On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:55:10 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

If that's what she did, I agree. But, if she manipulated the budget to
get rid of crap teachers without tangling with the union for every one
of them, then more power to her.
--

John H

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.
Might be as you say but I thought this particular layoff was due to budget
cuts. Ethics doesn't play a big part in modern day life. School boards
must realize that they sometimes need to take drastic measures to prevent
unions from running their school systems. Fight fire with fire, if you
will. I mean no disrespect to your wife, but I do not have empathy for or
support unions.

Then there are the unions that have taken over the school board. Happened
in San Ramon , CA a few years ago. Financially stable school district and
the teachers union ran and go elected as a majority of the board a bunch of
teachers. Passed large raises, etc. 3 years later the school district was
bankrupt. The union should have been sued for fraud.

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:49:43 -0500, Jim wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other
options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.
Might be as you say but I thought this particular layoff was due to
budget cuts. Ethics doesn't play a big part in modern day life. School
boards must realize that they sometimes need to take drastic measures to
prevent unions from running their school systems. Fight fire with fire,
if you will. I mean no disrespect to your wife, but I do not have
empathy for or support unions.

Not only is Tom entirely correct, I'll add another very great truth.
Most local educational agencies are *VERY* top heavy (and becoming
more so with every year). If you are going to make cuts, you don't
send away the teachers and screw the students... you send away
superflous administrators... they don't teach ANYBODY and, well, isn't
teaching the whole idea?

Think about it.... ever heard a news report of: we dumped "X" amount
of teachers and "Y" amount of administrators that were, subsequently,
no longer needed?
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186

Very true. Maybe 40 years ago, San Francisco layed off a large bunch of
teachers as the declining enrollment did not require as many teachers. Not
one administrator was dumped.

In article ,
om says...

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:55:10 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

If that's what she did, I agree. But, if she manipulated the budget to
get rid of crap teachers without tangling with the union for every one
of them, then more power to her.

Just because you have been there for 20 years or more doesn't mean you
get to sit on your fat lazy ass and wait out your retirement date due to
"tenure."

Gene wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:47:53 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:55:10 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?
I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.
If that's what she did, I agree. But, if she manipulated the budget to
get rid of crap teachers without tangling with the union for every one
of them, then more power to her.

Then before you said, "good on her" you should have done just a
*little* bit of homework:

Like.... one might question why she hired 900 new teachers in the
summer to fire nearly half that many a few months later... even though
many could document good APRs....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001956.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101403564.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/...sacked_in.html


A lot of schools won't replace lost workers right away,if ever. Take
Michele Obama for instance. Her $350,000 a year position wasn't filled
when she left. A key position left unfilled is a disgrace to whichever
school obama was working for.

Give this woman credit for keeping her school system fully staffed. So
what if she overestimated her needs a bit last summer.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:45:43 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:18:50 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:59:52 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.

There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.

Amen, brother! Fire the rest of those teachers, free up the budget,
and let the little *******s teach themselves. Clearly the only way for
one interested in "actually trying to improve the education process in
Washington DC."

???

What ??? You said "it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to
improve the education in Washington DC." Since this is accomplished
by firing teachers to balance the budget.... obviously.....

the way to improve education is to fire teachers, save money, and make
students responsible for teaching themselves! Apparently, there is no
alternative.... or that was the best approach... that IS the way "to
improve the education in Washington DC," isn't it?

Getting rid of dead weight is Ms. Rhee's objective.

In fact she has told the DC board of education to fire her if they don't
like what she is doing. The school system, any school system, should
does not exist to keep the NEA happy.

BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:45:43 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:18:50 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:59:52 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.
There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.
Amen, brother! Fire the rest of those teachers, free up the budget,
and let the little *******s teach themselves. Clearly the only way for
one interested in "actually trying to improve the education process in
Washington DC."
???
What ??? You said "it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to
improve the education in Washington DC." Since this is accomplished
by firing teachers to balance the budget.... obviously.....

the way to improve education is to fire teachers, save money, and make
students responsible for teaching themselves! Apparently, there is no
alternative.... or that was the best approach... that IS the way "to
improve the education in Washington DC," isn't it?

Getting rid of dead weight is Ms. Rhee's objective.

In fact she has told the DC board of education to fire her if they don't
like what she is doing. The school system, any school system, should
does not exist to keep the NEA happy.





Teachers in the district are represented by the American Federation of
Teachers, ****-for-brains. Had you stayed in school instead of joining
the other intellectual zeros of your era in the marines, you might have
known this.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:11:46 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:47:53 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:55:10 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

If that's what she did, I agree. But, if she manipulated the budget to
get rid of crap teachers without tangling with the union for every one
of them, then more power to her.

Then before you said, "good on her" you should have done just a
*little* bit of homework:

Like.... one might question why she hired 900 new teachers in the
summer to fire nearly half that many a few months later... even though
many could document good APRs....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001956.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101403564.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/...sacked_in.html

Did you not see the word 'if' in my post?

Were you feeling hypercritical yesterday? Bad dinner?

New teachers are often contracted as colleges graduate in the spring.
They are brought on board during the summer for new teacher
orientations, paperwork, learning the county requirements for grading,
etc, and the software that goes with it all.

As to your second site, the 'corrections' seem to obviate reading the
article.

Having worked with a teacher who got herself certified through the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBCT), I can only
say I'm not overly impressed. It is a program in which one
self-enrolls and provides a nice document to hang on an 'I Love Me'
wall. But, it doesn't make one a better teacher.
--

John H

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:35:17 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:23:53 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
.. .
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.
Might be as you say but I thought this particular layoff was due to budget
cuts. Ethics doesn't play a big part in modern day life. School boards
must realize that they sometimes need to take drastic measures to prevent
unions from running their school systems. Fight fire with fire, if you
will. I mean no disrespect to your wife, but I do not have empathy for or
support unions.

Then there are the unions that have taken over the school board. Happened
in San Ramon , CA a few years ago. Financially stable school district and
the teachers union ran and go elected as a majority of the board a bunch of
teachers. Passed large raises, etc. 3 years later the school district was
bankrupt. The union should have been sued for fraud.


Fools. They should have become politicians... that sort of behavior is
acceptable there....

Are there large differences between unethical politicians and
unethical union leaders? They both feed from the same trough.
--

John H

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:16:15 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:45:43 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:18:50 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:59:52 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.

There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.

Amen, brother! Fire the rest of those teachers, free up the budget,
and let the little *******s teach themselves. Clearly the only way for
one interested in "actually trying to improve the education process in
Washington DC."

???

What ??? You said "it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to
improve the education in Washington DC." Since this is accomplished
by firing *worthless* teachers.

the way to improve education is to fire *worthless* teachers, save money, and make
students responsible for *trying to learn*! Apparently, there is no
alternative.... or that was the best approach... that IS the way "to
improve the education in Washington DC," isn't it?

Now that I've fixed your boo-boos, yes.
--

John H