Jan Resseger has another excellent post up on her take of the Americans for Prosperity, aka Koch Brothers, and what’s happened in Kansas.
Jeff Glendening, the director of the Kansas chapter of Americans for Prosperity was quoted—framing the legislation as part of a fight between those who stand for children and those who stand for “adult” interests—by the NY Times : “We appreciate the willingness of the Legislature to place the interests of Kansas children over the welfare of the teachers’ union.” This kind of rhetoric is widely promoted by far-right groups such as StudentsFirst and Stand for Children. These groups try to imply that teachers, who have committed their lives to nurture children, are somehow a class of people working purely out of self interest.
~~~~~~~~
Incredible. The teacher’s intentions are an example of a stunning psychological twist of the truth. They claim to be concerned for the welfare of the children…but with Common Core, shoving special needs and struggling students out the door, and money being siphoned away from public education…we know differently.
As was pointed out yesterday, the teacher’s union is the same as the police and fire fighter unions….yet no one would think of saying that those unions are operating against the welfare of the people.
Related to this, Fred Klonsky has a post up on the pension raids with a statement on the theft by Karen Lewis.
“This is a sad day for our paraprofessionals, especially our retired ones, who will see their pensions reduced and devalued significantly. They will lose the value of a third of their retirement savings, so instead of the people who crashed the economic system having to pay their fair share, our elected officials brutally attack the people who are most vulnerable—many of whom have become the head of their households, caring for both children and grandchildren,” Lewis said.
~~~~~~~
Target the elderly/retired. They have worked their entire lives putting into the system. They deserve to have those pensions. Now that they are retired, they have less money to fight back with–sly ploy by cowards to attack the weaker.
As usual, the comments are insightful and compelling. They bring up the fact that it really isn’t that hard to get rid of “problem” teachers–all the administration has to do is harass them until they’ve had enough and leave. Done. Problem solved.
I’ve seen this in the state government, as well, so yeah, it’s not really that hard to get rid of someone. All you need is a bully in the midst while the administration looks the other way (or even worse–participates).
Urged on by conservative special interests such as Americans for Prosperity, Republican leaders pressed hard to eliminate due process rights for teachers.
~~~~~~~~
The handiwork of the Koch Brothers. Destroy public education so the Koch brothers don’t have to pay one more penny for unionized workers. More for me…poverty wages for you…
BUT, if a mother is poor and going to a job interview to get out of poverty, and has no one to turn to…what is she supposed to do?
She’s told to ‘get off her ass and get a job”…but how is she supposed to do that when she has no money to afford day care until she get that job?
Was she supposed to take the children into the interview? She would have been shot down for the job immediately, especially given all the competition for positions.
“Everything is focused on the mother and understandably so. It seems to be a very compelling human interest story,” County Attorney Bill Montgomery said at a recent news conference. “But I’m equally concerned and compelled about the circumstances those two children were in.”
~~~~~~~~
Really…? So, if Shanesha brought the kids to your office, being “concerned and compelled” you would personally watch them while she went to the interview…? Yeah, I didn’t think so…
With all the obstacles, how exactly are the poor supposed to get out of poverty? Not being arrested is a good start.
Dispatches from the Underclass has a post up on academic freedom and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
I clicked on the link to the letter, and the part about the union’s collective bargaining agreement stood out:
“institutional discipline or restraint in their discussion of relevant matters in the classroom…” [the CBA prohibits] “explicit or implicit threat of termination or discipline for the purpose of constraining a faculty member in the exercise of his or her rights under such principles of academic freedom.”
~~~~~~~~
“Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”
This was clarified later with the following:
“The intent of the 1940 statement is not to discourage what is “controversial”. Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.”
~~~~
This is one of the reasons that teacher’s unions must be protected–they protect teachers that bring up uncomfortable subjects with passionate debate. The Vietnam War would probably still be going on if it weren’t for the passionate debates of that time. And the Afghan war would have ended long ago. The Iraq War would have never begun had there been passionate debate on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction and as I previously posted, the way that Iraq society was presented to us and the reality of their society.
As the letter continues, the use of the word “balance” is questionable (Faux News, anyone?). It’s a vague term that can be interpreted in many ways…it’s a word that anyone in power can use to silence those that present valid complaints. One student made a complaint against the professor. Then Dr. Corey had the student “spy” on the professor and report back on whether it was “balanced” or not. WTH?
I disagree, however, with the letter’s statement that “students don’t possess the training or expertise to challenge a professor”…this is not giving students enough credit. Again, I’m thinking of the 60s and the students questioning professors and all authority. They raised valid questions. It’s not that students don’t have the training or expertise, but that one single student, with biases, should not be allowed to shut down an entire class because he/she does not agree with the way the subject is presented. He/she is a student, and as such, has to take some responsibility towards his/her education, and that means not always agreeing with a professor.
If the student disagrees, then he/she has options: quit the class, or listen and perhaps examine why he/she is opposed to the professor/subject matter….and maybe, just maybe, change one’s mind after evaluating the subject. It’s known that Israel does not present the Palestinian side of things in their schools. I don’t think they speak of the Palestinians at all, but in negative terms. Where’s the balance there?
The assessment of Professor Chehade’s classroom was one of openness. He allowed differing viewpoints…which is what you want in…ahem…a balanced classroom. Other students’ assessments were one of openness.
Something else that nags at me while reading this–did this student purposely take this class in order to get it cancelled? Because a class such as this is probably an elective–one that a student has an option of taking among several in that particular subject matter–so I would question the student’s motives if that were the case. The more I read, the more it sounds like a set-up. And the spineless administration caved at the first “shove”.
Another thing that bothers me is that we don’t live in a vacuum–this is only one class in that student’s career. If the student wants to get at the truth, he/she can take more classes taught by other professors whom will offer a different perspective. The student can also take the initiative and read books on the subject to gain a broader perspective. There is also the community- other students, friends, parents, neighbors, whom also can offer their perspectives. My experience has been that the truth is somewhere in between.
It’s important to note that professors are not given free reign to do as they please in their classrooms–as the letter states–proselytizing (although I can state that some of my professors came close to this, thankfully, it was just a few of many good professionals); and teaching subjects that are not a part of that section.
And just for the record, I would love to attend Professor Chehade’s class.
I found 5 Broken Cameras on youtube:
In the next part of the report, the controversy about free speech about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict at the University of Michigan. Be sure to click on the link where Max Blumenthal writes about the smear campaign. There is a video by Dishell up that speaks volumes.
In the speech, Max is passionate. He is Jewish and yet is speaking out on what he calls apartheid by Israel. The whole idea of Israel being “pure” is so ludicrous. There is no such thing as a “pure” race. We’re all mutts, so to speak. And as Blumenthal illustrates, one couple can’t even be together because of this stupidity. Can you say Romeo and Juliet? Can we ever learn anything from history…?
Diane Ravitch has a post up on the repubs and DFERs (Democrats in favor of charter schools).
She notes that in 1988, advocates were saying that charters would cost less because of less bureaucracy. Remember that, folks, when they say “less government meddling”…the actual results speak volumes…
Warrior Publications has this up on the Mi’kmaq Warrior Trial. This is the first I have read of someone on the First Nations side having a gun. In the reports that I read, no one mentioned this…so this destroys some of the credibility of the reporting.
Because I am not down with bringing guns….you may not have the intention of using it, but bringing it makes it easier for someone to get hurt. You may only intend on using it in self-defense, but the other side does not know your intentions. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword, as they say.
If you are doing this for your children, be an example to them. Show them how to stand up for your rights without violence.
And the other side? Only an unethical coward would shoot someone whom is unarmed.
People have a right to protest, especially when their rights to their land are being pushed aside for dirty fracking, but I will not support violence on either side.
The death count is at six this morning after an 8.2 earthquake in Chile. Comfort to those of you affected by it. If you recall, there was another devastating earthquake in 2010, also with a tsunami.
Knowing that fracking has been tied to earthquakes, and Chile’s previous earthquake was equally devastating…I searched for any correlation. Here’s what I found.
According to a study published in the world renowned Science Magazine in July 2013, areas subjected to extensive DWI activities are especially prone to damaging earthquakes, triggered remotely by large, natural quakes. Since 2009, Oklahoma has recorded 40 times more earthquakes than in the last 30 years. The largest, at 5.7 magnitude in November 2011, has been tied to wastewater injection and an 8.8 M earthquake in Chile.
~~~~~~~~~
(italics mine)
Evidence that fracking has come to Chile here: oilprice.com/Finance/investing-and-trading-reports/Fracking-has-Come-to-Chile.html
(not linking to it for obvious reasons)
All about the Benjamins…nothing about the serious consequences to the Earth, water, people, and animals.
Diane Ravitch has a post up on the “new” SAT. I haven’t seen the test, so I have to go by what Diane is describing. I do know that I when I first heard of the “new” SAT, I was sure there was some connection to the brainless Common Core. Yep.
It’s troubling that the writing section will be optional. Being able to write well-constructed sentences is an art. It should be a part of the test.
Diane quotes Superintendent Cohen, whom is critical of the “new” SAT:
Nowhere in our new, vaunted Common Core State Standards are teachers told to be concerned with nurturing young people’s imaginations or their original thoughts about the books they read, about the way nature works, about whether our government’s policies are good or bad, about whether the Pythagorean theorem could be used to help design a better bridge over the Hudson river, or whether “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Nor will the “new” and “fairer” SAT ask students to write about such matters.
~~~~~~~~
Absolutely. Spot on. It’s not enough to be able to repeat what another wrote–but to be able to interpret what they wrote and take it beyond that to expand the dialogue. Or to offer another point of view and facts or theory to back what you’re saying.
As I’m reading the article, I thought about when I took the SAT’s in high school. It was a gamble on my part, because I did not take the college-bound courses offered. That was the time that my Mom was pouring cheese soup over crackers for dinner sometimes….college seemed like an unreachable dream, so I took the easier courses offered. Personally, I don’t think those courses should have been an option–all the students who were capable should have been in the college courses. One really can’t know their potential until they are tested. And when you’re young and unsure of yourself, being tested means taking a risk–putting yourself out there for possible failure. Teenagers would rather die than face what they perceive as humiliation (when in fact it is a growing moment that should be supported, and not humiliated, as some like to do.) And when you’re poor, your options become even more limited because taking a risk could mean consequences for the family (if one risked going to college, and failed, that money spent on tuition is lost.)
I did pass the SAT’s, and was admitted to Indiana University but on a probationary status. I ended up not going because of being unsure of myself (probationary status to me meant “failure”) and interference by someone else. Being supported would have made all the difference at this point in time–maturity, too.
I’m telling this story because I had some rough years in middle school and high school. My grades reflected that. But they didn’t reflect my potential. As you know, I went on to college and graduated much later. It illustrates how badly misguided the Common Core and Race to the Bottom are–we are who we are at any point in time, but who we might grow to be is not measurable by any human tool.
The Canadian gov’t was vewy vewy skeered of those pesky indigenous whom honor their traditions and refuse to be completely assimilated. Good Grief. They act like these people have tanks, helicopters, drones, etc….like it’s a freaking war. Who…or What are they fighting against…?
And the quote that CSIS would not be involved if there wasn’t sufficient threat…who are they kidding?
My other posts:
Here we have a First Nations woman removed from a public meeting for…well, we don’t know because she wasn’t doing anything. Her mere presence, apparently, made her “guilty” of a crime.
Eagle 
You must be logged in to post a comment.