It’s amazing how much wisdom a local teachers’ union president can pack into one short newsletter article. Here are a few quotes from the March 28 newsletter of the Federal Way Education Association (by union president Shannon Rasmussen) to make you think profound thoughts:
“Instead of ‘No Child Left Behind’, which focuses only on improvement on tests and heavy-handed sanctions, our school system should be interested in seeing that every child have [sic] an opportunity to excel – at something valuable.”
I guess grammar isn’t on the list of valuables.
“It is our job to educate our public.”
“Federal Way should create a school system that we are able to stand behind and defend to the parents of our children.”
“Our parents want their children to have the same kind of education that kids get in private schools.”
I sense a lot of biological confusion. But why not let all your surrogate parents send your/their kids to private schools, if that’s what your public wants?
“The best part of investing in the school system kids truly deserve is that the very programs we are finding it necessary to eliminate while playing the game are the ones shown to actually improve the very test scores we know don’t accurately indicate our children’s potential.”
YAY!! Er. Wait. Huh?
These are the people who control public schools. Think about that.
As 'their' parents are evidently so important, it would seem that school vouchers would be in order so that 'their' parents can get an actual private school education.
Headless' comments should be interesting, if any are forth coming.
Posted by: Fred on April 4, 2005 02:15 PMWowzer. And too think some people still do'nt under stand why my wife got herself out of the public school's system.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on April 4, 2005 02:16 PMI used to wonder...is there anything more devoid of intellectual content than quoting a Star Trek episode?
Thank you for answering that. (I think)
Posted by: South County on April 4, 2005 03:37 PMIf you're in the business of educating children, you'd damn sure better be able to communicate clearly. It is always incumbent upon the communicator to articulate information [message] clearly, rather than it being the responsibility of the listener [target] to interpret the message. When interpretation becomes necessary, the potential for error increases.
Posted by: Tom on April 4, 2005 03:53 PMIn today's educational PC-speak, I thought it was supposed to be demeaning to students to refer to them as "kids". DId the local teacher's union president somehow miss out on some in-service training days? A little sign-waving on the steps in Olympia instead of actually being present for training as expected (and paid), perhaps? Taking a few of the students along for company, right?
I also don't believe that either the parents or the students belong to the teachers' union. I realize that the concept may be a bit fuzzy to some union officers, but we are their employers. If anything, they are our teachers, and it would be really something wonderous to behold were we to actually be able to regain control of our runaway employees, would it not?
Posted by: gaelwolf on April 4, 2005 03:57 PM"Dan Ostlund, the NEA Valuebuilder Representative, will be hosting a free retirement workshop at the WEA building in Federal Way for Plan 1, 2, and 3 members. Have your retirement questions answered by someone whose been helping educators since 1987!"
Whose? Yikes!
I count at least three other grammatical errors on the homepage alone. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a complete copy of the newsletter anywhere. Does anyone have an idea where it might be found?
The final example sentence also needs some more context before we can really discuss it fairly.
So, let me wrap my head around this-- We know what kind of school system kids truly deserve. What specificially are we talking about? A self-esteem-safe school, or a productive school, or one of humanist indoctrination, or what?
And to invest in this type of school system means to eliminate some programs while playing the game...what game is this being referred to?
I can see that perhaps eliminating some bloat programs might be useful, but which programs are being eliminated?
The programs eliminated are the ones that "actually improve the very test scores we know don’t accurately indicate our children’s potential."
What tests are being referred to here? How do "we" know they don't indicate "our" children's potential? Is this potential a self esteem fantasy land (i.e. all kids can be rich, successful, beautiful and pop stars) or something else more substantive?
I can't quite see poking fun at a quote lacking any context that may clarify it.
Posted by: pseudotsuga on April 4, 2005 04:12 PMIf I feels good about my righting skills as an education professional, that's more impotent that someone else also understanding what I thought I meant to say. (What? 100 proof reader needed, hear and there.)
I guess H. Lucy is saying that pigs can fly.
Posted by: JG on April 4, 2005 05:15 PMI doubt the full context would make this statement appear to say anything other than what it says:
“The best part of investing in the school system kids truly deserve is that the very programs we are finding it necessary to eliminate while playing the game are the ones shown to actually improve the very test scores we know don’t accurately indicate our children’s potential.”
Let me translate:
The best part about spending more on public schools is that we wouldn't need to eliminate programs such as music instruction that studies show can improve academic performance as measured by the Washington Assessment of Student Learning. Although no such studies have ever been cited by name in my presence, and I've certainly never read any, people who are colleagues and good friends all believe such studies exist, so I do too. Although I've never actually witnessed the elimination of anything, I have seen "Mr. Holland's Opus" three times; and I'm sure it's historically accurate. And, while the WASL has been constructed by people who know far more than I -- and has been accepted by them as a valid and reliable measure of students' performance of skills that are important to their success in life -- my friends and colleagues still doubt that it is an accurate method of measuring anything that matters. Since we don't really know what we're talking about, we claim that the WASL doesn't measure "potential." That way, we can avoid going head-to-head with people who know what they're talking about -- and we might even keep some people from recognizing that the WASL is an effort to measure achievement, not potential. Despite our misgivings, the WASL is a big part of the game we must play, so give us more money.
Clear as mud?
Posted by: Micajah on April 4, 2005 05:24 PM"In Superman's alternative pre-Turnerian backwards American frontier history, the West was covered with herds of porcine fauna. Hence, the human caretakers of such herds were referred to as ,"Pigboys", an appellation that would more realistically encompass the existential mode of the modern day dkp.... See what I'm sayin'?"
Does this sound like the utterings of someone you would like to "educate" your children?
Think about it please.
And, once again lucy, thank you very much. When any doubt may exist, that you are out of your silly addled mind, you pipe up and remove it.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 4, 2005 07:33 PM- elementary school teachers who cannot add or subtract.
- junior-high history teachers who confuse Cornwallis with Sherman (and the Revolutionary War with the Civil War).
- high school science teachers who don't understand vulcanism, earthquakes (they're caused by mining, don't you know?), or covalent bonding.
These are not isolated examples. My daughter failed an American Government test because she quoted the Constitution of the United States in defining the three parts of government. Nor is it just her school - I've listened to similar complaints from students in five other schools, in three districts. That's why I'm a strong believer in posting multiple, full, well-researched and hyperlinked school curricula to the web, with free access to all. One should be the curriculum used by the local school district, and three or more should be alternate curricula posted by groups of concerned parents and other interested groups. Businesses, especially, should support this. Not only will the state-educated student be their customer, they will more often than not also be their employee. Right now, there's no way to even know what our children are being taught, and certainly no access to course material used in the classroom. There's no accountability, either to parents, to children, or to the district paying the bills. All that needs to end. The Web is the best way to hold the teaching profession's collective feet to the fire.
Posted by: Old Patriot on April 4, 2005 07:54 PM