we're opposed to.

Shadow, I noticed you didn't quote me when you said I was in favor of high school taxes.  That's because I've never said it.  Do you think I am exempt from taxes because I'm a teacher?  I pay them, too.  I pay $4800 in taxes a year.  My brother in Dutchess County pays $10,000 and he's a teacher too.  I know taxes are too high.  In a way, school should only be paid for by those who have children attending it.  But, you can also look at it that it is a community's responsibility to support educating its kids to become productive citizens, so everyone should pay.

Have you ever heard that "money talks and BS walks"?  I agree 100% that taxes are too high but the flipside to that (me playing Devil's advocate here) is that everyone wants their school to be the best around.  It doesn't happen without money.  I know some easy solutions to lower school taxes.  Let's get school back to what it really is for.  Let's get rid of anything that doesn't directly deal with learning.  Let's lower the teachers' salaries but let's also get rid of all sports.  Let's get rid of all computers. You can learn with cheap paper and pencils.  Let's get rid of all field trips.  The state doesn't care if you play an instrument so let's get rid of band.  Make kids bring their own lunches and we can fire the lunch staff.  Let's fire 1 teacher in each subject and increase class size to 40, even though ALL studies say small class size is better.  My school is a big football school.  The town would be in an uproar if football were cut.  But our football has about 5 paid coaches.  Let's get rid of them and their salaries and we'll also save money on busses to and from games, we'll save money on maintaining the field, we'll save money on running the big spotlights.  But nobody wants to do that.  It'll hurt the kids.  Well then, you have to pay for it.  Go to your next board meeting and ask them to get rid of all non-essential activities.  Put your MONEY where your mouth is.  You need teachers at school if you want kids to learn and the teachers need to be paid, but let's get rid of everything else.

Quoted from 129

Au contraire my friend, you do have an option.  You can send your kid to ANY school that you want.  I repeat ANY.  Now, you may like the the fact the you will have to pay for them to go there on top of paying school taxes for where you live, but it is possible; the opportunity exists.  But, a school is not allowed to refuse a child that lives in its district.  

I didn't think I had to explain the fact that your tax money wouldn't be returned, if you chose not to send your child to the school in the district you live.  I assumed that me suggesting a voucher in my previous post covered that.  I compare that line of reasoning to buying a car, let's say it's a Ford for $20,000.  You find out you don't like it so you want a different car.  You want to buy a Chevy that cost about the same.  You have the option of selling the Ford at a depreciated price, or trade it in.  Either way you're not eating the whole $20k, you're being compensated for something you don't own anymore.  If I were real stupid, I would continue to pay for the Ford that I don't like, as well as buy a Chevy and pay for that as well.  Makes a lot of sense.  

Total disregard for taxpayers.  

Nobody wants to get that extreme but you know darn well that there is a lot of wasteful spending going on in every school district. How about NYS kicking some more money from the lottery to aid the school districts hold down their taxes instead of dumping a large part of that money into the general fund to fund the pork projects that we don't really need like the foot bridge across the Mohawk River in Amsterdam that no one wants or needs. There are other ways to fund the money that school districts need to finance their expenses. I pay $6000 in combined property and school tax and I haven't had a kid in school for 25 years so I've paid my fair share of the burden. Mnborin what you're forgetting is that many of us are on fixed incomes or are nearing retirement and don't have the luxury of just reaching into the taxpayers pockets every time we need more money to live on like you do. When I was working I had boots with more time on the job than you have so b4 you accuse us of not understanding the problems facing teachers walk a mile in our shoes so you'll be able to see both sides of the story.