Originally Posted by handle
Right, WF, If you really posted that piece for the links, then why didn't you say so? You wouldn't be back peddling on a rash linkage now, would you?
OK, since WF insists on chiming in here, I feel I have the right to throw my penny in too (pretty much what it's worth). I don't have a lot of experience in this field, but unlike our illustrious blowhard, I am driven by trying to make sense of things and not some elitist, power hungry corporate management agenda.
What the right wing smoke screen machine is doing here, IMHO, is covering up the fact that this is a case of those that manage things, inching toward absolute power over those that do the actual work in the trenches. And public schools are easy targets, because they have the most exposure.
I bet he will avoid mentioning the fact that most of the administrators (who are also public employees and often make double or triple the teacher salaries) do not belong to the unions, and do not teach. Who is going to test and evaluate them? Since they are the ones doing the evaluating, and hiring/firing, what checks and balances besides union representation are in place to prevent abuse, favoritism, nepotism, and general corruption?
I for one, am someone who can ace tests, but would make a lousy teacher. Do we want to get rid of good, competent people based on this criteria? Or those that might have the courage to take on students who also might not be inclined to score high on tests?
I think, WF, you ought to quit using our schools as a petri dish for your anti worker agenda, and try to be fair to the people who care enough to take a job you obviously can't do, for a salary you wouldn't settle for.
Maybe you should pick a battle that doesn't shed so much light on your cynical ploy for political power.