OK, I'm willing to accept "shared sacrifice" in the government financial mess. If that means I pay a tax on things that were not taxed before, all right. But, two things....
One, I'm willing to accept this only if there is meaningful change, structural change. No more of this "business as usual," the same crap of the past 30 or 40 years. For instance, I don't care if you buy and drive an electric car, a hybrid, etc. I just don't want to have to pay for it. You pay for it.
Two, how interesting how I'm now (after years in the public schools) am being castigated, now I have to "sacrifice," too. After all, the private sector is hurting, has lost things, etc. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah sang the Beatles. If we must "share" the sacrifice now, why didn't we share the prosperity of the '90s and early '00s? In the '90s, oh, times were good--all that prosperity thanks, we were told, to Bill Clinton. Yeah, the '90s. I went four years with 0% raises, another with a 1% raise, and a sixth with a 2% raise (which really wasn't a raise since our work time was increased by 2 1/2%). Then, in the early 00's, with similar financial "rewards," I mentioned that to a parent of a student of mine. She said, "Well, this isn't the '90s you know." It wasn't hard to quickly retort, "I never had a '90s." So, I guess the picture is I have to sacrifice all of the time--good times and bad.
I must be clear, though, that I am comfortable, that I never dreamed I'd make the money I made in teaching. Now, in neighboring districts, teachers made $10 and $15 and even $20 thousand a year more than I did. But, well, that's our fault--the teachers of my district--for believing the lies (and that's what they were) of the financial cries of poverty of the adminstration. We were doing it "for the kids." Baloney! We were wimps. But, still, I can't complain about the actual amount I made, as disproportionate as it was. Yet, I wonder what other occupation pays an employee with a BA and three graduate degrees what I was paid! Nah, I don't wonder--none of them do.
Interesting how a recent study has been largely ignored. Public sector employees with college degrees (bachelor's) in Michigan earn 21% less than private sector workers with the same education. And, even if the widely publicized perks, such as health care and retirement, are included, it's still more than 10% less. (Now, one might argue that degrees in education aren't real degrees--and I might be one to do so--but that's not the point.) But, that report, after one day of coverage, has been buried. How typical!
Let's dump on teachers--all of the time. Oh, we will claim we aren't, but who (among the most competent of our students) in his/her right mind would go into teaching? Teachers are greedy, low-lives, unwilling to sacrifice, lazy (esp with all that time off!), etc. I'd guess three types of people....
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thoughts
I was reading a "professional" journal today, an article about teaching, making it more relevant to students for want of other words. I read about four or five paragraphs before tossing it in the trash. These words were glaring: "fun," "exciting," "easier." No!!!!! Now, nobody enjoys learning more than I do. And, I dare say, I took exception to the author's contention that teachers rarely have "fun" in class--I do almost every class. But when are people--dare I say the "education-types"--going to learn that learning (and teaching) aren't always "fun?" When are they going to learn that some things worth doing, such as learning, require hard, sometimes quite tedious work? Not everything has to be "fun" to be worthwhile. I know my reputation among people concerning scholarship (and, I'd guess my college mates, too, and I don't really agree), but do they think I learned all this stuff by osmosis? Do they think it was "poof, magic?" Do they know how many books I've read, how much stuff I've written (including just "stuff," not just the published works), how much time I spend thinking about things? No, I guess they don't. No wonder we get such silliness as "Everybody goes to college," "Cool cities," etc.
I'm also just stressed about how blind our media are. I wonder, though, unlike a lot of bloggers and other online columnists, if their blindness is willful (i.e., a liberal agenda/bias) or if it's just ignorance. But how can the media constantly ignore realities? That CBS reporter who was raped in Cairo, right out on the streets, is a case in point. So is the 14-year old Pakistani girl who was raped by a older relative, blamed for it, beaten, and then sentenced (she, not her relative, was the guilty person under Shar'ia law) to 100 lashes. She lost consciousness after about 80 lashes and died from them less than a week later. OK, why isn't there any coverage, front page stuff, about all this? Why do the Western media ignore that women and non-Muslims are less than citizens in Muslim countries, that they can be beaten and even killed under Shar'ia? Why do they ignore than Muslims are flooding into countries, not to become productive citizens of those countries, but to make those countries Islamic? (It may take longer, but isn't that another way of conquering a nation?) Is this what diversity and multi-culturalism have led to, a blindness toward an invasion of sorts, of an attempt to undo the ideas and principles of the Enlightenment, arguably the greatest advance of the human mind in history?
There was another one of these types writing about multi-culturalism in today's papers. Apparently the failure of it in European nations isn't the fault of those unwilling to assimilate, but of the European nations themselves. The guy made some colossal errors of reason. He tried to make comparisons with American "multi-culturalism" with that of Europe. There's a difference. European people gathered together in nations on the bases of ethnicity, language, religion, force, etc. The US remains the only nation whose birth/basis came from principles of liberty and freedom. It's hard to take authors like this seriously.
I'm also just stressed about how blind our media are. I wonder, though, unlike a lot of bloggers and other online columnists, if their blindness is willful (i.e., a liberal agenda/bias) or if it's just ignorance. But how can the media constantly ignore realities? That CBS reporter who was raped in Cairo, right out on the streets, is a case in point. So is the 14-year old Pakistani girl who was raped by a older relative, blamed for it, beaten, and then sentenced (she, not her relative, was the guilty person under Shar'ia law) to 100 lashes. She lost consciousness after about 80 lashes and died from them less than a week later. OK, why isn't there any coverage, front page stuff, about all this? Why do the Western media ignore that women and non-Muslims are less than citizens in Muslim countries, that they can be beaten and even killed under Shar'ia? Why do they ignore than Muslims are flooding into countries, not to become productive citizens of those countries, but to make those countries Islamic? (It may take longer, but isn't that another way of conquering a nation?) Is this what diversity and multi-culturalism have led to, a blindness toward an invasion of sorts, of an attempt to undo the ideas and principles of the Enlightenment, arguably the greatest advance of the human mind in history?
There was another one of these types writing about multi-culturalism in today's papers. Apparently the failure of it in European nations isn't the fault of those unwilling to assimilate, but of the European nations themselves. The guy made some colossal errors of reason. He tried to make comparisons with American "multi-culturalism" with that of Europe. There's a difference. European people gathered together in nations on the bases of ethnicity, language, religion, force, etc. The US remains the only nation whose birth/basis came from principles of liberty and freedom. It's hard to take authors like this seriously.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Sun Thoughts
I read a column today in which the author took science teachers to task for subverting the "truth" by skirting the teaching of evolution and stressing or giving equal time to creationism, a term which has been polluted and is now often called "intelligent design." He cited a study in which teachers, in significant numbers (more than 60%) admitted as much. There is much in here to concern one interested in the state of education. Seriously, does the story of Adam and Eve really compare to evolution (and, no, "your grandfather was a monkey" is not evolution)? Do these teachers really tell students they don't care what students believe, just know it for the test? Is that the state test? What lousy education if it is! And, I wonder if the author also finds the teaching of "man-made global warming" to be equally dishonest? Does he think "the science is established" (it's not, not at all)? Interesting article with many deeper issues.
How long will the gov and others continue with the deception of claiming public employees are overpaid, particularly relative to private sector employees? Study after study shows this isn't true. Private sector workers with BAs get anywhere from 10% to 21% more pay than public employees with BAs. Even if perks such as health insurance and retirement are included, public compensation is not as high as that in the private sector. Now, one might say many of the degrees in the private sector aren't real ones, that degrees in education are fake, but that's a different story. So, is the new gov as deceptive and disingenuous as his predecessors? I'm beginning to wonder.
How long will the gov and others continue with the deception of claiming public employees are overpaid, particularly relative to private sector employees? Study after study shows this isn't true. Private sector workers with BAs get anywhere from 10% to 21% more pay than public employees with BAs. Even if perks such as health insurance and retirement are included, public compensation is not as high as that in the private sector. Now, one might say many of the degrees in the private sector aren't real ones, that degrees in education are fake, but that's a different story. So, is the new gov as deceptive and disingenuous as his predecessors? I'm beginning to wonder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
