Chicago School Board Votes To Shutter 50 Public Schools

[SaharaSunset 165]

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/School-Board-Votes-to-close-49-schools-208547131.html

Although I am a proponent of organized labor, I am not however a supporter of the teachers union.

In my experience of being a single parent who's engaged in my children's education I've continually found the needs of the teachers and the union trumping the needs of the children. I'm not talking one incident, these teachers basically think they are untouchable.

Case in point is that recently my son had a teacher with anger issues. She continually lost her temper in class and I reported incident after incident regarding her behavior. These incidents were acknowledged by the principal and yet nothing could be done at the school level. They basically told me that their hands were tied by the teachers tenor in the union.

They need to have an educational system where the kids aren't treated as just a manufactured product with no real rights.

Its the exact wrong place to have a union in my opinion; because the long term impact on the child is so detrimental.

Charter schools aren't our saviors either. Any school needs involvement by the parents. Yet is a charter school I'm sure bad behavior and under performance by a teacher is easier to rectify. That's just not possible under the current public school system that has the teachers union to protect them.

Its so sad to me that people are starting to buy into the ridiculous rhetoric that has started raging against teachers in recent years. First, I would love some real examples of teachers needs trumping that of the children? Real examples. Not hearsay. And I'm not just talking about the fact that you can't get a teacher fired because she is grouchy. I mean REAL examples....and numerous ones. Because for everyone 1 teacher like your son's, there are literally hundreds the exact opposite. And yes, I know the media likes to vilify teachers these days...but its not reality. Sorry. I mean, you do know that teaching is not actually high-paying job, and wrangling 40-240 kids a day is not a walk in the park? So why do most teachers get into teaching?....because they love kids, they love their job, and they want to make a difference in the world. And yes, I know the media these days makes it seems like that's not the reason. But I'd invite you to talk to every teacher in your son's school(not just the grouchy one), and I think you find that it is the reality for the vast majority of teachers.

Along those same lines - have YOU actually seen the teacher lose her temper in class? Or is it based on your son's perception. Because as a parent you must know that a child, or teen's, perception of an adult they don't not like, tends to have a fair bit of bias. And "rumors" about a teacher may not be anything quantifiable. The real reality is, contrary to popular belief, if there are in fact legitimate complaints (beyond being a rude or snappy person) a Principal ABSOLUTELY CAN take action. And Lord knows there are a multitude of successful businessmen and other individuals who are complete jack@$$es...so snappiness doesn't equate with failure. And of course, maybe you've also forgotten that "back in the day" when our schools were the supposedly better (before they "started going downhill"), teachers smacked kids, whipped them, publicly humiliated them, and were generally perceived as mean....and yet supposedly schools were better. Hmmmm. So is successful teaching connected to sweetness in personality? Maybe. Maybe not. But if the principal tells you otherwise about disciplinary action, and blames the union, they are lying. Despite the propaganda about "Teachers Unions" - teachers can and do get fired.

Secondly, you mention that kids should not be considered a "manufactured product" - I could not agree more. So do away with the nonsense of standardized tests. Allow teachers the freedom to teach and you might find that people like your "anger issues" teacher suddenly become more relaxed and happy. And why? Because her job isn't riding on whether or not parents have disciplined their children enough to control themselves, so she doesn't have to freak out when some random kid is jumping across the desks for the hundred-thousandth time, while she is trying to prepare them for an upcoming Standard Test....on which her job may be riding.

Thirdly - why should parents have a say in whether or not a teacher is fired? I know, every parent lived though 13 years of school, so clearly they are experts....not the professional teachers and principals who went to 4-8 years of college on the subject. Seriously. Does the average parent have ANY CLUE about teaching pedagogy, theory, strategies etc? No. They can evaluate personality, and perceived likeability which, in fact, is not all there is to teaching. (Shocker I know.) But I don't think they should be involved in that kind of decision because they can't be objective. If little Johnny is actually a jerk, and the poor tired teacher just snapped at him, how are you gonna convince Johnny's Mom that its really her and Johnny that are the issue? You won't. Good old Home School is always the alternative if you fear the "detrimental impact" of Unionized teachers on your son.

The reality is this - I do think that there are teachers out there who suck. Just like in any profession. And even though it doesn't make for very good drama, in truth, the sucky teachers usually don't last long. It may not be because they get fired, it's more likely that they quit. Because again, contrary to the image of teachers, just relaxing their days away, breezing home at 3pm, raking in their sweet median income of $45,000....teaching is, in actuality, physically and emotionally draining. And people who don't love it, don't last long (and yes of course there are exceptions.) But Public education is not as fraught with terrible teachers as some would like to make it seem. There are other issues. You may ask, "Then why aren't schools are doing so great compared to the world?" Well 1st of all the international comparisons are silly because the standards vary (do you think China includes their "Chinese Language learners" and Disabled kids in their test scores, like we include our "english language learners" and disabled kids in the U.S. ). And secondly and finally, I think perhaps, rather than blaming teachers and teachers unions... for heavens sake, maybe we should look at the degeneration of the family, as the source of our recent "issues" (if in fact they exist). Teachers can help - most of them want to. But they can't change what is, or is not, happening at home. And at the end of the day, that will override a lifetime of good or bad teachers. To presume that teachers/unions are the source of all student failures, would also mean that they are also the source of all student success. And I think most proud parents wouldn't dream of crediting teachers for their high school grad's Harvard acceptance letter - I'm pretty sure they take most of the credit for that. So this blame game is a bunch of hogwash. Unions or no Unions, the people who will do the most to positively impact their child's life, are the parents.

Edited May 25, 2013 by SaharaSunset

[BaBamSam 239]

Its so sad to me that people are starting to buy into the ridiculous rhetoric that has started raging against teachers in recent years. First, I would love some real examples of teachers needs trumping that of the children? Real examples. Not hearsay. And I'm not just talking about the fact that you can't get a teacher fired because she is grouchy. I mean REAL examples....and numerous ones. Because for everyone 1 teacher like your son's, there are literally hundreds the exact opposite. And yes, I know the media likes to vilify teachers these days...but its not reality. Sorry. I mean, you do know that teaching is not actually high-paying job, and wrangling 40-240 kids a day is not a walk in the park? So why do most teachers get into teaching?....because they love kids, they love their job, and they want to make a difference in the world. And yes, I know the media these days makes it seems like that's not the reason. But I'd invite you to talk to every teacher in your son's school(not just the grouchy one), and I think you find that it is the reality for the vast majority of teachers.

Along those same lines - have YOU actually seen the teacher lose her temper in class? Or is it based on your son's perception. Because as a parent you must know that a child, or teen's, perception of an adult they don't not like, tends to have a fair bit of bias. And "rumors" about a teacher may not be anything quantifiable. The real reality is, contrary to popular belief, if there are in fact legitimate complaints (beyond being a rude or snappy person) a Principal ABSOLUTELY CAN take action. And Lord knows there are a multitude of successful businessmen and other individuals who are complete jack@$$es...so snappiness doesn't equate with failure. And of course, maybe you've also forgotten that "back in the day" when our schools were the supposedly better (before they "started going downhill"), teachers smacked kids, whipped them, publicly humiliated them, and were generally perceived as mean....and yet supposedly schools were better. Hmmmm. So is successful teaching connected to sweetness in personality? Maybe. Maybe not. But if the principal tells you otherwise about disciplinary action, and blames the union, they are lying. Despite the propaganda about "Teachers Unions" - teachers can and do get fired.

Secondly, you mention that kids should not be considered a "manufactured product" - I could not agree more. So do away with the nonsense of standardized tests. Allow teachers the freedom to teach and you might find that people like your "anger issues" teacher suddenly become more relaxed and happy. And why? Because her job isn't riding on whether or not parents have disciplined their children enough to control themselves, so she doesn't have to freak out when some random kid is jumping across the desks for the hundred-thousandth time, while she is trying to prepare them for an upcoming Standard Test....on which her job may be riding.

Thirdly - why should parents have a say in whether or not a teacher is fired? I know, every parent lived though 13 years of school, so clearly they are experts....not the professional teachers and principals who went to 4-8 years of college on the subject. Seriously. Does the average parent have ANY CLUE about teaching pedagogy, theory, strategies etc? No. They can evaluate personality, and perceived likeability which, in fact, is not all there is to teaching. (Shocker I know.) But I don't think they should be involved in that kind of decision because they can't be objective. If little Johnny is actually a jerk, and the poor tired teacher just snapped at him, how are you gonna convince Johnny's Mom that its really her and Johnny that are the issue? You won't. Good old Home School is always the alternative if you fear the "detrimental impact" of Unionized teachers on your son.

The reality is this - I do think that there are teachers out there who suck. Just like in any profession. And even though it doesn't make for very good drama, in truth, the sucky teachers usually don't last long. It may not be because they get fired, it's more likely that they quit. Because again, contrary to the image of teachers, just relaxing their days away, breezing home at 3pm, raking in their sweet median income of $45,000....teaching is, in actuality, physically and emotionally draining. And people who don't love it, don't last long (and yes of course there are exceptions.) But Public education is not as fraught with terrible teachers as some would like to make it seem. There are other issues. You may ask, "Then why aren't schools are doing so great compared to the world?" Well 1st of all the international comparisons are silly because the standards vary (do you think China includes their "Chinese Language learners" and Disabled kids in their test scores, like we include our "english language learners" and disabled kids in the U.S. ). And secondly and finally, I think perhaps, rather than blaming teachers and teachers unions... for heavens sake, maybe we should look at the degeneration of the family, as the source of our recent "issues" (if in fact they exist). Teachers can help - most of them want to. But they can't change what is, or is not, happening at home. And at the end of the day, that will override a lifetime of good or bad teachers. To presume that teachers/unions are the source of all student failures, would also mean that they are also the source of all student success. And I think most proud parents wouldn't dream of crediting teachers for their high school grad's Harvard acceptance letter - I'm pretty sure they take most of the credit for that. So this blame game is a bunch of hogwash. Unions or no Unions, the people who will do the most to positively impact their child's life, are the parents.

Wall of text tl;dr completely.

But I do suggest actually looking at the corruption of public school systems. Start with New York City to see how "paid suspension" works, tenure and all that. Then upgrade to some seriously corrupt districts (Los Angeles, D.C., Chicago). That will also open your eyes to how scores (whether high or low) don't actually affect teachers' jobs/salaries once they're tenured. Which happens quickly and easily (relatively speaking). Principals can rarely take the action that fires a teacher if the district is unionized. Hence why many "sucky teachers" just get recycled through districts - but do keep teaching.

Teachers are not the only problem, but to say that the corruption of teachers' unions and tenure practices are not that big of a deal is, imho, pretty naive.

[SaharaSunset 165]

Wall of text tl;dr completely.

But I do suggest actually looking at the corruption of public school systems. Start with New York City to see how "paid suspension" works, tenure and all that. Then upgrade to some seriously corrupt districts (Los Angeles, D.C., Chicago). That will also open your eyes to how scores (whether high or low) don't actually affect teachers' jobs/salaries once they're tenured. Which happens quickly and easily (relatively speaking). Principals can rarely take the action that fires a teacher if the district is unionized. Hence why many "sucky teachers" just get recycled through districts - but do keep teaching.

Teachers are not the only problem, but to say that the corruption of teachers' unions and tenure practices are not that big of a deal is, imho, pretty naive.

Oh I know how tenure works. And in many states, it no longer exists. And if scores don't really impact teachers salaries then hooray...Because standardized tests are nonsense and were never remotely intended to be a measure of a teacher's skill. And although I'm not forum savvy enough to know what "tl;dr" means - I'm guessing it means you prefer witty banter as opposed to actual conversation. So here you go:

I'm pretty sure that to believe anti-union/teacher propaganda, to the extent that you believe the "corruption" is so rampant that it outweighs or negates the good in education; and to believe that "sucky teachers" are the rule, as opposed to the exception, and are always recycled; and to believe that principals rarely take action in unionized districts, is imho, also naive and rather ignorant.....oh and I have some ocean-front property in desert for sale in you're interested in buying that too

Edited May 25, 2013 by SaharaSunset

[BaBamSam 239]

Oh I know how tenure works. And in many states, it no longer exists. And if scores don't really impact teachers salaries then hooray...Because standardized tests are nonsense and were never remotely intended to be a measure of a teacher's skill. And although I'm not forum savvy enough to know what "tl;dr" means - I'm guessing it means you prefer witty banter as opposed to actual conversation. So here you go:

I'm pretty sure that to believe anti-union/teacher propaganda, to the extent that you believe the "corruption" is so rampant that it outweighs or negates the good in education; and to believe that "sucky teachers" are the rule, as opposed to the exception, and are always recycled; and to believe that principals rarely take action in unionized districts, is imho, also naive and rather ignorant.....oh and I have some ocean-front property in desert for sale in you're interested in buying that too

Actually, I prefer actual conversation (unlike some), but tl;dr means "too long; didn't read", which is used when you post a wall of text rather than a concise thought (or thoughts). Since that's not your style, I'll indulge your walls of text preference.

Did I ever say that sucky teachers are the rule? No. Did I say the bad outweighs the good? No. But to ignore these things that do exist to some degree and not try to fix a problem is just not very progressive, now is it? You shouldn't accept problems when you can acknowledge them and propose solutions in anything. What good does that do? If you like unions, good for you to have that opinion. That doesn't mean everything is perfect, though.

Please think about doing some research about teachers being recycled in school districts before claiming they aren't (or aren't frequently - it's a national problem). It's called the "dance of the lemons" (wonderful video representation/explanation of it in the documentary I mentioned previously "Waiting for Superman" - a clip of it is probably on YouTube and the whole doc is on Netflix). Check out here to learn what's being done now in D.C. about it: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/sb-5242-would-end-dance-lemons-teachers’-placements

Unions, as a general rule, make it difficult for business managers (in this case, principals or administrators) to act independently of the union. If you support that, good for you, but to pretend as if principals can actually take action on their own and punish teachers is just not understanding how teachers unions, and unions in general, work. The article about the dance of the lemons even touches on that - and it's a very short article.

I wouldn't call my view (easily supported by the way unions are structured and operate) about principals naive or ignorant. If you're going to disagree, it'd be more apt to say I'm too cynical and pessimistic. That'd be a fair viewpoint to have. We could debate that if you then took the time to understand the problems of the school system in America (from teachers, to unions, to government funding, to testing, etc.). Heck, we could even debate the extent to which unions are the problem, or teachers are the problem, or any of the potential causes of the problems, but if you're not going to believe in the factual faults of the system in relation to all the causes, we can't really talk about solutions.

I enjoy a good debate, but for a debate to start we have to agree on what exactly we're debating. Otherwise neither of us will say anything effective.

[Karee 4,190]

Just to add my 2c. Just because you are against teacher's unions, doesn't mean you are against teachers.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Just to add my 2c. Just because you are against teacher's unions, doesn't mean you are against teachers.

The unions don't bother me as much as local school board politics. The local party in power has much more control of these "non-partisan" positions, and ultimately, who gets to teach our children what, often based more on local politics, than what is best for the kids. The lack of qualified teachers in particular fields means unqualified teachers get "parked" in certain fields, like math and science. This is not because there are not qualified candidates out there, just no one wants to lay off these outdated teachers before they hit their retirement dates. It sucks when recent graduates have to settle for tutoring jobs, instead of teaching in their fields of study.

[BaBamSam 239]

Just to add my 2c. Just because you are against teacher's unions, doesn't mean you are against teachers.

Not according to the teacher unions! But I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[GandD 5,966]

Just to add my 2c. Just because you are against teacher's unions, doesn't mean you are against teachers.

Word!

[SaharaSunset 165]

Actually, I prefer actual conversation (unlike some), but tl;dr means "too long; didn't read", which is used when you post a wall of text rather than a concise thought (or thoughts). Since that's not your style, I'll indulge your walls of text preference.

Did I ever say that sucky teachers are the rule? No. Did I say the bad outweighs the good? No. But to ignore these things that do exist to some degree and not try to fix a problem is just not very progressive, now is it? You shouldn't accept problems when you can acknowledge them and propose solutions in anything. What good does that do? If you like unions, good for you to have that opinion. That doesn't mean everything is perfect, though.

Please think about doing some research about teachers being recycled in school districts before claiming they aren't (or aren't frequently - it's a national problem). It's called the "dance of the lemons" (wonderful video representation/explanation of it in the documentary I mentioned previously "Waiting for Superman" - a clip of it is probably on YouTube and the whole doc is on Netflix). Check out here to learn what's being done now in D.C. about it: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/sb-5242-would-end-dance-lemons-teachers’-placements

Unions, as a general rule, make it difficult for business managers (in this case, principals or administrators) to act independently of the union. If you support that, good for you, but to pretend as if principals can actually take action on their own and punish teachers is just not understanding how teachers unions, and unions in general, work. The article about the dance of the lemons even touches on that - and it's a very short article.

I wouldn't call my view (easily supported by the way unions are structured and operate) about principals naive or ignorant. If you're going to disagree, it'd be more apt to say I'm too cynical and pessimistic. That'd be a fair viewpoint to have. We could debate that if you then took the time to understand the problems of the school system in America (from teachers, to unions, to government funding, to testing, etc.). Heck, we could even debate the extent to which unions are the problem, or teachers are the problem, or any of the potential causes of the problems, but if you're not going to believe in the factual faults of the system in relation to all the causes, we can't really talk about solutions.

I enjoy a good debate, but for a debate to start we have to agree on what exactly we're debating. Otherwise neither of us will say anything effective.

Its true, its seems we are jumping around to different topics in education - but that's because while there are many layers of the "anti-union" debate, it always come down to the fury over teachers supposedly being un-fireable, because of Unions. So in effect, anti-union talk is really anti-"bad teacher" talk. (And believe it or not I HAVE researched this topic - A LOT - hence the "wall of text"). So now bringing it all back together, by stressing that "bad teachers" are the exception, I am pointing out that, 1st: I don't think the "problem" of education lies in the inability of principals to fire teachers. And that's because frankly I don't think the "problem" is 100% the teachers. Which is why in my previous comment I stated that I think the greater issue lies in what is happening to families, and home life.

But no one wants to talk about that as the issue, because what can be done? How can you force busy working parents to spend time lovingly reading to their children or encouraging them to do homework? I promise you, if parents actually did that, the literacy problems that education does have, would disappear, more kids would graduate, and test scores would soar. But we can't do that, so blame is shifted to teachers. And the conclusion is made that the issue is the result of "bad teachers" who can't be fired because of unions. I simply disagree.

That "excellent" documentary that you, and everyone keeps referencing, "Waiting for Superman," is shameless propaganda. The facts its shares are biased and inaccurate, but it excels and getting you riled up into thinking that school are "failing" their kids because so many kids aren't graduating and our test scores are supposedly lower compared to other countries. Yeah, it IS sad that so many kids drop out. But is that really because of the school? Or, as I stated before, is it what's happening at home?

I know, its easier and more concise to find someone else to blame. If "Waiting For Superman," chose to highlight the 90% of those flunking kids that DON'T have loving supportive parents, and DO have teachers that have tried desperately to reach them, (but can't because little johnny misses school to babysit, or worse to sell drugs for his uncle etc) well then it would be a very different documentary wouldn't it? I laugh at how it mentions that American kids have soaring confidence despite their failures....well who do you think is the source of that confidence? The teacher they see for one year, for a few hours a day? Or the parents who refuse to discipline, set rules, and teach their kids the value of hard work?

As I stated before, the flashy statistics they show about our ranking amongst other developed countries are skewed. I gave you the example of China who does not include the kids who literally cannot take the test, while American schools are FORCED to include those scores. How would that not cause us to rank lower? And if we want accurate statistics in comparing our School scores to international scores, then we need to level the playing field.

We need to look at the successful things that those countries are doing...NOT just blindly trying to catch up by adressing what buisnessmen, who know nothing about education, have decided must be the "problems." For example - the Science classes in Finland cap at 16 students. Our High Schools have an average of 30-35 students in a class period. So how would killing Unions solve the class size issue? And Teachers in Finland spend only 4 hours a day teaching - Our teachers are at 6-7 hours, and without Unions, our teachers would likely do 8-9 hours of teaching a day. (And if you think teaching 8-9 hours wouldn't affect a teacher ability to succeed with students, then try teaching for a few months.) Here is an article about Finlands Education System. http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-education-school-2011-12#

Oh And don't even get me started on Michelle Rhee (featured in Waiting for Superman). She is absolutely full of $#*!. Seriously. Do some real research on her and you'll learn that her statistics and programs are not really what she'd like America to believe they are/were.

Of course there are issues in our school system, there always have been and always will be, because no system is perfect. But the fear mongering about our education system being "broken" - I simply disagree. Partly because I live in a Unionzed school district that is successful - has an 87% graduation rate, and yet is part of this supposedly "broken" system...hmmmm. Nor do I think doing away with unions, and vilifying teachers will improve low test scores, or increase graduation rates. I think, rather than scrambling to lay blame on "bad teachers," and "evil unions" we need to look at what's really wrong in the system, and be willing to accept responsibility...just like we as parents cheerfully take credit for our child's successes...then likewise we need to take credit when it comes to failures.

Edited May 25, 2013 by SaharaSunset

[Darnell 8,478]

it's nice you fellas are about to debate with generalizations of 'all'.

I remind you, Chicago is it's own sh|thole, is not fair to compare the place and the school district and the problems to any other entity on the planet.

Contrast, sure, but to compare and think 'this is similar' is a great disservice to any other entity, as Chicago is it's own sh|thole.

[Karee 4,190]

it's nice you fellas are about to debate with generalizations of 'all'.

I remind you, Chicago is it's own sh|thole, is not fair to compare the place and the school district and the problems to any other entity on the planet.

Contrast, sure, but to compare and think 'this is similar' is a great disservice to any other entity, as Chicago is it's own sh|thole.

Chicago is probably better off than Detroit. I think Chicago get's all the press because that's the Kenyan's adopted hometown.

[RGinWA 816]

Its so sad to me that people are starting to buy into the ridiculous rhetoric that has started raging against teachers in recent years. First, I would love some real examples of teachers needs trumping that of the children? Real examples. Not hearsay. And I'm not just talking about the fact that you can't get a teacher fired because she is grouchy. I mean REAL examples....and numerous ones. Because for everyone 1 teacher like your son's, there are literally hundreds the exact opposite. And yes, I know the media likes to vilify teachers these days...but its not reality. Sorry. I mean, you do know that teaching is not actually high-paying job, and wrangling 40-240 kids a day is not a walk in the park? So why do most teachers get into teaching?....because they love kids, they love their job, and they want to make a difference in the world. And yes, I know the media these days makes it seems like that's not the reason. But I'd invite you to talk to every teacher in your son's school(not just the grouchy one), and I think you find that it is the reality for the vast majority of teachers.

Along those same lines - have YOU actually seen the teacher lose her temper in class? Or is it based on your son's perception. Because as a parent you must know that a child, or teen's, perception of an adult they don't not like, tends to have a fair bit of bias. And "rumors" about a teacher may not be anything quantifiable. The real reality is, contrary to popular belief, if there are in fact legitimate complaints (beyond being a rude or snappy person) a Principal ABSOLUTELY CAN take action. And Lord knows there are a multitude of successful businessmen and other individuals who are complete jack@$$es...so snappiness doesn't equate with failure. And of course, maybe you've also forgotten that "back in the day" when our schools were the supposedly better (before they "started going downhill"), teachers smacked kids, whipped them, publicly humiliated them, and were generally perceived as mean....and yet supposedly schools were better. Hmmmm. So is successful teaching connected to sweetness in personality? Maybe. Maybe not. But if the principal tells you otherwise about disciplinary action, and blames the union, they are lying. Despite the propaganda about "Teachers Unions" - teachers can and do get fired.

Secondly, you mention that kids should not be considered a "manufactured product" - I could not agree more. So do away with the nonsense of standardized tests. Allow teachers the freedom to teach and you might find that people like your "anger issues" teacher suddenly become more relaxed and happy. And why? Because her job isn't riding on whether or not parents have disciplined their children enough to control themselves, so she doesn't have to freak out when some random kid is jumping across the desks for the hundred-thousandth time, while she is trying to prepare them for an upcoming Standard Test....on which her job may be riding.

Thirdly - why should parents have a say in whether or not a teacher is fired? I know, every parent lived though 13 years of school, so clearly they are experts....not the professional teachers and principals who went to 4-8 years of college on the subject. Seriously. Does the average parent have ANY CLUE about teaching pedagogy, theory, strategies etc? No. They can evaluate personality, and perceived likeability which, in fact, is not all there is to teaching. (Shocker I know.) But I don't think they should be involved in that kind of decision because they can't be objective. If little Johnny is actually a jerk, and the poor tired teacher just snapped at him, how are you gonna convince Johnny's Mom that its really her and Johnny that are the issue? You won't. Good old Home School is always the alternative if you fear the "detrimental impact" of Unionized teachers on your son.

The reality is this - I do think that there are teachers out there who suck. Just like in any profession. And even though it doesn't make for very good drama, in truth, the sucky teachers usually don't last long. It may not be because they get fired, it's more likely that they quit. Because again, contrary to the image of teachers, just relaxing their days away, breezing home at 3pm, raking in their sweet median income of $45,000....teaching is, in actuality, physically and emotionally draining. And people who don't love it, don't last long (and yes of course there are exceptions.) But Public education is not as fraught with terrible teachers as some would like to make it seem. There are other issues. You may ask, "Then why aren't schools are doing so great compared to the world?" Well 1st of all the international comparisons are silly because the standards vary (do you think China includes their "Chinese Language learners" and Disabled kids in their test scores, like we include our "english language learners" and disabled kids in the U.S. ). And secondly and finally, I think perhaps, rather than blaming teachers and teachers unions... for heavens sake, maybe we should look at the degeneration of the family, as the source of our recent "issues" (if in fact they exist). Teachers can help - most of them want to. But they can't change what is, or is not, happening at home. And at the end of the day, that will override a lifetime of good or bad teachers. To presume that teachers/unions are the source of all student failures, would also mean that they are also the source of all student success. And I think most proud parents wouldn't dream of crediting teachers for their high school grad's Harvard acceptance letter - I'm pretty sure they take most of the credit for that. So this blame game is a bunch of hogwash. Unions or no Unions, the people who will do the most to positively impact their child's life, are the parents.

When a teacher calls one of the students a "retard" during class that's a little more than being grouchy. That's just one out of many examples I could detail, but what's the point. They are kids, they do dumb stuff, that shouldn't be a shocker to any adult. Unless you don't have kids; which this teacher does not. I've met good teachers who know how to control a classroom, that's without losing their minds.

I understand the job is hard, but then again every teacher knows that going in right? I mean you don't get a job as a prison guard then complain that you're surrounded by criminals.

And about parents getting a teacher fired, you don't need to be a freaking expert who understands each methodology that teacher employs to know when someone shouldn't be teaching. I know plenty of coworkers with a bachelor degrees and that doesn't seem to make them any smarter. A teaching certificate isn't idiot proof; you could have just picked the wrong profession.

Since they only have their own experiences going into college, some teachers may think they'd get assigned that perfect school and perfect class and then the reality kicks in that it's a tough job. But this fact is not just reserved to teachers, many graduates experience this same reality in the job market. I don't agree with the notion that we should immediately think every teacher is noble, that's just ignorant. They are just people who have flaws like the rest of us, with some that have more flaws than others.

Its the only profession where a bad employee can get paid to do nothing and it's only because they have made it impossible to be terminated. To me, it's just bizarre for any profession to be protected with the reasoning being that the job is hard...they should try roofing for a summer.