February 20, 2014
Rosemary McAuliffe says "Oops"

If you've been following the contretemps in Olympia over the federal government's finding that Washington's teacher evaluations law is inadequate by the standards of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), then you already know what transpired on Tuesday night. 21 Senate Democrats and seven Republicans voted no on a bill to tweak the law so Washington won't lose its NCLB waiver and the federal dollars that go with it.

The Democrats voted no because the Washington Education Association doesn't want statewide tests used in teacher evaluations, so requiring districts to use them is a no-go with them (wouldn't it be terrible if the tests used in evaluations could be compared around the state?). If it's a no-go with the WEA, it's a no-go for Democrats. The seven Republicans presumably voted no because "federal government."

Worth noting is the total backflip by Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe of Bothell. McAuliffe chaired the education committee when Democrats held the Senate, and she is a close ally of the WEA. Despite that, she filed legislation on Dec. 29 that would have made the same change as the bill that she led the charge against on Tuesday

McAuliffe's bill had a hearing on January 15, where the only "Con" testimony was from the WEA. Apparently McAuliffe found the testimony compelling, because she cited it in her floor speech on Tuesday as the reason for her about-face on an idea she supported just a few weeks before. Now, McAuliffe has decided, "It's not a good thing to use statewide tests."

As of this morning, McAuliffe's blog post announcing her bill was still up on her website, but now it's gone. All that's left is an Oops message -- as in Oops, I'm sorry I angered the teachers union. Thanks to Google Cache, you can still read McAuliffe's post here.

**Update**
Erik Smith at Washington State Wire has a great write-up on the politics behind the bill and the district programs that will be affected by the loss of Title I funds.

Posted by Adam Faber at February 20, 2014 06:47 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Which orifice did she take it in from the WEA? I hope she liked it....cause now she's a (fill in blank)

Posted by: dengle on February 20, 2014 10:52 PM
2. Of course the left knows that we can't have teachers evaluated for their job performance; that would be normal, appropriate, and make good common sense.

Next thing you know someone might suggest that other government employees be required to meet normal, appropriate, and common senses standards, and soon the left could lose their stranglehold on public union employees and be required to provide services to the public as a standard part of their jobs.

My God, that could mean the left could be required to compete with the right on the reasonable and fair basis of ideas rather than their current union corruption, coercion, and extortion.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 20, 2014 11:18 PM
3. Rosemary accidentally found herself on the right side of an issue, before the WEA got her head right!

Posted by: Moondoggie on February 20, 2014 11:41 PM
4. The seven Republicans presumably voted no because "federal government."

Further proof, as if any more could ever possibly be needed, that "Fund Education First" is cynical, empty sloganeering.

Posted by: tensor on February 21, 2014 07:37 AM
5. .
Adam Faber (HACK!), have you ever run for office to be on a WA School Board? Are you a member of your local PTA?

How about the rest of the (un)SP peanut gallery; any of you a part of an organization with responsibilities to deliver measurable improvements to educational outcomes?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 21, 2014 09:06 AM
6. ...McAuliffe found the testimony compelling, because she cited it in her floor speech on Tuesday as the reason for her about-face on an idea she supported just a few weeks before. Now, McAuliffe has decided, "It's not a good thing to use statewide tests."

So, Adam, was it a bad thing for a legislator to change her vote, based upon testimony provided by an interested party? If so, why should legislative committees ever bother to solicit testimony on their bills?

Posted by: tensor on February 21, 2014 09:23 AM
7. At # 5,

"any of you a part of an organization with responsibilities to deliver measurable improvements to educational outcomes?

Given your comments over time, one thing is certain beyond any reasonable doubt, YOU play no positive role whatsoever in improving education.
If anything has ever been made manifestly obvious from a blog, you have proven yourself the ultimate anti-education type.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 21, 2014 10:07 AM
8. @4 - tensor, 21 democrats voted against additional funding because it is more important to placate the teacher union than it is to actually educate the children.

Let me rephrase this whole fund education first topic for you. The state was sued due to violating the Constitution in funding of education. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court ruling. It is now the law of the land - get over it.

You call "Fund Education First" just sloganeering.

You insist that neither the Constitution nor the courts require "legislators to write an education budget before they look at a revenue stream to pay for it."

These quotes came directly from the KC Superior Court ruling in McCleary and the Washington State Supreme Court Ruling in McCleary. (Again, McCleary was filed in 2007, ruled on in 2010 - before Rodney Tom and his coalition. The Seattle School District v. State was from 1982):

It declared that, in the context of Article IX, section 1, "paramount" means the State must "amply provide for the education of all Washington children as the State's first and highest priority before any other State programs or operations."

Article IX, section 1 confers on children in Washington a positive constitutional right to an amply funded education. - Washington State Supreme Court, McCleary v. State of Washington

Washington law recognizes that the education duty specified in Article IX, section 1 is the only duty that is the State's paramount duty. As the Washington State Supreme Court has held: "Careful examination of our constitution reveals that the framers declared only once in the entire document that a specified function was the State's paramount duty. That singular declaration is found in Constitution Article IX, section 1. Undoubtedly, the imperative wording is intentional. - Seattle School District v. State, 90 Wn.2d at 510-11."

Washington law holds that Article IX, section 1 imposes an affirmative, judicially enforceable duty upon the State. The Washington Supreme Court has thus held that Article IX, section 1 "is mandatory and imposes a judicially enforceable affirmative duty" upon the State"

The Washington Supreme Court has accordingly held that the Respondent State must fully comply with Article IX, section 1 as its "first priority".

During the trial, the State cross-examined many of the Petitioners' education witnesses as too whether they would prioritize education at the expense of other worthy causes and services, such as health care, nutrition services, and transportation needs. But this is not the prerogative of these witnesses - or even of the Legislature - that decision has been mandated by our State Constitution. The State must make basic education funding its top legislative priority.

Your arguments did not hold up in court.

The Washington Supreme Court has accordingly interpreted the word "paramount" in Article IX, section 1 as follows: "Paramount" is not a mere synonym of "important." Rather, it means superior in rank above all others, chief, preeminent, supreme, and in fact dominant.... When a thing is said to be paramount, it can only mean that it is more important than all other things concerned. Indeed, as Judge Robert Doran opined, "[f]unding of the education program required by Article IX, Sections 1 and 2, must be provided as a first priority before any statutory program is funded."

I highlighted a phrase for you, it translates to "Fund Education First". Seems to be more of a court order than just "sloganeering".

It also means that the Legislature can and must fully fund education before other budget items. This will mean that the other budget items will be the ones that will need to hold something/someone hostage to extract tax increases.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 21, 2014 10:41 AM
9. From the link ine update:
The 28-19 vote... [against passage]

So, given how ...seven Republicans presumably voted no because "federal government.", had all seven voted to, shall we say, "fund education first," the vote total would have been 26-21 in favor.

Why is it the fault of the Democrats this bill failed in a chamber controlled by the vaunted Senate Majority Coalition? Maybe the latter just cannot govern?

Posted by: tensor on February 21, 2014 10:45 AM
10. At # 9,

"Why is it the fault of the Democrats this bill failed?

Because they voted against it . . . genius.
Duhhh

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 21, 2014 12:12 PM
11. Amused -- I see math remains hard for you. Let's try again:

The vote was 28-19 against passage. Seven of those nineteen votes came from senators whose party, at the federal level, pushed the No Child Left Behind Act. Had they all voted in favor of passage, it would have passed. Why is their decision to refuse their party's program in the chamber they control the fault of anyone but themselves?

For bonus points, show how their votes supported their own "fund education first" slogan.

Posted by: tensor on February 21, 2014 12:32 PM
12. "Had they all voted in favor of passage, it would have passed . . ." but they didn't genius.
Math is not the issue you moron.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 21, 2014 12:41 PM
13. @8: tensor, 21 democrats voted against additional funding

No, they didn't. They voted against the third set of changes in three years to the evaluation system. All the bleating from Tom and Litzow about Title I funds doesn't change the fact that the fiscal note doesn't say a single word about this having anything to do with federal money.

Posted by: Rodney Tom is a Schmuck on February 21, 2014 12:46 PM
14. Moreover something a moron (even in his own mind) like tensor fails to get, the "majority coalition" he points to derisively is composed of two Democrats and one Republican.

Following anything that has facts reasoning or common sense to it is not tensor's bag.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 21, 2014 01:06 PM
15. the "majority coalition" he points to derisively is composed of two Democrats and one Republican.

Wow -- just three senators set the whole agenda for our entire senate? They must be so powerful, they can pass any bill they like!

I'll give you this much, Amused -- your math skills absolutely dwarf your political acumen.

Posted by: tensor on February 21, 2014 01:22 PM
16. Predictably you utterly fail to recognize that you are arguing both sides of the issue at the same time and by doing so prove my original point.
You have no point (except the one on top of your head).
Thanks for the help.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 21, 2014 01:38 PM
17. Well, Amused, I never thought I'd see you get "winded" so easily. That was a weak finish, even for you. Little wonder math is so hard for you when logic escapes you this easily.

And Roots, please show what in that ruling you so tediously cite requires our legislature to consider tax bills prior to funding bills. Also please show how deleting educational funding to maintain tax preferences satisfies both that ruling and the "fund education first" slogan you've (mistakenly) equated to it.

Posted by: tensor on February 21, 2014 02:45 PM
18. tensor, All the bleating from Tom and Litzow about Title I funds doesn't change the fact that the fiscal note doesn't say a single word about this having anything to do with federal money

Read SB5960 and the report. No fiscal note was requested.

And Roots, please show what in that ruling you so tediously cite requires our legislature to consider tax bills prior to funding bills.

Classic shifting of the goal posts and obfuscation. As I and others have pointed out to you, per the constitution and now the courts, education funding is the top priority before any other. The only thing it has to do with tax bills is how the legislature will gain the revenues to fund lower priority spending. Existing sales tax revenues alone provide more than enough to fund education.

Also please show how deleting educational funding to maintain tax preferences satisfies both that ruling and the "fund education first" slogan you've (mistakenly) equated to it.

No. You prove that the court was wrong in interpreting the state constitution.

Your position all along has been that the legislature is unable to fund education without raising taxes by any and all means. This is not true. They are able, but they choose no to in order to retain funding for lower priorities.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 21, 2014 02:58 PM
19. No. You prove that the court was wrong in interpreting the state constitution.

Ha, ha, ha. You really have convinced yourself the Republicans' utterly empty slogan -- the one they themselves did not follow -- equates to that court ruling? Wow.

I agree completely that our state's constitution requires education as the paramount duty of our state government, and that the ruling you repeatedly cite agrees with our state's constitution on that point. Where we disagree is at your many attempts to force the ruling to support your political agenda against tax increases.

Your position all along has been that the legislature is unable to fund education without raising taxes by any and all means.

No, my position all along has been this ruling in no way prohibits, prescribes, or prevents the legislature from raising taxes to fund education -- or to fund anything else, for that matter. And you still haven't shown how the ruling forces the legislature to write tax bills before it writes spending bills. You can't -- the only question is if you know that or not.

Posted by: tensor on February 21, 2014 03:24 PM
20. At # 19,

Silly, brainless, delusional, pointless, boring.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 21, 2014 06:46 PM
21. "Silly, brainless, delusional, pointless, boring."

Somebody replaced Amused with a troll-bot! Same great sadism, but now with much more efficient format! I applaud its programmers.

Posted by: tensor on February 21, 2014 07:37 PM
22. Silly, brainless, delusional, pointless, boring.

That's an excellent summary of Adam's post!

It was shameful for McAuliffe to delete her earlier post. If Adam wants to throw darts at her for that, she deserves it.

Other than that, it's doubtful that any of the dire consequences Adam and Eric Smith listed will actually happen.

Rodney Tom put a bill out to vote that he knew wouldn't pass. As Eric Smith noted, this is unusual, so why did he do it? Tom did this to give GOP senators a chance to do some gratuitous union bashing, and he wanted to provide something for political hacks like Adam and Eric to write about. Other than that, there was no purpose.

I'd expect that kind of political gamesmanship from a Republican Majority Leader (or even a Democratic one). But Tom has claimed that his reason for enabling the "majority coalition" was to set aside pointless political gaming for a while and get things done. Pure BS...

Tom is just a Republican who decided to call himself a Democrat when he needed it to get elected. Then he went back to caucusing with Republicans when that suited him. Now both sides don't trust him.

Posted by: scottd on February 22, 2014 07:30 AM
23. If it is paramount to fund education, why vote in a manner that reduces funding for education?

Maybe the real issue is accepting federal funds for education. Once accepted one has to follow the fed's dance card not your own.

Posted by: Borderland on February 22, 2014 09:35 AM
24. MBS, I have. I'm part of my PTA and have raise thousands of dollars for our school. However school district and union rules have not allowed tense funds to be spent wisely for playground remodels. Having to use school district union rates squandered thousands of these precious funds and we were not able to provide more to the children. Union and school...don't care. They need their cut. Kids who cares about them?

Posted by: Dengle on February 22, 2014 07:27 PM
25. This is more good news delivered by Adam Faber.

The simple and undeniable fact is that the left is bent upon protecting their power bloc to prevent teachers from being allowed let alone forced to teach.

If America fired every single left identified teacher and replaced them with janitors we would be far far better off. At least janitors have a work ethic they can pass on to our children. All liberal teachers have is lies, distortions and emotional pandering to their fantasy points of view based on bullshit.

Right leaning teachers see this and are becoming ever more resistant to it. While the left is quite happy to destroy America's future in order to consolidate their power, other genuine "teachers" (i.e. moderate and right wing) who care about education rather than propaganda, are quietly turning away from the witless mind- numbed leftist/socialist manipulations of the WEA and the NEA.

The times are changing and socially we are moving away from leftist bondage, ignorance, and emotion based stupidity to freedom and individual republican democracy.

It is amusing to watch as the leftist trolls try to obfuscate these undeniable facts.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 23, 2014 08:56 AM
26. Amused@25 writes, "The times are changing and socially we are moving away from leftist bondage, ignorance, and emotion based stupidity to freedom and individual republican democracy. It is amusing to watch as the leftist trolls try to obfuscate these undeniable facts."

Huh? The original post was about a vote that went directly against your "undeniable facts".

One can debate the merits of the vote, the issue, the union, etc. But statements like the above show your disconnection with reality.

Posted by: Bruce on February 23, 2014 01:12 PM
27. DUHHH? "The original post was about a vote that went directly against your "undeniable facts".

Since it is obvious that the central point of the article completely eluded Bruce, it was about a dishonest waffling wriggling leftist (McAuliffe) who VERY PUBLICLY committed herself and then scampered away from offending the left.

Didn't get that . . . huh?
Big surprise.

Because Bruce is a liberal, and I feel charitable, I'll further explain the obvious.

See, the more this happens in such shamelessly cynical and publicly embarrassing ways, it stimulates sensible people (of nominal or better intellect) to recognize clear and obvious cynical dishonesty. This causes many Americans to doubt and turn away from the cynical dishonest leftist/socialist manipulations of the WEA and the NEA.

It doesn't surprise me that Bruce would try to change the subject, but (per his usual), because he never has any basis for anything he writes, this is no different.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 23, 2014 02:50 PM
28. "we are moving away from leftist bondage, ignorance, and emotion based stupidity to freedom and individual republican democracy"

Freedom! Republican democracy!! That must be what SB 6523 is all about, moving us away from leftist bondage and towards freedom and Republican democracy by giving financial aid to illegal immigrants attending state colleges and universities. You know, those same illegal immigrants who already get in-state tuition rates?

I'm sure we'll soon see an Adam Faber post about the leftist bondage-smashing SB 6523, identifying and lauding the 10 Republicans who voted for SB 6523, providing yet more freedom and Republican democracy for Amused. After all, it's not like this present post of Adam's is some shiny object diverting the attention of Amused away from something else that happened this week.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 23, 2014 03:11 PM
29. Republicans voted AGAINST using standardized tests for teacher evaluations!?! RINOs through and through.

There is no reason not to use these tools for teacher evaluations...IF don't correctly.. The problem is that there are so many idiots in charge of the schools nowadays that they wouldn't use them correctly.

It's not as simple as if your kids did well on the tests....you have to compare where they were when they got into your class, where they were when they left, what similar students did nationwide (and that could be different for every kid they have).

Basically, it could be a GREAT tool for teacher evaluations, and could help show where each teacher needs to allocate more of their time educating.

Damn unions shouldn't be against it, they should just be against the misuse of it. And those 'republicans', no excuse.

and MBS, many years on a school board here.

Posted by: doug on February 23, 2014 04:31 PM
30. Schools should be community based and not tied in any way to unions or big government, especially not federal unions or a federal department.

Students do better when local communities and states define the standards and makes the rules for itself, and our country would do better overall if the federal government and unions were extricated entirely from their affairs.

This is an important part of the reason why people like Bruce, tensor, MBS Scottd and others are so blindly biased towards policies on the left that have no possibility of success. They are incapable of thinking for themselves.

MORONS

It all started in schools whose primary purpose today is to benefit teachers and administrators at the cost of any decent education of students.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 23, 2014 04:52 PM
31. @29: There is no reason not to use these tools for teacher evaluations...IF don't correctly.. The problem is that there are so many idiots in charge of the schools nowadays that they wouldn't use them correctly.

But it isn't just that they would be used incorrectly. If your paycheck depended on your students learning the answers to a few hundred multiple-choice questions, wouldn't you just teach them the answers to that test, instead of actually teaching them course material?

The notion of high-stakes testing, both for students and for teachers, does little aside from distorting the educational system. Most ongoing performance reviews can determine whether a teacher is doing well or poorly, and to think that a single test can do in a single metric what should require an ongoing process is unfounded.

Posted by: demo kid on February 23, 2014 07:42 PM
32. @30: Schools should be community based and not tied in any way to unions or big government, especially not federal unions or a federal department.

So, therefore, no school should have to be accredited. Not to mention that the teachers that teach your children should be paid minimum wage, granted no workplace protections, and fired at the whim of any parent of a kid that got a bad grade. Gotcha. Bang up school system you would run. I'm sure you'd be a popular principal.

One main reason for teachers' unions is simple -- teachers without a union would have little to no protection against students, teachers, and administrators with a personal vendetta or irrelevant grievance. Without those protections, a teacher's job security, even a good teacher's, would be practically zero.

Students do better when local communities and states define the standards and makes the rules for itself, and our country would do better overall if the federal government and unions were extricated entirely from their affairs.

The biggest lie is that somehow, local communities would do *better* if they could just do what they wanted. It's simply not true. Maybe a few communities would come up with truly innovative solutions for local education, but others would be incredibly mismanaged without even a basic standard for curricula and coursework.

As far as federal versus state government roles go, the federal government has no power over education, period. Any role that the federal government has in such matters is linked directly to funding transfers to the states. If Alaska or Wyoming or Michigan or whomever wanted to do their own thing, with no interference from the federal government, they are free to do as they please.

This is an important part of the reason why people like Bruce, tensor, MBS Scottd and others are so blindly biased towards policies on the left that have no possibility of success. They are incapable of thinking for themselves.

What I've found is that when people say that their opponents are "incapable of thinking for themselves", they're usually speaking from experience in such matters.

This false dispute over teachers' unions, just as with education funding in the state legislature, has far less to do with an actual discussion of education, and far, far more to do with a political party trying to kneecap their opponents' supporters. It's exactly the same thing at play when folks try to talk about tort reform (but not, for example, pharmaceutical patent reform or private healthcare fraud).

MORONS

Typical of shallow thinking. Next?

It all started in schools whose primary purpose today is to benefit teachers and administrators at the cost of any decent education of students.

Started? I'm sorry... but if you're looking for taking benefits, becoming a school teacher is definitely not one of those fields to do it in. Folks that are attracted to teaching because they get summers off are quickly weeded out, and if you're looking for a big payday, you can make easier money other ways.

What disheartens me is that modern conservatives have done such a bang up job of demeaning and making enemies of the people that teach their kids... and for what? To use them as a political football? To go on some kind of imaginary "socialist" witch-hunt? It really is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Posted by: demo kid on February 23, 2014 07:45 PM
33. At # 32,

If your paycheck depended on your students learning the answers to a few hundred multiple-choice questions, wouldn't you just teach them the answers to that test, instead of actually teaching them course material?

Red herring. That isn't the case and there are other alternatives to this false dilemma, but I wouldn't expect someone of your obvious limitations to recognize that fact.

So, therefore, no school should have to be accredited. Not to mention that the teachers that teach your children should be paid minimum wage, granted no workplace protections, and fired at the whim of any parent of a kid that got a bad grade. Gotcha.

Another red herring. That isn't the case either. Accreditation does no good if it is only based upon arbitrary standards. Only a pandering jerk with a small brain like you would claim that anyone would attempt to pay minimum wage to teachers, but since that is your suggestion, it is understandable. Most of today's East Indian students meet standards far higher than any of our "accredited" public schools in America. Private schools in America match some of those standards but not public schools and it is largely because of the unions.

Respecting workplace "protections," there are so many employment laws and workplace protections in the law that the NEA and WEA are utterly feckless and obsolete.

Teachers without a union would have little to no protection against students, teachers, and administrators with a personal vendetta or irrelevant grievance. Without those protections, a teacher's job security, even a good teacher's, would be practically zero.

Bullshit. That isn't the purpose of the teachers unions nor their practice. Again, there are so many employment laws and workplace protections in the law that these points are complete utter nonsense.

Besides, who protects the primary party of interest in this situation? You know . . . the students? Neither you nor the teachers unions give a tinker damn about that and they prove it every day in every way.

The biggest lie is that somehow, local communities would do *better* if they could just do what they wanted. It's simply not true. Maybe a few communities would come up with truly innovative solutions for local education, but others would be incredibly mismanaged without even a basic standard for curricula and coursework.

You are the blatant chiseling liar. Parents care more about their children than anyone, and local communities will ALWAYS do *better* if they could just do what they wanted.
This is a fundamental problem with the left's view of everything. You have no idea how life and people really work. We don't need assholes like you to tell us what is good; we know better than you do what is good for us. Mind your own business and get the hell out of the way.

As far as federal versus state government roles go, the federal government has no power over education, period. Any role that the federal government has in such matters is linked directly to funding transfers to the states. If Alaska or Wyoming or Michigan or whomever wanted to do their own thing, with no interference from the federal government, they are free to do as they please.

Agreed. But the key to this is the fact that liberals and their unions have so effectively consolidated their power that they have made the states and communities dependant upon the federal government and thus accountable to them for funds that we don't actually need.

What I've found is that when people say that their opponents are "incapable of thinking for themselves", they're usually speaking from experience in such matters.

Right again. I have had years of experience dealing with liberals like you who are completely incapable of thinking for themselves yet do anything and everything possible to make us -- and our children -- think as you do.

This false dispute over teachers' unions, just as with education funding in the state legislature, has far less to do with an actual discussion of education, and far, far more to do with a political party trying to kneecap their opponents' supporters.

Half right, but for the wrong reasons. There is nothing false about the fact that education is not serving its real purpose to our society at large and that teachers' unions are at fault. It is true that the left is trying to kneecap their opponents' supporters because they have a stranglehold on education and they will continue to sacrifice our children's futures to keep it.

What disheartens me is that modern conservatives have done such a bang up job of demeaning and making enemies of the people that teach their kids... and for what? To use them as a political football? To go on some kind of imaginary "socialist" witch-hunt? It really is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Speak for yourself. I know a number of conservative teachers who are marginalized because they speak out about the very problems that I discuss here. They are high quality people who care more than any of your union "educators" who covet their union memberships while turning a blind eye to the many problems caused by unions. It is just this union membership mentality that causes someone to spew the cynical simplistic nonsense you have presented here.

Because you are incapable of thinking for yourself, you are a true believer in things that don't exist and you are blind to anything beyond your foolish tactics, half truths and lies.

Why not retire and let a real teacher have a chance to fix the mess you have created.
They need greeters at Walmart.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 23, 2014 08:53 PM
34. @33: Red herring. That isn't the case and there are other alternatives to this false dilemma, but I wouldn't expect someone of your obvious limitations to recognize that fact.

Seems like you don't know the definition of a "red herring". There are documented cases of teachers trying to alter test results specifically to game the system. In other cases, teachers have disputed the idea of linking standardized testing directly to course material.


Another red herring. That isn't the case either. Accreditation does no good if it is only based upon arbitrary standards. Only a pandering jerk with a small brain like you would claim that anyone would attempt to pay minimum wage to teachers, but since that is your suggestion, it is understandable. Most of today's East Indian students meet standards far higher than any of our "accredited" public schools in America. Private schools in America match some of those standards but not public schools and it is largely because of the unions.

You're not stringing your thoughts together coherently here at all.

First, accreditation IS based on arbitrary standards -- are you suggesting they should be based on whimsy instead?

Second, diplomas, degrees, licenses, etc. are worthless without accreditation, since they wouldn't be proof of anything. A separate organization needs to be charged with ensuring that if you get a diploma, you needed to meet minimum standards to achieve it, and the organization that you got it from meets an acceptable standard of quality. Without it, I could just as easily invent a university of my own, and hand you every degree you might possibly want.

And finally, who said anything about East Indian students or private schools? If you are going to go there, I'll just note that it's tough to draw conclusions from self-selecting samples.


Respecting workplace "protections," there are so many employment laws and workplace protections in the law that the NEA and WEA are utterly feckless and obsolete.

Not by a long shot. Without the union, teachers would have little to no protection. And heck, claiming that workplace regulations would protect teachers when the mission of the same people looking to break unions is to dismantle said protections is disingenuous.


Bullshit. That isn't the purpose of the teachers unions nor their practice.

Collective bargaining and enforcement of contracts are the primary reason for the union, and workplace protections are part of those contracts. Where's the bullshit in that?


Again, there are so many employment laws and workplace protections in the law that these points are complete utter nonsense.

"So many employment laws" that you cannot speak to them, apparently.


Besides, who protects the primary party of interest in this situation? You know . . . the students? Neither you nor the teachers unions give a tinker damn about that and they prove it every day in every way.

If you're becoming a teacher, you're not exactly going in it for the money. Teachers' unions have been working to improve conditions for teachers, but they also provide meaningful reforms to education that make a difference to students.

But there's also a difference between looking out for the primary party of interest, and being exploited. I can say that sick people are a primary interest of doctors and nurses, but that doesn't mean they should work 80 hours a week for minimum wage, no benefits, and no job security for sick people.


You are the blatant chiseling liar.

You haven't shown that in the slightest. You're just spouting insults.


Parents care more about their children than anyone, and local communities will ALWAYS do *better* if they could just do what they wanted.

You're speaking in absolutes. Do you trust that EVERY school system should set EVERY aspect of its own curriculum? Do you believe that every university or employer in the US should accept a high school diploma from West Nowhere, PA where they didn't teach world history or basic algebra?

If you simply allowed local communities to "do what they wanted", what you would find is that they would rapidly "do what someone else wanted" so that their kids could actually get admitted to any college, anywhere. Providing for state and national standards, even if they step on the feet of local communities, is an easier way to make that happen than for high schools and colleges to deal with uncertainty in the system.

Now, if you believe that some school systems could even potentially mess this up, standards should be set for everyone.


This is a fundamental problem with the left's view of everything. You have no idea how life and people really work.

You know, I keep hearing that line about how the left has "no idea how life and people work". I don't buy it. I've met plenty of deluded right-wingers that cannot seem to see beyond catchphrases, and some wise people that are left-wing, and vice versa. I've seen zero correlation to ideology. I just think that it's something that conservatives like to tell themselves to make themselves feel good.


We don't need assholes like you to tell us what is good; we know better than you do what is good for us. Mind your own business and get the hell out of the way.

It's like you're telling me this while you're trying to drink gasoline and smoke a cigarette. I don't really think that you understand what exactly you're doing, and what the actual effects would be in the end. This has far less to do with "personal freedom", and far more about running a system that actually works and is fair to everyone involved.


Agreed. But the key to this is the fact that liberals and their unions have so effectively consolidated their power that they have made the states and communities dependant upon the federal government and thus accountable to them for funds that we don't actually need.

"Liberals" this, "unions" that. Give it a rest. If you don't need the funds, don't take them, and don't elect people to your local school board that will take any funding from the federal or state governments. It's as simple as that. Of course, given that rural counties in Washington State take a whole lot more in for school funding than they give back, I don't think that it's true that these are "funds [they] don't actually need".


Right again. I have had years of experience dealing with liberals like you who are completely incapable of thinking for themselves yet do anything and everything possible to make us -- and our children -- think as you do.

And yet you are advocating purging schools of your ideological opponents. Trust me, I've met plenty of conservatives like you who are completely incapable of thinking for themselves yet do anything and everything possible to make us -- and our children -- think as you do.


Half right, but for the wrong reasons. There is nothing false about the fact that education is not serving its real purpose to our society at large and that teachers' unions are at fault. It is true that the left is trying to kneecap their opponents' supporters because they have a stranglehold on education and they will continue to sacrifice our children's futures to keep it.

I think that -- surprisingly enough -- education is actually (mostly) serving its real purpose. There are plenty of horror stories out there about schools, but the simple truth is that many, many parents are quite happy with the education that their children are getting, and students in high schools today that want a challenge can get it and become world-class in their fields.

Part of the reason that there is all this sky-is-falling crap about education is that our economy, and in turn, our schools, are not set up to manage students that fifty years ago would have dropped out early and picked up a job on a factory floor. Even those that would have stopped with a high school diploma before are taking college prep classes now. In the past, the distribution of students were completely different. We don't cater well to the students that don't want to go to college in today's society.

And as far as "kneecapping", I have no objection to people taking action to do what they feel is right. However, in the end, if you're trying to break all teachers' unions as a matter of principle, you're trying to remove protections from teachers and reduce the quality of their jobs. Please do tell how you expect to get a better quality of education out of teachers that are paid less and have less job security?


Speak for yourself. I know a number of conservative teachers who are marginalized because they speak out about the very problems that I discuss here. They are high quality people who care more than any of your union "educators" who covet their union memberships while turning a blind eye to the many problems caused by unions. It is just this union membership mentality that causes someone to spew the cynical simplistic nonsense you have presented here.

Boo hoo.

I think that airing objections to entrenched interests, regardless of whether it is administration or union, is a great idea. However, you're not providing specific examples, merely speaking generally about breaking unions. And as much as I think that modern labor should be criticized for its failings, I don't think you can simply ignore the power imbalance that would result if they were abolished tomorrow.

I should add that I don't feel that ANY political opinions should be aired in classrooms, just like I don't think that religion should either. An English teacher doesn't need to share their opinions on healthcare, nor does a math teacher need to talk about their take on illegal immigration. That goes both ways.

But any workplace (outside of the classrooms) is going to have its own dominant culture and political leaning. If I'm working at a brokerage firm, should I get whiny and feel all victimized because I'm a liberal in a sea of conservative economic libertarians?


Because you are incapable of thinking for yourself, you are a true believer in things that don't exist and you are blind to anything beyond your foolish tactics, half truths and lies.

Again, what I have found is that when people say things like this, they're usually speaking more from their own perspective.

Oh, and as a personal note -- I don't insult you, just your arguments. Stop insulting me and give me some fucking respect. All you're doing is looking like a complete prick, and someone who is masking weak arguments with unfounded attacks on someone that doesn't buy into your personal philosophy.

Posted by: demo kid on February 23, 2014 11:48 PM
35. At # 34,

You respond like a typical lazy-ass liberal follower with no original thoughts of your own but simplistic petulant distortions of everything I write.

Amusingly you write,
Stop insulting me and give me some fucking respect. All you're doing is looking like a complete prick, and someone who is masking weak arguments with unfounded attacks on someone that doesn't buy into your personal philosophy.

Respect?
Your personal philosophy is to screw everyone for your personal gain and you are an insult to yourself. As you continue to produce students incapable of functioning in society and incapable of "thinking for themselves"; you are looking far more like the complete prick, and someone who is masking bullshit with more bullshit.

Why not quit lying to our kids and retire?
They need greeters at Walmart.
Qualified?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 24, 2014 01:16 AM
36. @35: Your personal philosophy is to screw everyone for your personal gain and you are an insult to yourself. As you continue to produce students incapable of functioning in society and incapable of "thinking for themselves"; you are looking far more like the complete prick, and someone who is masking bullshit with more bullshit.

Ack! You got me! My line of reasoning simply cannot withstand your line of vitrol and hyperbole! Who can argue with brilliant orators that can dispute an argument simply by calling it "bullshit"?

You're a pathetic little worm. You're more concerned about nursing your feelings of victimhood than actually seeing the world for what it is and thinking for yourself. Call the frickin' waaaaaahmbulance.

Posted by: demo kid on February 25, 2014 08:22 PM
37. watch was far too easy before, however right now it is impossible

Posted by: ??????? ????? on February 27, 2014 12:59 AM
38. Can you think of one area just one post Reagan that the Republican party hasn't sold out its base on.

I have decided that this year when I get my ballot, I am going to shread it.

Yeah, civil responsibility be damned. It's not responsible to vote for people who you know will sell you out to your opposition.

Wake me when we become a two party system again. Because Republicans aren't the opposition. They are the co-conspirators!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/24/Rep-Cathy-McMorris-Rodgers-Amnesty-Legislation-Still-a-Possibility

Actually if I lived in her district, I think I would vote this year - against her! Yes, I rather have a Democrat in that seat! As it is, hell I will send her opponent a few bucks. Her primary challenger if she has one, otherwise yes it goes to the one in the General.

It took the Republican party to make me vote Democrat. What is most important is to stop the Republican leadership! If that means the end of the Republican party, so be it because the Left has been getting what they wanted with the Republcians so no big lost without them.

This isn't about "winnin' elections". We won her an election and she turned and used that seat as a weapon against us. This year it's about Defeating RINOS. Because, yeah, if our country is going to be destroyed irregardless of which party is in power, if the Left is going to get it's policies through even Republicans like the ones in Arizona, then yeah, give it to the Democrats. I have a little more respect for them because at least they believe in what they are doing as wrong as it is, than those Republicans who know they are doing wrong but do so for selfish reasons.

Posted by: Steve on February 27, 2014 09:38 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?