When is a Union Too Powerful?

The Los Angeles teachers union (the same teachers who have staged walk-outs on their own students) is now boycotting the LA Times for "publishing a series of articles that uses student test scores to estimate the effectiveness of district teachers."

It's funny, isn't it? Teachers are teaching to the tests, saying how important these tests are, and judging their students by these tests... but they cannot take their own medicine. OK, even if they have a valid disagreement with testing (sure, I'll bite-- no one, including the students and teachers, can or should be judged by test scores alone, though it is one acceptable part of the puzzle), how about dealing with it more proactively instead of so negatively? LAUSD needs to be saved from being one of the very worst school districts in the country (this is an established fact, not an opinion). The teachers union is not being proactive about this problem.

It just seems that the union protects a broken education system and is loath to make the truly drastic changes it needs to make. I am sure most of its members have their hearts in the right place, but the leadership and system is protecting bad teachers. Unions are supposed to protect the good workers. Teachers, in turn, are supposed to do what helps their students.

These are the facts that the LA Weekly reporters uncovered about the LAUSD's poor performing teachers. And if you are wondering why it costs so much to fire an ineffective teacher, and why, in the end, it's almost impossible to fire even a proven bad teacher, it's because the teachers union protects poor performing teachers and makes any challenges against them too costly to pursue:

"In the past decade, LAUSD officials spent $3.5 million trying to fire just seven of the district’s 33,000 teachers for poor classroom performance — and only four were fired, during legal struggles that wore on, on average, for five years each. Two of the three others were paid large settlements, and one was reinstated. The average cost of each battle is $500,000.

During our investigation, in which we obtained hundreds of documents using the California Public Records Act, we also discovered that 32 underperforming teachers were initially recommended for firing, but then secretly paid $50,000 by the district, on average, to leave without a fight. Moreover, 66 unnamed teachers are being continually recycled through a costly mentoring and retraining program but failing to improve, and another 400 anonymous teachers have been ordered to attend the retraining."

In today's LA Times, the union has stated that it has its own method for handling poor performing teachers-- a retraining program. The very same, costly, ineffective one that the LA Weekly has uncovered.

I think the teachers union needs new leadership and a new, less negatively focused purpose. Hey, what if our school kids formed their own union to protect student rights and needs? What if grade school students performed walk-outs and boycotted tests? What would the teachers union say to that? I know, the state of California protects the rights of school children. Perhaps they are tired of fighting the teachers union. Too costly to fight? What do you think?

Why?

Recently, I had discussion that involved public school and some of the atrocious things a room-helping-mom witnessed. Apparently, the teacher (who one of my children had and loved years ago when the ratio was 20-1 instead of what it is now) became upset because some kids had forgotten to clear their plates. Not only did the teacher grab the children by their arms, but also she dumped all the trash (that had already been cleared into the trashcan) onto the floor and made the offending children clean it up! Furthermore, the mom who witnessed the incident is not a person who is good at confronting others, and did nothing (like report the teacher) other than tell other parents what happened.

There is zero tolerance for physical displays of aggression in our schools...at least for the children. Surely it is the same for teachers...but if no one speaks up, nothing will change. Alas, the situation may even get worse, as the teacher got away with her behavior, even though she did it in front of a parent.

I understand not liking confrontation. I don't particularly like it myself. But when it comes to my kids, any shred of reticence I have disappears and I spring into action like a freshly launched catapult. If a teacher grabbed my child's arm and forced him/her to pick up someone else's trash, I would not only confront the teacher, but also the principal of the school and the district superintendent. Needless to say, this teacher would no longer be instructing my child.

I now home school my kids and don't have to deal with these issues...but I have older children who DID attend public school for many years and over various decades. While I did witness a few teachers who spoke more harshly to the children (other classes, not my children's teachers) than I would have tolerated, I do not remember any incidences of violence. I'm not saying they didn't happen, just that I never witnessed them. Not surprising, since I imagine most abuse takes place privately. I know that my worst moments as a parent don't take place publicly either!

I've taken a lot of space here. My question is "WHY?" didn't the person who witnessed this teacher's behavior tell anyone? And why, even though she told this story in front of her son and he confirmed it, does she not realize that she is teaching her son NOT to speak up, NOT to confront (even though this did not happen to him) those who might abuse him? Not to mention the fact that by not speaking up, more children are bound to be abused.

Assumptions...

I have been tossing this around for a while. My caffeine intake has reached maximum and I need this thought to be heard.

Why is it when you see a young child doing something extraordinary, your first thought is 'their parents are forcing that on them'?

Can't children express what they want? They do everyday. "I want to wear the red one," "But I want the blue ball and Suzie has it," "I don't like green beans!" These are typical conversations in most parents houses. Why can't that same little person (because yes, they are a person) say "I want to play the violin."? I acknowledge that parents have a tendency to push their children to do things they don't want to do. I am fully aware it is often taken to extremes. Parents want their children to be the best at something. But I have witnessed that not all parents are the driving force behind extraordinary children. Sometimes, it's the child who wants to do something and asks for it.

I have a wonderful person in my life who is only a pre-teen. He plays the violin and has for 9 years. That's a very large amount of time, but as I know his parents and his love for music, I know this is truly what he wants. He practices the violin for about 6-8 hours per week. But he also plays other instruments. He practices almost everyday with some sort of instrument. How did he start playing the violin? At 2 years old he asked if he could. That was all it took. No pushing or prodding on the parents part. It was actually harder on those parents to find a violin that small and someone to teach their child at a young age.

I just wanted everyone to stop and think for a minute. What if that child is the one saying they want to play the violin, piano, sing, or act. What if it really isn't the parent forcing them...

It might be time to switch to decaf!

The Suers of the Internet

From the Tribune Washington Bureau, 8-23-10 (and printed on the front page of today's LA Times): "The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits."

So, how safe are bloggers, anyway? The lowdown is, you have a free-speech right to say what you want online, but those you defame also have the right to sue you for your comments. This has led to some costly and lengthy court cases over even anonymous comments that were posted (yes, the law can decree that an anonymous poster's identity be uncovered for a court case. Your personal information is still traceable).

Some court cases won by suers:

A North Carolina official won a case against anonymous bloggers who called him a slumlord.

A Pennsylvania judge ruled that a website must identify the internet addresses of various posters who called a township official "a jerk" who put taxpayer money in "his pocket."

In Nevada, a judge ordered the disclosure of the persons behind a slew of anonymous internet postings smearing a corporation.

In the end, this means that people can say whatever they wish to but must remain accountable for what they say. I also get the sense that this is new territory for the legal system and that there will be wildly different experiences and interpretations for people regarding internet postings. It's definitely something over which to sip tea and contemplate the meaning of it all.

Gotta go, I think that's the kettle I hear whistling...

Red or Blue?

Red or Blue?  That was the question in a blog community that members are allowed to  answer freely.  So I answered, freely.  The owner of the community did not like my response and deleted me.  Deleted me and suspended me from ever answering in her community again.  So I ask you, if the door is open and the topic is politics, do you get offend when people respond with another perspective?  I can understand when the answer is nasty and filled with hate that you would edit or delete the answer, but to Red or Blue?  How nasty can it get?  What did I say that could be so awful?  My answer... Red, White AND Blue!

Islamic Center or No?

I may stand alone in this but I feel the need to make a couple of points.

An Islamic Center near ground zero. Yea or Nay?

I may upset a few people but here it goes...I say yea. Here's why.

Denying a group of people a place to call their own because something bad was done by people of the same religion/background is downright un-American.

Everyone has a right to their beliefs, freedom of religion and all that good stuff. If we say oh no, no Muslim worship allowed, it's very similar to saying-White Only. And I for one say NO to stereotypes and hate.

Was there a horrific event at the World Trade Center? Yes. Are there wounds that are still healing? Yes. Is every Muslim a terrorist? No.

President Obama said "In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion."

I have had a discussion with a 12 year old boy, a friend of my son's who said, "You know Arabs, the terrorists." Not all "Arabs" are terrorists. Muslims are people who just want to live their lives and worship their God with the freedom allowed in the United States.

A Cuppa Protection

Ok, go grab a caffeinated cup of joe, sit right down and let me share. Perhaps you already know this, but I didn't, and so I figure that I can't be the only person out there who wasn't aware that, according to an article I just read in the August 2010 edition of Eating Well Magazine, a daily cup of caffeinated coffee reduces the risk of developing nonmelanoma skin cancer by about 10 percent. This statement comes from the results of one study of more than 93,000 women, published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention. Furthermore, the more they drank (up to 6 cups or so a day), the lower their risk.

Another study which exposed mice (poor gals and guys) to harmful sunburn-causing ultraviolet B rays, caffeine inhibited the formation of skin tumors. Apparently what happens is that caffeine kills precancerous and ultraviolet-damaged skin cells by blocking a protein that they need to divide (this according to the article, and specifically, Paul Nghiem, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of dermatology at the University of Washington Medical School.

The other good-for-our-skin items in this article were strawberries, tomatoes, edamame (and other soyfoods), and salmon. And remember...these foods (including, of course, the caffeine!) are being credited with lowering our risk of skin cancer, while also helping keep our skin younger-looking.

Yahooooooooooooooooooooooo! Gulp. Gulp. Gulp. Crunch, munch, munch.

Stupid America?

I've been thinking about the upcoming school year.  I mean really thinking about it.  With teachers losing their jobs, and cuts to the school schedules (you realize that the kids from the state of Hawaii no longer go to school on Fridays right?), how are we supposed to keep our nation moving forward when our school system is moving us backwards?  The politics in our great nation is killing our children's future.  Cutting back on our most important resource is like a band-aide for someone who needs open heart surgery.

Is our government trying to make our country stupid?  How are we supposed to keep this wonderful experiment that we call democracy on track if most kids, adults too, don't even know about our own American history?  It seems that our kids aren't important to this country because if they were, we would do everything in our power to have the BEST schooling possible.  Wake up America!  Linsey Lohan is NOT a role model!  The TV is NOT a teacher, even the music on the radio stations are NOT age appropriate.  We NEED good teachers, we NEED good role models, we NEED to take responsibility for what our children are learning, we NEED the government to stop cutting back on our children's education.  We NEED to STOP making America stupid!

Food, Does it Really Matter?

I've been reading Food Matters by Mark Bittman.  Yeah, I know, if you're like me, you really don't want to hear about the foods you love to eat, but it talks about our health, farmlands, wasted petroleum, and how our eating habits affect our planet.  This is something we need to consider when making our food choices, wether it's in a restaurant or a grocery store.  Did you know that it takes 40 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1, that's ONE calorie of beef protein?  To put it into perspective, I'm taking it right out of his book, "A typical family-of-four steak dinner is the rough equivalent, energy-wise, of driving around in an SUV for three hours while leaving all the lights on at home."  Did you know each cow on the planet consumes about seven barrels of crude oil?  "If we each ate the equivalent of three fewer cheeseburgers a week, we'd cancel out the effects of all the SUVs in the country."

As much as I don't want to hear about this (for the love of eating), I can't ignore what I can do to help teach others, especially my children, the simple lessons of smart choices.  I'll choose three less cheeseburgers, thank you!  

The Eight Things I Love About You

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8!!! I love each number as it adds up to victory for those who have fought against Prop 8. Yay!

I didn't need any caffeine when I heard the news, my energy level shot right up. I'm so happy for my homosexual friends and family. :)

Taking Responsibility for your Kids and Activities

I'm afraid this is going to come off like more of a rant than a clear and concise message because I'm feeling frustrated! I apologize in advance.

My child plays organized sports, he has learned a lot about teamwork, discipline and self confidence! I have suggested team sports to parents everywhere! A friend (I use that term loosely) decided to sign up her son in the same sport my son plays after deliberating for a while on it because she thought her son wasn't "mature" enough to do it. (when this 12 year old boy told me that he runs faster in a certain pair of shoes he owns, I tended to agree, but I'm not here to judge). I explained the change in my son after his first season and she decided to do it.

She went for sign ups, stood in line, had her kid weighed, filled out the paperwork, paid her $170 and waited. We signed up early so that it was done and out of the way and we could just wait for our first practice, which, by the way was last night. No sooner did they get signed up and I knew, just knew I should never have convinced this family it was a good idea, she started complaining about the sign up process within 4 steps of leaving the building.

Here's what it boils down to. That was 3 months ago, I called her last week to remind her to get her son's physical, buy his cleats, hard cup (gotta protect future grand children!), chin strap and mouth guard. Everything else will be supplied by the organizer. (pads and helmets). She told me she would call me during the week to ask any questions.

Nothing.

Over the weekend we were supposed to have gotten a call from our coaches, I didn't, but at sign ups we learn where our kids would be practicing so I figured we'd get there and figure it out. I saw a posting on my favorite place, Facebook, (see my post regarding fb) that she had not heard from the coach, I sent her a message and told her if she knew where to go they should be there at 6:30, universal pracice time for our league.

At 6:45 I sent her a message asking if they got there and found the coach...the response I got irritated me so much I couldn't even reply! It said something like this, "No we didn't go. Our child had a party to go to that's been planned for 2 weeks. We never heard from the coach, and my husband is PISSED."

All's I can say at this point is WAY TO PLAY IT MOM! You knew football started the first week of August, you knew where you had to be, you knew what you needed to have. My guess? You decided that the 8 hours a week of practice (4 nites X 2 hours per night) was too much to give to your son. Not to mention the endless fundraising and parent bickering and fun of watching your son knock the sh*t out of someone on the field and seeing him glow with pride when he does it. Really? I would do anything for my kids, including being team mom, spending countless hours of fundraising to make sure my kid and others can make the team trip, have nice uniforms etc etc. By the way, he hadn't had his physical yet either. Sure sounds to me like there was not intention of making it to practice...oh and one more thing, they made a plan for him to see an out of town relative for a week the 2nd or 3rd week of practice. We know that once August 1 rolls around we are all football all the time until the second week of December.

Ugh. Sorry, but I sure feel better now that I spit it all out! Maybe I've had too much caffeine this morning! Well, maybe a nice cup of herbal tea will settle me, nah, another latte ought to do the trick.

The Death Penalty

I just read an article by Sister Helen Prejean, a Catholic nun who is an outspoken advocate for abolishing capital punishment. She is the author who penned the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book, Dead Man Walking, eventually made into a Sean Penn/Susan Sarandon movie based on the real life story of Elmo Patrick Sonnier. Corresponding with Sonnier apparently changed the nun's life, and she has since become the spiritual advisor to other death-row inmates.

We expect compassion from a nun, right? After all, it is apparently the proper view to hold the sanctity of life in high esteem if one is to do the work of God. No conflict here. But then we have religious wars supposedly fought in honor of various beliefs and faiths, often at the supposed direction of a god. So which is it? Sanctity of life, homicides justified by faith directives, or lethal injections that make us feel like we made up for one atrocity by committing another? We really can't have them all and still respect ourselves, right? Wrong. This is all part of our American Heritage...like it or not.

I know, I know, I know--I would not want to live anywhere else. America is an amazing place to be. But just because I feel this way, doesn't mean I don't question or find reprehensible some of the ways we conduct and have conducted ourselves...and I pray that future generations will find a less ironic path.