Replies

You asked for my comments so here goes--the agreeing part was about the article. But I tend to be long-winded. I caused a car to blow over last week.

Teachers want 'involved' parents but they only seem to want them involved when they toe the company line." There are some teachers who are not comfortable with some parents in the classroom, but it is a personal issue, not a political one. Our school has myriads of opportunities for parents to be involved. I absolutely LOVE the parents of my kids who actually give a d___ and ask what they can do to help rather than shake their fists at or blame the system. Luckily I've only run into that once or twice with the parents of my students, and that was well after I had their children. Actually, the truth is that we as teachers LOVE parents who read with their kids and help them with homework. We very much appreciate dads take time out of their busy schedules to help their children and are big fans of stay-at-home moms who serve as room moms, on PTA, help in the classroom, etc. I think the help peters out a little in some circumstances because the child gets embarrassed about being around a parent or the parent thinks the upper grades don't need as much help. We recognize that many of the most well-adjusted kids come from a stable, nuclear (not the radioactive kind) home. It also depends on the parents' attitudes and perceptions. With those parents who work with the teacher (to address concerns, etc.), it often is a joyful experience for all involved. I get blessed with good parents year after year. In my first year teaching first grade, I could not have done anything without their help and encouragement. Some of the parents become my friends and acquaintances, whom I am proud to be associated with. We ache for those tough home situations that some children find themselves in and hope that we may somehow alleviate that somewhat.

A third of teachers are far to the Left of me (and you) but most teachers WANT more parental involvement, either from the academic excellence side or the 'discipline your little hooligan please' side or both....I think we are mostly on the same page here.

Me too. Yes, there are teachers who may seem to the left, but I do think that most go into teaching for other than political reasons. However, whenever a parent says something positive, even one small thing, it makes it worth it to be a teacher. Such is worth many months of pay.

I am vehemently anti-NEA, mostly pro-NCLB and totally pro-parental involvement. I subbed for several years and taught one year full-time and am back in the private sector, which I greatly prefer. I do not like the NEA getting involved sometimes in things like abortion and other non-educational issues. And yes, I do see some things that make me wonder. However, the teachers' union in my state has concentrated on the bills/issue that deal with education luckily (note I am not a member). In fact, sometimes, they don't do enough at times to defend education. But I also see viscious attacks and the "blame it all on the teachers" tactics of some of the education liberals. Such is in the company of the ACLU (or Ms. Heinz-Kerry who said that we don't have real jobs) for me.

Yes, the old no child's behind left act. I appreciate the aims of it and am glad that we are focusing on some of those that need the most help (actually in my schools we have always done that). It does represent a big-government control, one-size fits all liberal measure to push a political agenda as I see it in some respects. Some of the methods and labels don't strike me as positive either--for example, my students tested at 94% for reading and 97% for math last year. If I go down from that, then I am "failing" my students. OR if students from a school don't have more than 95% attendance (even if it does well academically), then it can be sanctioned. In most schools, this is a parent/student controlled feature. OR if a school does well in 39 categories, but not well in one, it is a "failing school." It seems to me that 39 out of 40 is pretty good. OR if a person is absent the days of testing, then he/she gets counted as a 0%, thus throwing off the averages of others. OR if the one Hispanic student in a school does not test up to standard, then the whole school can be failing. OR if a severely autistic person (or others with disabilities) is not up to grade level (tested at grade level even though studying another), then the school can be punished. I have seen all of these happen. I think NCLB can work, but a ton of kooky kinks need to be worked out. It should be used as a measure to improve schools, not label them or push a political agenda against them. We test enough in my school and state (always have). We don't need 3 or 4 more a year. I do think a schools should be looked at in a variety of ways too. It's interesting that even some of the conservatives (and/or some of the education liberals) in my state have panned it too.

What did you teach?

It's the jackbooted NEA-bot hacks and their regional puppets and mouthpieces--most but not all administrators and almost always the Union Rep on campus--that in truth don't want parents on campus at all, despite their pontificating otherwise--so that parents remain unaware of all the fringe group guest assembly speakers and advocates of abortion and other issues that would become inconvenient for the school officials to have to defend....damn educrats use the same Orwellian doubletalk as the Koran...which they also don't mind teaching....hmmmmm, coincidence?

I'll have to admit, I haven't seen hide nor hair of any of these things in your last comment. I've never seen an administrator be a union Rep. Usually, it's a teacher and there's only a few meetings per year. I have been to the state teacher's convention several times and have never seen as such is alleged here either. I do see a lot of inservice classes as well as booths (like any big convention has). One thing that I do not like though is having to pay $5 to get in when before it was free.:)