Posted on 01/30/2007 5:45:59 AM PST by wintertime
(snip)
1. The practitioners know and can do things the public in general cannot do. They have a specialized body of knowledge.
2. The specialized body of knowledge practitioners have takes an extended period of time to learn.
3. The educators who prepare the practitioners are experts who agree upon the specialized body of knowledge practitioners must have.
4. Admission to a professional training program is highly selective.( snip).
6. Only members of the profession set the standards for licensure and certification.
7. The primary responsibility and loyalty of a professional is to serve the client and not simply the institution or governmental agency in which the practitioner may be employed.
8. Neither the public at large nor an employing institution may control the way in which professionals relate to their clients, or the treatments, methods or procedures they use.
9. Neither the public at large nor an employing institution may set the purpose, goals or objectives for the practitioner’s practice with clients.
10. The public at large does not decide how to evaluate professionals.
11. Only members of the profession can determine malpractice and dismiss or disbar practitioners.
12. Professionals determine the cost of their services.
19. Professionals are trained to serve clients with problems. By definition “professionals” do not seek to perform services to clients without problems.
21. Professionals share a code of ethics to which they commit and adhere. They cannot be directed to perform or not perform services for clients which conflict with their professional code.
The case that teaching does not meet any of these twenty one criteria can be readily made.
(Excerpt) Read more at ednews.org ...
"And that's really the point. I think we've seen all the pictorial evidence we need to conclude that when something is really upsetting to a group of teachers...large or small...they'll get their faces in public and raise hell about it."
well sure they do.
I've already agreed with you that liberals in the majority.
And I think liberals tend to be more of the "demonstration" types.
Not only does it take them back to the glory days of the 60's, but they have more of a sympathetic ear in the media and democrat politicians are more likely to respond to their demands.
Conservatives, in my opinion, live more in the real world.
They are less likely to skip work to participate in useless demonstrations.
I say "useless" because I come from the viewpoint of living in NY state.
The republican politicians in this state are not sympathetic to the minority conservative teachers. The confiscation of wages occurred under liberal Mario Cuomo and continued under RINO Pataki. Is liberal Spitzer going to be any different? No - he's not.
So this isn't just a NEA problem in NY....it is a fight against the entire state government.
Even IF a few teachers took off work..travelled to Albany and protested....would it make the papers? the news?
I doubt it.
So...conservatives tend to pick fights that actually accomplish something...like fighting the illegal confiscation of dues.
This hits the NEA where it really hurts - in their funding.
Clearly they aren't up to your standards in the marching/demonstration/pr department...but it isn't like there aren't any teachers trying to fight the NEA.
"But I've seen no similar demonstration about teacher quality or to insist that the NEA stop protecting the abusive and incompetent teachers in their ranks"
Well...do you ever see policemen and women marching against corrupt fellow officers?
No...they have the Bureau of Internal Affairs.
And the police are often tight lipped with this agency as well.
It goes back to the tendency of not wanting to expose coworkers.
whistleblowers are never popular and they often lose their jobs - and their friends.
That doesn't mean teachers SHOULDN'T speak out - I'm just pointing out this has to do more with human weakness than it does with the notion that "teachers are bad"
I don't think you'll ever see teachers demonstrating against their fellow teachers.
I think it would take government intervention to bust the monopoly and set up an independent organization whose job it is to evaluate/investigate incompetence...the educational version of BIA.
Asking people to police themselves when the sole purpose of the NEA is to protect and fight for teachers doesn't make sense does it?
The people who ARE charged with weeding out bad teachers have had their hands tied with mountains of red tape, "procedures", and state laws that make it nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher who has tenure.
Basically...the administrators have only 3 years with each teacher to figure out if they're worth a hill of beans or not.
"From what we've seen in this discussion one may fairly conclude, I believe, that the percentage of teachers who disapprove of the NEA's tactics, their politics, and their protections of bad teachers is so incredibly small that they feel they're unsafe in making their views public, then perhaps those who say we should scrap the entire system are correct."
Agreed.
Now...how do you go about "scrapping" the entire system when politicians from both parties are on the dole from the NEA?
"We have seen so-called "good" teachers accuse the conservative or libertarian of being cruel."
I've seen teachers on this thread accuse some posters of engaging in personal attacks and exaggeration. I haven't seen teachers accuse "conservatives" of being "cruel"
" Gee! Who would take care of the children while both parents work? "
OK...I'll bite.
Who would take care of the children while both parents work?
"ALL government schools would be shuttered tomorrow."
I'm not sure I understand your point here.
"The so-called "good" teachers claim that children would be wandering the streets"
Well...they already DO wander the streets after school hours. If the school shuts down tomorrow, they'll just wander the streets in the morning as well.
"Their parents would abuse them without government teacher oversight,.,,etc."
Who said this?
"But...then then the "good" teachers fight viciously against vouchers, charter schools, or tax credits."
Who said this?
"We see them here on this very board, every day!!!"
Where?
"The "good" teachers claim to be against the NEA and state that the evil people controlling them have so much power that they are helpless in the face of it."
Not "helpless", but they do face a long, expensive, uphill battle that is not going to be won by this weekend.
"Then these so-called "good" teachers support and organize themselves perfectly well to march on state capitols to oppose the very vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools that would take power from the evil-doers."
Are you still referring to those mysterious "good" teachers you see every day on this board?
Where are they?
"They have even been known to cooperate with the herding of children on to buses, so that captive CHILDREN can march on the capitol!"
Again...which teachers are you referring to?
Are you really claiming that the same teachers that fight the NEA are taking kids to the capitol to march?
Where are you getting this information?
"It is laughable when teachers suggest to the common citizen that they should attempt to reform the unreformable ( what they cannot, themselves, within their own trade) at a measly little old school board meeting."
Some issues can be addressed at the school board meeting.
Local issues - budget issues - curriculum issues - bussing issues...etc.
Some issues are larger and need to be addressed at the state/federal government level, or in the courtroom.
"That would explain why those posters in red counties and districts have fewer complaints about their schools and those in blue counties refuse to allow their kids to attend."
it is interesting you said that.
While NY automatically goes "blue" every presidential election, our county is one of the few NY counties that regularly goes red.
Our local school is not "supposed" to do well if you look at their demographics (rural poor).
Yet - they do so well that local universities are studying the school to see what the "magic ingredient" is here.
When I look at the teaching staff I see local conservative christian people who don't fall for all the latest "progressive innovative" fads in teaching.
Well, I am her big brother...and I won't let her forget that, no matter how old she gets. ;)
If most teachers quit their jobs they would not be able to find another one with nearly the same level of pay. They have no marketable skills.
. Yes, every time a parent decides to homeschool.
I'm not really for or against either. I need so much more information about how it would be handled before I form a final opinion.
But what I am curious about is whether proponents of both realize that sooner or later the one that is handing out the money is going to want control over the situation. Right now private schools are free to teach what the parents of those schools want, such as creationism, intelligent design, sponsorship of gay rights - concepts spanning the political spectrum. I don't feel I have the right to judge what goes on when these schools are supported by private dollars. When government dollars get involved, things will change.
I am very uncomfortable with the forming of charter schools that support a particular ideology. It's all well and good when it's something we conservatives believe in, but what happens when someone forms a charter school that is wrapped around an idea we oppose? Are we conservatives ready to face the fact that government tax dollars will eventually be used to support Muslim schools? Wiccan schools? Christian schools? I'm not sure we are ready for that. I fear that government dollars will destroy the Christian schooling system to make it look just like all the rest.
Are tax credits the answer? Again, probably not. The government has never given out money without strings. I don't see them starting now - especially with a trend towards a liberal Federal government. I could easily see liberals figuring out that this money would be the perfect way to destroy Christian schools, by forcing them to teach what they say.
I graduated from Bob Jones University back in the day when they lost their tax exemption for their dating policies. Some folks make fun of BJU for their policies, but say what you will, no tax-payer money went to fund what they do. That's a far cry from the state institutions where students are taught to hate God, hate America, hate the president, all on the tax-payer's dime.
"But what I am curious about is whether proponents of both realize that sooner or later the one that is handing out the money is going to want control over the situation"
The idea of vouchers is that it is the parents who have control over where the money is going.
I am not all that well informed as to how the charter schools are funded, but I am assuming that the students that attend those schools are there because their parents willingly placed them there - so again - that is more parental control.
I will support anything that involves more parental control.
It was in the news this week that a woman was actually arrested for lying about her residence because she wanted to send her child to a better school.
It is very sad when a mom is placed in a posititon where she feels she has to lie - and even sadder when she is treated like a criminal for trying to give her child a better education.
"When government dollars get involved, things will change."
I think you have to change your focus on whose money it is.
It isn't the "government's" money. It is the parents' money.
The parents get to keep their own money, and get to choose.
"It's all well and good when it's something we conservatives believe in, but what happens when someone forms a charter school that is wrapped around an idea we oppose?"
part of being a conservative is allowing people to choose for themselves and trusting the free market to take care of which schools will thrive and which ones will not.
"Are we conservatives ready to face the fact that government tax dollars will eventually be used to support Muslim schools? Wiccan schools? Christian schools?"
Again...it's not the "government's" money.
" I could easily see liberals figuring out that this money would be the perfect way to destroy Christian schools, by forcing them to teach what they say."
The liberal already have their "system".
So I don't see them ever supporting vouchers/charter schools, because they already have what they want.
"That's a far cry from the state institutions where students are taught to hate God, hate America, hate the president, all on the tax-payer's dime."
If parents are allowed to choose where the money goes...which school it goes to - I don't see how they can be forced to support such schools.
This is my scary vision. Can you ever see a newscaster talking about a Christian charter school and how tax dollars are going to pay for kids to worship Christ during the day? All of a sudden the liberals who were all for charter schools are now up in arms and wanting the law changed so that certain types of schools are not allowed to have government funds.
As I said earlier, I'm not really for or against yet. I guess I just don't trust the Federal government to do the right thing by taxpayers and let private schools keep what makes them unique. I attended a mixture of Christian, private, and public schools during my time from 5-18 (10 different schools all total). Christian schools can be wonderful places. I'm not a fan of big government and when money crosses hands, things get wierd. I guess I'm cynical that it can work, because of that lack of trust.
Good points btw for me to think about. I appreciate your viewpoints. This is something I feel like I need to come to a good decision on in the near future. But, I don't like to make decisions until I've read and researched the issue, looking at both sides. Thanks again.
I guess it's a bridge we cross when we get there.
It's very difficult to take a position when the fine print isn't right in front of us.
"This is my scary vision. Can you ever see a newscaster talking about a Christian charter school and how tax dollars are going to pay for kids to worship Christ during the day?"
That's the tactic they already use to fight against vouchers in the first place.
I guess when it comes time to judge my opinion will be determined by how much control parents get to have in the situation.
Well, how about making every dollar of private school tuition or homeschool curriculumn tax deductable? And it could be counted against property taxes, too? That way parents who are spending above and beyond their tax dollars to educate their kids, won't pay twice.
Since it's a tax deduction, not a voucher or credit, it's never the government's money and they can't attach strings. Give businesses the same perks - if they give local needy children scholarships to good schools, they can write it off.
I wonder if we had something like this, if a private citizen could pay the tuition of a relative or even a non-related child. I'm thinking of my BIL and SIL who have no children, but who will be paying part of my nephew's tuition at his boarding school. My FIL and MIL are also paying part of it too.
It's a thought. Is there a national organization that is looking into voucher/tax credits that one could contact for information?
"Well...do you ever see policemen and women marching against corrupt fellow officers?
No...they have the Bureau of Internal Affairs."
Unions involved? Yes...?
Moreover, they do, certainly have the I/A department to enforce a set of standards. However, the typical cop is far more easily fired than is a P/S teacher.
"Administration is viewed as "the enemy", and the poor teacher is being unfairly picked on. "
It's rather difficult to make that case that teachers are 'professionals' after you've made a statement like that, isn't it...
First of all, I never said it was 'abusive' to attack the children of posters. I said that an attack merited the use of the abuse button. You put words in my mouth and I don't appreciate that. You react strongly when it is done to you, I have the right to react in the same way.
However, in the same post you quoted, I also said that attacking the children of posters was wrong, underhanded, and ugly. You cherry-picked out the one phrase that you thought would help you make your point. Cherry-picking data is not a healthy debating technique.
Earlier I stated that we should not attack or make implications about the children of other posters. I also stated that I have never, and will never, attack your children and expect the same courtesy from you.
I stand by my statement that it is worthy of hitting the abuse button should a poster decide to attack the child of another poster.
So in short.. yes, attacking the child of another poster is bad form, ugly, underhanded, wrong, and therefore, IMO, merits the use of the abuse button.
I'm not quite sure why you want to argue this item out. I don't know of any FReeper that would attack another's child and then be suprised if they were called on it. Very odd.
I will close with the same request/demand. Do not include my child in any of your posts with an implication or innuendo or even a mention. She is a minor and she is off-limits to you.
The answer is more money and force of will to create good schools. Both of these are bitter pills for most people to swallow, but there it is.
The school debate fascinates me. It is the only debate -- as far as I am aware -- where people would rather eliminate a failing/broken system rather than fix it. It goes against the grain of traditional American thinking of "fix the problem, because every problem can be fixed."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.