# teacher strike



## manfred (Dec 21, 2005)

Looks like the teachers in Chicago want to play rough and make the parents and children suffer.
I think Chicago should, stop their pay, cancel their health insurance, stop paying into their retirement,etc. 
If it is illegal there as it is in my state for public employees to strike, fine them.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

manfred said:


> Looks like the teachers in Chicago want to play rough and make the parents and children suffer.
> I think Chicago should, stop their pay, cancel their health insurance, stop paying into their retirement,etc.
> If it is illegal there as it is in my state for public employees to strike, fine them.


Yup, all the above! And they say they care more about the kids than money! Yeah, right!


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Read an article today on Drudge, saying Chicago teachers average $76,000/yr BEFORE benefits. Another article there said 79% of Chicago 8th graders can't read to their grade level, and 80% can do math to their grade level. 

Has the world gone crazy? The highest paid teachers in the US go on strike for more money, while their students can't read?

You can't make this stuff up!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Don't they also get a few months off for summer vacation?


----------



## Bluesgal (Jun 17, 2011)

OK, here it is.... from the Union's site.... (emphasis is mine)



> Recognizing the Boardâs fiscal woes, we are not far apart on compensation. However, we are apart on benefits. We want to maintain the existing health benefits. âAnother concern is evaluation procedures. After the initial phase-in of the new evaluation system it could result in 6,000 teachers (or nearly 30 percent of our members) being discharged within one or two years. This is unacceptable. _*We are also concerned that too much of the new evaluations will be based on studentsâ standardized test scores. This is no way to measure the effectiveness of an educator. *_Further there are too many factors beyond our control which impact how well some students perform on standardized tests such as poverty, exposure to violence, homelessness, hunger and other social issues beyond our control.





> âWhile new Illinois law prohibits us from striking over the recall of laid-off teachers and compensation for a longer school year, we do not intend to sign an agreement until these matters are addressed.


or read the whole thing here: Chicago Teachers Union | Press Release: CPS Fails To Negotiate Fair Contract To Prevent First Strike In 25 Years


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bluesgal said:


> OK, here it is.... from the Union's site.... (emphasis is mine)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are health benefits really a concern? After all, Obama care is going to take care of them!


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

The people posing as teachers in Chicago object to student scores being a factor in the evaluation of their teaching skills.

If I say I am a teacher and 7 out of 10 of my students don't learn what I am teaching then I should be aware of it before they take that final test of my class and I should be filing proper reports with my superiors and figuring out if its my teaching curriculum or other factors are affecting my students lack of progress and attention should be taken to address those factors once identified.

When I was a student instructor of 1st quarter tech students during my final quarter, my grade was a factoring of the grades my 20 students earned on standardized tests our instructor gave them every two weeks with us 8th quarter student instructors having no input into his testing of our students.

During the quarter however if any of our students showed difficulty we were to meet with our instructor and he would decide how best to assign a tutor or worse case transfer the below average student to his own class if he felt the below average student required his personal tutoring.


----------



## Bluesgal (Jun 17, 2011)

@ JeffreyD - I didn't quote the section of the article where they state they want a reasonable schedule for the installation of air conditioning...









Flabbergasted... test scores are not a way to measure teacher success???? now granted they're not the only way or the end all answer but really? Take a little responsibility here....

Still having trouble here understanding how this is going to help the 400,000 children who aren't in class.....


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Shrek said:


> The people posing as teachers in Chicago object to student scores being a factor in the evaluation of their teaching skills.
> 
> If I say I am a teacher and 7 out of 10 of my students don't learn what I am teaching then I should be aware of it before they take that final test of my class and I should be filing proper reports with my superiors and figuring out if its my teaching curriculum or other factors are affecting my students lack of progress and attention should be taken to address those factors once identified.


Oh, but you know, it's the students' fault. They're poor, come from broken homes, have no discipline, waah, waah, waah. :Bawling:

IMO, all public sector unions should be abolished and those Chicago "teachers" are the perfect example of why.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup, all the above! And they say they care more about the kids than money! Yeah, right!


Oh cry me a river. That 76K is so misleading. Add in all the bennies at it is over 100K a year for working a little over half a year.
Get those union Out Of School make them sit in a corner with a "Dunce Cap" on. LOL


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Read an article today on Drudge, saying Chicago teachers average $76,000/yr BEFORE benefits. Another article there said 79% of Chicago 8th graders can't read to their grade level, and 80% can do math to their grade level.
> 
> Has the world gone crazy? The highest paid teachers in the US go on strike for more money, while their students can't read?
> 
> You can't make this stuff up!


 It is this just a ploy, the unions did this on purpose so that Obama can step in and save the day?
Make him look good before election? Why would the unions go on strike before an election to harm their candidate? They already turned down a 16% raise over 4 years. That is a 11K raise.~!!
It smells fishy to me.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bluesgal said:


> OK, here it is.... from the Union's site.... (emphasis is mine)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I had a 79% failure rate I won't want anyone basing my pay on test scores. I've got an idea, how about we base teacher pay on how well THEY do on the standardized test?

I'm sorry, but there is NO reason for 79% of the students SYSTEM WIDE to fail to be at their grade level. As usual the unions and libs are trying to blame anything but themselves and their actions. You can try to blame hunger, bad home life and the like but the problem is the system.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And here is some figures that will make your HEADS SPIN.


> The vote on whether to boost executive Chicago Public School salaries comes only a week after the same board members, in their first official action, found the deficit-ridden system did not have enough money to pay for 4 percent raises to teachers and other unionized school workers worth $100 million."
> *
> 
> The more Rahm says change, the more things remain the same.
> ...


The Beachwood Reporter - The [Wednesday] Papers

And this is the Collective Bargaining that the unions have for the Chicago schools. it is a PDF file.

http://www.ctunet.com/grievances/text/2007-2012-CPS-CTU-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf?1294199486


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Imagine if you were a state certified firearms instructor and 7 out of 10 of your students shot themselves while taking state CCW test......Raise or no raise..


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Give them a deadline, 48 hours to get back to work or find new jobs.
Fire them and get new ones.
Ones that will be thankful to have a job and that LOVE the kids!
With out a union. 
Unions have out lived their usefulness.


----------



## Bluesgal (Jun 17, 2011)

Just read this: 



> Only about 40 percent of students in Chicago public schools complete high school, compared with a national average of 75 percent and more than 90 percent in some affluent Chicago suburbs, according to the Illinois Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.


Question at heart of Chicago strike: How do you measure teacher performance? - U.S. News

40%???? 60% of students don't graduate????? and they wonder why they have issues.......


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

They can replace all the teachers tomorrow and the test scores will not go up. As long as parents encourage there children they will learn . When parents do not care the children notice and act accordingly.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Privatize education. No unions, problem solved.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sooo, how many of those- grads or not- go to WORK after H.S.???


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Teachers, like day care providers, at least here in Texas should have to take a certain amount of training yearly.
When I was in day care we had to take about 30 hours a year of training to keep up with new information.

We also did not have a union. We did it for the love of children. 
Teaching well is not something you can learn to do. Teaching well is a gift you have. If you go into it with dollar signs, you are in the wrong job.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

zant said:


> Imagine if you were a state certified firearms instructor and 7 out of 10 of your students shot themselves while taking state CCW test......Raise or no raise..


That depends... are these "students" Chicago teachers?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wanda said:


> They can replace all the teachers tomorrow and the test scores will not go up. As long as parents encourage there children they will learn . When parents do not care the children notice and act accordingly.


Maybe we should be paying the parents more and the teachers less?


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

ITA that these teachers should be given 24 hours to choose - either go back to your classrooms, or be fired. 

However, I come from a family of educators and I have worked with enough troubled teenagers (I was an adolescent counselor when I worked outside the home) to know that teachers cannot undo in a few hours a day what parents instill in their children for many years.

If the child is getting SSI for a disability, his family WANTS him to stay in high school until he ages out at 21/22. Because as long as he is enrolled full time in high school, he continues to get his "minor child" benefits. And a child who is passing his classes will graduate by 18, so they encourage their kids to fail.

The children are encouraged to fail, because the parents do not value education. Why bother purchasing school supplies and spending time making your kid do his homework when you can send him out on the street and sell drugs for you instead? Why would the kid bust his rear to study for school when he plans to live off the government dole his whole life?

I still remember when I was working in an area of poverty, the Mom of one of the teens I was counseling came in all excited one day. She proceeded to chat with my secretary and tell her that she was pregnant again and she was just tickled pink about it. Because another baby meant more food stamps, more SSI, etc. I asked my secretary after the Mom left how she knew her yet-unborn baby was going to qualify for SSI and my secretary said "Honey, they know how to work the system. If you plop your baby in front of the tv until he heads to school at 5, then give him candy every time he gets an office referral at school, he'll be diagnosed with some kind of disorder by the time he's 6."

So in inner city Chicago, where I'm guessing poverty is pretty high and this kind of mentality reigns supreme, how exactly is a teacher supposed to get a class full of kids willing to ignore their parent's promise of free govt $$ for doing nothing and convince those kids to study, do their homework, and give a rat's rear end about their education?

After seeing what I've seen, I always tell people who think that teachers should be able to do more that they should go to the nearest inner city school to them and volunteer for a few months. Its a real eye opener, for sure.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

I would imagine It costs a bit more to live in Chicago than rural podunk and the Studenty body might be a bit less plesant than other places.
I honestly Have no idea What the job in those circumstances is worth.

Do you?


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

bluemoonluck said:


> ITA that these teachers should be given 24 hours to choose - either go back to your classrooms, or be fired. ..................
> 
> ........
> 
> ...



Blue moon
The rest of your post would seem to arhue against the first line.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

fantasymaker said:


> Blue moon
> The rest of your post would seem to arhue against the first line.


They should go back to the classroom and do their job while they negotiate the terms of their contract. If the performance requirements remain a part of that contract, the administration will back down the first year when they realize they will have to fire 100% of their teachers - AND THE TEACHERS KNOW THIS.

There's no way any teachers in that system are going to magically get their inner city kids to pass at the levels that the upper middle class kids do. Its just not going to happen, no matter who you put in the classroom. Hate to sound pessimistic, but I've been in those schools and seen what the teachers are up against. 

The teachers are really looking for more $$$$$. They know that the admin isn't going to be able to enforce the "if X percent of your kids don't pass you're fired" rule. And the admin knows that they can't enforce it either - its just there so they can tell the feds "Hey, we're doing the best we can with this NCLB thing...see?!? Its even in our teacher's contracts!!"


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Pretty hard to get someone to give you more when you are already giving them what they want.
You seem mad at the teachers for the kids being out of school but wasnt it the Administrations job to get the contract in place before school started?


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

The whole situation is a mess. I'm no more mad at the teachers than I am at the administrators :shrug: Both sides are arguing over points that they know cannot be enforced. 

And really the people who shoulder the blame are the politicians who decided that a chlid's ability to pass a test was more important than their ability to think. Because of them, our kids can choose the best answer from 5 given, but they can't logic their way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

I always think its funny that teachers are blamed for being out on strike during the school year when its actually the admisistrations responceability.
If the union was smart they would point that out. Perhaps voleenteer to start negotiating in December and not strike till the last day of school?


----------



## Bluesgal (Jun 17, 2011)

fantasymaker said:


> I always think its funny that teachers are blamed for being out on strike during the school year when its actually the admisistrations responceability.
> If the union was smart they would point that out. Perhaps voleenteer to start negotiating in December and not strike till the last day of school?


Last I heard it takes two... the Admin AND the Union...


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sooo, how many of those- grads or not- go to WORK after H.S.???


WORK...How dare you mention that four letter word. Why work when you can draw welfare. You should be ashamed to even mention that.

.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

I have little problem with teachers striking, but I sure wouldn't pay them while they were doing it (or continue benefits, retirement, etc)

Frankly school districts always seem to cut teachers but always seem to find the money to pay more and more administrators and other desk jockeys. 
We did fine in the old days with: 1 principal, 1 secretary, 1 nurse and a couple of janitors.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Bluesgal said:


> Last I heard it takes two... the Admin AND the Union...


It takes two not to be in agreement to cause the strike BUT its the Administrations responceability to be sure the schools are staffed, stocked and ready to start at the appointed time........NOT the teachers.


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

*CEO Jean-Claude Brizard 
"Brizard's base salary of $250,000 is $20,000 more than predecessor Ron Huberman made before taking furlough days; more than the $213,000 drawn by the New York City Schools Chancellor, and more than any other city executive - including Mayor Rahm Emanuel - except for New Police Chief Garry McCarthy."

This almost makes sense until you consider that Chicago is still the murder capital of the US and the Police Chief is making more money than the mayor... Sounds like he is making more than he should based on performance. Kind of like the teachers. 
Unions had their place in our society, but they have gone the way of the dinosaur. Here in Iowa, only 18% of the state is represented by a union. Guess the percentage of those that are government employees...80%+ of government employees are union members. Kind of seems shady to me. But hey, I subscribe to the new age belief that if I do a good job, the market will pay me what I am worth to them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> It takes two not to be in agreement to cause the strike BUT its the Administrations responceability to be sure the schools are staffed, stocked and ready to start at the appointed time........NOT the teachers.


Yep, and thats why the boss should fire any teacher who walks off their job on strike. They were hired, agreed to the terms of their contracts. Why are they not in those classrooms teaching students? If they havent agreed to contracts... then they are not employees... and the administration has no reason to deal with them whatsoever. They can simply set forth whatever pay and bennies they want to offer... hire folks willing to work for that and have the police arrest any nonemployee found on school property.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Beware of Backfire by Christian Schneider - City Journal



> If Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has spent the last 18 months painting a portrait of public-employee unions as intransigent and selfish, the Chicago Teachers Union this week provided him with confirmation. On Monday, 25,000 Chicago teachers (average salary: $76,000 before benefits) walked out of their classrooms, leaving nearly 350,000 schoolchildren and their parents in the lurch. The teachers are fighting to protect their lavish pay and benefit packages and also trying to stave off a new accountability plan that would evaluate their effectiveness using studentsâ test scores.





> Perhaps most egregious are teachersâ attempts to duck accountability to save union jobs. Under Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuelâs plan, a public school teaching position would no longer be a sinecure; teachers would have to justify their employment with their studentsâ test scores. While this makes sense to the publicâBarack Obamaâs own secretary of education, Arne Duncan, has fought for similar accountability plans nationwideâunions see it as a threat to job security, which, to them, clearly takes precedence over student learning.





> The strike could also damage support for the teachers by drawing a clear contrast between heavily unionized public schools and union-free charter schools. Currently, Chicago has nearly 100 charter schools, and 52,000 of the students in those schools will be attending classes on schedule and outperforming public school students academically.


Then again, this IS Chicago. 

BTW.....did anyone else see the video showing the (ISO) International Socialist Organization prominantly marching w/ the teachers? Their 'What We Stand For' page is very interesting (emphasis mine):



> _A world free of exploitation--socialism--is not only possible but worth fighting for. The ISO stands in the tradition of revolutionary socialists *Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky* in the belief that workers themselves--the vast majority of the population--are the only force that can lead the fight to win a socialist society. Socialism can't be brought about from above, but has to be won by workers themselves._


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I don't care how good of a teacher you are, if you were given 30 donkeys to teach spelling to, you wouldn't think it fair to rate your abilities by their sucess.
For most of us, we came from families that actually taught children basic behavior. Today, many kids are raised by cable TV and have no attention span or respect for any adult. 
That $70,000 annual wage, before benifits is high. But is that a top rate for a teacher with a Bachlor Degree? What's the cost of living in a safe area of Chicago? I have a friend that taught 4th grade in a tiny blue collar commnity. After 30 years, she was making $70,000.Seems high to me, but that might be what it takes to attract people to this thankless profession.
In the olden days, teachers could punish students (not talking about abuse or even spanking) and the parents backed up the teacher. Today, 99% of the time, the parent sides with their child and puts the teacher on the defensive.

Teachers are an easy target. Everyone sees their taxes fund schools, everyone has been a student and had a bad teacher, they are seen as government workers, etc. So, we can support cracking down on them and breaking their union. Next we can go after all government employee unions. Then every other union, brick layers, truckers, auto, etc. Then the Romneys of this country can crank down our wages to insure bigger profits to big business. Just chipping away at the easy parts for now.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, and thats why the boss should fire any teacher who walks off their job on strike. They were hired, agreed to the terms of their contracts. Why are they not in those classrooms teaching students? If they havent agreed to contracts... then they are not employees... and the administration has no reason to deal with them whatsoever. They can simply set forth whatever pay and bennies they want to offer... hire folks willing to work for that and have the police arrest any nonemployee found on school property.


The contract states otherwise.
Again what you see as a failure is the admistrations fault. They agreed to the agreement that allows the things you dislike so.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

sirquack said:


> But hey, I subscribe to the new age belief that if I do a good job, the market will pay me what I am worth to them.


What a very foolish idea..
Why would they do such a stupid thing? If they pay you what you are worth to them there is no profit in it for them.
What they want to do is pay the least that will get someone to do the job.....thus why jobs go to the cheepest place.

And that explains the value of a Chicago teacher, they pretty much have to be in Chicago dealing with Chicago kids.
And it also explains why so many tech jobs go to india.
How about your job? Can it be done somewhere in China?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> How about your job? Can it be done somewhere in China?


My job is holding down one of several chairs... either in front of my TV.. my Computer or on the porch watching the calves play. I just cant see how that could be done by someone living in China.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Interesting that Obama signed an EO a couple months ago....an education initiative specifically for blacks. Supported by NAACP, represented by Sharpton and Jealous. Creates essentially a separate door to the DOE for blacks. But you can tell, from reading the summary, that it doesn't do anything to deal with the root of the problem.....which is the black community itself, who are their own worst enemy.

So, in Chicago, you've got teachers making top salaries, working fewer hours (what is their workday now......5.5 hours?), producing dismal results yet think they deserve more.

At the same time, the Obama administration is attacking voucher system schools.....that have proven quality results.

If people can't see that the administration is using poor and ignorant blacks for political purposes, they must be blind, deaf and dumb.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I don't care how good of a teacher you are, if you were given 30 donkeys to teach spelling to, you wouldn't think it fair to rate your abilities by their sucess.
> 
> Teachers are an easy target. Everyone sees their taxes fund schools, everyone has been a student and had a bad teacher, they are seen as government workers, etc. So, we can support cracking down on them and breaking their union. Next we can go after all government employee unions. Then every other union, brick layers, truckers, auto, etc. Then the Romneys of this country can crank down our wages to insure bigger profits to big business. Just chipping away at the easy parts for now.


Hmmm I prolly wouldnt take a job teaching donkeys to spell... or pigs to sing for that matter... it would be an obvious waste of my time and would most likely annoy the donkeys and pigs. I have a little trouble with the idea of comparing children to donkeys. 

Awww... I feel really special.... I never had a "bad teacher" when I was in school. I had some I didnt like... had a few that I couldnt seem to please no matter how much I goofed off... but every one of them taught what they were supposed to teach me. In spite of their inabilities when it came to filling out report cards, they were all "good teachers". I spose in todays world there are some bad ones... those who do not have what it takes to teach kids... and they should be selling insurance or something instead of teaching. 

And Yes!!! All unions need to be disposed of! Let free market forces set the value for any job. Paying the ransom merely encourages the taking of more hostages.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmm I prolly wouldnt take a job teaching donkeys to spell... or pigs to sing for that matter... it would be an obvious waste of my time and would most likely annoy the donkeys and pigs. I have a little trouble with the idea of comparing children to donkeys.
> 
> Awww... I feel really special.... I never had a "bad teacher" when I was in school. I had some I didnt like... had a few that I couldnt seem to please no matter how much I goofed off... but every one of them taught what they were supposed to teach me. In spite of their inabilities when it came to filling out report cards, they were all "good teachers". I spose in todays world there are some bad ones... those who do not have what it takes to teach kids... and they should be selling insurance or something instead of teaching.
> 
> And Yes!!! All unions need to be disposed of! Let free market forces set the value for any job. Paying the ransom merely encourages the taking of more hostages.


Easy for you to say, when you aren't out there struggling for a living wage, "My job is holding down one of several chairs... either in front of my TV.. my Computer or on the porch watching the calves play. I just cant see how that could be done by someone living in China."

Your free market idea might have worked back in the day when you held a job. But today, every worker is in the "free market" with third World countries. Suddenly the free market wage for a high tech manufacturing job becomes a bag of rice and a fish.

If you have no idea what goes on in an inter city neighborhood or ghetto school, you'll never understand what it is like to teach them. Maybe donkeys isn't so far off as you might imagine.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Interesting that Obama signed an EO a couple months ago....an education initiative specifically for blacks. Supported by NAACP, represented by Sharpton and Jealous. Creates essentially a separate door to the DOE for blacks. But you can tell, from reading the summary, that it doesn't do anything to deal with the root of the problem.....which is the black community itself, who are their own worst enemy.
> 
> So, in Chicago, you've got teachers making top salaries, working fewer hours (what is their workday now......5.5 hours?), producing dismal results yet think they deserve more.
> 
> ...


Private schools can pick and choose who they accept. If we allow vouchers to fund private schools, we create public schools with the worst of the worst, learning impaired, emotionally impaired, violent, etc. If the private schools charge just a few hundred dollars above what the voucher is, they can exclude the po' folk, too. 

Right now, in Chicago, over half the Black babies are born to a single mom. Few possitive male role models exist. They live in abject poverty that extends back generations. You want to ignore the truth?

No, their work day isn't 5 1/2 hours a day.

The results are not a reflection of the teacher's skill and efforts. The results are the refusal of parents to parent their children, get them ready to learn and insure they arrive on time each morning ready to learn.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Easy for you to say, when you aren't out there struggling for a living wage, "My job is holding down one of several chairs... either in front of my TV.. my Computer or on the porch watching the calves play. I just cant see how that could be done by someone living in China."
> 
> Your free market idea might have worked back in the day when you held a job. But today, every worker is in the "free market" with third World countries. Suddenly the free market wage for a high tech manufacturing job becomes a bag of rice and a fish.
> 
> If you have no idea what goes on in an inter city neighborhood or ghetto school, you'll never understand what it is like to teach them. Maybe donkeys isn't so far off as you might imagine.


Well... you may have a point there... its been a lot of years since I held a job. But even back then I was competing with the free market forces... my first "job" payed fifty cents an hour. That was in 1970. As I improved my abilities I was able to move up the ladder, and my last job back in 78 was paying me 5 bucks an hour. The problem I had with jobs was there was always some guy coming around, waking me up, and wanting me to do this that or the other! I decided I didnt like bosses so entered the real world and became my own boss. That was much better. I could sleep when I wanted to, and work when I wanted. 

If you dont like fish and rice... I suggest raising your own beef, pork, or chickens, growing your veggies and eating whatever you like instead. I do not recommend holding others hostage to your demands. That whole thing just smells like fish that have been laying in the sun for several days. When I was a wee lad the teachers had a word for that nonsense.... they called it extortion... and practicing it could get you 20 years to life.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My job is holding down one of several chairs... either in front of my TV.. my Computer or on the porch watching the calves play. I just cant see how that could be done by someone living in China.


LOL Im pretty sure it could be....and the bids would come in pretty cheep!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> LOL Im pretty sure it could be....and the bids would come in pretty cheep!


I am thinking the commute from China to Ky on a day to day basis would make it somewhat impractical. As to the bid being pretty cheap.... I have to pay quite a bit for the privilege, so whoever wants the job will have to pay even more than I do to get it.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmm I prolly wouldnt take a job teaching donkeys to spell... or pigs to sing for that matter... it would be an obvious waste of my time and would most likely annoy the donkeys and pigs. I have a little trouble with the idea of comparing children to donkeys. .


But if the money was good It might be worth it right? LOL I hate the idea of comparing kids with donkys too ...Donkes are so muh less stubborn and more reasonable!



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Awww... I feel really special.... I never had a "bad teacher" when I was in school. I had some I didnt like... had a few that I couldnt seem to please no matter how much I goofed off... but every one of them taught what they were supposed to teach me. In spite of their inabilities when it came to filling out report cards, they were all "good teachers". I spose in todays world there are some bad ones... those who do not have what it takes to teach kids... and they should be selling insurance or something instead of teaching. .


You sir were very lucky and thus privalaged Im sure its skewed your veiws of the world. I had both teachers that were totally incompatentand did a bad job with the entire class and teachers that simply hated me(since I was a army kid) and would not give me a chance.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> LOL UNIONS are a free market force.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> UNIONS are a free market force.


Not exactly.... Free market forces do not usually involve the threat of violence in order to "negotiate" agreeable terms. Unions on the other hand use tactics that would otherwise get you prison time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> But if the money was good It might be worth it right?


Thats why hookers keep walkin the streets I spose... 

To me... naw... they couldnt pay me enough to live in any city again (btdt didnt like it)... and particularly not Chicago.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> You sir were very lucky and thus privalaged Im sure its skewed your veiws of the world. I had both teachers that were totally incompatentand did a bad job with the entire class and teachers that simply hated me(since I was a army kid) and *would not give me a chance.*


Like I said... I just feel sooooo special. 

I never had a teacher that didnt provide me with the same books and lessons they did all the other kids... that must have been quite traumatic for you. As a matter of fact my teachers provided me with all sorts of "special" opportunities they didnt offer most of the other kids... things like sitting right up in front... (sometimes right beside their desk) or even out in the hall, or for very special occasions I was sent to the principles office for "extra" learning measures. They all seemed quite interested in making sure I got my education.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Like I said... I just feel sooooo special.
> 
> I never had a teacher that didnt provide me with the same books and lessons they did all the other kids... that must have been quite traumatic for you. As a matter of fact my teachers provided me with all sorts of "special" opportunities they didnt offer most of the other kids... things like sitting right up in front... (sometimes right beside their desk) or even out in the hall, or for very special occasions I was sent to the principles office for "extra" learning measures. They all seemed quite interested in making sure I got my education.


Oh, how quaint!
Do you remember when your parents came to school and threatened the teacher for putting you up front? how about the time your Dad told the principal that he'd start a protest to get him fired and that you had 20 other parents that would disrupt the School Board meetings until the principal was fired?

Can't remember that? Prob'ly not. Didn't happen in your generation. But you are seriously out of touch if you don't know that is common tactics today.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Oh, how quaint!
> Do you remember when your parents came to school and threatened the teacher for putting you up front? how about the time your Dad told the principal that he'd start a protest to get him fired and that you had 20 other parents that would disrupt the School Board meetings until the principal was fired?
> 
> Can't remember that? Prob'ly not. Didn't happen in your generation. But you are seriously out of touch if you don't know that is common tactics today.


That aint exactly how I remember things.... I do have distinct memories of various teachers and the principle threatning me with calling my dad though if I didnt get my lessons... and that was never going to be a good thing! LOL

I am well aware that things arent the same with kids today... and that far too many kids are being taught that their parents are wrong for any attempt at discipline at home. Maybe.. just maybe the teachers are finally learning the error of their ways. Naw.... thats not going to happen... they will just keep striking for higher wages while blaming the parents for obeying the stupid laws they themselves have promoted!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Right now, in Chicago, over half the Black babies are born to a single mom. Few possitive male role models exist. They live in abject poverty that extends back generations. You want to ignore the truth?


No, that was precisely the point in my previous post about Obama's education initiative for blacks. *Nobody*.....not even Obama or Sharpton or Jealous....are doing anything to solve THAT problem. It's a cultural problem as much as an economic/political problem. For fifty years, we've been throwing money at the problem, and yet the problem still exists in the same places.....while people like Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson get filthy rich. :flame:


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Like I said... I just feel sooooo special.
> 
> I never had a teacher that didnt provide me with the same books and lessons they did all the other kids... that must have been quite traumatic for you. As a matter of fact my teachers provided me with all sorts of "special" opportunities they didnt offer most of the other kids... things like sitting right up in front... (sometimes right beside their desk) or even out in the hall, or for very special occasions I was sent to the principles office for "extra" learning measures. They all seemed quite interested in making sure I got my education.


Well Aint you the lucky one!
I did have teachers that wouldnt let me sit in on the lessons, Have a book or even take the tests.
I had one that would hit me (not spank) as soon as I walked in the class then send me to sit in the hall for the entire class.:hammer:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I don't care how good of a teacher you are, if you were given 30 donkeys to teach spelling to, you wouldn't think it fair to rate your abilities by their sucess.
> For most of us, we came from families that actually taught children basic behavior. Today, many kids are raised by cable TV and have no attention span or respect for any adult.
> That $70,000 annual wage, before benifits is high. But is that a top rate for a teacher with a Bachlor Degree? What's the cost of living in a safe area of Chicago? I have a friend that taught 4th grade in a tiny blue collar commnity. After 30 years, she was making $70,000.Seems high to me, but that might be what it takes to attract people to this thankless profession.
> In the olden days, teachers could punish students (not talking about abuse or even spanking) and the parents backed up the teacher. Today, 99% of the time, the parent sides with their child and puts the teacher on the defensive.
> ...


I say again when you have a SYSTEM which 4/5th of the students fail to even reach their minimum standards the problem is NOT the students, its the system. The teachers are a MAJOR part of the system. To not put a major part of the blame on them is ridiculous.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I've got a plan. Why not put a web cam in each classroom, which would only show the teacher, and allow public access to those cams? That way anyone could see just how well any teacher is at their job.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> I've got a plan. Why not put a web cam in each classroom, which would only show the teacher, and allow public access to those cams? That way anyone could see just how well any teacher is at their job.


Nope, won't work. The school bus cameras cannot be shown to parents because it violates the privacy rights of the rest of the children. So, a camera in a class room would also violate their rights. Not showing what the teacher is facing would be misleading and pointless.

It amazes me that some folks have this idea that the teachers are goofing off and the students are somehow like the students of 30 years ago. It is not uncommon for a third of a grade school class to be on Ritilin or other prescribed drugs. Parents don't parent and the teacher has to teach simple "sit still" behavior. When a teacher does reach out to a parent, the parents often side with their child and the teacher is powerless to correct the problem.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> I say again when you have a SYSTEM which 4/5th of the students fail to even reach their minimum standards the problem is NOT the students, its the system. The teachers are a MAJOR part of the system. To not put a major part of the blame on them is ridiculous.


As the education standards are raised while the parenting declines, you'd expect success? Parents are the major part of the educational system and many children don't have parents. They have a TV and a Gameboy. Do you see kids playing in the park in he summer? Nope, they are sitting in their rooms playing electronic games. Ever try to educate someone with a two second attention span?


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

haypoint said:


> When a teacher does reach out to a parent, the parents often side with their child and the teacher is powerless to correct the problem.


Id say this is a problem the teachers themselves have created. I dont expect my kid to always tell the truth but I dont trust teachers much either. 
I have my reasons perhaps other parents do as well?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> Id say this is a problem the teachers themselves have created. I dont expect my kid to always tell the truth but I dont trust teachers much either.
> I have my reasons perhaps other parents do as well?


You nailed it. You are displaying the dramatic shift in society that has caused many problems in the school.
Ask any person over 50 if their parents sided with them when the teacher sent home a bad report. The child's story didn't matter. That's life. The adult says you were goofing off and the parents punished you for it. End of story. Seemed to work real well. Now a days, the parent puts the blame for their child's bad behavior on the teacher's inability to control the classroom.
Ask any teacher what generally happens when a misconduct report is sent home. Teachers can no longer depend on the educational support of parents.
Sure, there are many of us that live out in the boondocks that have maintained family values and respect for authority, but it is not common in most places.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Nope, won't work. The school bus cameras cannot be shown to parents because it violates the privacy rights of the rest of the children. So, a camera in a class room would also violate their rights. Not showing what the teacher is facing would be misleading and pointless.
> 
> It amazes me that some folks have this idea that the teachers are goofing off and the students are somehow like the students of 30 years ago. It is not uncommon for a third of a grade school class to be on Ritilin or other prescribed drugs. Parents don't parent and the teacher has to teach simple "sit still" behavior. When a teacher does reach out to a parent, the parents often side with their child and the teacher is powerless to correct the problem.


Note I specifically said only the teacher was shown. You'd be able to tell if the teacher is the problem or the kids just by seeing the teacher and their actions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> As the education standards are raised while the parenting declines, you'd expect success? Parents are the major part of the educational system and many children don't have parents. They have a TV and a Gameboy. Do you see kids playing in the park in he summer? Nope, they are sitting in their rooms playing electronic games. Ever try to educate someone with a two second attention span?


So the kids of Chicago are that much different than kids in other areas?

Again you are blaming the kids for problems with the system. Don't cry to me about how the kids are the problem. I know several teachers and they all tell me any kid can be taught.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I don't care how good of a teacher you are, if you were given 30 donkeys to teach spelling to, you wouldn't think it fair to rate your abilities by their sucess.
> For most of us, we came from families that actually taught children basic behavior. Today, many kids are raised by cable TV and have no attention span or respect for any adult.
> That $70,000 annual wage, before benifits is high. But is that a top rate for a teacher with a Bachlor Degree? What's the cost of living in a safe area of Chicago? I have a friend that taught 4th grade in a tiny blue collar commnity. After 30 years, she was making $70,000.Seems high to me, but that might be what it takes to attract people to this thankless profession.
> In the olden days, teachers could punish students (not talking about abuse or even spanking) and the parents backed up the teacher. Today, 99% of the time, the parent sides with their child and puts the teacher on the defensive.
> ...


Having said all that, & I 'liked' your post, btw, why isn't someone alluding to the FACT that these donkeys, er, kids, have been in the system since 4, 5 yrs old? That is the 'moldable' age, why aren't they taught at that level so that they are learning ALL the way thru? I can only go by my own edu. & that of my kids. 
IF they/me couldn't perform at grade level they wouldn't have been passed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well... you may have a point there... its been a lot of years since I held a job. But even back then I was competing with the free market forces... my first "job" payed fifty cents an hour. That was in 1970. As I improved my abilities I was able to move up the ladder, and my last job back in 78 was paying me 5 bucks an hour. The problem I had with jobs was there was always some guy coming around, waking me up, and wanting me to do this that or the other! I decided I didnt like bosses so entered the real world and became my own boss. That was much better. I could sleep when I wanted to, and work when I wanted.
> 
> If you dont like fish and rice... I suggest raising your own beef, pork, or chickens, growing your veggies and eating whatever you like instead. I do not recommend holding others hostage to your demands. That whole thing just smells like fish that have been laying in the sun for several days. When I was a wee lad the teachers had a word for that nonsense.... they called it extortion... and practicing it could get you 20 years to life.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Having said all that, & I 'liked' your post, btw, why isn't someone alluding to the FACT that these donkeys, er, kids, have been in the system since 4, 5 yrs old? That is the 'moldable' age, why aren't they taught at that level so that they are learning ALL the way thru? I can only go by my own edu. & that of my kids.
> IF they/me couldn't perform at grade level they wouldn't have been passed.


Back in the olden days, a teacher could hold you back to re-do a grade when you just werenât getting it. Now, the parents would be down the throats of a school that dared try and hold back their child. The result is graduates that canât read.
Yes, our liberal government is getting children as young as 4 years old. But the schools are not parenting them, they are mostly free Day Care. Big difference between being a good teacher and being a good parent. Parenting takes a lot more one on one time that a classroom cannot provide.
A child that spends 6 hours in a classroom and 16 hours watching TV and electronic games, isnât going to be molded by school.
In many rural areas, there is an acceptable social norm that is civilized. Bad kids get shunned and eventually get back on track with acceptable behavior. Learning is possible.
In many urban areas, the better students have been ushered to private schools, leaving a high concentration of behavioral misfits. That becomes the norm. 30 years ago, society tried bussing the bad kids to the suburbs and shipping a few good kids into the urban schools. The bad kids disrupted the learning of everyone else and the good kids got beat up. Failure. So, now we have a concentration of bad kids in urban areas that know nothing else but bad behavior.
Just last week, a group of concerned citizens got donations from Home Depot and Lowes and boarded up 100 abandoned homes that are close to elementary schools. That helps, but 100 only scratches the surface. Thousands need to be bulldozed down, but there I no money. So, students live in an ocean of despair and attend school in a cage of social misfits.
Yet, every day, University educated teachers go to work and try to make a positive difference.
I wonder how many people that think a CEO or Wall Street Broker can earn whatever they want, are against a teacher getting paid well for a difficult job?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I wonder how many people that think a CEO or Wall Street Broker can earn whatever they want, are against a teacher getting paid well for a difficult job?


When wall street brokers and CEO's decide to strike.. and hold the nation hostage unless their demands are met... I will howl just as loud about that as I do anyone else who uses strongarm robbery tactics to get what they want.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I wonder how many people that think a CEO or Wall Street Broker can earn whatever they want, are against a teacher getting paid well for a difficult job?


You haven't been paying attention. Why do you think there has been such an uproar about the bailouts?


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

haypoint said:


> You nailed it. You are displaying the dramatic shift in society that has caused many problems in the school.
> Ask any person over 50 if their parents sided with them when the teacher sent home a bad report. The child's story didn't matter. That's life. The adult says you were goofing off and the parents punished you for it. End of story.* Seemed to work real well. *Now a days, the parent puts the blame for their child's bad behavior on the teacher's inability to control the classroom.
> Ask any teacher what generally happens when a misconduct report is sent home. Teachers can no longer depend on the educational support of parents.
> Sure, there are many of us that live out in the boondocks that have maintained family values and respect for authority, but it is not common in most places.




It SEEMED to work but it didnt.
Your right thats exactly what happened back then. BUT just because I have the GAUL to check out a teachers story doesnt mean I wont support them.
Its just if its OBVIOUS that a teacher is lieing that I wont support them.......... Oh AND I still use the same sytem my folks used , expect about twice what the teacher punished you at home.


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

About some dumb, yes I say dumb teachers

Che Guevara in Chicago - Humberto Fontova - Page 1

and to put a face on it all here.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqUWCZ0B18E]Che-cago teachers strike riddled with radicals having a blast - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> You haven't been paying attention. Why do you think there has been such an uproar about the bailouts?


The uproar against the bailouts and milion dollar bonuses on Wall Street is what the Occupy Wall street is all about, but most people prefer to believe that Occupy Wall Street is just a bunch of lazy hippies. Other than Occupy Wall Street, I don't hear any uproar.

By the way, Wall Street Brokers don't have to strike, they just take what they want.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Note I specifically said only the teacher was shown. You'd be able to tell if the teacher is the problem or the kids just by seeing the teacher and their actions.


Why stop with just teachers? Let's get video cameras on the guy that assembles the steering wheel, and every other critical area, in the cars we buy. Video the cooks in every place that prepares food. Every person picking grapes. On and on.......

Just right now teachers are the target. They're easy targets. Then we can go after all unionized government employees. Next all union employees. Then the top one tenth of one percent, the ones that fund 70% of all political campaigns, can better control all wages. The world will be a wonderful place when we all earn Chinese wages. Then you'll be able to keep a hundred billion people out of your homestead garden?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Why stop with just teachers? Let's get video cameras on the guy that assembles the steering wheel, and every other critical area, in the cars we buy. Video the cooks in every place that prepares food. Every person picking grapes. On and on.......
> 
> Just right now teachers are the target. They're easy targets. Then we can go after all unionized government employees. Next all union employees. Then the top one tenth of one percent, the ones that fund 70% of all political campaigns, can better control all wages. The world will be a wonderful place when we all earn Chinese wages. Then you'll be able to keep a hundred billion people out of your homestead garden?


Tax dollars don't go to truck drivers. And I have no problem with putting cameras on each and every person who gets even a penny from the public funds.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> The world will be a wonderful place when we all earn Chinese wages.


Thanks to free trade agreements and the wonderful world of "competition" we are pretty much faced with either having wages comparable to any third world nation.... or no wages at all. Takes yer pick.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

haypoint said:


> The uproar against the bailouts and milion dollar bonuses on Wall Street is what the Occupy Wall street is all about, but most people prefer to believe that Occupy Wall Street is just a bunch of lazy hippies. Other than Occupy Wall Street, I don't hear any uproar.
> 
> By the way, Wall Street Brokers don't have to strike, they just take what they want.


I'm talking about the public's outrage over TARP, long before OWS. The Congressional switchboard was overwhelmed w/ calls. It was one of the main issues in the very first Tea Party protests.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> By the way, Wall Street Brokers don't have to strike, they just take what they want.


Ya think so??? Seriously??? Last I heard they had to earn their keep, pretty much like everyone else.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Tax dollars don't go to truck drivers. And I have no problem with putting cameras on each and every person who gets even a penny from the public funds.


So, it isn't education that concerns you. It isn't the money you spend on products and services, except when those services come from a government agency.
Seems like some folks think most people are honest and try to do the right thing, but if they draw a government paycheck, they are sitting at a desk making more work for the rest of us. That, my friend, is pure nonsense.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ya think so??? Seriously??? Last I heard they had to earn their keep, pretty much like everyone else.


Taking million dollar bonuses for creating derivitives that were exchanged as secure funds that were actually credit card obligations and defaulted morgages, isn't my idea of " earning their keep. People lost their retirements while they run their Shell game while all the skin in the game is other peoples money.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks to free trade agreements and the wonderful world of "competition" we are pretty much faced with either having wages comparable to any third world nation.... or no wages at all. Takes yer pick.


Now there's a point we both can agree on. Now, if I could just get you to back up and see who benifits from free trade and who paid off Washington to drop the protection this country has enjoyed for 200 years. It wasn't the 47% that don't pay Federal taxes, it wasn't the shrinking Middle Class and it wasn't most of the job creating 10%.Hint: it was the upper parts of the upper 1% that funds 70% of all election campaigns, keep their money off shore, don't create any jobs and benifit every time our wages get closer to the wages in China.

There will be a lot less unemployement when we buckle down and work hard for $5 a day. Peddle your bike to work and share your 3 room apartment with your parents and children. The sooner you get rid of Unions turn down wages, the sooner the 1% that control Washington can bring those jobs back home.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Taking million dollar bonuses for creating derivitives that were exchanged as secure funds that were actually credit card obligations and defaulted morgages, isn't my idea of " earning their keep. People lost their retirements while they run their Shell game while all the skin in the game is other peoples money.


They were paid bonuses by the people they work for. They didnt "take" them from anyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> There will be a lot less unemployement when we buckle down and work hard for $5 a day. Peddle your bike to work and share your 3 room apartment with your parents and children. The sooner you get rid of Unions turn down wages, the sooner the 1% that control Washington can bring those jobs back home.


Yeppers, and when Henry Ford was paying his workers $5 a day the country prospered, the middle class grew, and life was good. I think we are on the same page here. Unions destroyed our economic opportunity.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, and when Henry Ford was paying his workers $5 a day the country prospered, the middle class grew, and life was good. I think we are on the same page here. Unions destroyed our economic opportunity.


Well, we might be able to agree on two things in the same day. Except, I'm talking about 2012 dollars, not 1909 dollars. 
Ford grew this country by paying a wage well above the going wage. By moving away from a subsistance lifestyle, Ford helped spir the economic growth that built this country and gave us the industrial base to supply us and our allies in WWII.

In the olden days, with the rare exception of a few that were put back in their places by anti-trust laws, the rich invested and reinvested in this country. They used their wealth to develop and build things in this country.

You say the rich sent jobs to China because of the Unions. I think they went to China because they were more interested in pinching every bit of profit, any way they could without any interest in this country's economic health.

If, as we both agree, Ford's healthy jump in wages grew the Middle Class, the current loss of jobs and spiraling down of wages will put us all back to the days where you were either born very wealthy (few) or born very poor (many) and the abiluty to move out of that was rare. I think Woody Guthrie had it right in his song, "Dough Ray Me".


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Well, we might be able to agree on two things in the same day. Except, I'm talking about 2012 dollars, not 1909 dollars.
> Ford grew this country by paying a wage well above the going wage. By moving away from a subsistance lifestyle, Ford helped spir the economic growth that built this country and gave us the industrial base to supply us and our allies in WWII.
> 
> In the olden days, with the rare exception of a few that were put back in their places by anti-trust laws, the rich invested and reinvested in this country. They used their wealth to develop and build things in this country.
> ...


that condition never really existed in the USA because we've been steadily growing. new frontiers allowed people to build businesses & industry where none had existed before. so an energetic, sharp witted individual could always find a place & way to make themselves rich. even as late as the 1970s a man could be self made w/o a formal higher education. i had an uncle that started as a hotshot driver in the 1960s and by the mid 1970s he owned about 20 trucks that set up & tore down drilling rigs. my aunt had to teach him to sign his name.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> that condition never really existed in the USA because we've been steadily growing. new frontiers allowed people to build businesses & industry where none had existed before. so an energetic, sharp witted individual could always find a place & way to make themselves rich. even as late as the 1970s a man could be self made w/o a formal higher education. i had an uncle that started as a hotshot driver in the 1960s and by the mid 1970s he owned about 20 trucks that set up & tore down drilling rigs. my aunt had to teach him to sign his name.


Historically, it has always been the few very rich and the many very poor. But, as with everything, there have been brief exceptions.
The first hundred years of this country had few very wealthy families and mostly poor folk. There were opportunities. My great great great uncle, George Peabody did it and gave John Paul Morgan his start.
There are opportunities to move up within the Middle Class. Your Uncle is an example. But as the Middle class shrinks, folks like your Uncle will be squeezed out. 
Prior to the industrial boom that I credit to Henry Ford's vision, we had lumber barons, mining barons, and lots of tenant farmers. Not many very wealthy folks, not many Middle Class and a whole lot of people living on the edge.
The wealthy industrialists invested and grew their businesses here in the USA. But over the past 20 years the method of making big money has changed. Today, you can fund a political campaign, get a bill passed that gives you an edge, grow your wealth and invest in another country. You can get some Banking Laws eliminated and legally steal from people. As Mitt has shown, you can grow wealth by not working, just buy a business, borrow money to fix it up, sell the valuable parts, take millions out of it and declare bankruptcy, gutting the retirement obligations to the workers, leaving the town a wasteland. The very rich have stopped being the Job Makers. The top .1% take as much from this country as the bottom 47% that donât pay Federal taxes.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

haypoint said:


> But over the past 20 years the method of *making* big *money *has changed. Today, you can fund a political campaign, get a bill passed that gives you an edge, grow your wealth and invest in another country. You can get some Banking Laws eliminated and legally steal from people. As Mitt has shown, you can grow wealth by not working, just buy a business, borrow money to fix it up, sell the valuable parts, take millions out of it and declare bankruptcy, gutting the retirement obligations to the workers, leaving the town a wasteland. The very rich have stopped being the Job Makers. The top .1% take as much from this country as the bottom 47% that donât pay Federal taxes.


 The term MAKING MONEY is a American original.
You see in the old world wealth was seen as a finite Commodity. You got it by taking it from others.
In the USA we made wealth no longer was it a zero gain process we found 2+2 CAN = 10!
From what Ive seen the problem now is the rich just like in the old world increassingly see it in old world terms.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> The term MAKING MONEY is a American original.
> You see in the old world wealth was seen as a finite Commodity. You got it by taking it from others.
> In the USA we made wealth no longer was it a zero gain process we found 2+2 CAN = 10!
> From what Ive seen the problem now is the rich just like in the old world increassingly see it in old world terms.


Naw.... the wealthy are those who got off their duffs and created more wealth for themselves... mostly its the have nots that see economics as a zero sum game.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

Since this thread got derailed into a train wreck, here is my experience. I realized early in my life if I wanted something I would have to earn it. I started working when I was 13 and at that age I was making as much as a guy in a factory. I had a paper route that started at 5:30 in the morning, in the summer I caddied at a golf course, and at night I worked washing mugs at a Root beer stand. Many times I got my butt whipped in school and if I did I got one at home also, but I respected my teachers. When I turned 16 I worked in a factory in the summers and on Saturdays during the school year. When I got out of high school I went full time working in a factory for .90 cents an hour. The factories paid piecework and had optional overtime, so I realized that the harder and more I worked the more I made often making more that double of some of the other guys working for the same .90 cents an hour. I thank and respect the factory owners for giving me the opportunity to give my family everything they needed. I also advanced at work and at 23 years old I was production manager of a factory with only a high school education. I needed that education but I also needed the work ethics developed to succeed. In the sixties where I lived 85% of the factory workers owned their own homes and they were paid for and the homes were well kept. Most of their kids went to work in a factory when they graduated from high school and the ones that made an effort advanced into management jobs. Everything was good and people were content.

This past Sunday our church held their annual picnic and when the picnic was over everything had to be dismantled and put in storage. Last year it was all the older guys that did this work and without any direction everything went smooth and efficient. This year someone suggested that we get some of the younger kids to help with the work. We had almost double the workers we had last year but the job took longer and was more work than last year because the kids were more in the way than they helped. Most were unable to do the most menial tasks but I bet that every one of them were proficient at video games. The 16 year old of today may be smarter than the 16 year old of 1960 but very few of them would be able to survive in the real world if they had to.

"O"


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

"O", smart is a relative term.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

English Oliver said:


> Since this thread got derailed into a train wreck, here is my experience. I realized early in my life if I wanted something I would have to earn it. I started working when I was 13 and at that age I was making as much as a guy in a factory. I had a paper route that started at 5:30 in the morning, in the summer I caddied at a golf course, and at night I worked washing mugs at a Root beer stand. Many times I got my butt whipped in school and if I did I got one at home also, but I respected my teachers. When I turned 16 I worked in a factory in the summers and on Saturdays during the school year. When I got out of high school I went full time working in a factory for .90 cents an hour. The factories paid piecework and had optional overtime, so I realized that the harder and more I worked the more I made often making more that double of some of the other guys working for the same .90 cents an hour. I thank and respect the factory owners for giving me the opportunity to give my family everything they needed. I also advanced at work and at 23 years old I was production manager of a factory with only a high school education. I needed that education but I also needed the work ethics developed to succeed. In the sixties where I lived 85% of the factory workers owned their own homes and they were paid for and the homes were well kept. Most of their kids went to work in a factory when they graduated from high school and the ones that made an effort advanced into management jobs. Everything was good and people were content.
> 
> This past Sunday our church held their annual picnic and when the picnic was over everything had to be dismantled and put in storage. Last year it was all the older guys that did this work and without any direction everything went smooth and efficient. This year someone suggested that we get some of the younger kids to help with the work. We had almost double the workers we had last year but the job took longer and was more work than last year because the kids were more in the way than they helped. Most were unable to do the most menial tasks but I bet that every one of them were proficient at video games. The 16 year old of today may be smarter than the 16 year old of 1960 but very few of them would be able to survive in the real world if they had to.
> 
> "O"


While you are a few years older than I am, we share common life experiences. 
Let me point out the differences. Those folks that worked hard and owned their own homes, all lost their factory jobs. No one could sell their homes and they needed to move away to get another job. As a result, the homes had to be left behind. The few people that stayed live on streets lined with fallen down, vandalized homes. The opportunities that you and I shared to move up, earn a living wage and live in a stable community are not there for many people. When those "learn to work" jobs we had as children do not exist, how can we expect our children to gain a foundation of skills? When most children have no positive male role model, how do they parent? When there are closed businesses as far as the eye can see, how do you motivate a child to study hard? Then you pull the better prepared students out of your public schools and put them into private schools these poorer kids can't hope to attend. You have created a public school system that faces challenges unknown in our lifetimes.
"I worked hard, started from nothing and worked my way up and anyone that doesn't is just lazy or stupid." is an easy broad brush to wave around. But while you were surfing between your 300 TV channels, the world changed. Those opportunities don't exist for most people anymore.
Yet Chicago has school teachers that are willing to face those challenges. But they want to be treated fairly. Far too many people want to rally against the teachers when they donât know anything about the cost of living in Chicago, nor do they understand what they are asking for in their contract. Seems that for many, just knowing they get their paycheck from the taxpayer is reason enough to rally against them. Perhaps it is because they have college degrees?


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Those folks that worked hard and owned their own homes, all lost their factory jobs. No one could sell their homes and they needed to move away to get another job. As a result, the homes had to be left behind. The few people that stayed live on streets lined with fallen down, vandalized homes. The opportunities that you and I shared to move up, earn a living wage and live in a stable community are not there for many people.


 Why did this happen? When I was starting out there were 42 woodworking factories in our area. There are only four now. Those four by some coincidence were the only nonunion factories in the area but people were clamoring to get on there. Now the biggest percentage of jobs here are low paying service jobs


> When most children have no positive male role model, how do they parent?


 Why?


> When there are closed businesses as far as the eye can see, how do you motivate a child to study hard?


 There are still jobs out there and the people that exert themselves have these jobs.


> Then you pull the better prepared students out of your public schools and put them into private schools these poorer kids can't hope to attend. You have created a public school system that faces challenges unknown in our lifetimes.


 The public school system are the reason private schools were created


> But while you were surfing between your 300 TV channels, the world changed.


 For the record I don't watch much TV and I only have around six channels. 


> Yet Chicago has school teachers that are willing to face those challenges. But they want to be treated fairly. Far too many people want to rally against the teachers when they don&#8217;t know anything about the cost of living in Chicago, nor do they understand what they are asking for in their contract.


 I lived in Chicago for 11 years, how many years did you live there.


> Seems that for many, just knowing they get their paycheck from the taxpayer is reason enough to rally against them. Perhaps it is because they have college degrees?


Just proves what I said, a degree without effort is useless.

"O"


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

English Oliver said:


> When I was starting out there were 42 woodworking factories in our area. There are only four now. Those four by some coincidence were the only nonunion factories in the area but people were clamoring to get on there. Now the biggest percentage of jobs here are low paying service jobs Why? There are still jobs out there and the people that exert themselves have these jobs. The public school system are the reason private schools were created
> For the record I don't watch much TV and I only have around six channels.
> I lived in Chicago for 11 years, how many years did you live there.
> Just proves what I said, a degree without effort is useless.
> ...


 You ask, âWhy did this happen?â The jobs went away because Mexico and China allow widespread pollution and people will work for $5.00 a day. In Michigan we think of the car companies that went to Mexico. Greenville Michigan is where Charles Gibson was born and started an icebox company. It grew into Gibson Refrigeration, making appliances for Sears, Wards, etc. They were the main employer and many other businesses made parts for Gibson. Greenville is a clean, hardworking blue collar community. A few years ago they were bought out by White Consolidated Industries. More recently, White was purchased by the worldâs largest manufacture of appliances, Electrolux, from Sweden. They closed the plant, bulldozed it down and moved to Mexico. The workers offered wage cuts, the local community offered tax free status and the state offered grants. But Electrolux could profit more with Mexican wages. In Detroit, 700,000 people left their homes and went looking for jobs in other states. Today 12% are unemployed, but looking, while 16% have given up looking. Nearly all the low paying service jobs do not offer full time employment. Getting hired at a part time low pay service job is hard enough, but finding a second job with hours that donât conflict with the other job is a difficult task. If an employer knows you have another job, they wonât hire you out of concern that you wonât be available if they need you at a momentâs notice. If you lack experience or are over 50, forget it.
There has been a break down in the families in most urban areas. The Public School Teachers didnât cause it. But when 70% of the Black babies born in urban areas are raised by a single parent that either subsists on meager welfare or hops from part time job to part time job, the children have little in the way of role models. But you think that teachers should be able to re-socialize children, teach them what their parents failed to do, keep every child interested and manage the growing standards of education, continue to attend college classes and do it on wages below their neighbors in those same school districts. 
Private schools were a way for the rich to insure their kids got better educated than the common kids. As more hard working parents sought better education for their children, public schools became the dumping ground for students that the highly selective private schools didnât want.
50 years ago, the Detroit suburbs had excellent public schools. But Mitt Romney and the other children of auto manufactures were sent to Cranbrook.
Iâve never lived in Chicago, but my lifeâs experiences have given me a wealth of insight to the problems teachers face in Chicago, Detroit and many other blighted communities.
I can understand how people untouched by the realities of this depression would fall back on their experiences and believe that those that work hard have an opportunity to succeed. But you need to sit down with the 55 year old landscaper, often working for free just for the exposure, that just last year was managing security systems for 15 major Financial Institutions. You should talk to the 60 year old woman with a Bachelorâs Degree and a wide range of skills, recently laid off as an Administrative Assistant at a major corporation. She sent out over a dozen Resumeâs a week for over 100 weeks and got 10 interviews. Eventually, she landed a part time receptionist at a Chiropractor in another area. These stories are as common as grains of sand on the beach.
Wake up, a degree with hard work is most often useless if the jobs aren't there.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> So, it isn't education that concerns you. It isn't the money you spend on products and services, except when those services come from a government agency.
> Seems like some folks think most people are honest and try to do the right thing, but if they draw a government paycheck, they are sitting at a desk making more work for the rest of us. That, my friend, is pure nonsense.


If I owned a trucking company and had evidence my drivers were not providing the service I was paying them for I would have no problem telling them they can either work with a camera watching them or they could find a new company to work for.

If YOU owned a trucking company and you had evidence your drivers were not providing the service you were paying for I would have no problems with you NOT putting cameras in. But I would not use your company if it didn't provide ME with the service I was paying you for.

Its an old but true saying teachers are public servants being paid with tax dollars. If the tax payers have evidence teachers are not providing the service they are being paid to provide the tax payers have the right to tell them they can either work with a camera watching them or find another school system to teach for. Do you disagree?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> As Mitt has shown, you can grow wealth by not working, just buy a business, borrow money to fix it up, sell the valuable parts, take millions out of it and declare bankruptcy, gutting the retirement obligations to the workers, leaving the town a wasteland.


I have a question to pose to you about this. What's the difference in this and you buying a junker car on its last legs, striping and selling the valuable parts and then taking the rest to the salvage yard?

Or buying a junker car, spending a few bucks on parts and paint and selling it for a huge profit?

You do realize they didn't strip and sell every business, they took some failing businesses and put a few parts and coats on paint on them and made them profitable don't you?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Having said all that, & I 'liked' your post, btw, why isn't someone alluding to the FACT that these donkeys, er, kids, have been in the system since 4, 5 yrs old? That is the 'moldable' age, why aren't they taught at that level so that they are learning ALL the way thru? I can only go by my own edu. & that of my kids.
> IF they/me couldn't perform at grade level they wouldn't have been passed.


Our society is partly to blame, starting, IMO with Dr Spock on his child rearing books. These days many parents don't believe in telling their child no, might hurt their self esteem ya know? Every child is expected to get an award, whether they earn it or not. No child should ever be scolded, might hurt their feelings. Kids need constructive critisism and they need discipline, but as a whole, our society has decided that it's not politically correct to correct them.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> The uproar against the bailouts and milion dollar bonuses on Wall Street is what the Occupy Wall street is all about, but most people prefer to believe that Occupy Wall Street is just a bunch of lazy hippies. Other than Occupy Wall Street, I don't hear any uproar.
> 
> By the way, Wall Street Brokers don't have to strike, they just take what they want.


OWS should be protesting the ones who gave tax dollars for the bail out, not just those on Wall Street. If Uncle Sam had allowed the businesses to go under, then there would have been no bail out and some other business would have stepped in to take over where the others failed.  Protesting Wall Street is accomplishing nothing.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> So, it isn't education that concerns you. It isn't the money you spend on products and services, except when those services come from a government agency.
> Seems like some folks think most people are honest and try to do the right thing, but if they draw a government paycheck, they are sitting at a desk making more work for the rest of us. That, my friend, is pure nonsense.


When they draw a government check, they work for me, so yeah, I want to make sure they are earning their money and not teaching college classes on OWS and other such nonsense, or teaching young children to chant love songs for Obama, especially since many did not vote for Obama, why should my money go to teach kids to worship him? If they want tax money, they need to remain neutral in the political arena and need to get back to actually teaching kids the subjects like matter, math, science, english, history, ect.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Well, we might be able to agree on two things in the same day. Except, I'm talking about 2012 dollars, not 1909 dollars.
> Ford grew this country by paying a wage well above the going wage. By moving away from a subsistance lifestyle, Ford helped spir the economic growth that built this country and gave us the industrial base to supply us and our allies in WWII.
> 
> *In the olden days, with the rare exception of a few that were put back in their places by anti-trust laws, the rich invested and reinvested in this country. They used their wealth to develop and build things in this country.*
> ...


And then the government stepped in and over taxed and over regulated businesses so that they were no longer able to run a healthy business.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

haypoint said:


> You ask, &#8220;Why did this happen?&#8221; The jobs went away because Mexico and China allow widespread pollution and people will work for $5.00 a day. In Michigan we think of the car companies that went to Mexico. Greenville Michigan is where Charles Gibson was born and started an icebox company. It grew into Gibson Refrigeration, making appliances for Sears, Wards, etc. They were the main employer and many other businesses made parts for Gibson. Greenville is a clean, hardworking blue collar community. A few years ago they were bought out by White Consolidated Industries. More recently, White was purchased by the world&#8217;s largest manufacture of appliances, Electrolux, from Sweden. They closed the plant, bulldozed it down and moved to Mexico. The workers offered wage cuts, the local community offered tax free status and the state offered grants. But Electrolux could profit more with Mexican wages. In Detroit, 700,000 people left their homes and went looking for jobs in other states. Today 12% are unemployed, but looking, while 16% have given up looking. Nearly all the low paying service jobs do not offer full time employment. Getting hired at a part time low pay service job is hard enough, but finding a second job with hours that don&#8217;t conflict with the other job is a difficult task. If an employer knows you have another job, they won&#8217;t hire you out of concern that you won&#8217;t be available if they need you at a moment&#8217;s notice. If you lack experience or are over 50, forget it.
> There has been a break down in the families in most urban areas. The Public School Teachers didn&#8217;t cause it. But when 70% of the Black babies born in urban areas are raised by a single parent that either subsists on meager welfare or hops from part time job to part time job, the children have little in the way of role models. But you think that teachers should be able to re-socialize children, teach them what their parents failed to do, keep every child interested and manage the growing standards of education, continue to attend college classes and do it on wages below their neighbors in those same school districts.
> Private schools were a way for the rich to insure their kids got better educated than the common kids. As more hard working parents sought better education for their children, public schools became the dumping ground for students that the highly selective private schools didn&#8217;t want.
> 50 years ago, the Detroit suburbs had excellent public schools. But Mitt Romney and the other children of auto manufactures were sent to Cranbrook.
> ...


There is a relatively common phenomenon called evolution. Some evolution is natural, but most of it is caused by man. If a majority of people cause this evolution or if a majority of people allow it, it is still evolution. In all cases there are people that dislike or innocent people are hurt by evolution, but in all cases it was permitted by the majority. In all cases of evolution throughout history it is the ones that make an effort to overcome the results of evolution that survive and sometimes even prosper. It is a fact of nature. What you are talking about is just evolution.

"O"


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

English Oliver said:


> There is a relatively common phenomenon called evolution. Some evolution is natural, but most of it is caused by man. If a majority of people cause this evolution or if a majority of people allow it, it is still evolution. In all cases there are people that dislike or innocent people are hurt by evolution, but in all cases it was permitted by the majority. In all cases of evolution throughout history it is the ones that make an effort to overcome the results of evolution that survive and sometimes even prosper. It is a fact of nature. What you are talking about is just evolution.
> 
> "O"


I'm not sure if I'd call it evolution or not. Clearly this tiny "blip" in the history of man, is abnormal. The past hundred years where the middle class out numbered the very rich and the very poor combined either never happened before or was so brief as to escape historical mention.

We also were a world power for a flash, after wrenching it away from Great Britan and the Ottoman Empire. I doubt the English are ready to police the world, but the soldiers of Suliman are eager to take back what's theirs. But we aren't as prepared to save ourselves as we were70 years ago.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

haypoint said:


> but the soldiers of Suliman are eager to take back what's theirs. But we aren't as prepared to save ourselves as we were70 years ago.


 They aren't as prepared as they were either, yet, but if the majority of the world allows them to become an atomic power then the world will evolve. In evolution there are always winners and losers.

"O"


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

English Oliver said:


> They aren't as prepared as they were either, yet, but if the majority of the world allows them to become an atomic power then the world will evolve. In evolution there are always winners and losers.
> 
> "O"


And you are fine with that?

In a country that has shown that it can grow and maintain a huge Middle Class, we are allowing a lopsided free trade agreement that only helps the top .1% by pushing the Middle Class into the poorhouse, destroying our manufacturing abilities and diminishing assets, hope, reason and will to protect this nation. 
Go ahead, knock the legs out from under every union worker. Then stand by as everyone's wages drop. Romney wants lower wages so his supporters can earn larger profits. Obama wants lower wages so more people will depend on him to survive. If that's what you want, go ahead and leave the key on the dresser and turn off the light, we are finished as a nation.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bottom line: no matter how much money we throw at the problem, the quality of education has declined. We hear/read stories about students graduating high school who don't know how to read, which means teachers are passing students who haven't met the standards......and we all know the motive for doing that.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Bottom line: no matter how much money we throw at the problem, the quality of education has declined. We hear/read stories about students graduating high school who don't know how to read, which means teachers are passing students who haven't met the standards......and we all know the motive for doing that.


I had a sixth grade teacher tell me just last night that she had a student that couldn't read and couldn't do basic math and she wasn't allowed to fail him. She got the student because he was passed on to her.

"O


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

haypoint said:


> And you are fine with that?
> 
> In a country that has shown that it can grow and maintain a huge Middle Class, we are allowing a lopsided free trade agreement that only helps the top .1% by pushing the Middle Class into the poorhouse, destroying our manufacturing abilities and diminishing assets, hope, reason and will to protect this nation.
> Go ahead, knock the legs out from under every union worker. Then stand by as everyone's wages drop. Romney wants lower wages so his supporters can earn larger profits. Obama wants lower wages so more people will depend on him to survive. If that's what you want, go ahead and leave the key on the dresser and turn off the light, we are finished as a nation.


Are we discussing world domination or the rights, as you perceive them, of union workers?

I have my own stand and beliefs, if they are anti to the majority, then my stand is moot. I am fine with that, it just means I need to adapt.

"O"


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

English Oliver said:


> I had a sixth grade teacher tell me just last night that she had a student that couldn't read and couldn't do basic math and *she wasn't allowed to fail him.* She got the student because he was passed on to her.
> 
> "O


Perhaps she should teach him, instead of just blaming his previous teachers.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps she should teach him, instead of just blaming his previous teachers.


She wasn't blaming the other teachers, she was blaming the system. A sixth grade teacher cannot go back and teach a kid that comes into her class that can only perform at a first grade level. It also wasn't necessarily the first grade teachers fault for not teaching a kid if the system and parents will not allow her to teach in a way the kid needs to learn. 

"O"


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Go ahead, knock the legs out from under every union worker. Then stand by as everyone's wages drop.


 We are products of our environment and experiences. I have extensive experience with unions from both sides of the fence and my perception of unions and their ethics are totally different than yours. What you see as benefits of unions are not unlike the problems teachers face with the school system and that is all workers/students are exactly equal and should be treated the same. My experience with unions are that they will screw the worker every time if it will benefit the union or the local business agent.

"O"


----------



## sapphira (Mar 24, 2003)

Two things:
1.When a growing poulation of a different culture becomes massive within any culture anywhere in the world, that growing culture overtakes and changes the existing culture.
2. Here in one elementary school, about 15 years ago, the excellent principal got many adults - grandmothers mostly - to come into the school each day, work in the halls individually with children to bring them to grade level in whatever subject they failed in. It worked. This particular elementary school was 40 percent minority and poorer section of town. Had the highest scores for years in testing of all the scores in the city. 
I worked myself in K1 with two girls who, one could not learn colors and some basics, but she did -and the other one could not look at a picture of man leaving his house in the morning waving to his wife, and he had a lunch box and it was spring outside, daylight etc. This child could only see one thing at a time, like there was a house. She did great during the year and I only worked with her an hour at a time, twice a week. She was a minority child with drunken parents - the school system knew her family well and cared about the children. Really caring about the children very early in life I have to believe makes a difference. Correction is fine but some real caring supported by many adults is best. Just my opinion. s
OH - also - my sister taught upper grade math in public school in California and her kids were multiple mix mishmash of extended families with multiple fathers of many races and etc. They had no clue WHO they were. She spent several years impressing on them they were AMERICANS.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

English Oliver said:


> She wasn't blaming the other teachers, she was blaming the system. A sixth grade teacher cannot go back and teach a kid that comes into her class that can only perform at a first grade level. It also wasn't necessarily the first grade teachers fault for not teaching a kid if the system and parents will not allow her to teach in a way the kid needs to learn.
> 
> "O"


Well then I guess its ok... as long as she wasnt blaming another teacher... the kid doesnt really need to ever learn how to read or write as long as we know where to place the blame.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps she should teach him, instead of just blaming his previous teachers.


How is she going to do that if he didn't come to her w/ the necessary skills?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Also, if the greater problem is a poor home environment, then we have a cultural/moral problem that needs to be addressed in this country. But as we all know, it's not nice to point out moral deficiencies these days.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> How is she going to do that if he didn't come to her w/ the necessary skills?


Which "skills" would it be that he lacks in order to learn simple arithmetic and reading? vision, or hearing? 

From Mirriam: 
Teacher 
noun
: one that teaches; especially : one whose occupation is to instruct


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

I know the administrator of a school that gets students at an early age. They go to preschool and K-12 in the same school. They are all mostly from poor families and the school turns out a high percentage of professionals, engineers, and scientist. He said the first couple years they focus only on discipline. It is too bad for us the school is in India.

"O"


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Our society is partly to blame, starting, IMO with Dr Spock on his child rearing books. These days many parents don't believe in telling their child no, might hurt their self esteem ya know? Every child is expected to get an award, whether they earn it or not. No child should ever be scolded, might hurt their feelings. Kids need constructive critisism and they need discipline, but as a whole, our society has decided that it's not politically correct to correct them.


Yep, too many people are working on being their child's friend rather than their parent.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> And you are fine with that?
> 
> In a country that has shown that it can grow and maintain a huge Middle Class, we are allowing a lopsided free trade agreement that only helps the top .1% by pushing the Middle Class into the poorhouse, destroying our manufacturing abilities and diminishing assets, hope, reason and will to protect this nation.
> Go ahead, knock the legs out from under every union worker. Then stand by as everyone's wages drop. Romney wants lower wages so his supporters can earn larger profits. Obama wants lower wages so more people will depend on him to survive. If that's what you want, go ahead and leave the key on the dresser and turn off the light, we are finished as a nation.


Your logic makes zero sense. If people make lower wages they have fewer dollars to spend therefore business make less money. 

What you fail to see is labor, until screwed with by the government, follows the very same laws of supply and demand as any other product. When there are few jobs and a lot of people looking for work wages are low. Where there are a lot of jobs and few people looking for work wages are high. If the government would get its nose, hands and everything else out of the labor market it would reach a balance.

But not paying people money doesn't buy votes for the pols. Telling someone well things will work out in a bit doesn't make someone one dependent on you and willing to vote for you as telling them you'll make sure the government gives them money, housing, food and the like.

FYI, in my years I've worked union shops and nonunion shops and I can tell you the best work environments have ALWAYS been in nonunion shops. In most of the cases the PAY was better as well. Yet even in those shops with lower pay it was more difficult to get a job than the union shops because the people working there didn't quit because they liked working there.

One last thing, about the thing I have seen unions do in the last 30+ years is to protect the slug workers. The rules are set up to make it as difficult as possible to fire a worker. I've seen other workers complain to management about a fellow worker and ask why he hasn't been fire. The answer? Union rules. He did JUST enough to not be fired which means the other workers in the shop had to take up the slack and work harder. Back in the 'old days' such a worker would have most likely had an on the job 'accident' witnessed by two or more fellow workers about how he was doing something stupidly dangerous and fell or dropped something on himself or. . .


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which "skills" would it be that he lacks in order to learn simple arithmetic and reading? vision, or hearing?
> 
> From Mirriam:
> Teacher
> ...


Since when do 6th grade teachers teach fundamentals such as reading and simple math? As I recall, we were waaay beyond simple math in 6th grade.

How is a 9th grade teacher going to teach algebra to a student that never learned simple math?


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

I went to a school session last night where they had a motivational speaker come in to talk to the kids. There were around 700 kids from a half dozen schools. In the hour that he was on stage he spent 45 minutes playing games like Simon says, clapping hands, doing the wave, singing, and 15 minutes speaking. If kids need 75% of an instructors effort to motivate them to hear 25% of education we are lost.

"O"


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps she should teach him, instead of just blaming his previous teachers.


A) Its too late. 
1. The kid has probably been told all his life he's too stupid to learn so now he believes it. 
2. The kid knows he doesn't have to make any effort to learn because he knows the rules say he must be passed.

B) Its unjust to the other students.
1. If the teacher spends the majority of her time trying to teach this one what are the rest of the students getting or doing?


IMO, we need to go back to the old system of grouping kids based on their abilities. Today you either have to hold the smarter kids back and abandon the slower kids because you have to teach at the middle level or you have to hold everyone back because you must teach at the slowest level. If you had the old three tier system every kid could learn the maximum possible for him.


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps she should teach him, instead of just blaming his previous teachers.


She is likely not allowed to teach him...


Teachers are required to stick to their (state approved) lesson plans. If their lesson plans say they are teaching algebra, it doesn't matter if the student does not know basic math, they are supposed to teach algebra.

One of the big reasons that education has devolved to it's current state is that we have allowed people who know nothing about teaching (i.e. politicians) to set the standards and methods by which we teach. Standardized tests have their place, however putting too much emphasis on them forces the teacher to educate their students on how to beat the test, rather than how to understand their subject matter.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Since when do 6th grade teachers teach fundamentals such as reading and simple math? As I recall, we were waaay beyond simple math in 6th grade.
> 
> How is a 9th grade teacher going to teach algebra to a student that never learned simple math?


If I was a 6th grade teacher I would teach my students by doing what ever is necessary. If that means teaching little johnny his abc's first, then we teach him his abc's. Some would simply place blame and forget about doing their job... which is supposed to be teaching the kids. Of course its never a teachers fault... ever. I have had this experience. Our boy was in about the 6th or 7th grade... having serious problems with his math. Teachers couldnt seem to help him so I took it upon myself to assist them. It took me about 10 minutes to find the problem. His third grade teacher had not bothered to make sure he had his multiplication tables. Wow! It took me about two whole hours to bring him up to speed. sent him back to school and after that he was all at once getting A's and B's in math. 
My point is this... if you are a teacher, and your student cant read.... teach them! Dont go out on strike for higher pay because some other of your ilk failed to do their job!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Beowulf said:


> One of the big reasons that education has devolved to it's current state is that we have allowed people who know nothing about teaching (i.e. politicians) to set the standards and methods by which we teach.


I will go along with you on this... but I have to question how private schools manage to teach their students (with teachers earning far less than their public school counterparts) while public schools who are operating under the very same standards seem to be constantly failing their students? Its also my experience that on average those who homeschool their kids manage to teach their kids at a level far superior to that of public and private schools. Maybe its because someone actually cares about the kids?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> A) Its too late.


Then I suggest we close down the public schools entirely. If its too late... what point is there to paying teachers who wont do their job? :shrug:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Bottom line: no matter how much money we throw at the problem, the quality of education has declined. We hear/read stories about students graduating high school who don't know how to read, which means teachers are passing students who haven't met the standards......and we all know the motive for doing that.


Correct, the problems cannot be corrected with money. The breakdown of the American family is the main factor in a declining education level in our schools. Teachers must divert valuable education time to deal with behavior problems. Growing numbers of students are showing up at school socially unprepared to learn.

Yes, we have all heard stories about graduates that canât read. But your conclusion that teachers promote that is false. Teachers are in a no-win position. If they hold back a student they get accused of trying to increase enrolment and gain more tax dollars by keeping students in school a year or two longer. Parents often strongly oppose a teacher that wants a failing student to repeat a grade. Holding back a student can cause a teacher a lot of grief. The School Principal doesnât want to deal with an angry parent. The School Board wants to serve the voters and that includes the angry parents. So there is a lot of pressure on teachers to simply instill as much knowledge as they can and move them on to the next grade.

Also, there are students that cannot learn at the same rate as the rest of the students. Some students just donât have the IQ to retain information. Iâve some students that failed Algebra, Government and History, but did well in Metal shop, Mechanics and Wood Shop. Hold them back until they met the standard for Humanities is foolish. So what if they canât write an essay. So what if they diminish the perceived value of a diploma. They stayed in school, off the streets and they learned some skills that are within their abilities. 
When I worked in a Prison, the State Legislature, seeing the value of a High School Diploma, passed a bill that required prisoners to get a diploma before they could be eligible for parole. Great for those prisoners with normal IQ. But the âdumbâ prisoners ended up with longer sentences, because they couldnât complete the graduation requirements. Is that fair?

In most cases, it isnât the teachers that are failing, it is the parents. But no one wants to hear that, so we simply blame the teachers, after all, itâs their job to learn âum.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> I have a question to pose to you about this. What's the difference in this and you buying a junker car on its last legs, striping and selling the valuable parts and then taking the rest to the salvage yard?
> 
> Or buying a junker car, spending a few bucks on parts and paint and selling it for a huge profit?
> 
> You do realize they didn't strip and sell every business, they took some failing businesses and put a few parts and coats on paint on them and made them profitable don't you?


OK, letâs use your example. You buy a junker car. Every mechanic that has worked on that car was only paid part of their pay, but promised to be paid another amount a few years from now (pensions). That was written on the carâs title. You paid $100 for the car, with the understanding that there is money to be paid to the mechanics at a later date. You got the banker to loan you $1100 for it and then you asked your brother-in-law to loan you $500 so you could buy the car. Then you bought new tires for $600 and a $2,000 paint job, on a credit card. A friend did the paint job for $100, but you put it on your credit card as $1000 and pocketed the rest. You told the guy at the transmission shop that the transmission needed replaced. You told him you were a little light right now, but could pay him the $1000 in a couple weeks. You keep the transmission he took out.
Now, you part out the car. New tires=$400, transmission=$500, newly rebuilt transmission=$800 and all the rest of the parts= $1000. Then you file bankruptcy. The mechanics that worked on it are out their money, the bank is out their money, the credit card company is screwed, your brother-in-law wonât talk to you. The transmission guy lost his money. But you have made enough to by a fairly decent car, in your girlfriendâs name.
You see, when Baine bought these businesses, they were aware that there were pension liabilities on these businesses. They borrowed a lot of money on the businesses. Then they took out huge management wages/fees that went in their pockets. Then they parted out the business by selling the portions that could have kept the rest of the business going. Then they let the rest fail, wiping out the workersâ pensions.
If Bain had âskin in the gameâ, that is if Bain had tried to make the businesses profitable, failed and lost their investment as well as the workerâs pension, Iâd say they tried to help, but no business is a sure thing, fine. But they went into it, time and again, intent on stripping it out, sucking millions out and then shirking their obligations to the banks/investors and the retirement plan the workers had earned.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Then I suggest we close down the public schools entirely. If its too late... what point is there to paying teachers who wont do their job? :shrug:


But then who is going to babysit your kids?


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Wow hapoint great analogy.!!!!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Your logic makes zero sense. If people make lower wages they have fewer dollars to spend therefore business make less money.
> 
> What you fail to see is labor, until screwed with by the government, follows the very same laws of supply and demand as any other product. When there are few jobs and a lot of people looking for work wages are low. Where there are a lot of jobs and few people looking for work wages are high. If the government would get its nose, hands and everything else out of the labor market it would reach a balance.
> 
> ...


If you believe that big business understands that workers must have a good wage so they can buy more products, you must have been asleep for the past 25 years. Ford grew the Middle Class by growing wages and allowing us to become consumers. That got the economy spinning. The faster it spun, the more he earned and the more he poured into it. His business grew, he became wealthy, people earned more, bought more and the middle class grew. 

But the business plan has changed. No one builds factories to last 200 years, they build pole barns with concrete floors. No one works off a 10 year plan, where you grow the business for a decade before you start drawing off the profits. Now days, businesses are willing to cheapen a product, ruin its reputation just to insure that the next quarter shows an even bigger profit than the last. No one cares about who can afford to buy their products they ship in from China. You are right. That makes no logical sense.

Supply and demand works well, when the supply and demand exist together. When there is an increase in the demand for labor and the labor comes from a country with a very different standard of living, everything gets out of whack. If getting its nose out of the labor market you mean stop making free trade agreements that are unfairly slanted against the US, then we agree.


Often Non-Union shops must have better working environments. They compete for labor (just like your supply and demand statement) They know that they must provide the same things that the Union Shops provide or they will lose workers. If you think about it, you can see how Union Shops help insure the workers of non-union shops got treated fairly. If you eliminated all worker/employee agreements, those non-union shops wouldnât have to compete for labor with the other shops. Think of it this way, how much would you be paying for gas if all the stations were owned by the same person? Without competition owners can do what they want.

Sadly, there are cases where slug employees are protected. But most of the time, they eventually are fired. But most employees can do a better job if they know that their boss canât fire them because their son beat his son in a spelling bee.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> FYI, in my years I've worked union shops and nonunion shops and I can tell you the best work environments have ALWAYS been in nonunion shops. In most of the cases the PAY was better as well. Yet even in those shops with lower pay it was more difficult to get a job than the union shops because the people working there didn't quit because they liked working there..


 Perhaps thats why those bad shops had unions? They were bad enough to encourage the workers to go union?



watcher said:


> One last thing, about the thing I have seen unions do in the last 30+ years is to protect the slug workers. The rules are set up to make it as difficult as possible to fire a worker. I've seen other workers complain to management about a fellow worker and ask why he hasn't been fire. The answer? Union rules. . .


LOl and it never once occured to you that managment was covering its butt by blaming the union?
Ive never seen a contract where noone could be fired and in fact Ive seen contracts that allow the union to not allow defective workers to continue working.

Its funny though EVERYTHING you complain about is managements fault NOT the unions but yet you want to say because the managment has a bad contract its the Unions fault?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

English Oliver said:


> I went to a school session last night where they had a motivational speaker come in to talk to the kids. There were around 700 kids from a half dozen schools. In the hour that he was on stage he spent 45 minutes playing games like Simon says, clapping hands, doing the wave, singing, and 15 minutes speaking. If kids need 75% of an instructors effort to motivate them to hear 25% of education we are lost.
> 
> "O"[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I was a 6th grade teacher I would teach my students by doing what ever is necessary. If that means teaching little johnny his abc's first, then we teach him his abc's. Some would simply place blame and forget about doing their job... which is supposed to be teaching the kids. Of course its never a teachers fault... ever. I have had this experience. Our boy was in about the 6th or 7th grade... having serious problems with his math. Teachers couldnt seem to help him so I took it upon myself to assist them. It took me about 10 minutes to find the problem. His third grade teacher had not bothered to make sure he had his multiplication tables. Wow! It took me about two whole hours to bring him up to speed. sent him back to school and after that he was all at once getting A's and B's in math.
> My point is this... if you are a teacher, and your student cant read.... teach them! Dont go out on strike for higher pay because some other of your ilk failed to do their job!


 How in the world are you going to teach little Johnny his ABCâs while your required lessons remain untaught? About the time you spend a few hours teaching some 6th grader basic math and the parents of the other 30 kids will have you fired. There is too much on the line for those other students for you to short change them while tending to a failing student. The teacherâs job is to teach 6th grade level subjects to the class. In Michigan, students are tested every few grades. If your students were on par last year, but slipped below the standard after a year in your class, youâd better freshen up your Resumeâ, because you wonât be teaching there next year.

I put a lot of the blame on parents. Thatâs not popular. Iâll take you at your word. You had a child that lived under your roof and went from the beginning of the 3rd grade to well into the 6th or 7th and you were unaware that he didnât know his multiplication tables? Yet, it is the teacherâs fault?

If I were a teacher and I had a 6th grader that couldnât read, Iâd insist the parent get a tutor for him and let them know I didnât care if he remained there until he was old enough to vote. But in the real world, the parents hold the power and the teachers work hard with what they can do.

Donât assume that because they are on strike that it is for higher wages. Often times teachers, in an attempt to deal with some of these learning disorders, are trying to prevent the administration from increasing the number of students in each classroom.

There are lots of college graduates that get Teaching Degrees but donât remain teachers after a few years. Thatâs a loss to each community. Refuse to support teachers and let the schools chop away at their contracts and youâll lose good people from becoming teachers.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> OWS should be protesting the ones who gave tax dollars for the bail out, not just those on Wall Street. If Uncle Sam had allowed the businesses to go under, then there would have been no bail out and some other business would have stepped in to take over where the others failed. Protesting Wall Street is accomplishing nothing.


Protesting Washington would have no effect, either. Follow the money. The super rich that control Wall Street, also fund most of every politician's campaign. They get laws that help just them. They get bailouts that help just them. They are allowed to create worthless derivities and sell them to the nation's retirement funds.
It is like they can run rough shod over the citizens and operate on a different level from the workers of this country. Most people don't understand what Wall Street has done and continues to do to this country. When OWS tried to explain, they couldn't detail it in the 5 second news blip that every issue must fit into. Reporters know that they'd lose their jobs if they exposed the scams perpitrated by the very rich ( not the 1%, the .1%). Besides, talking about a guy that took a crap on a car is more news-worthy. Right? Just make them look like dirty hippies and block the true message and eventually they will go back to their jobs.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> OWS should be protesting the ones who gave tax dollars for the bail out, not just those on Wall Street. If Uncle Sam had allowed the businesses to go under, then there would have been no bail out and some other business would have stepped in to take over where the others failed. Protesting Wall Street is accomplishing nothing.


That is for sure. These bailouts should have never ever been allowed to take place. Bailouts have been the same as just throwing money not only into the septic tank, but burning the money at the same time. Get Government oUT of businesses. Let them work it out with the public. The Public knows way more then the government ever will. And teachers unions should have their wings clipped off Big Time. And unions in general as far as that goes. LOL And the OWS so called movement is so much a waste.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I was a 6th grade teacher I would teach my students by doing what ever is necessary. If that means teaching little johnny his abc's first, then we teach him his abc's. Some would simply place blame and forget about doing their job... which is supposed to be teaching the kids.


And while she is doing this the other kids in her class do what, watch a movie? How would you like it if your kid came home and when you asked him what he did in class today and he said "I watched a movie while my teacher spent the entire time trying to teach Johnny to read."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Then I suggest we close down the public schools entirely. If its too late... what point is there to paying teachers who wont do their job? :shrug:


Good way to take things out of context. As I said its too late because the kid has been taught. He's been taught he's too stupid to learn and not only that he doesn't have to. 

You can't teach someone who is not willing to learn and there's absolutely nothing you can do to them if they don't even try. Know anyone who works in a prison? Ask them how difficult it is to get prisoners to comply to orders. At least in prison there is the stick of some kind of punishment.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> OK, letâs use your example. You buy a junker car. Every mechanic that has worked on that car was only paid part of their pay, but promised to be paid another amount a few years from now (pensions). That was written on the carâs title. You paid $100 for the car, with the understanding that there is money to be paid to the mechanics at a later date. You got the banker to loan you $1100 for it and then you asked your brother-in-law to loan you $500 so you could buy the car. Then you bought new tires for $600 and a $2,000 paint job, on a credit card. A friend did the paint job for $100, but you put it on your credit card as $1000 and pocketed the rest. You told the guy at the transmission shop that the transmission needed replaced. You told him you were a little light right now, but could pay him the $1000 in a couple weeks. You keep the transmission he took out.
> Now, you part out the car. New tires=$400, transmission=$500, newly rebuilt transmission=$800 and all the rest of the parts= $1000. Then you file bankruptcy. The mechanics that worked on it are out their money, the bank is out their money, the credit card company is screwed, your brother-in-law wonât talk to you. The transmission guy lost his money. But you have made enough to by a fairly decent car, in your girlfriendâs name.
> You see, when Baine bought these businesses, they were aware that there were pension liabilities on these businesses. They borrowed a lot of money on the businesses. Then they took out huge management wages/fees that went in their pockets. Then they parted out the business by selling the portions that could have kept the rest of the business going. Then they let the rest fail, wiping out the workersâ pensions.
> If Bain had âskin in the gameâ, that is if Bain had tried to make the businesses profitable, failed and lost their investment as well as the workerâs pension, Iâd say they tried to help, but no business is a sure thing, fine. But they went into it, time and again, intent on stripping it out, sucking millions out and then shirking their obligations to the banks/investors and the retirement plan the workers had earned.


Got a real life example of this? I would seriously doubt it. Why? Think about your example. If I did this once or twice do you there would be until I couldn't get anyone to work on any car I bought to them. And if you didn't know it at the level we are talking the world of finance is very small. There aren't that many places you can go to get get a multimillion dollar loan and/or investors. Once you shaft a couple you're not going to get another chance.

I give you evidence that your thinking is flawed. Here's the first paragraph of a story which might interest you, or maybe not seeing as how it doesn't fit your view of Bain.

A report that several private equity firms -- including original investor Bain Capital -- are considering buying Staples Inc. pushed the office supply chainâs stock up as much as 6.2% on Friday.

If Bain was in the business of shafting everyone they dealt with and destroying every business it acquired why would the value of a company's stock go UP when there's just a report Bain is "considering" buying it?

BTW you do know Since inception it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies including AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel. 

Unless something has gotten by me those business are still going. Maybe Bain just screwed up and accidentally allowed them to keep making money.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> If you believe that big business understands that workers must have a good wage so they can buy more products, you must have been asleep for the past 25 years. Ford grew the Middle Class by growing wages and allowing us to become consumers. That got the economy spinning. The faster it spun, the more he earned and the more he poured into it. His business grew, he became wealthy, people earned more, bought more and the middle class grew.


Nice PR for Mr Ford but you need to check a bit more of the facts, not the fiction. He didn't do it so people could afford to buy his cars. Think about the logic of such a statement. How is paying someone something a lot of money to make something for you going to do anything other than make your product cost more? If this worked why didn't he pay them $50/hr and sell even more cars?

He did it because it reduced worker turn over. The work in his plants was brutal. Workers did one part of a job over and over and over again (something fairly new at the time) and people grew tired of it quickly and quit. This cost him money. When a worker didn't show up it slowed the line down because there weren't enough workers on the line, that cut production. Then he had to keep training new workers and those new workers cost him money because they until they learned the best way to do the job they were slower. By making the pay high enough the workers would stay, even if the job sucked. This meant the extra cost meant he got more production from the workers which made him even more money.

Ford hated unions and if it wasn't for GOVERNMENT interference (read about the Wagner Act) I'd be willing bet Ford Co would be nonunion today. If he were so concerned about his workers why did they feel the need to strike the company?




haypoint said:


> But the business plan has changed. No one builds factories to last 200 years, they build pole barns with concrete floors. No one works off a 10 year plan, where you grow the business for a decade before you start drawing off the profits. Now days, businesses are willing to cheapen a product, ruin its reputation just to insure that the next quarter shows an even bigger profit than the last. No one cares about who can afford to buy their products they ship in from China. You are right. That makes no logical sense.


And why did this happen? Part of it is the wheels of time. Technology has left that business model in the past. You no longer need 50 skilled machinist to turn out say a crankshaft. You only need a someone to write a program to tell a computer controlled machine how to do it and 10 machines to install that program on and one unskilled laborer to physically load the machines. In that business model which of the two people involved would you like for your child to be. The guy loading the machine or the one who writes the programs? 

Do you REALLY want your kids doing work where the qualification are a strong back and a weak mind?




haypoint said:


> Supply and demand works well, when the supply and demand exist together. When there is an increase in the demand for labor and the labor comes from a country with a very different standard of living, everything gets out of whack. If getting its nose out of the labor market you mean stop making free trade agreements that are unfairly slanted against the US, then we agree.


You are living in the past. Modern communication and transportation has shrunk the world and modern manufacturing has made it possible for the most unskilled and uneducated individuals to turn out quality products. From my living room I can find, order and pay for a watch which will be shipped from the factory in China which looks and works as well as any watch made anywhere in the world and have it on my wrist in 2 weeks. 

And the world economy has changed. The US isn't the 800# gorilla it once was. No longer is it absolutely necessary for companies to be able to sell to the US. There are huge markets around the world now. People in India and China who used to barely able to afford a bicycle are now buying cars. Where they used to have to worry about getting enough money to buy food they now have money to spend on things like watches. Raise the cost of selling in the US and all that will happen is companies will sell their goods else where.




haypoint said:


> Often Non-Union shops must have better working environments. They compete for labor (just like your supply and demand statement) They know that they must provide the same things that the Union Shops provide or they will lose workers. If you think about it, you can see how Union Shops help insure the workers of non-union shops got treated fairly. If you eliminated all worker/employee agreements, those non-union shops wouldnât have to compete for labor with the other shops. Think of it this way, how much would you be paying for gas if all the stations were owned by the same person? Without competition owners can do what they want.


If that's true why are private company union numbers falling like a rock? If unions make a place such a Utopia to work why aren't people falling all over themselves to have their factories unionized? They used to. Tell you what tell me EXACTLY what a union offers to say an auto plant employee.




haypoint said:


> Sadly, there are cases where slug employees are protected. But most of the time, they eventually are fired.


BTW, think about this the next time you or a loved one is in the hospital. I have an in-law who is a union big shot in a major hospital (I forget her title) and she was telling me horror stories about workers who needed to be 'let go' but because of union rules they were on their jobs for YEARS before the hospital got enough on them to do it. Luckily for me and mine she works on the west coast so I don't have to worry about going there for treatment but I have to wonder about other places.




haypoint said:


> But most employees can do a better job if they know that their boss canât fire them because their son beat his son in a spelling bee.


I find this argument the funniest of all. Union people are all about freedom, that is until you get to the point the business owner's freedom comes into the picture. Then freedom goes out the window and he should be FORCED to do this or do that. 

Should the guy pumping my gas have the right to force you to buy the grade of gas he wants you to use not what you want? If not then why should a worker have the right to tell a business owner how to run his business? If I hire you to work for me what right to you have to tell me I can't fire the guy standing next to you because he's wearing a pink shirt today and I hate pink shirts? Its MY business not yours. What stake do you have in the business?

How about this. How would you like it if you took a job and a better one came along and your boss told you that you couldn't quit this job until he gave your his permission and the law was on his side? What's good for the union member should be good for the business owner, right?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Got a real life example of this? I would seriously doubt it. Why? Think about your example. If I did this once or twice do you there would be until I couldn't get anyone to work on any car I bought to them. And if you didn't know it at the level we are talking the world of finance is very small. There aren't that many places you can go to get get a multimillion dollar loan and/or investors. Once you shaft a couple you're not going to get another chance.
> 
> I give you evidence that your thinking is flawed. Here's the first paragraph of a story which might interest you, or maybe not seeing as how it doesn't fit your view of Bain.
> 
> ...


I don't think either of us have time to go through the hundred different ways Bain makes money for themselves. I made it clear how they chop up companies. I tried to keep it simple. You might prefer the explaination in the movie, "Other People's Money" with Danny Diveto.

For a better understanding of Wall Street and how the super rich make money, read Money and Power, how Goldman Sachs came to rule the World by William Cohan. It is a bit dry, but chock full of details.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> Perhaps thats why those bad shops had unions? They were bad enough to encourage the workers to go union?


Then as in all of my experience the union was worthless and was doing nothing but taking my money. Otherwise why was the shops STILL crappy places to work? I'll tell you why. Because in each and every one there was a worker vs management mentality. The workers felt the company was just out to screw them and the company felt the workers were just out to screw it. 

Never felt that in an nonunion shop. It was ALWAYS a we're all in the same boat so no one start rocking.




fantasymaker said:


> LOl and it never once occured to you that managment was covering its butt by blaming the union?


Nope. Both of my parents were active union members, at one time or another were shop stewards, I grew up with union talk as usual family discussion. I know how unions work.




fantasymaker said:


> Ive never seen a contract where noone could be fired and in fact Ive seen contracts that allow the union to not allow defective workers to continue working.


Let me tell you how well I know how that union worked and how the contract was written. I once slowly tore up a 'write up' (which I fully deserved) my boss had just given me and walked away while he was talking (to tick him off because he was a jerk) because I knew I'd have it off my record as soon as I filed a grievance. That means my record was clear and you have to have three write ups ON YOUR RECORD before you could be fired. That means I could have kept screwing up and there wasn't a thing my boss could do about it other than keep writing me up and having me getting my record cleared.

I had an inside view and watched unions kill the US shoe and textile industries. So don't be telling me how great unions are.




fantasymaker said:


> Its funny though EVERYTHING you complain about is managements fault NOT the unions but yet you want to say because the managment has a bad contract its the Unions fault?


In a closed shop state unions have all the power. Its illegal for a business to have an employee on the books for more than 90 days w/o him belonging to the union. Its illegal to fire a non-wildcat striker. Think about it. You hire a plumber to replace your toilet and after he rips your old one out he demands more money, its illegal for you to install your own toilet, its illegal for you to hire someone who is not a licensed plumber, its illegal to be a licensed plumber unless you are in the union and if you COULD get a union plumber to agree to 'cross the line' that would also be illegal. What are you going to do but pay the plumber what he's demanding?

Unions are like steam engines. In their day they were needed and did great things for people and even the nation. But they are obsolete and are now a burden dragging and slowing things down. This is shown in the fact workers no longer feel the need to unionize. Take a bit of time and read what happen to the number in Wisconsin after a law was passed to allow people to get free of unions. Membership in the teacher's union FELL from 62,818 to 28,745. Membership in the state workers union fell from 22,300 to 7,100. Look at the differences in those numbers and tell me people think unions are needed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I don't think either of us have time to go through the hundred different ways Bain makes money for themselves. I made it clear how they chop up companies. I tried to keep it simple. You might prefer the explaination in the movie, "Other People's Money" with Danny Diveto.


Ok, then just take the time to pick apart what I posted. If Bain was just a suck it dry then sell the husk business then how do you explain the businesses it help start and saved? 




haypoint said:


> For a better understanding of Wall Street and how the super rich make money, read Money and Power, how Goldman Sachs came to rule the World by William Cohan. It is a bit dry, but chock full of details.


It works the same way it has always worked. Money talks and other stuff walks. This applies the same on Wall Street and Main Street and in the alley behind your street. Money makes the world go around, money greases the wheels, money is power. All the little sayings are true and nothing you, I, congress or the UN can do will change that. What can be done is to try to get the government to stop trying to control the system and back into its rightful role of referee making sure the rules are fair for all sides.

Right now you have unions pouring money into government to try to get it to slant the rules its way. You have businesses pouring money into government to get it to slant the rules its way. Simplest solution? You forbid ANY group from pouring money into the government. You only allow individuals to give money and to give as much as they wish w/o limits and you require, under penalty of jail time and huge fines, candidates and government officials to publish publicly the names and amount of money given by those individuals. Then people could look at the laws passed and the list of who gave money and see if there seems to be a link. No matter what else it takes votes to get and hold office and there are a LOT more 'little people' than 'fat cats' and that means pols must have the support of the 'little people' to stay in office.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

what about a flat rate of giving? everybody can give so much and thats all? something small say 20 bucks that way we all get equal say?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will go along with you on this... but I have to question how private schools manage to teach their students (with teachers earning far less than their public school counterparts) while public schools who are operating under the very same standards seem to be constantly failing their students? Its also my experience that on average those who homeschool their kids manage to teach their kids at a level far superior to that of public and private schools. Maybe its because someone actually cares about the kids?


Oh, YH, you KNOW the answer: b/c those who send their kids to private schools CARE!!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

watcher said:


> Unions are like steam engines. In their day they were needed and did great things for people and even the nation. But they are obsolete and are now a burden dragging and slowing things down.


Precisely, which is why they're seeking more fertile ground (see: Arab Spring). Labor excels at agitating and their fingerprints are all over the ME. ACORN founder Wade Rathke said so on his Social Policy website.

The other alarming issue is the cozy relationship between unions and the marxist/communist movement. A few minutes of research will yield a lot of recognizable political buzz-words from the past 4 years.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Follow the money. The super rich that control Wall Street, also fund most of every politician's campaign. They get bailouts that help just them. They are allowed to create worthless derivities and sell them to the nation's retirement funds.
> 
> It is like they can run rough shod over the citizens and operate on a different level from the workers of this country. Most people don't understand what Wall Street has done and continues to do to this country.


Just curious, how does wall street do this? Where does their money come from?

To my knowledge, for as long as I can remember, wall street hasn't gotten a dime of my money. 

"O"


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Ok, then just take the time to pick apart what I posted. If Bain was just a suck it dry then sell the husk business then how do you explain the businesses it help start and saved?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How naive. If those with the money control the elected officials and we understand that if the people see a thousand TV ads for a candidate and a hundred for another, almost always the one with the biggest ad campaign wins. How else can you explain Romney?

Right now, in Michigan, we need another bridge into Canada. The current one, privately owned by Matty Maroon, has seen both cities grow up around it and has terrible congestion. The Gov. has a plan where Canada pays for the bridge. Great deal for Michigan. But Matty Maroon is spending 10 million on an ad campaign telling people the bridge will tax their children and money for police protection and funds for seniors will be used to build the bridge. All sorts of false claims. But, it looks like he'll get his way, because he can sway the voters with his ads.
The same goes for every other part of politics.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well then I guess its ok... as long as she wasnt blaming another teacher... the kid doesnt really need to ever learn how to read or write as long as we know where to place the blame.


At that grade level, with that many students, it would be almost impossible to catch the child up without one on one time. Most cases the students or the students parents refuse to let their child stay after school. Maybe it is blaming something, but not other teachers, the system that says to advance a child regardless of whether they are ready or not. I don't know how anyone could blame a sixth grade teacher for a student not knowing what should have been taught in the first grade.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which "skills" would it be that he lacks in order to learn simple arithmetic and reading? vision, or hearing?
> 
> From Mirriam:
> Teacher
> ...


When you have 20 to 30 kids in a class room it's almost impossible to teach them all at the same rate. Some kids just have a slower learning grade than others. So, how is one teacher going to teach 30 kids at different levels of learning? They can't. So they decide they will work on those that excel and push them along, all the while, those who are slower get further and further behind. In the past, those students that were slower could be held back so they have a longer time to learn what is needed, but these days it's not PC to hold back a child, so they get moved a long. Once steps are missed in learning, nothing will make sense. It's like building a structure, you have to start with the foundation.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Beowulf said:


> She is likely not allowed to teach him...
> 
> 
> Teachers are required to stick to their (state approved) lesson plans. If their lesson plans say they are teaching algebra, it doesn't matter if the student does not know basic math, they are supposed to teach algebra.
> ...


They teach to the test, rather than teaching the kids how to learn. I discovered this when I took in a 14 yr old girl who's Mom had died of a drug overdose. She was 3 grade levels below where she should have been. The first time I tested her she did great. However, a couple of days later one of the questions from the test came up in normal conversation and she had no clue what it was about. She memorized it for the test, and after the test, she completely forgot it. I realized we had to "unschool" her. We took a few months to do thematic units that I created around her interests. She did great. Then we went back to a regular curriculum and she was able to retain what she was learning, because she WAS learning and not just memorizing.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I was a 6th grade teacher I would teach my students by doing what ever is necessary. If that means teaching little johnny his abc's first, then we teach him his abc's. Some would simply place blame and forget about doing their job... which is supposed to be teaching the kids. Of course its never a teachers fault... ever. I have had this experience. Our boy was in about the 6th or 7th grade... having serious problems with his math. Teachers couldnt seem to help him so I took it upon myself to assist them. It took me about 10 minutes to find the problem. His third grade teacher had not bothered to make sure he had his multiplication tables. Wow! It took me about two whole hours to bring him up to speed. sent him back to school and after that he was all at once getting A's and B's in math.
> My point is this... if you are a teacher, and your student cant read.... teach them! Dont go out on strike for higher pay because some other of your ilk failed to do their job!


And while you are teaching that one child the basics, what's happening with the other 29 kids? It's not possible to teach one on one in the school environment. You were able to do it, because it was one on one.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will go along with you on this... but I have to question how private schools manage to teach their students (with teachers earning far less than their public school counterparts) while public schools who are operating under the very same standards seem to be constantly failing their students? Its also my experience that on average those who homeschool their kids manage to teach their kids at a level far superior to that of public and private schools. Maybe its because someone actually cares about the kids?


Or maybe it's because the teacher/student ratio is managable.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Ok, then just take the time to pick apart what I posted. If Bain was just a suck it dry then sell the husk business *then how do you explain the businesses it help start and saved? *
> 
> 
> It works the same way it has always worked. Money talks and other stuff walks. This applies the same on Wall Street and Main Street and in the alley behind your street. Money makes the world go around, money greases the wheels, money is power. All the little sayings are true and nothing you, I, congress or the UN can do will change that. What can be done is to try to get the government to stop trying to control the system and back into its rightful role of referee making sure the rules are fair for all sides.
> ...


To keep it simple, I&#8217;ll se another automobile analogy. Bain Salvage mostly buys cars cheap and parts them out. But sometimes a person has a car with trouble that they don&#8217;t know how to fix. Bain can haul it to their Yard, fix it and resell it. There isn&#8217;t a lot of profit in it, but it is steady income.
At a dealer only auto auction, they buy a dozen high mileage late model Police cars. Then, Mr Bain takes the School Superintendent out to dinner and offers to gift the school $3,000 to open an Auto Mechanic program (tax deductible, of course). But the school must buy 6 of his cars to have something for the students to work on. He also offers the Superintendent a great deal on an Escalade he just got in. So, the Superintendent pitches the deal to the School Board, they approve $100,000 for the program and Bain sells 6 cars for $10,000 each. 
Then Bain starts a Taxi service using the other Police cars. He keeps rates low and uses high school students to repair his taxis. They do a good job because that is the model they have at school. After a year, the other taxi service in town goes broke. Bain offers to buy their business for $1000 with a 5 year no compete clause. Look, Bain saved a business.
Bain launches an ad campaign against the Public Transit in town. It is run under the name&#8221; Stop spending my tax dollars to transport illegal immigrants&#8221; so no one knows it is him. Bain offers $10,000 to the local Senator to cut the State Grant that funds the town&#8217;s buses.
Soon the school&#8217;s cars are all fixed up, so Bain offers to sell them a newer group of cars and takes the mechanically perfect cars as trade. He uses them in his taxi service. With the other taxi service gone, mass transit gone, his taxis are busy. He is showing great profit. So he sells the taxi business. He makes a fortune. But the schools are turning out students that only know how to repair ten year old cars, they can&#8217;t get jobs. No one will buy their fixed up ex-Police cars. People can&#8217;t afford the taxi and their lovely Bus Service is gone.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Protesting Washington would have no effect, either. Follow the money. The super rich that control Wall Street, also fund most of every politician's campaign. They get laws that help just them. They get bailouts that help just them. They are allowed to create worthless derivities and sell them to the nation's retirement funds.
> It is like they can run rough shod over the citizens and operate on a different level from the workers of this country. Most people don't understand what Wall Street has done and continues to do to this country. When OWS tried to explain, they couldn't detail it in the 5 second news blip that every issue must fit into. Reporters know that they'd lose their jobs if they exposed the scams perpitrated by the very rich ( not the 1%, the .1%). Besides, talking about a guy that took a crap on a car is more news-worthy. Right? Just make them look like dirty hippies and block the true message and eventually they will go back to their jobs.


Wall Street wouldn't have the power to run roughshod over the politicians without the politicians permission to. They wouldn't have the power to affect policies, without the politicians. They wouldn't have had the bailouts, without the politicians. It all points back to the government. Protest them, and get them to change their ways, and Wall Street will no longer be a problem.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> That is for sure. These bailouts should have never ever been allowed to take place. Bailouts have been the same as just throwing money not only into the septic tank, but burning the money at the same time. Get Government oUT of businesses. Let them work it out with the public. The Public knows way more then the government ever will. And teachers unions should have their wings clipped off Big Time. And unions in general as far as that goes. LOL And the OWS so called movement is so much a waste.


Yep. Without the unions, the good teachers will do well and those who aren't good would be gone. The way it's set up now you can't fire a bad teacher, so it reflects badly on the entire system. I know there are good teachers, but there's also some that should not be allowed near a child. Yet because of the unions, those bad teachers can not be fired. Unions had their place and time, but IMO it's passed. The unions have been taken over by those who no longer work for the workers, but trying to line their own pockets.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Iâll take you at your word. You had a child that lived under your roof and went from the beginning of the 3rd grade to well into the 6th or 7th and you were unaware that he didnât know his multiplication tables? Yet, it is the teacherâs fault?


Nope... he wasnt living under my roof between third and sixth grade... I got hold of him as he was going into the 7th grade when I married his ma.... and yes... I strongly believe that it was his third grade teachers fault that he had not been taught his multiplication tables.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Yep. Without the unions, the good teachers will do well and those who aren't good would be gone. The way it's set up now you can't fire a bad teacher, so it reflects badly on the entire system. I know there are good teachers, but there's also some that should not be allowed near a child. Yet because of the unions, those bad teachers can not be fired. Unions had their place and time, but IMO it's passed. The unions have been taken over by those who no longer work for the workers, but trying to line their own pockets.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Wall Street wouldn't have the power to run roughshod over the politicians without the politicians permission to. They wouldn't have the power to affect policies, without the politicians. They wouldn't have had the bailouts, without the politicians. It all points back to the government. Protest them, and get them to change their ways, and Wall Street will no longer be a problem.


Protest all you want, like spitting into the wind. If you don't have the doe ray me, forget it. To get elected and stay elected takes lots of money. A politician that speaks for the people will lose out to a well funded politician every time. I don't know how to change it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Protest all you want, like spitting into the wind. If you don't have the doe ray me, forget it. To get elected and stay elected takes lots of money. A politician that speaks for the people will lose out to a well funded politician every time. I don't know how to change it.


We might take the "stay-elected" out of the game and see if that helps.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope... he wasnt living under my roof between third and sixth grade... I got hold of him as he was going into the 7th grade when I married his ma.... and yes... I strongly believe that it was his third grade teachers fault that he had not been taught his multiplication tables.


I don't know the situation, but couldn't ma and the traash she was a livin' with take some of the responsability for learning the boy some? I recall they have Flash Cards for learning multiplication and they are on sale to the general public where ever books are sold.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> When you have 20 to 30 kids in a class room it's almost impossible to teach them all at the same rate. Some kids just have a slower learning grade than others. So, how is one teacher going to teach 30 kids at different levels of learning? They can't. So they decide they will work on those that excel and push them along, all the while, those who are slower get further and further behind. In the past, those students that were slower could be held back so they have a longer time to learn what is needed, but these days it's not PC to hold back a child, so they get moved a long. Once steps are missed in learning, nothing will make sense. It's like building a structure, you have to start with the foundation.


This is true nowdays...but have to tell ya, when I was in 4th grade, there were 59 kids in the class. Actually 1 more than there were seats & we had to take turns letting the extra kid sit.
Also there were 2 grades in one room.
Also, that school graduated more kids to HS that went on to college than was the 'norm' of the time.

IF there had been a kid in that class who couldn't read, special time would've been set aside for that kid...while the rest would do another project ON OUR OWN. 
What a concept. 
Also, there'd be a few kids who'd be assigned to help that kid.
What a concept.
And if the class began to get unruly-like too much whispering, etc? We were given a "LOOK". 
And we shut it.
What a concept.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> They teach to the test, rather than teaching the kids how to learn. I discovered this when I took in a 14 yr old girl who's Mom had died of a drug overdose. She was 3 grade levels below where she should have been. The first time I tested her she did great. However, a couple of days later one of the questions from the test came up in normal conversation and she had no clue what it was about. She memorized it for the test, and after the test, she completely forgot it. I realized we had to "unschool" her. We took a few months to do thematic units that I created around her interests. She did great. Then we went back to a regular curriculum and she was able to retain what she was learning, because she WAS learning and not just memorizing.


Kids have been memorizing just what they need to pass a test since school has existed. I loved school and learning but there were many times I crammed my brain with just the info needed for the test then let it flow out afterwards.

But I agree schools today teach kids WHAT to think not HOW to think.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Or maybe it's because the teacher/student ratio is managable.


Back when we carved our homework into clay tablets with sharpened pieces of bone my classes had 25 to 30 kids in them yet anyone who wanted to get an education got one. And many of those who didn't want one got it as well.

The main difference is we were divided into similar groups. Teachers could then teach at a level where THE ENTIRE CLASS could lean.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Protest all you want, like spitting into the wind. If you don't have the doe ray me, forget it. To get elected and stay elected takes lots of money. A politician that speaks for the people will lose out to a well funded politician every time. I don't know how to change it.


Really? IIRC, to get elected you needed votes. If you are supposed to get paid to vote for one person or another someone owes me a lot of money for all the votes I've cast and haven't got a penny.

If what you are saying is true why didn't Nixon or Carter just offer to sell more of the Presidency and stay in office?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I don't know the situation, but couldn't ma and the traash she was a livin' with take some of the responsability for learning the boy some? I recall they have Flash Cards for learning multiplication and they are on sale to the general public where ever books are sold.


His ma was pretty busy making a living for them at the time, and to my knowledge never "lived with any trash", was married to a pretty useless sort for a while there though. (the boys father, wasnt into dealing with kids) According to his teachers the boy had a "learning disability" when it came to math. (blame the child?) He had flash cards too, when I met him, they didnt seem to have helped. Visual aids were not the way to reach this child... audio is where he lives. I guess our good teachers (the ones with the college degrees and being paid very well to teach) never caught that. At any rate, a couple hours of "singing" his multiplication tables and he miraculously overcame his disability.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Protest all you want, like spitting into the wind. If you don't have the doe ray me, forget it. To get elected and stay elected takes lots of money. A politician that speaks for the people will lose out to a well funded politician every time. I don't know how to change it.


I don't know either. I agree with you though. I just wish I knew how to get back to a system that the people actually have a voice and the politicians actually worked for us. I thought voting third party may be the answer, but until Americans get tired of all the games, that's not going to happen. I also think term limits should be set, but again, I don't know how to change it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> This is true nowdays...but have to tell ya, when I was in 4th grade, there were 59 kids in the class. Actually 1 more than there were seats & we had to take turns letting the extra kid sit.
> Also there were 2 grades in one room.
> Also, that school graduated more kids to HS that went on to college than was the 'norm' of the time.
> 
> ...


Did we go to the same school?!?! I remember those antique concepts.... and went through the fifth grade with the fourth grade class on the other side of the room. One teacher taught both grades in the same classroom at the same time, and we ALL learned. She would not have tolerated anything less! I also remember "the look" all too well, it was downright scary, I swear she could melt steel with her one good eye!


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> This is true nowdays...but have to tell ya, when I was in 4th grade, there were 59 kids in the class. Actually 1 more than there were seats & we had to take turns letting the extra kid sit.
> Also there were 2 grades in one room.
> Also, that school graduated more kids to HS that went on to college than was the 'norm' of the time.
> 
> ...


Yes, but today's society is far different from when you were in school. In those days parents were allowed to correct their kids without the government saying they can't do that or the kids will be removed from the household. That was before parents decided to become friends instead of parents. That was before teachers had their hands tied on how to handle problems in the classroom. In other words, we live in a far different world today and it's reflected in the classrooms. If a teacher gave a student a "look" today they will be accused of bullying the student and have to go through all kinds of hoops to stay out of trouble. You would have parents come down and cuss the teacher out and the school board involved adding more restrictions on them than they already have.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> Kids have been memorizing just what they need to pass a test since school has existed. I loved school and learning but there were many times I crammed my brain with just the info needed for the test then let it flow out afterwards.
> 
> But I agree schools today teach kids WHAT to think not HOW to think.


Yep, the point I was trying to make was that they are no longer being taught how to learn. Most have no clue how to do research to find the answers to things. They are being trained to be little robots.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> This is true nowdays...but have to tell ya, when I was in 4th grade, there were 59 kids in the class. Actually 1 more than there were seats & we had to take turns letting the extra kid sit.
> Also there were 2 grades in one room.
> Also, that school graduated more kids to HS that went on to college than was the 'norm' of the time.
> 
> ...


The "LOOK" hasn't worked for at least 25 years. The reason the "LOOK" worked way back when is because at least once in a child's life, he saw what comes right after the "LOOK", 
every time, all the time and with great force.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

haypoint said:


> The "LOOK" hasn't worked for at least 25 years.


It still works for me.

"O"


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It is time. And it is way past due.










And get the unions OUT of the school.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> It is time. And it is way past due.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeppers, and when the unions are out, maybe then we can get some of the nonteachers out. As it is now its nearly impossible to fire a teacher. Even the ones that do a very poor job of teaching.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> The "LOOK" hasn't worked for at least 25 years. The reason the "LOOK" worked way back when is because at least once in a child's life, he saw what comes right after the "LOOK",
> every time, all the time and with great force.


It still works for my Yvonne.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Yep, the point I was trying to make was that they are no longer being taught how to learn. Most have no clue how to do research to find the answers to things. They are being trained to be little robots.


Because its easier. Its easier to tell them something than to teach them how to find an answer. Its easier to grade a multiple choice test than an essay. Its easier to see if the final answer is correct than it is to see if the solution used to get it was correct.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

LOL it wouldnt make any difference if all schools were non union they still couldnt fire teachers that cant teach........nobody to replace them with!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> LOL it wouldnt make any difference if all schools were non union they still couldnt fire teachers that cant teach........nobody to replace them with!


Lemme see if I have this right... we have employees who cant or wont do their job.... so the job doesnt get done.... and you dont think we can fire them? Watch me! I would fire them in a heartbeat... replacements available or not! Why pour good money down a rat hole?


----------

