If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   For The Children: NYC erases 'unsatisfactory' ratings of lousy teachers, if they agree to quit. Fark: Removing the negative rating helps them land jobs in other schools   (nypost.com) divider line 105
    More: Fail, United Federation of Teachers, Department of Education, teachers  
•       •       •

3016 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 1:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-06 02:40:18 PM
New York is a plague on humanity. They over tax and regulate NYC into a gun-filled, overpriced 1984 utopia, and then flee south. All the while, they talk about how much better it is in the very place they fled, with their barely literate Brooklyn accents.
 
2013-01-06 02:42:18 PM
You know what happens when the people who dispense judgement are not held to the same system that they use to adjudicate?
 
2013-01-06 02:45:59 PM

jso2897: Cool. Sandy Hook is a month behind us, and we can go back to teacher/teacher's union bashing again!


This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook. So as I said before if you came here to thread shiat then just log off and keep your idiotic comments to yourself. If you have something constructive to add to the conversation then by all means present your argument. Otherwise STFU.
 
2013-01-06 02:54:25 PM

RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.


Some of the teachers I remember as the best from my formative years were the ones that didn't teach exactly what the book taught. They taught us to look into things, think for ourselves, seek out conflicting sources, apply logic to what we find, and make our own educated worldview. I remember a history teacher that taught us about Abe Lincoln's bipolar disorder, mommy issues, and a bunch of other interesting stuff, rather than teach from the book, which made Lincoln out to be a demigod. Parents wanted him fired, and every year he was the object of scrutiny. He eventually "retired" early, to be replaced by someone that taught sanitized fluff staight from the book.

Now couple that with the agenda to turn our history and science textbooks into thinly-veiled bibles, and we've got a real problem.
 
2013-01-06 02:57:57 PM

Dafatone: Bontesla: Dafatone: Bontesla: Dafatone: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

This.

The current climate of hunting down "bad" teachers is part of the problem. The focus should be in teacher training and improving teacher performance. We need teacher-positive solutions.

And what sort of training do you propose for teachers refusing to teach?

Is that something that happens more than one in a thousand times?

They're quite a significant number of teachers that have been secretly filmed by students. These teachers have been filmed reading newspapers, playing on tablets and phones, and so on. School administrators actually have terms for these type of teachers. There's also a name for the practice of moving these teachers from one district to another. It's so common, they've named it.

Well, as long as there's "quite a significant number." That's totally a specific amount that means something. There's no possible way to argue with that.

Also, "so common, they've named it?" Great. What's the name?


The name varies by district. The district in which a large portion of my family teaches refers to the teachers by the specific clause in their contract that guarantees tenure. One of my former profs taught on the subject. She said it's pretty common and not considered an amazing insult. The Dance of the Lemons is one particular example she taught about.

If you're curious, you should read up on it.
 
2013-01-06 02:58:08 PM

liam76: I don't think NYC rates teachers on student scores. If they did it would be much easier to normalize their performance.


This article seems to suggest math and reading exam scores are used in teacher evaluations primarily in NYC. However, correcting achievement scores is difficult due to magnifying influence of achievement predictors alongside each other in the classroom and the need to track individual student progress in a number of contexts while having relatively new assessments.

What is aggravating is such systems are meant to simplify teacher evaluation, but the reality is the systems are non-intuitive, expensive, sap time away from instruction, and generally misunderstood regarding the validity of the measures to the point of creating additional hassle for all involved in education. This is not easier. Administrative and peer review is far easier; we simply need enough reviews to make a proper determination after several years.
 
2013-01-06 03:00:08 PM

8Fingers: Wulfman: 8Fingers:

What's with the gender specific crap? Even I know that in business, when stating policy you keep it gender-neutral. Maybe these powers that be are as much a part of the problem and anyone else.

[blogs.courant.com image 400x279]
source

Yes, I get that. It's pretty much common knowledge that most teachers are female. Nothing new about that. You missed the point I was making.


Make your point better?
 
2013-01-06 03:02:17 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

Some of the teachers I remember as the best from my formative years were the ones that didn't teach exactly what the book taught. They taught us to look into things, think for ourselves, seek out conflicting sources, apply logic to what we find, and make our own educated worldview. I remember a history teacher that taught us about Abe Lincoln's bipolar disorder, mommy issues, and a bunch of other interesting stuff, rather than teach from the book, which made Lincoln out to be a demigod. Parents wanted him fired, and every year he was the object of scrutiny. He eventually "retired" early, to be replaced by someone that taught sanitized fluff staight from the book.

Now couple that with the agenda to turn our history and science textbooks into thinly-veiled bibles, and we've got a real problem.


A friend of mine once wanted to be a high school history teacher.  He gave up on the idea when he learned that he would not be allowed to teach any history that would make America look bad.  Also, half the college courses he would have to take to become a high school history teacher were p.e. classes.  Apparently, it is expected that if you're a history teacher, you're also a coach.

/This was about 15 years ago, so things may have changed since then.
 
2013-01-06 03:07:09 PM

mgshamster: Don't Troll Me Bro!: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

Some of the teachers I remember as the best from my formative years were the ones that didn't teach exactly what the book taught. They taught us to look into things, think for ourselves, seek out conflicting sources, apply logic to what we find, and make our own educated worldview. I remember a history teacher that taught us about Abe Lincoln's bipolar disorder, mommy issues, and a bunch of other interesting stuff, rather than teach from the book, which made Lincoln out to be a demigod. Parents wanted him fired, and every year he was the object of scrutiny. He eventually "retired" early, to be replaced by someone that taught sanitized fluff staight from the book.

Now couple that with the agenda to turn our history and science textbooks into thinly-veiled bibles, and we've got a real problem.

A friend of mine once wanted to be a high school history teacher.  He gave up on the idea when he learned that he would not be allowed to teach any history that would make America look bad.  Also, half the college courses he would have to take to become a high school history teacher were p.e. classes.  Apparently, it is expected that if you're a history teacher, you're also a coach.

/This was about 15 years ago, so things may have changed since then.


This. Apparently, many go in to teaching history to coach. If you really like history then you teach at a college. If you really want to coach and aren't particularly smart then you teach high school history.
 
2013-01-06 03:07:35 PM

Wulfman: 8Fingers: Wulfman: 8Fingers:

What's with the gender specific crap? Even I know that in business, when stating policy you keep it gender-neutral. Maybe these powers that be are as much a part of the problem and anyone else.

[blogs.courant.com image 400x279]
source

Yes, I get that. It's pretty much common knowledge that most teachers are female. Nothing new about that. You missed the point I was making.

Make your point better?


I made my point quite specific. Don't take it out on me if you are unable to comprehend simple meaning of someones elses statements.
 
2013-01-06 03:13:49 PM

8Fingers: Make your point better?

I made my point quite specific. Don't take it out on me if you are unable to comprehend simple meaning of someones elses statements.



Actually, you made a shiatty and irrelevant point. I would be enjoying it if it were funny, but it's not, so it's really got no value here. That's the point I'm making to you.
 
2013-01-06 03:16:14 PM

mgshamster: A friend of mine once wanted to be a high school history teacher.  He gave up on the idea when he learned that he would not be allowed to teach any history that would make America look bad.  Also, half the college courses he would have to take to become a high school history teacher were p.e. classes.  Apparently, it is expected that if you're a history teacher, you're also a coach.


Depends where and when this was, obviously as you note, but my alma mater has for a social science education degree no health or fitness courses (core or otherwise) and all of the specialization courses (the bulk of content) are not education specific courses but connected with world history, politics, etc., from the humanities; no one in those specialization courses would tell them what to or not to teach because the intent of the class is not for educators but content knowledge. The coach aspect always struck me as amusing because I do know of a few social sciences education candidates who also want to be coaches, and I believe originally this was because the coach had to be a teacher and social sciences was primarily history which was routinely rote memorization of dates and not highly prioritized, but now we have generations of athletes who loved the social sciences because the coach was the teacher.
 
2013-01-06 03:16:34 PM

Bontesla: mgshamster: Don't Troll Me Bro!: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

Some of the teachers I remember as the best from my formative years were the ones that didn't teach exactly what the book taught. They taught us to look into things, think for ourselves, seek out conflicting sources, apply logic to what we find, and make our own educated worldview. I remember a history teacher that taught us about Abe Lincoln's bipolar disorder, mommy issues, and a bunch of other interesting stuff, rather than teach from the book, which made Lincoln out to be a demigod. Parents wanted him fired, and every year he was the object of scrutiny. He eventually "retired" early, to be replaced by someone that taught sanitized fluff staight from the book.

Now couple that with the agenda to turn our history and science textbooks into thinly-veiled bibles, and we've got a real problem.

A friend of mine once wanted to be a high school history teacher.  He gave up on the idea when he learned that he would not be allowed to teach any history that would make America look bad.  Also, half the college courses he would have to take to become a high school history teacher were p.e. classes.  Apparently, it is expected that if you're a history teacher, you're also a coach.

/This was about 15 years ago, so things may have changed since then.

This. Apparently, many go in to teaching history to coach. If you really like history then you teach at a college. If you really want to coach and aren't particularly smart then you teach high school history.


Double this. The department I was trying to get on with is all male and mostly coaches, and the bulk of the male teachers in the school. Luckily, I got hired at a smaller school that ignores the fact that I teach from Howard Zinn's and James Loewen's texts. This surely will not last, in part because no one cares about history and it is not tested by the states like math.
 
2013-01-06 03:17:32 PM

Vangor: liam76: I don't think NYC rates teachers on student scores. If they did it would be much easier to normalize their performance.

This article seems to suggest math and reading exam scores are used in teacher evaluations primarily in NYC.


They are recorded, but unless something has changed they are not used in evals.


Vangor: However, correcting achievement scores is difficult due to magnifying influence of achievement predictors alongside each other in the classroom and the need to track individual student progress in a number of contexts while having relatively new assessments.

What is aggravating is such systems are meant to simplify teacher evaluation, but the reality is the systems are non-intuitive, expensive, sap time away from instruction, and generally misunderstood regarding the validity of the measures to the point of creating additional hassle for all involved in education.


What achievement predictors do you need to look at? You look at incoming and out going scores and rate teachers against other teachers with similiar incoming scores.

I am not sure how it being intuitive or not is a good or bad thing.

They aren't expensive (as it is many places like NYC already track them.

They take no time from instruction.

And I see no "hassle" except for teachers who are worse than their peers at teaching.


This is not easier. Administrative and peer review is far easier; we simply need enough reviews to make a proper determination after several years.

It isn't "easier" as shown by the article in question. It is next to impossible to remove bad teachers because those reviews are so subjective. Plus as shown by the article you linked many of those teachers simply aren't performing.
 
2013-01-06 03:22:51 PM
L

Wulfman: 8Fingers: Make your point better?

I made my point quite specific. Don't take it out on me if you are unable to comprehend simple meaning of someones elses statements.


Actually, you made a shiatty and irrelevant point. I would be enjoying it if it were funny, but it's not, so it's really got no value here. That's the point I'm making to you.


I don't know your issue is. I made a comment regarding the gender specific language of the statements. That were
 
2013-01-06 03:35:29 PM
L

Wulfman: 8Fingers: Make your point better?

I made my point quite specific. Don't take it out on me if you are unable to comprehend simple meaning of someones elses statements.


Actually, you made a shiatty and irrelevant point. I would be enjoying it if it were funny, but it's not, so it's really got no value here. That's the point I'm making to you.


I don't know your issue is. I made a comment regarding the gender specific language of the statements that were used in the article. You decided to bring in the gender ratio of male/female teachers. That was not what my point was about. My point was very clear.
I found it odd that they would use such language. So I made a comment about it. It doesn't matter what you think as to whether or not it is relevant. And given your obvious inability to comprend. Need to justify yourself and just plain grumpy atttitude. Your opinion is of little value to me.
 
2013-01-06 03:36:26 PM

jimmythrust: Bontesla: mgshamster: Don't Troll Me Bro!: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

Some of the teachers I remember as the best from my formative years were the ones that didn't teach exactly what the book taught. They taught us to look into things, think for ourselves, seek out conflicting sources, apply logic to what we find, and make our own educated worldview. I remember a history teacher that taught us about Abe Lincoln's bipolar disorder, mommy issues, and a bunch of other interesting stuff, rather than teach from the book, which made Lincoln out to be a demigod. Parents wanted him fired, and every year he was the object of scrutiny. He eventually "retired" early, to be replaced by someone that taught sanitized fluff staight from the book.

Now couple that with the agenda to turn our history and science textbooks into thinly-veiled bibles, and we've got a real problem.

A friend of mine once wanted to be a high school history teacher.  He gave up on the idea when he learned that he would not be allowed to teach any history that would make America look bad.  Also, half the college courses he would have to take to become a high school history teacher were p.e. classes.  Apparently, it is expected that if you're a history teacher, you're also a coach.

/This was about 15 years ago, so things may have changed since then.

This. Apparently, many go in to teaching history to coach. If you really like history then you teach at a college. If you really want to coach and aren't particularly smart then you teach high school history.

Double this. The department I was trying to get on with is all male and mostly coaches, and the bulk of the male teachers in the school. Luckily, I got hired at a smaller school that ignores the fact that I teach from Howard Zinn's and James Loewen's texts. This surely will not last, in part because no one cares about history and it is not tested by the states like math.


I own some of their texts. I wish you the best of luck.
 
2013-01-06 03:45:06 PM

Bontesla: Dafatone: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

This.

The current climate of hunting down "bad" teachers is part of the problem. The focus should be in teacher training and improving teacher performance. We need teacher-positive solutions.

And what sort of training do you propose for teachers refusing to teach?


Why the hell would a teacher refuse to teach? The whole point of teaching is to help students get to the lightbulb moment when comprehension kicks in. I'm in a student-teaching cohort and all of us are addicted to that rush when the lights come on. Then the kids start going up Bloom's and it's like pounding Red Bulls.

I can't imagine being in a classroom and not doing everything (legally) possible to make that happen.

/Teach or open up jobs for those of us who are hungry
 
2013-01-06 03:48:43 PM

Bontesla: jimmythrust: Bontesla: mgshamster: Don't Troll Me Bro!: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

Some of the teachers I remember as the best from my formative years were the ones that didn't teach exactly what the book taught. They taught us to look into things, think for ourselves, seek out conflicting sources, apply logic to what we find, and make our own educated worldview. I remember a history teacher that taught us about Abe Lincoln's bipolar disorder, mommy issues, and a bunch of other interesting stuff, rather than teach from the book, which made Lincoln out to be a demigod. Parents wanted him fired, and every year he was the object of scrutiny. He eventually "retired" early, to be replaced by someone that taught sanitized fluff staight from the book.

Now couple that with the agenda to turn our history and science textbooks into thinly-veiled bibles, and we've got a real problem.

A friend of mine once wanted to be a high school history teacher.  He gave up on the idea when he learned that he would not be allowed to teach any history that would make America look bad.  Also, half the college courses he would have to take to become a high school history teacher were p.e. classes.  Apparently, it is expected that if you're a history teacher, you're also a coach.

/This was about 15 years ago, so things may have changed since then.

This. Apparently, many go in to teaching history to coach. If you really like history then you teach at a college. If you really want to coach and aren't particularly smart then you teach high school history.

Double this. The department I was trying to get on with is all male and mostly coaches, and the bulk ...


Thank you and fingers crossed! My students are much more into the class since I went whole hog with the subversion thing...so shhh, let's keep my secret safe.
 
2013-01-06 03:52:16 PM

liam76: What achievement predictors do you need to look at? You look at incoming and out going scores and rate teachers against other teachers with similiar incoming scores.


Except things change over time which create or disrupt trends in accelerating or decelerating gains, plus student achievement in various environments differs outside of the scores themselves. For instance, income level of the student is a predictor of individual student achievement and classroom achievement due to changes in reading ability and background experience, but income changes, as does the magnifying influence of several low or high income students changing work load on the teacher in terms of reiteration of content and instructional context. Family structure also changes, and a sudden drop in achievement caused by the death or leaving of a parent is followed by a drop in trending achievement, whereas a sudden increase in achievement caused by a family structure becoming stabilized is followed by a rise in trending achievement.

This is not to say this is impossible, but simply comparing like scores ignores trends and contexts which informed scores every single year and will continue to.

liam76: I am not sure how it being intuitive or not is a good or bad thing.


About a quarter of our faculty meetings have concerned changing evaluation systems, including the process, artifacts, etc.. Now, this could be solved by using test scores solely, but for the amount of problems I note above with this reduction of environmental influence I would not recommend. Our newest evaluation system requires learning a new program, new format, etc., and though I find myself to be quite savvy this way, not all of my peers are, and I still have some ridiculous issues. Intuitiveness is an issue by taking time from me and my school, though a minor issue in general.

liam76: They aren't expensive (as it is many places like NYC already track them.


Test development is expensive. We could leave this here but the testing materials are also expensive, as is development of evaluation programs and standards, legal conflict about evaluation programs, and so forth. The cost is not negligible, especially when you factor in expenses of human resources (with teachers leaving as a result which is admittedly not common as far as I know), time (mentioned following this), and opportunity costs.

liam76: They take no time from instruction.


Silly me, and I thought eight district assessments, three days exclusively for standardized testing (more depending on the grade), test taking strategy instruction, broad but shallow content standards, make-up days, and more all took time out of my limited instructional time in my limited school year. But I guess you think scores are magically siphoned from students rather than tracked by the student having to complete an inauthentic assessment.

liam76: And I see no "hassle" except for teachers who are worse than their peers at teaching.


We need a way to remove failing teachers and a way to reward flourishing teachers; I especially want the latter because I know I would be one. This, however, is a hassle of several days lost in the classroom and extra time planning and submitting and meeting and conferencing to get moronic evaluation systems complete.

liam76: It isn't "easier" as shown by the article in question. It is next to impossible to remove bad teachers because those reviews are so subjective. Plus as shown by the article you linked many of those teachers simply aren't performing.


Perhaps I am reading the article incorrectly, but appears the performance evaluations are based on test scores... which is what I indicated. Am I misinterpreting you or the article?
 
2013-01-06 03:53:30 PM

Twist2005: Bontesla: Dafatone: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

This.

The current climate of hunting down "bad" teachers is part of the problem. The focus should be in teacher training and improving teacher performance. We need teacher-positive solutions.

And what sort of training do you propose for teachers refusing to teach?

Why the hell would a teacher refuse to teach? The whole point of teaching is to help students get to the lightbulb moment when comprehension kicks in. I'm in a student-teaching cohort and all of us are addicted to that rush when the lights come on. Then the kids start going up Bloom's and it's like pounding Red Bulls.

I can't imagine being in a classroom and not doing everything (legally) possible to make that happen.

/Teach or open up jobs for those of us who are hungry


There's probably an element of corruption in every profession. I'm not sure how teachers who fail to instruct come into teaching but there's evidence that there are some in nearly every public school district. I suppose some of them are a product of feeling like they're prevented from doing their job. Some probably are fully aware of how easy it is to be a very poor teacher and are aiming for that in life.

I don't know what the solution is. I support both unions and teachers and believe they are part of the solution. Our current system is one largely of failure and frustration.
 
2013-01-06 03:54:46 PM

Vangor: mgshamster: A friend of mine once wanted to be a high school history teacher.  He gave up on the idea when he learned that he would not be allowed to teach any history that would make America look bad.  Also, half the college courses he would have to take to become a high school history teacher were p.e. classes.  Apparently, it is expected that if you're a history teacher, you're also a coach.

Depends where and when this was, obviously as you note, but my alma mater has for a social science education degree no health or fitness courses (core or otherwise) and all of the specialization courses (the bulk of content) are not education specific courses but connected with world history, politics, etc., from the humanities; no one in those specialization courses would tell them what to or not to teach because the intent of the class is not for educators but content knowledge. The coach aspect always struck me as amusing because I do know of a few social sciences education candidates who also want to be coaches, and I believe originally this was because the coach had to be a teacher and social sciences was primarily history which was routinely rote memorization of dates and not highly prioritized, but now we have generations of athletes who loved the social sciences because the coach was the teacher.


I can definitely see that.  Programs often differ from school to school.  The primary difference between your story and mine, I would believe, is that the program my friend applied to was specifically for people who wanted to teach high school with the goal of getting them a degree, a teaching certification, and a job at a high school; as compared to a normal program from which people can jump over to teaching if they wanted to, which is what it sounds like yours was.  But again, this was back in the 90s, so things may be completely different in the program to which he originally applied.
 
2013-01-06 03:57:15 PM

8Fingers: I don't know your issue is.


Clearly.


I made a comment regarding the gender specific language of the statements that were used in the article.

You also asked a question. "What's with the gender specific crap?" The answer is actually right in the article, 3rd paragraph. "In an e-mail obtained by The Post, a DOE lawyer offers the deal to a teacher with U ratings two years in a row, grounds for dismissal." It's not wild conjecture that the teacher who is being offered the deal would have a specific gender. So instead of flailing about my reading comprehension, you should worry about your own.


You decided to bring in the gender ratio of male/female teachers. That was not what my point was about. My point was very clear.

It sure was. It was also irrelevant. The fact that the business world has traditionally used male pronouns as gender neutral when stating policy has absolutely zero bearing on our ability to read an excerpt from an email sent by a DOE lawyer to a teacher. You know, given that the teacher is most likely female and given that this is not a generalized, public policy statement.


Your opinion is of little value to me.

I'll survive.
 
2013-01-06 03:59:23 PM

jimmythrust: Bontesla: jimmythrust: Bontesla: mgshamster: Don't Troll Me Bro!: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

Some of the teachers I remember as the best from my formative years were the ones that didn't teach exactly what the book taught. They taught us to look into things, think for ourselves, seek out conflicting sources, apply logic to what we find, and make our own educated worldview. I remember a history teacher that taught us about Abe Lincoln's bipolar disorder, mommy issues, and a bunch of other interesting stuff, rather than teach from the book, which made Lincoln out to be a demigod. Parents wanted him fired, and every year he was the object of scrutiny. He eventually "retired" early, to be replaced by someone that taught sanitized fluff staight from the book.

Now couple that with the agenda to turn our history and science textbooks into thinly-veiled bibles, and we've got a real problem.

A friend of mine once wanted to be a high school history teacher.  He gave up on the idea when he learned that he would not be allowed to teach any history that would make America look bad.  Also, half the college courses he would have to take to become a high school history teacher were p.e. classes.  Apparently, it is expected that if you're a history teacher, you're also a coach.

/This was about 15 years ago, so things may have changed since then.

This. Apparently, many go in to teaching history to coach. If you really like history then you teach at a college. If you really want to coach and aren't particularly smart then you teach high school history.

Double this. The department I was trying to get on with is all male and mostly coaches, and the bulk ...

Thank you and fingers crossed! My students are much more into the class since I went whole hog with the subversion thing...so shhh, let's keep my secret safe.


The teacher I remember being the most inspirational was the one who taught grammar using Warren Zevon. He also used science and history in his lessons despite any controversy attached to the subject.
 
2013-01-06 04:02:22 PM

Bontesla: Twist2005: Bontesla: Dafatone: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

This.

The current climate of hunting down "bad" teachers is part of the problem. The focus should be in teacher training and improving teacher performance. We need teacher-positive solutions.

And what sort of training do you propose for teachers refusing to teach?

Why the hell would a teacher refuse to teach? The whole point of teaching is to help students get to the lightbulb moment when comprehension kicks in. I'm in a student-teaching cohort and all of us are addicted to that rush when the lights come on. Then the kids start going up Bloom's and it's like pounding Red Bulls.

I can't imagine being in a classroom and not doing everything (legally) possible to make that happen.

/Teach or open up jobs for those of us who are hungry

There's probably an element of corruption in every profession. I'm not sure how teachers who fail to instruct come into teaching but there's evidence that there are some in nearly every public school district. I suppose some of them are a product of feeling like they're prevented from doing their job. Some probably are fully aware of how easy it is to be a very poor teacher and are aiming for that in life.

I don't know what the solution is. I support both unions and teachers and believe they are part of the solution. Our current system is one largely of failure and frustration.


Just in case you didn't see the link I posted earlier, and because I think you might be interested in listening (or reading) this:

Great and sad story of how to make a really good school in a piss poor neighborhood and how to subsequently shiat down a system that works: "Two Steps Back" (audio, 1 hour, transcript available in link)
 
2013-01-06 04:05:17 PM

mgshamster: The primary difference between your story and mine, I would believe, is that the program my friend applied to was specifically for people who wanted to teach high school with the goal of getting them a degree, a teaching certification, and a job at a high school; as compared to a normal program from which people can jump over to teaching if they wanted to, which is what it sounds like yours was.


Sorry this is incorrect, but I should've better indicated what I meant by "social science education degree". This is specifically a track for educators for teaching social sciences, generally high school level but is allowed anywhere K-12.

Twist2005: Why the hell would a teacher refuse to teach? The whole point of teaching is to help students get to the lightbulb moment when comprehension kicks in. I'm in a student-teaching cohort and all of us are addicted to that rush when the lights come on. Then the kids start going up Bloom's and it's like pounding Red Bulls.


I assume you mean you are a teacher candidate (preservice teacher, undergraduate in education)? If so, are you responsible for the day-to-day planning, meetings, and paperwork? I do not mean this as some warning comment or similar because I truly love education and want other enthused individuals in the field, but I have found many people lose the enthusiasm the moment the reality of the job hits them, and from then on the path of least resistance is taken.
 
2013-01-06 04:12:57 PM

Vangor: Except things change over time which create or disrupt trends in accelerating or decelerating gains, plus student achievement in various environments differs outside of the scores themselves. For instance, income level of the student is a predictor of individual student achievement and classroom achievement due to changes in reading ability and background experience, but income changes, as does the magnifying influence of several low or high income students changing work load on the teacher in terms of reiteration of content and instructional context. Family structure also changes, and a sudden drop in achievement caused by the death or leaving of a parent is followed by a drop in trending achievement, whereas a sudden increase in achievement caused by a family structure becoming stabilized is followed by a rise in trending achievement.

This is not to say this is impossible, but simply comparing like scores ignores trends and contexts which informed scores every single year and will continue to.


You don't need to look at the trends or contributing factor of every individual. You only need to look at the scores of the incoming kids and rate teachers against other teachers with similar scores. That will take into account whatever contributing factors there are.

Vangor: About a quarter of our faculty meetings have concerned changing evaluation systems, including the process, artifacts, etc.. Now, this could be solved by using test scores solely, but for the amount of problems I note above with this reduction of environmental influence I would not recommend. Our newest evaluation system requires learning a new program, new format, etc., and though I find myself to be quite savvy this way, not all of my peers are, and I still have some ridiculous issues. Intuitiveness is an issue by taking time from me and my school, though a minor issue in general.


This would save time. The teacher wouldn't have to learn a new process. They wouldn't have to adjust lesson plans to include whatever method du jour their evaluator was looking for.

Vangor: Silly me, and I thought eight district assessments, three days exclusively for standardized testing (more depending on the grade), test taking strategy instruction, broad but shallow content standards, make-up days, and more all took time out of my limited instructional time in my limited school year. But I guess you think scores are magically siphoned from students rather than tracked by the student having to complete an inauthentic assessment.


Yes silly you.
You wouldn't need district assessments.
You are already doing the standardized testing.
If the standardized testing isn't testing what you are teaching you or it needs to change.
Your complaint about "inauthentic assessment" comes down once again to a disconnect between what you are teaching and what the test is about.

Vangor: We need a way to remove failing teachers and a way to reward flourishing teachers; I especially want the latter because I know I would be one. This, however, is a hassle of several days lost in the classroom and extra time planning and submitting and meeting and conferencing to get moronic evaluation systems complete.


ONce again if you are basing it off tests they already have to take you have lost no time.


Vangor: Perhaps I am reading the article incorrectly, but appears the performance evaluations are based on test scores... which is what I indicated. Am I misinterpreting you or the article


The article you linked is about teachers and test scores.

The article these posts are about just syas they can't get rid of teachers labeled "incompetent" and as I said earlier my understanding is that in NYC that is based off in classroom visits, lesson plan review, etc, not test scores. This makes it very hard to say definitively that the teacher is failing. With an objective measure like test scores that wouldn't be the case.
 
2013-01-06 04:14:40 PM

mgshamster: Bontesla: Twist2005: Bontesla: Dafatone: RexTalionis: The teacher rating system is intrinsically flawed. Teachers who tend to get "unsatisfactory" ratings are also the teachers who work with children from poorly-served schools or have special needs or have a lot of students who are new immigrants. The teachers who get satisfactory ratings tend to work with wealthier-better off students who all speak English.

This.

The current climate of hunting down "bad" teachers is part of the problem. The focus should be in teacher training and improving teacher performance. We need teacher-positive solutions.

And what sort of training do you propose for teachers refusing to teach?

Why the hell would a teacher refuse to teach? The whole point of teaching is to help students get to the lightbulb moment when comprehension kicks in. I'm in a student-teaching cohort and all of us are addicted to that rush when the lights come on. Then the kids start going up Bloom's and it's like pounding Red Bulls.

I can't imagine being in a classroom and not doing everything (legally) possible to make that happen.

/Teach or open up jobs for those of us who are hungry

There's probably an element of corruption in every profession. I'm not sure how teachers who fail to instruct come into teaching but there's evidence that there are some in nearly every public school district. I suppose some of them are a product of feeling like they're prevented from doing their job. Some probably are fully aware of how easy it is to be a very poor teacher and are aiming for that in life.

I don't know what the solution is. I support both unions and teachers and believe they are part of the solution. Our current system is one largely of failure and frustration.

Just in case you didn't see the link I posted earlier, and because I think you might be interested in listening (or reading) this:

Great and sad story of how to make a really good school in a piss poor neighborhood and how to subsequently shiat down a system that works: "Two Steps Back" (audio, 1 hour, transcript available in link)


Thanks! I missed this.
 
2013-01-06 04:17:43 PM

Wulfman: 8Fingers: I don't know your issue is.

Clearly.


I made a comment regarding the gender specific language of the statements that were used in the article.

You also asked a question. "What's with the gender specific crap?" The answer is actually right in the article, 3rd paragraph. "In an e-mail obtained by The Post, a DOE lawyer offers the deal to a teacher with U ratings two years in a row, grounds for dismissal." It's not wild conjecture that the teacher who is being offered the deal would have a specific gender. So instead of flailing about my reading comprehension, you should worry about your own.


You decided to bring in the gender ratio of male/female teachers. That was not what my point was about. My point was very clear.

It sure was. It was also irrelevant. The fact that the business world has traditionally used male pronouns as gender neutral when stating policy has absolutely zero bearing on our ability to read an excerpt from an email sent by a DOE lawyer to a teacher. You know, given that the teacher is most likely female and given that this is not a generalized, public policy statement.


Your opinion is of little value to me.

I'll survive.


Where in that is there any mention of gender? Your conjecture is simply that, and a mute point. And trying to make your point by bringing in past business pratices and using that to justify your point is quite frankly, crap.
You obviously have no common sense when it comes to business and I am not sure about anything else.
 
2013-01-06 04:18:29 PM
The teacher I remember being the most inspirational was the one who taught grammar using Warren Zevon. He also used science and history in his lessons despite any controversy attached to the subject.

I would love to know what Zevon songs he used! Let's see, I used Iron Maiden to teach about Indian Removal in the early 1800s, George Carlin to teach the Constitution, some Bob & Tom bits in different lessons, Family Guy to teach the Stamp Act, and Star Wars to teach the American Revolution. But I'm a goofball...oh, and cat memes.
 
2013-01-06 04:31:49 PM

titwrench: jso2897: Cool. Sandy Hook is a month behind us, and we can go back to teacher/teacher's union bashing again!

This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook. So as I said before if you came here to thread shiat then just log off and keep your idiotic comments to yourself. If you have something constructive to add to the conversation then by all means present your argument. Otherwise STFU.


Because you tell me to? Don't hold your breath, friend. My point was obvious, and I'm not going to condescend to explicate it to an adult. If you can't see our general hypocrisy on the subject of teachers, I would be wasting my time explaining it to you.
 
2013-01-06 04:37:06 PM

8Fingers: Where in that is there any mention of gender? Your conjecture is simply that, and a mute point. And trying to make your point by bringing in past business pratices and using that to justify your point is quite frankly, crap.
You obviously have no common sense when it comes to business and I am not sure about anything else.



Wait - you think that if the journalist quoted part of an email and that quoted part doesn't specifically say that the addressee was male or female, then the addressee is neither male nor female? Or do you think that the journalist's knowledge of the addressee is limited to the part of the email that she (the journalist) quoted? Either way, you're wrong.

Let me spell it out for you. That teacher is female. THE farkING TEACHER WHO GOT THAT EMAIL IS FEMALE. That's why the journalist used the pronoun "she".
 
2013-01-06 04:37:29 PM

Vangor: mgshamster: The primary difference between your story and mine, I would believe, is that the program my friend applied to was specifically for people who wanted to teach high school with the goal of getting them a degree, a teaching certification, and a job at a high school; as compared to a normal program from which people can jump over to teaching if they wanted to, which is what it sounds like yours was.

Sorry this is incorrect, but I should've better indicated what I meant by "social science education degree". This is specifically a track for educators for teaching social sciences, generally high school level but is allowed anywhere K-12.


Ah.  My mistake. I misunderstood.
 
2013-01-06 04:45:46 PM

Wulfman:

Don't you have someone else to bug?

 
2013-01-06 04:46:30 PM

8Fingers: Wulfman:

Don't you have someone else to bug?



Yeah, kinda. Thanks for giving up.
 
2013-01-06 05:01:55 PM

Vangor: mgshamster: The primary difference between your story and mine, I would believe, is that the program my friend applied to was specifically for people who wanted to teach high school with the goal of getting them a degree, a teaching certification, and a job at a high school; as compared to a normal program from which people can jump over to teaching if they wanted to, which is what it sounds like yours was.

Sorry this is incorrect, but I should've better indicated what I meant by "social science education degree". This is specifically a track for educators for teaching social sciences, generally high school level but is allowed anywhere K-12.

Twist2005: Why the hell would a teacher refuse to teach? The whole point of teaching is to help students get to the lightbulb moment when comprehension kicks in. I'm in a student-teaching cohort and all of us are addicted to that rush when the lights come on. Then the kids start going up Bloom's and it's like pounding Red Bulls.

I assume you mean you are a teacher candidate (preservice teacher, undergraduate in education)? If so, are you responsible for the day-to-day planning, meetings, and paperwork? I do not mean this as some warning comment or similar because I truly love education and want other enthused individuals in the field, but I have found many people lose the enthusiasm the moment the reality of the job hits them, and from then on the path of least resistance is taken.


You do raise a very good point, thank you for the reminder. I was responsible for everything for my work sample unit. Planning, meetings, developing materials, and paperwork, so much paperwork and analysis. Outside of my WSU, I was responsible for about half of everything else.The coolest part was that my kids started asking me to come to their games and such. My CT and I used those for extremely low-key and informal neutral-location PTCs. Parents loved it - they'd hear how awesome their kids were and would register any concerns with me or fill me in if there was a situation at home. Then I'd tell my CT before class the next morning.
Did I love absolutely every single minute of it? No...but it was pretty darn close. And even the off moments (hellooo dead squirrel in a backpack) were hilarious after a few hours. The only really bad part was the violent death of a student's father.
My early field experience kids and CT spoiled me absolutely rotten...I've had dreams of walking into my student teaching classroom and finding that I can't teach at all and the kids were learning in spite of me.
As you say, I haven't experienced the full teaching experience yet...but I've had a taste of all the elements. It's amazing and wonderful and occasionally heartbreaking...but always, always worth it.
Sorry for what I'm pretty sure is a tl;dr. I'm on winter break and miss being back there.
 
2013-01-06 05:05:18 PM

Twist2005: Vangor: mgshamster: The primary difference between your story and mine, I would believe, is that the program my friend applied to was specifically for people who wanted to teach high school with the goal of getting them a degree, a teaching certification, and a job at a high school; as compared to a normal program from which people can jump over to teaching if they wanted to, which is what it sounds like yours was.

Sorry this is incorrect, but I should've better indicated what I meant by "social science education degree". This is specifically a track for educators for teaching social sciences, generally high school level but is allowed anywhere K-12.

Twist2005: Why the hell would a teacher refuse to teach? The whole point of teaching is to help students get to the lightbulb moment when comprehension kicks in. I'm in a student-teaching cohort and all of us are addicted to that rush when the lights come on. Then the kids start going up Bloom's and it's like pounding Red Bulls.

I assume you mean you are a teacher candidate (preservice teacher, undergraduate in education)? If so, are you responsible for the day-to-day planning, meetings, and paperwork? I do not mean this as some warning comment or similar because I truly love education and want other enthused individuals in the field, but I have found many people lose the enthusiasm the moment the reality of the job hits them, and from then on the path of least resistance is taken.

You do raise a very good point, thank you for the reminder. I was responsible for everything for my work sample unit. Planning, meetings, developing materials, and paperwork, so much paperwork and analysis. Outside of my WSU, I was responsible for about half of everything else.The coolest part was that my kids started asking me to come to their games and such. My CT and I used those for extremely low-key and informal neutral-location PTCs. Parents loved it - they'd hear how awesome their kids were and would register any concerns with me o ...


It gets easier--student teaching is way too much work! You go from working 70 hours a week to 60 once you're in the field...
 
2013-01-06 05:27:41 PM

titwrench: Add something constructive or just don't post.


Where am I? I thought this was Fark???
 
2013-01-06 05:36:32 PM

generallyso: And while everyone is focusing on rating teachers, quality of education continues to decline...


Look, when I went to school (in the70's) there was a set curriculum. You passed or you failed.At some point we decided that every child deserved an equal outcome, regardless of their intellect or ability. We have dumbed down our system to the point where over half of the kids are in AG clases. Not to meFor Profit colleges that crank out Teachers, Engineers and other professional degrees who are absolutely not prepared or qualifed for their chosen profession.
 
2013-01-06 06:47:11 PM

jimmythrust: The teacher I remember being the most inspirational was the one who taught grammar using Warren Zevon. He also used science and history in his lessons despite any controversy attached to the subject.

I would love to know what Zevon songs he used! Let's see, I used Iron Maiden to teach about Indian Removal in the early 1800s, George Carlin to teach the Constitution, some Bob & Tom bits in different lessons, Family Guy to teach the Stamp Act, and Star Wars to teach the American Revolution. But I'm a goofball...oh, and cat memes.


Werewolves of London. He got several lessons out of that song. We were also introduced to the Legend and musical stylings of Robert Johnson. Those guitar riffs are amazing.
 
2013-01-06 06:59:32 PM

Bontesla: jimmythrust: The teacher I remember being the most inspirational was the one who taught grammar using Warren Zevon. He also used science and history in his lessons despite any controversy attached to the subject.

I would love to know what Zevon songs he used! Let's see, I used Iron Maiden to teach about Indian Removal in the early 1800s, George Carlin to teach the Constitution, some Bob & Tom bits in different lessons, Family Guy to teach the Stamp Act, and Star Wars to teach the American Revolution. But I'm a goofball...oh, and cat memes.

Werewolves of London. He got several lessons out of that song. We were also introduced to the Legend and musical stylings of Robert Johnson. Those guitar riffs are amazing.


Little old ladies got mutilated late last night?
 
2013-01-06 07:45:52 PM

jimmythrust: Twist2005: Vangor: mgshamster: The primary difference between your story and mine, I would believe, is that the program my friend applied to was specifically for people who wanted to teach high school with the goal of getting them a degree, a teaching certification, and a job at a high school; as compared to a normal program from which people can jump over to teaching if they wanted to, which is what it sounds like yours was.

Sorry this is incorrect, but I should've better indicated what I meant by "social science education degree". This is specifically a track for educators for teaching social sciences, generally high school level but is allowed anywhere K-12.

Twist2005: Why the hell would a teacher refuse to teach? The whole point of teaching is to help students get to the lightbulb moment when comprehension kicks in. I'm in a student-teaching cohort and all of us are addicted to that rush when the lights come on. Then the kids start going up Bloom's and it's like pounding Red Bulls.

I assume you mean you are a teacher candidate (preservice teacher, undergraduate in education)? If so, are you responsible for the day-to-day planning, meetings, and paperwork? I do not mean this as some warning comment or similar because I truly love education and want other enthused individuals in the field, but I have found many people lose the enthusiasm the moment the reality of the job hits them, and from then on the path of least resistance is taken.

You do raise a very good point, thank you for the reminder. I was responsible for everything for my work sample unit. Planning, meetings, developing materials, and paperwork, so much paperwork and analysis. Outside of my WSU, I was responsible for about half of everything else.The coolest part was that my kids started asking me to come to their games and such. My CT and I used those for extremely low-key and informal neutral-location PTCs. Parents loved it - they'd hear how awesome their kids were and would register any concerns with me o ...

It gets easier--student teaching is way too much work! You go from working 70 hours a week to 60 once you're in the field...


I know several grade and high disc hook teachers. None work anywhere near that much. Their spouses in the office world all work more.
 
2013-01-06 07:49:13 PM

Bontesla: jimmythrust: The teacher I remember being the most inspirational was the one who taught grammar using Warren Zevon. He also used science and history in his lessons despite any controversy attached to the subject.

I would love to know what Zevon songs he used! Let's see, I used Iron Maiden to teach about Indian Removal in the early 1800s, George Carlin to teach the Constitution, some Bob & Tom bits in different lessons, Family Guy to teach the Stamp Act, and Star Wars to teach the American Revolution. But I'm a goofball...oh, and cat memes.

Werewolves of London. He got several lessons out of that song. We were also introduced to the Legend and musical stylings of Robert Johnson. Those guitar riffs are amazing.


I'm totally stealing these ideas...

I know several grade and high disc hook teachers. None work anywhere near that much. Their spouses in the office world all work more.

They clearly aren't English or History teachers!
 
2013-01-06 10:25:04 PM

jimmythrust: It gets easier--student teaching is way too much work! You go from working 70 hours a week to 60 once you're in the field....


Really? The cohort leader tells us that student teaching is a cakewalk after going through Early Field Experience.That was crazy - in the school until noon four days a week, then racing back to the university for three and a half hour classes. We stayed the whole day once a week, but I usually stayed the whole day on Fridays too because I was having fun and needed to catch up on the filing. Then I volunteered as an assistant coach for an after school program...and did either that or went to kids' games/concert performances.

"The purpose of EFE is to break you down. If you get through it without a meltdown, bulk purchases of ibuprofen, and a case of alcohol, then we haven't done our job. Also, you'll stand a chance of surviving your first five years. Remember, reflection is best when accompanied by beer." - Professor

Was he lying? Is student teaching really that bad?
 
2013-01-06 10:43:17 PM

Twist2005: jimmythrust: It gets easier--student teaching is way too much work! You go from working 70 hours a week to 60 once you're in the field....

Really? The cohort leader tells us that student teaching is a cakewalk after going through Early Field Experience.That was crazy - in the school until noon four days a week, then racing back to the university for three and a half hour classes. We stayed the whole day once a week, but I usually stayed the whole day on Fridays too because I was having fun and needed to catch up on the filing. Then I volunteered as an assistant coach for an after school program...and did either that or went to kids' games/concert performances.

"The purpose of EFE is to break you down. If you get through it without a meltdown, bulk purchases of ibuprofen, and a case of alcohol, then we haven't done our job. Also, you'll stand a chance of surviving your first five years. Remember, reflection is best when accompanied by beer." - Professor

Was he lying? Is student teaching really that bad?


He's right. Especially the booze part. I'm better for my experiences in a graduate teaching program, but there was a lot of needless garbage. That needless garbage just changes into idiotic parents and administrators once you're working..,
 
2013-01-06 11:19:09 PM
Feh. Teachers are often judged on criteria unrelated to their direct performance, as other posters have pointed out.

If you really want to get bent out of shape, go find out what happens when doctors screw up. They, too, just move to another state. Unlike teachers, however, there isn't a pressing need to see if a doctor's practice was yanked in a different state due to malpractice or incompetence, apparently, as doctors who have been removed from practice in multiple states can still find medical practice positions in other states. That's because doctors have loopholes teachers don't have - when a teacher screws up, they don't get to say "well, I'll just surrender my license instead of facing disciplinary action." Doctors can, though, and that means there isn't a "black mark" on their record - that surrender wipes the slate clean - and so they just move to another state and cause even more harm. It's like getting up to 50 "get out of unemployment free" cards if you're a doctor.

Here's a case in point, thanks to Fark.

No matter how bad a teacher's performance is, the result typically doesn't kill a student, but it does follow them around on a regular basis. Doctors, on the other hand, can cause irreparable harm or even death, and then just skip out on any consequences, setting up shop in a different state and picking up where they left off.
 
2013-01-07 01:59:10 AM

8Fingers: LWulfman: 8Fingers: Make your point better?

I made my point quite specific. Don't take it out on me if you are unable to comprehend simple meaning of someones elses statements.


Actually, you made a shiatty and irrelevant point. I would be enjoying it if it were funny, but it's not, so it's really got no value here. That's the point I'm making to you.

I don't know your issue is. I made a comment regarding the gender specific language of the statements that were used in the article. You decided to bring in the gender ratio of male/female teachers. That was not what my point was about. My point was very clear.
I found it odd that they would use such language. So I made a comment about it. It doesn't matter what you think as to whether or not it is relevant. And given your obvious inability to comprend. Need to justify yourself and just plain grumpy atttitude. Your opinion is of little value to me.


I agree with you 8Fingers. By constantly referring to the exampled teacher as she, her or other words female gendered rather than neutral or mixing between female and male it implies that female teachers are incompetent. Taking that no mention of male gendered employees are mentioned is it to be implied that male teachers are always competent ? It does not matter the ratio of genders in a business or industry to write an article that so obviously weighs through its wording so heavily on one gender, especially when it is an article that questions a person's competence, is wrong.
 
2013-01-07 02:01:05 AM
Lol public schools
 
2013-01-07 02:08:00 AM

Wulfman: 8Fingers: Where in that is there any mention of gender? Your conjecture is simply that, and a mute point. And trying to make your point by bringing in past business pratices and using that to justify your point is quite frankly, crap.
You obviously have no common sense when it comes to business and I am not sure about anything else.


Wait - you think that if the journalist quoted part of an email and that quoted part doesn't specifically say that the addressee was male or female, then the addressee is neither male nor female? Or do you think that the journalist's knowledge of the addressee is limited to the part of the email that she (the journalist) quoted? Either way, you're wrong.

Let me spell it out for you. That teacher is female. THE farkING TEACHER WHO GOT THAT EMAIL IS FEMALE. That's why the journalist used the pronoun "she".


Wulfman the teacher who got the email may be female and in that case it would be accurate to properly mention her gender. However, the article also mentions in general the moving of incompetent teachers and still always mentions she or her and it could have so easily added him or he or used more general neutral wording. No matter how much you want to YELL at people it does not change the fact that this article was written in manner that mentions one gender a lot more than another when it should not have.
 
2013-01-07 04:05:54 AM
So, pretty much like any business? I have very seldome seen anyone "fired" in the place I work. I have however, seen people take "permenant layoff" so they can collect unemployment and it doesn't go against their record when someone asks for a refrence. The companies would rather do this than face a lawsuit.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report