Flag and Service
At the risk of sounding patriotic, may I be allowed to comment on the lowering of the flag in New Jersey for a celebrity with the following:
Watching Gen. MacArthur during the raising of the flag over the then-liberated Philippines as he and everybody else snapped to attention and saluted made me proud that another victory to free the world was had. Never forget our men and women who served and died serving under our flag.
To this old veteran, lowering the flag was to honor all our men and women who died serving our country, military and political. Yes, I know we don’t like most politicians, but they have and are serving our country.
Death is something we all regret and respect, but to put celebrities who never served on the same level as those who did is wrong.
Frank D. Slason
Somerville
Stop anti-teacher movement
It is time to dispel the inaccurate information that is being printed as fact in our newspapers.
This letter is directed at those elected legislators and power brokers who believe that taxpayer money is being used to influence the political process. Comments about union dues being paid with tax dollars couldn’t be further from the truth.
Once a worker is paid his or her wages, it is his or hers; workers earned it to do with as they wish. We pay union dues because we wish to. We would not come to your home and tell you how to spend your paycheck, which by the way, in the case of legislators, is also paid for with public funds.
Furthermore, we don’t want to know what you have deducted from your personal paycheck; we feel that is your business.
The following is a quote from an active teacher: “Instead of trying to use us as shark bait, how about finding out the truth, and take a look at the thousands of dedicated teachers who are putting in 11- and 12-hour days and part of our weekends, taking time from our own families, in order to give all the children the best education that we can!”
The anti-teacher movement that is being promoted in Maine has to stop. If it is allowed to continue the best and brightest young people will surely find a more rewarding and fulfilling career than teaching, and, incidentally, higher salaries plus benefits.
Henry Carbone
MEA-R legislative chairman
Library history
The Journal of Library History says King Ashurbanipal (ruled 669-627 BC) of Assyria’s library at Nineveh on the Tigris opposite what is now Mosul, Iraq is considered the earliest known library.
Plutarch (46-120 AD) said Julius Caesar accidentally burned the famous Library of Alexandria, Egypt while purposely burning his own ships in 48 BC.
Constantine’s (46-120 AD) mom St. Helena built a chapel at the possible site of the strange bush from Exodus 3:2 in Sinai, Egypt. It is now called St. Catherine’s Monastery after the beautiful scholar from Alexandria the Golden Legend says was tortured and beheaded by Maxentius (250 -312 AD) after marrying Jesus in the desert. Emelibrary.org says St. Catherine’s Library is the oldest continuously operating library in the world.
Loc.gov says the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. is the largest library in the world after having been burned by the British in 1814 then having bought 6,487 of Thomas Jefferson’s books in 1815.
Literacy Volunteers of Augusta say the first public library building in Maine, built in 1880 in Hallowell is often mistaken as a church.
The Abel J. Morneault Library may not be the biggest, oldest or richest but it does have the DVD “Jimmy Franck’s Van Buren Memories,” bringing alive Van Buren’s past with haunting photos, interesting research and a World War II Pacific Theater Veteran’s endangered species memories.
You’ll forget your potato chips!
Keith C. Taft
Van Buren
Searsport deserves better
My husband and I are residents and small-business owners in Searsport. We have been here for ten years and love it. This is a town that has a lot to offer.
We have two great parks, a world class museum, large and small eateries and our own grocery store. I wish we still had our own drug store. Two of the most historic properties in town have just re-opened as B&Bs, each with their own restaurant. The tourism dollars that come into town support all of our many small businesses. That money also bolsters our bigger business neighbors.
Tourism is Maine’s top economic engine and the midcoast, including Searsport, is part of that. Much of the growth in the last decade in tourism in the midcoast has been accomplished through the hard work and dedication of many local people. We keep our properties in good shape, pay our taxes on time and work on many boards and committees to keep Searsport a clean, pleasant place to live and work.
The negative impact of DCP’s proposal to place a 22.7 million gallon propane tank in a huge facility that also includes several smaller tanks, walls-berms and other buildings so very close to Route 1 constitutes a serious risk to the businesses that presently exist in Searsport and the revenue they bring. We need a closer look at the real impact this proposed project will have on us. That is why approving the moratorium is so important. We owe our town nothing less.
McCormack Economy
Searsport
Women and choice
Women were given the right to vote in 1920. Women have still not been given the right to make choices. Bishops, presidential candidates and members of Congress, all men, do not trust women to be responsible enough or intelligent enough to decide what is best for our own health care needs.
My own health insurance plan allows me to receive services from an acupuncturist, something I would not choose to do. I appreciate, however, the fact that someone else on the same plan might make that choice. Just because an option such as contraception or acupuncture exists in an insurance plan does not force anyone to choose it.
Thank you, President Obama and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius, for acknowledging that women are capable of making choices about our health care. If only we had been given the right to choose at the same time as the right to vote…
Kathy W. Walker
Hampden
Carbone, You are nothing more than a conduit through which tax dollars flow. You buy politicians to gain favor at the bargaining table when you negotiate.
Whats more, when someone points it out you say we are all “anti-teacher” as if your profession inoculates you from what your union does.
I am not anti-teacher, I am anti-teachers union and if you don’t know the difference between being a union member and being a teacher I don’t want you in my son’s classroom!!
Unions aren’t the only organizations that contribute to political campaigns. Why is it sinister when unions contribute but good old American values of participatory democracy when Republicans contribute.
Its the politicians they support that they negotiate with.
Do other lobbyist not negotiate with politicians that they support? Just curious.
For their own pay??
Often times yes, how do you think companies like Haliburton are given no-bid contracts. Why do you think coal companies lobby against air-pollution regulations. Let me tell you, it isn’t for their concern about the good of humanity, it is for their own pocket book. I fail to see any difference between that and teachers asking to be fairly compensated, except of course the teachers compensation isn’t killing anybody.
But none of those are in a classroom with my child being a union member when they should be a teacher.
Let’s just move those goal posts a little further. What’s next, none of those are union members while being in a classroom, while juggling and playing a flute? By your rationale, coal companies need to stop producing power and air pollution while they are engaged in lobbying congress. I will agree that Union teachers who advocate for an honest days work at an honest days pay should not be Union members if you can agree that Companies and corporations should not actively lobby congress while they are engaged in any commercial or industrial act. Deal?
Carbone claims that there is an “anti-teacher movement” and he freely substitutes the terms teachers with union members. My comment is I am not anti teacher but anti union. The teachers better be teachers when they go in the classroom and check the union crap at the door.
Teachers Unions are the only voice teachers have when it comes to advocating for themselves, their schools, and their students. By being anti-teachers union you are being anti-teacher. If teachers salaries, working conditions, and the plight of their students improved perhaps there would not be a need for the MEA (a largely toothless organization since Teachers in Maine do not have the right to strike). Until I see you advocate for these changes in every education post, I like most others will see that you are largely anti-teacher, despite what you claim.
See and there’s the rub…You say…”By being anti-teachers union you are being anti-teacher.” I say you are incorrect.
and I say you are incorrect. The purpose of unions is to make sure its members are paid fairly, with good benefits, and that companies/employers do not take advantage of its employees. So what is wrong with that? Angry? Jealous? can’t figure out your ugly posts
you are way out of bounds, looks like your hatred for teachers is warping your voice here.
He hates teachers, nurses, and social workers. Oh, and women.
Cheesecake, as a teacher, union member and school board member I can assure you that teachers never imply, insinuate, insert, discuss or teach union matters in classroom ……… EVER !
Why would you think teachers would be so unprofessional as to do something so inappropriate?
So there is a difference between a union member and a teacher and the terms are not interchangeable? Thank you for agreeing with me.
I’ll rephrase that for you: As a teacher and a teacher belonging to a union …….
Feel free to interchange the terms. The question still remains; why would you think teachers would behave so inappropriately.
what? your comment makes no sense.
So, it’s OK if one is giving money to Republicans but not to Democrats. You aren’t really saying that, are you?
Of course he is
He doesn’t know what he’s saying unless he can check it on Worldnet Daily.
Well it seems that you shouldn’t be too upset at the moment. The negotiators now have to deal with the politicians from the Republican/MHPC/ALEC/Tea Party. Are you grinning like the Chishire cat?
Because Unions represent workers and not corporate interests.
Bishop, I don’t want you in any classroom until you can properly punctuate. The y in “You” should not be capitalized. The word is “What’s.” There should be a comma between “out” and “you.” The word should be spelled “anti-teacher’s.”
I was taught punctuation and grammar by some outstanding members of teacher’s unions. Were you taught punctuation by non-unionized teachers? If so, the difference in our educations is a telling argument for having a unionized work force.
So when you have no argument you fall back to grammar and name calling and arrogance?
So when you have no argument you resort to rhetorical questions and gainsaying?
“I was taught punctuation and grammar by some outstanding members of teacher’s unions”Who is “teacher” and why does he/she get her own unions? My comment board maxim holds. Don’t criticize another person’s grammar because you will slip up in your post. It’s karma.
If teachers were taken care of by their employers with decent wages and respect for their profession, there probably never have been a need for unions.
I don’t know. I think teachers make terrible money. So unions aren’t doing much for them, unless you speculate that they would earn even less if the union wasn’t there for them.
you are aware that not all teachers contribute dues to the union…it is a choice.
Frank Slason – You are absolutely right. Gov. Christie is in the wrong on this issue. What he’s doing is opening Pandora’s Box when it comes to abusing the American Flag. Old Glory is already be overly abused as it is.
Henry Carbone – I’d dare say there is not anti-teacher movement. Rather it is an anti-teacher-union movement.
Kathy Walker – The “right to choose” should stop when it involves the life of an unborn child.
A person should always have a right to choice when it comes to their own body. Period.
And we do have that right in the good ol’ U.S. of A.
Many old men are working very hard to take that choice out of your hands.
Yes. Fortunately for all of us they are very old. Say, did you see this? Published over a year ago! “Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm
Makes you wonder why the GOP doesn’t side with the church when it comes to national health care. It seems they only side with the church when it suits their corporate agenda.
They luvs their wedge issues.
Hadn’t seen it yet, thanks.
Old men gave you that choice.
I agree, as long as they leave the body of that baby alone.
God says there is no life until He breathes it into the (now) born child. Get your bible straight, EJ. I thought you were an expert on the Almighty
As I requested before, where in the bible does it say that?
I read it in a comment in the NYTimes and haven’t had time to go back and look for it. I did google and found references to the ‘breath of life’ many times…..god breathing into man and causing life. The Bible is so very contradictory but I like the idea of breath at birth.
Genesis 2:7 is the only place where it states that God breathed life. He did it to Adam. Other references only refer to those that have the breath of life in them.
Jeremiah 1:5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
God has a purpose for us even before we are conceived. Therefore, we have no right to abort.
Jeremiah 1:4-5
The words of Yahweh came to me,saying:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you came to birth I consecrated you;
I appointed you as prophet to the nations”
Talk about selective quoting to suit your purpose!!!!! Why do you think the quotation marks are there? This a conversation between Jeremiah and God and God is speaking specifically to Jeremiah not about the development of the fetus in the general population nor a discussion about the viability of life or when life begins. It’s about God using his PR talents to convince Jeremiah to go out and preach.
EJ Parsons: So the right of the mother of an unborn child carries absolutely no weight in your mind even if the child was conceived in violence or is determined to be severely damaged. Like most who cannot imagine any rights for pregnant women in these circumstances, you likely also oppose the very safety net that would help pregnant women. How many unwanted children have you adopted? How many severely damaged children have you supported financially, much less cared for? Likely none. Those who want to control women have no compassion in these circumstances. Like Rick Santorum, they would enslave and punish women. Thank God most Americans, men and women alike, are not fanatics of this kind.
Is it the childs fault that he or she was conceived through violence? Enslave and punish LMFAO
Is it the women’s fault to have to carry a child conceived thru violence or incest?
pbmann, you forget, people like flat think women aren’t smart enough to know what they want. Also they might think if a women get raped, she asked for it.
Also, they don’t think they’re worth anything more than to be a uterus carrying a fetus that was conceived in violence. And then that fetus will be ignored and called a ‘slacker’ by them.
Abortion is the termination of an innocent human life. That innocent human life is NOT a part of the mother in that it only shares half of her DNA; therefore, the mother is, in truth, a host for a separate life form. That innocent life should be protected, not terminated.
I have no problem with programs that help pregnant women, infant children, or handicapped children. As for unwanted children, that’s the fault of the parent or parents. Every child is wanted by someone, but in our convoluted legal system, it’s so expensive and time-consuming to adopt, that many wanting parents either give up or go overseas to adopt. Our legal system has effectively turned the American adoption system into nothing more than legalized human sales.
For your information, I have adopted a child and financially assisted many more. I have compassion for all mankind. Abortion, however, is an act of selfishness that ends the life of a creation of God. I cannot support that in any way.
as long as the unborn, can not survive unless it is tie to the women’s body, most
definitely, part of her. EJ a women does not have to have a child, she does not want, it’s not your choice.
You’re right; it’s not my choice, and it’s legal. But, it’s still the termination of a life. A life, I might add, that someone would want.
Not all babies are wanted. Over 600,000 children await adoption as we speak. The vast majority will never be adopted because they are minority children or children with health issues.
EJ White blue eyed babies are wanted, your talking to someone, who at one time would have done, almost anything to have had a child. My morals would not allow me to sleep around, and I was not allowed to adopt because, I was single. That being said I still believe in choice, I’ve read rabid remarks about the Duggars, because they have had so many children, that upsets me as much as reading rabid remarks, about women who have abortions. It’s the Duggars, business how many babies they have, not mine, and the same goes for abortion.
“A life,” yes, but not a human being until it is naturally viable.
Not sure what you mean by naturally viable, but we already have laws restricting abortion after viability, which I believe is 24 weeks.
Where do you stand on destruction of embryos by in vitro fertilization clinics?
I terminated a life last week when I clipped my toenails. Those little cells were dependent on me and I killed them! I am a horrible person, at least in EJ’s world.
No live cells in toenails. Back to biology class with you!
Fair enough. The point remains, until something is capable of producing life all its own, it is not living, unless of course we want to afford the same protection to all forms of life including bacteria.
I disagree. I think a dependent fetus indeed has moral standing: more than just cells that can be shed. I do not believe an early pregnancy trumps the right of the mother to terminate, but I do think it is wrong to deny any moral impact to that choice.
Not every child is wanted. There are currently over 600,000 children in foster homes waiting to be adopted and they will never be adopted because they are not healthy white babies.
People generally adopt babies that are the same race as they are. African American and Hispanic communities do not have high adoption rates so their unwanted babies generally go into Foster Care. Babies who are born unhealthy do not get adopted at high rates either causing them to be put in the Foster Care System. Adding more babies from these backgrounds will only cause more babies to be raised by the Foster Care System.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some awesome people who are Foster Parents but there are also many who enter the system to make money. Foster kids do not do as well in society as kids raised in conventional families, the girls end up with higher than average teenage pregnancies and the boys end up with a higher than average incarceration rate.
As far as you not being able to support abortion in anyway do not have one but leave the choice up to the mother (and sometimes the father). They are the ones who will have to live with the decision either way.
If the fetus is not part of her because only half the DNA is hers then why should she be forced to raise a parasite that is not part of her?
I use the term parasite because it fits the definition you use when you say she is only a host as far as the fetus is considered.
I’m pro-choice, to a point. The problem with this debate are the extremes. You have the religious side that asserts an embryo has full rights even at the 2-cell stage. You have the extreme left calling an unborn child a parasite (even if only to make a point, the rhetoric is gross). Where is the reasonable middle ground?
I do not for one second believe a fetus is a parasite but EJ was saying that the woman had no choice on whether to keep or abort the fetus because it is not a part of her because it only has 50% of her genes.
The US military seems to be pro life: http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html
I’m generally pro-choice, but I oppose abortion once the fetus is naturally viable. At that point it has become a human baby. I think that’s a reasonable middle ground.
It’s pretty sad choice for a woman to make, to be set on a table, forcibly dilated, and have her uterus scraped or suctioned clean of her baby. And who does offering such a choice really serve? Women? I think not. I’d say abortion serves the interest of men who don’t want to have the responsibility of fatherhood. It serves the interest of a male structured society that excludes the needs of mothers and babies. It serves the male appetite for sex without consequences.
Now, women today have bought into abortion as if it is serving them and their needs. I have heard a few people on these comment sections complain that the Congressional hearing concerning the birth control insurance mandate featured only men testifying. Will these same people complain that when it came to deciding Roe v. Wade, it was decided by old men–not a single woman on the court at the time. Not a single person on the court who could have had any idea what it felt like to have a baby flutter inside, to give birth, or breastfeed a baby. And, sadly, less than half of those men ended up supporting the dignity of a woman’s procreative ability.
Abortion does not serve just the man or the woman, it is the woman who makes the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. Yes, there are cases where the man does not want the baby to be born but there are also cases where the woman does not want to baby to be born and sometimes it is a decision reached by both parties, each case is different.
The majority of the pro-life movement is male and the majority of the pro-choice movement is female. those are the facts. It is time that men stepped out of the way and let women decide what they want to do with their body. That includes when and if they want to have children and abstinance is not the only answer if the woman is not ready for a child.
“The majority of the pro-life movement is male ” I wish someone would explain that particular phenomena. I think it’s really strange that men, usually older men, are so interested in young women’s private reproductive lives.
According to a 2009 Gallup poll, more Americans consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. Among women 49% consider themselves pro life, 44% pro choice; among men 54% are pro-life and 39% pro choice.
Maybe some of us men care about the children
Which children?
Yeah, then why are those same men that care so much for children unwilling to pay for the services and institutions that help them grow up to be adequate adults?
From comments made here most of those men that “care” about children are very eager to cut school taxes, reduce teacher wages, do away with Head Start, WIC, Departments of Education, safety nets for families, job retraining for the unemployed, unemployment insurance, universal health care insurance and family planning so that ever child is a planned and cared for child.Caring about children means more than just caring about preserving fertilized eggs.
I agree the woman makes the choice to walk into the clinic, but is it a free choice? How many women in today’s society feel they have no choice? All a man has to do is say “I don’t want this baby so don’t count on me to be there for you” and the woman has the choice to be pregnant alone, or abort. Abortion certainly seems easier in this case, but it is not necessarily what the woman wants to do. She feels she has no real choice.
I don’t think it is time for men to step out of the way, I think it is time men stepped up and showed respect for women and their ability to procreate. And I think it is time women stop feeling they have been “caught” by pregnancy; that the child in their womb is a problem and not their son or daughter.
I’ve worked with women in many situations. Some have had abortions, and they say they didn’t have any problem with it; others have regretted it–some felt forced, others say they did it freely, but now wish they hadn’t. Other women have had their babies. The one thing I see in so many cases is that the woman is alone in her choice. The men in her life tend to just drop out and let her “decide what to do with her body.” Thanks, guys.
She has a choice. Our laws gave her a choice. Do not take that choice away from her. There is a war on women in this country and it must stop now.
If there is a war on women in this society, then fighting the battle of abortion and winning is resulting in a Pyrrhic victory. Women are fighting for the right to do something that is ultimately costing them more than they ever imagined.
If you have never had to carry in child that was the result of violence (and worse, incest) you have no right to speak. End of subject.
That is a myth. A vast majority of women who have had abortions never regret the choice.
That is an unsubstantiated claim and thus not valid.
Start with the August 2000 study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry which compared women who had undergone abortions with a similar cohort of women of the same age who had not. There was no increased risk of depression and a decreased risk of PTSD. The women were followed before the abortion and for two years thereafter. This replicates a number of studies done at an earlier time. In fact, Reagan’s Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, was asked by the Gipper to study the alleged health effects of abortion. Reagan expected a report that would mirror Koop’s anti-choice views. When the first draft of the report found no adverse health effects, Koop tried to beg off issuing any report on the matter. Google “Koop Report.”
No peer-reviewed study with a suitably large control group of women who have not had an abortion has ever found any “post-abortion distress disorder.”
In contrast, post-partum depression is a defined risk of any pregnancy carried to term. You are not entitled to simply make up facts. Claiming “post-abortion distress disorder” is akin to denying that smoking causes cancer or that CO2 emissions have accelerated climate change. In the fact-based world myths are not allowed.
But here you are talking about clinical trauma as a result of abortion. I am merely talking about simple regret–as in, I wish I hadn’t done that. Or, if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn’t have done that, or I felt pressured to do that, or I felt I had no choice. I think a woman who suffers from post-abortion distress disorder probably had more stress on her than just the abortion. Just as women who suffer from post-partum depression have more going on in their lives than just having a baby.
Really, I am not interested in removing all the contraception in the world and hauling women away from the abortion clinic. I just think that the acceptance of contraception and abortion has led to more changes in society than a lower birth rate and the ability of women to work more. I say we examine our assumptions to see if we can’t create a world where women feel more contentment with themselves.
Were you to take the time to google the study you would discover that it touches upon issues such as regret, as well as clinical depression, etc. 70 % of women reported no regrets, whatsoever. I doubt you have that high a number of women who express no regrets about adoption or birth of an unplanned child. The core principal here is that it is up to the individual woman, without the state, the church, or anti-abortion groups prohibiting or discouraging that choice.
If you oppose abortion then you should logically support the wide availability of contraception so that abortions are rare. To oppose or discourage both is illogical.
I just read a bible passage that speaks of a person not being a person until god ‘breathed life’ into the born child. Until that first breath, the bible says it is not a person.
Passage, please.
How do you feel about artificial insemination?
I think (hope?) most Americans come down somewhere in the middle of a debate where only the most extreme voices seem to be heard. I believe the following:
1) Potential human and sentient life has moral standing. Thus, there is a moral consideration to even a early embryo.
2) The right of the mother and the moral impact of bringing an unwanted baby into this world is more important in the earlier part of gestation before the baby is viable on its own. This does not mean there is no moral consequence to terminating potential life, but that we as a society agree to not violate an individual’s right to dictate what is done to their body to prevent violation of this particular moral principle.
3) 3rd trimester abortions (not sure the current legality) should be banned as the moral standing of the baby is such that we as a society are willing to violate a mother’s right to determine what is done to her body.
Middle ground is hard to defend, full of gray areas, easy to attack with hypotheticals, but as usual is the most reasonable position and I can only hope the position where most people really sit.
Henry Carbone: I think the sentiment is not against teachers but against teacher unions. Teachers are ok unions suck.. Its your union that is a political arm and cash infusion machine to the Democrats that we object to not teachers, just scum unions.
Teacher unions help make sure teachers get paid what they should. Doesn’t seem like anybody else cares about that. If education is so important, start paying teachers a high wage…and attract the best and brightest to the field.
And, no, 30K …ISN’T…good money (to keep quality people). Mainers are so brow-beaten by these economic times, they’re suckers for the race to the bottom.
Apparently unions aren’t doing their job at making sure teachers get paid what they should so well. In the same post, you complain that making 30K isn’t good money. Does it follow then that A-most teachers are not worth more than 30K, a poor salary for a college grad or B-the unions are not doing such a good job for you?
You’re the one who has nine kids. Do you think their teachers are/were worth 30K?
Sheesh…I am a Phyllis Schlafley wannabe, I guess. I homeschool them. So, their teacher is worth WAY more than 30K, but she gets nothing for her trouble.
The past year and a half, two of my kids have gone to the local tech school to take a course. Their teachers are wonderful. I’d say pay them$55,000 plus a great benefit package that contains health insurance with contraceptive coverage, even though they are all males. And, yes, summers off….Do I get to be a union rep now?
Or the other possibility that the right uses being refuted by your statement. Our elected officials are doing exactly what you want and bargaining hard with the teachers unions.
Municipal taxes determine MOST of teacher pay. Your comment isn’t a reason to get rid of the union.
I didn’t say get rid of the union. I just question whether the union is representing the best interests of the teachers, or of the union reps. If I was a highly skilled teacher, I would be peeved to work for $30,000 a year all because my union isn’t negotiating better pay. Come on, we all know those union heads are great at the shakedown. Have them knock on the kneecaps of those municipal taxpayers and tell them to pay up.
Wandini: most negotiating is conducted between teachers and school boards without the presence of union advisors. Only when negotiations reach an impasse do teachers ask help from the union.
Agree, $30K is pathetic. So I think the teachers union should stop resisting performance based pay so we can reward the GOOD ones!
$30K is the start, but teachers get guaranteed step raises for continuing to fog a mirror.
Of course they get raises. Teachers usually get better with experience. Even ineffectual teachers work hard and take a lot of crap. The number of COMPLETELY useless teachers has got to be quite small.
Sure. They’re not COMPLETELY useless. They can still fog a mirror, and as long as they can they get automatic raises.
Perfect. Let’s pay teachers more, but since the current wage doesn’t attract the best and brightest let’s fire every teacher and let them all apply for the jobs with no preference for seniority. Then we can hire the best and brightest and the substandard teachers we have now can find something else to do.
Now THERE’S a really unrealistic and useless idea.
You just said that teaching doesn’t attract the best and brightest. Paying the dullards that go into teaching more isn’t going to make them the best and brightest.
flat_lander…your sentiment, here and in past postings, show disrespect to teachers, not just unions. Unions do serve a good purpose…hating all unions is ignorant…
What do you expect from a flat_earther?
Flat, you are merely an anti union drone. You have drunk the kool aid. Unions have improved working folks standard of living. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Shut Limbaugh off, breathe deeply and get with working folk.
Kathy Walker: We gave woman a choice and they killed off a generation of Americans
Henry Carbone: Its the unions that are the problem Your union is a corrupt political cash infusion machine to the Democrats for the purpose of keeping the vicious funding cycle going. Education is the last of your union’s concerns. Your goal is to get as much political power as possible. Scores keeping going down but spending keeps going up. You union guys are successful at milking the taxpayer via guilt to cough up more and more.
Frank Slason: Right on! When Al Sharpton is happy I know something was done wrong.
flat_lander…please quote your sources for the corruption of teachers unions. You show no respect for teachers, who are a hard working bunch. There are flukes in every form of the work place, every job….stop picking on teachers….your jealousy is showing?
Flat: you haven’t the slightest idea what you are saying when you talk about teacher’s unions. You’re just flapping your gums and parroting from several destructively conservative sources hellbent on keeping the electorate stupid raving and distracted from the transfer of your resources and your wealth over to them. You’re a good little follower. Keep raving while they take good public education away from your children so they have difficulty making it economically.
“A generation” of Americans? Really?
McCormack Economy
If tourisim is the top economic engine, it sorely needs a tuneup in order to get us down the road.
Your view as that of someone who has been here for only ten years shouldn’t be the reason to disallow another facet of our energy picture to be ignored.
If you don’t like to look at it, maybe you could talk the rest of your nimby friends into developing Sears Island as it should have been many years ago in order to service agriculture, wood products and fishing. Those are the REAL economic engines of this state.
You got it nopark–not LPG, but agriculture, wood products and fishing. We need to export from Searsport, not bring in EXPENSIVE (it is the most expensive fossil fuel) gas.
IF we did bring it in, and put it down on Mack Point, not on Route 1.
BTW, DCP, where are the real images of your tank. Not the ones hidden behind trees on cloudy days. We need to know what we are getting.
That is not asking for too much.
Henry Carbone–Excellent letter and valid and valuable advice–not just in Maine, but everywhere.
I am much more concerned about my elected representatives spending taxpayer dollars on ALEC and MHPC dues than I am about teachers joining a union.
Time was when all our public servants were just that–public servants. I believe our teachers still are but many of our current elected officials are not serving the people that elected them as much as they are serving the corporate special interest. This is who we should be vilifying.
Th vilification list starts with Congress.
Maybe your vilification list should include the President who is forcing employers against their conscience to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilizations. Whatever happened to our 1st Amendment Rights to freedom of conscience? And whatever happened to his promise not to make tax payers pay for abortions?
Whatever happened to the fact that the president isn’t forcing churches to do anything they don’t want to do? Whatever happened to the fact that church related hospitals — who employ and serve the public — won’t have to directly cover anything they might religiously object to? Whatever happened to the fact that Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association say the president’s plan is a reasonable compromise and they can sign on to it?
The President did back off somewhat on his original mandate, but not sufficiently. It is still in violation of the 1st Amendment. Except for churches, religious organizations and individuals are not exempt for reasons of conscience from the Obamacare provision mandating health insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilization.
As for Catholic Charities and Catholic Health Association, I don’t plan to donate to these for obvious reasons.
Tell you what whawell. I’ll grant you full, total, complete freedom of religion, animal sacrifices, drug induced raptures, midnight revelries in the graveyard, blood soaked rituals, wife abuse, wine into blood, no insurance coverage for you flock, what ever if you guarantee you and your “christian” crowd never again show up at another legislative hearing trying to makey our religious beliefs into laws against my reproductive organs and decisions.
You can demonize me all you want. I have no intention of leaving this forum or any other, God willing. Right now I am standing for the 1st Amendment Right of all Americans, many of whom bravely fought and died in many wars for this most cherished and noble freedom. Incidentally, none of us served in the military for the legal right of women to kill the innocence in the wombs. I honestly think the battle to regain legal protection for the least portion of that humanity is slowly but surely being won through persuasion of one soul and one heart at a time. When final victory occurs we will ALL be winners, including you. The last hurdle to the current threat to human life will have been overcome.
I guess learning to read and listen is not part of your reality. Not one person is being forced to use contraception. It simply must be offered. The catholic church is obviously more interested in genitals than it is in Jesus.
And employers (except for churches) who are required to provide insurance for their employees must insure them for contraceptives, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilizations regardless of their consciences. Likewise, self insured individuals must pay for those same policies even against their own conscience. Tell me, what is happening to the 1st Amendment Right to freedom of conscience? It it being ignored by the current Administration. This is a sticking point for freedom loving Americans of conscience. This entire matter is headed to the Supreme Court no doubt for a ruling. Your right, no person is being forced to pay for contraceptives. But individual self-insurers and some employers are being forced against their consciences to pay for these for others to use.
Rather like me having to pay for war generally and Bush’s in particular. Contraception is a non issue.
LOL
Gettin’ out the hip boots and shovels.
Want to continue getting personal with me? What wars have you served in to protect our most cherished freedoms? It’s amazing how people like you criticize and demonize others like life was just a sideshow.
Patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel. Bait and switch to patriotism when you can’t defend your view point. LOL
Name calling just like you just did and before…that reflects desperation. My comment was not intended to bait and switch. It was about the negative & unforgiving attitude you displayed. I can’t change that for you. I’m hoping you’re just having a bad day or a bad period in your life, that you generally don’t carry a chip.
(comment withdrawn)
Whatever happened to being able to post truthful descriptions of bills, not paranoid delusions about them? The requirement runs to insurers, not employers. The requirement costs the insurers less than covering unwanted pregnancies. The First Amendment does not protect a Bishop’s “right” to force a non-Catholic hospital employee to have no affordable access to contraceptives. Anyone seriously concerned about decreasing abortions would wholeheartedly support contraception. The policy does not require coverage of sterilization. Contraception is not abortion.
How much of that do you think whawell will take to heart? “Lie, rinse, repeat.”
Whawell’s silence is satisfying enough.
FRANK,
A huge slap in the face it was to fellow patriots to lower the flag for a drug abuser who has never served.
HENRY,
Most teachers are great educators and good people, it’s just that they’re easily fooled into thinking the unions have a place in public education. The 11 to 12 hour days and weekends to boot for most teachers, now that I would call you out on.
KATHY,
We men will continue to look after you women as long as you can’t make rational choices, because of your mood swings.
I sincerly hope you were trying to make a joke in regards to women not being able to make ratiunal choices because I know plenty of men who do not make rational choices.
If you were serious then I pity any women in your life that you make “rational” choices for.
This is what passes for Troglodyte humor.
Are you sure he is joking? I’m not.
I think the term is trolling.
Hydrophobia is something that needs treatment. Have the courage to see a doctor.
The vendetta against teachers’ union is another canon in the conservative war against American public education and professional women which began in the late 1950s with Phyllis Schlafly’s anti-women, anti-public education campaign.
In her world vision women did not enter the professions or the world of work, but stayed home, home schooling children because public education was not only a communist plot to destroy the US but also a plot to intrude into and manage the family. She is a very unpleasant , disappointed person, having run for office and been defeated at least three times. She has, almost single handedly made teachers, public education and unions into scape goats for everything that has gone wrong in the United States for the last 60 years.
If women stayed home, had lots of babies, and home-schooled them, then that sure would open up the job market for the guys wouldn’t it?
I don’t see a hell of a lot of men standing in line to be CNA’s in nursing homes or assisted living homes.
Interesting isn’t it. Men won’t work in those jobs because their labor is worth more. But the low wages are OK for women because their labor is less valuable. Equality is yet to come.
That’s only part of the picture. The training for being a CNA is not as demanding as more highly paid professions, such as being an electrician. A CNA also has a more flexible schedule than most jobs. Women choose these jobs because they fit with what women want in life.
Why should a CNA be paid as much as an electrician? Just because one is a woman and the other is a man? As a woman, I refuse to compete on that type of scale.
You can’t argue gender inequality without taking into consideration the choices women make willingly, or the ones they feel compelled to make regarding their career.
Couldn’t find the stats for CNAs but here they are for RNs, male and female.
BLS numbers from 2008 show that female RNs
earned a median weekly salary of $1,011, while the median weekly earning for male nurses was$1,168 — meaning that women made only 86.6 percent of what men made.
Check out the salaries for male engineers and women engineers, same training, different salary. Don’t compare CNAs and electricians. Compare male to female in the same professions with the same training. You will find the difference there that you are denying.
But raw numbers don’t show all. Certain segments of the nursing profession get paid more than others. In addition, shift differentials can add to a salary. And if a woman takes a leave of absence to raise children, her return to the profession will be at a lower pay rate than a man who has been there for years.
I don’t know if women still get paid less just because they are female. What concerns me more is that the workplace is structured so as to be non-responsive to a woman’s needs. I’d like to see how things could change so that women don’t always have such a struggle between work and family.
Thanks for the numbers.
ROFL, CNA work is not as demanding as an electrician? You obviously haven’t done either types of work. The physical and emotional strains that CNA’s have are every bit as demanding as an electricians. Especially in nursing homes where the degree of elegibility to enter one has been raised to the point where virtually all the residents are total care.
In my defense, I said the training is not as demanding, not the jobs themselves. But I am glad you got a laugh. Now get up off that floor!
McCormack, how many people that work in the tourist industry have health and retirement benefits? Do they make enough to buy a home and raise a family? What is the average income of tourism workers?
and your point is? You cannot compare salaries of different industries….apples and oranges
Why can’t you compare salaries? McCormack was informing us that the tourist industry is the heart and soul of Maine. Look around you. Look at all the property and houses for sale and how long they are sitting on the market. If the tourist industry was all that great there would be plenty of young families buying up those houses and moving in to raise families. Check out the people who work at the various terminals at Mack Point. I think you’ll find that they all make enough to buy houses and raise their families here in this beautiful state.
The point is workers at an energy firm have decent benefits, healthcare and wages, while the people manning the stalls at the Searsport Fleamarket ( a huge tourist attraction) have none of the above.
Kathy, you claim to be pro-choice, but at the same time you advocate taking away the choice of those who disagree with you, even if it means a government mandate forcing Americans to violate their religious beliefs. Have you ever heard of religious freedom?
Obama must be defeated and I encourage every person of any faith to help defeat him for this clear violation of religious freedom. Today, the Catholics, tomorrow the Jews, who next?
Nobody is being force to use contraception only to make it available for people to use
You can believe anything you want in this country. It is the behavior which is regulated by law. You can believe women cannot make decisions regarding their own health. It is when you try to stop them from having (equal) access to health care that you have broken the law.
When the Catholic Church gives back the American taxpayers the $2.9 billion in federal monies it received last year and stops messing in politics then I will agree with you. Until then, you got no argument.
That’s silliness. The federal government contracts with Catholic Charities and hospitals for services. The money does not go to the Catholic Church. According to your rules, Planned Parenthood should give back any money they receive because they “mess in politics”.
Well the Catholic Church is certainly trying their hardest to make that happen.
The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. (PPAF) which lobbies for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and access to affordable health care in the United States is not a tax exempt organization.They pay taxes on all contributions.
Planned Parenthood does no lobbying.
I can’t see where the national organization lobbies, tho I suspect they do. Their website does show that the state PP organizations definitely lobby. It’s not wrong…it’s what they do,
They do it through the taxable Planned Parenthood Action Fund Incorporated. Not through the Planned Parenthood that provides services.
The Catholic Church, when it engages in non-religious activities should obey the laws of the land without regards to their theology. We are not a Theology.
Charity is a religious duty of the Catholic faith. Perhaps the Federal Government should set up their own programs if they want to call the shots. If the feds want to take advantage of the church’s established hospitals and charities, then they accept that the church still gets to maintain its religious integrity.
That would be great, the way it should be. Stop mixing religion and politics. Churches that engage in political lobbying and speech should pay taxes.
You don’t get to re-write the Constitution on your own. Americans have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Just because you choose to exercise the former does not mean you give up the latter.
As for taxing the church, imagine the constitutional entanglements that would involve the government in. Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion, or that prohibits the free exercise of religion. I think threatening the church with a tax levy might qualify as prohibiting, and a tax law that favors one faith over another would be a de facto establishment of religion.
You are re-writing the Constitution. I patiently explained the case law beginning with decisions in the 1870s to you yesterday and you have forgotten what I thought you had learned. The First Amendment protects belief, not the right to impose your beliefs on others. A church that engages in overt political activity for particular candidates will lose the tax-exempt status that would otherwise benefit its contributors.
I appreciate your attempts to educate me. Constitutional Law, however, is not set in stone. The Dred Scott case is the most obvious example of a court that got it completely wrong. Without having the benefit of lots of time on my hands to do the research, I can still frame an outline in my mind of how a Constitutional argument could be made in the contraception case.
As for taxing churches, it should be obvious to anyone who fills out a yearly tax return that the tax code is prejudicial in its deductions and exemptions. I can’t see an argument that would allow the Federal government to tax a church without Contstitutional infringement. But, then again, I would never have seen the “penumbra of privacy” argument being accepted either.
Churches who support a political candidate are acting as churches no longer. But any church has the right to speak out and support political causes that touch upon their morality and/or welfare. As I stated, when you exercise your freedom of religion, you do not lose your freedom of speech.
First Amendment jurisprudence is now well-established and the changes have been around the margins, not the core principals: beliefs are beyond regulation, actions are not.
We frame Constitutional arguments in the courts, not in our minds. Conspicuously absent from the current birth control dust-up is any seasoned lawyer supporting the right’s latest fury. Could the Catholic church require its non-Catholic employees to wear a nun’s habit?
We are not talking about taxing a church, but about refusing tax deductions to individuals who contribute to churches that endorse particular candidates.
Imposing the bishops’ will on non-Catholic employees of Catholic hospitals and universities is not protected by the First Amendment. A Jehovah’s Witness may refuse a blood transfusion for himself: that is a matter of belief. He may not impose that same belief on his child. The law is crystal clear here and talk of First Amendment violations by the right shows an abysmal ignorance of the law. I have heard no right wing lawyer make the argument that this violates the First Amendment because any lawyer knows such an argument is laughable.
It is precisely because Catholic hospitals and universities accept government money that they must purchase health insurance policies that meet minimum standards. The Church itself can continue to deny lay teachers at its seminaries contraceptive coverage.
Yup, you accept public money from the taxpayers, you provide health insurance and you don’t whine about freedom or you won’t be free to accept $2.9 billion any more. Sheesh talk about pig-headded old men.
Why do Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association support the President’s compromise if he is anti-Catholic? Get real.
Obama is not simply anti-Catholic. He is anti-Christian and I base this on his attack against Christianity and religious freedom by forcing people to violate their religious beliefs. The US Cardinals and Bishops came out against the so-called (save face) compromise and the last I knew, they are the experts representing the RC. Not you and not me. Obama’s attack against organized religion continues and he will be defeated in November.
Why not let your paranoia go full-throttle and call him the Anti-Christ?
The law is crystal clear that I cannot impose my religious beliefs on anyone. Jehovah’s Witness parents found that out when they tried to stop their children from receiving life-saving blood transfusions.
The Bishops can preach and believe that contraception is immoral. They cannot impose that belief on the employees, Catholic and non-Catholic, of Catholic hospitals and universities.
Requiring insurers to provide basic contraception coverage for any policy sold in America is both a money-saver and in no way impacts the Bishops’ ability to continue believing and preaching. The Bishops can follow every female hospital employee to the pharmacy and tell that woman that she is sinning.
They have been telling Catholic women this for over 40 years. The message has gotten through to 1% of their audience. In Maine, we call that spitting into the wind.
How do you stand with religion on this? “Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm
Kathy Walker: Perhaps you would not be here, if women had been given the right to choose in 1920.
If her mother wanted her then she would be here regardless of when she was born. If not then who knows.
We should also thank the federal government, and the public in general, that thought subsidizing medical research into human illnesses has reduced or eliminated many diseases. Even though the goal was not to make a profit (the god of the right) the results have been for everyone.
Perhaps Kathy Walker would not be here whenever she was born if that research had not been done.
Oh please, spare us the idiocy of the “be -thankful- your-mother -didn’t- use- contraceptives” defense for denying women full health coverage.
Kathy Walker’s time might be better spent asking why an insurance plan would cover an acupuncturist. The government doesn’t have any business requiring insurance policies to cover birth control, acupuncture, mental illnesses, rehab, or any other service. All those mandates serve to do is raise the costs borne by the rest of us. In a free society, we should be able to shop for an insurance policy that meets our financial requirements, and reflects our values.
And how would you be able to predict what medical problem you may have in the future? If you’re that good at seeing the future you won’t need insurance because you will win the lottery every week and be able to afford whatever service might arrise.
I would buy a policy that covered all legitimate medical treatments and procedures. It certainly wouldn’t cover mental health and drug addiction services; all those people need is to be kicked right in the teeth. The Democrats are making all of us, through our premiums, pay for somebody’s moral shortcomings. Why are you opposed to letting me buy the policy that would be best for me? What about my right to choose? Oh that’s right; women, blacks, gays, Jews, and the poor have the right to choose. And they have most graciously bestowed upon me the right to pay.
Ah, the poor are only entitled to “kicked right in the teeth.”? That’s the cure for having mental health or addiction issues? Governor, is that you weighing in here?
Hopefully nobody in his family needs coverage for mental health services. He will be totally changing his tune or divorcing himself from his family on the grouds that they have mental illness.
Only if they want me to pay for their battle with “diseases” like depression and heroin addiction.
My husband, most likely would be dead, if it wasn’t for drugs to control his “disease” of depression, he’s bi-polar. I have watched him suffer, stood by him, and cried for him.
it’s to bad there’s no drug to cure, intolerance and bigotry.
What’s wrong with providing a program that helps people get off drugs. Kicking someone in the teeth simply adds the cost of a dental problem to the the social, medical, mental, legal costs of addiction.
There’s nothing wrong with providing it. I object to funding it through my insurance premiums. If the government would get out of the insurance market I’d be free to buy a policy that didn’t cover white trash with made up “diseases,” and you would be free to support it financially. Fund your own social experiment.
You don’t understand risk pools, do you?
I understand risk pools better than you do, which is why I support changes that would save me money. Your ideas would and do cost me money.
Your comment indicates you do not understand.
What is it I don’t understand? The less a policy covers, the less it costs.
….
And what are they?
Anti-semitism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Universal Health Care for All will make for a stronger and more moral America.
It’s always ironic that the people who don’t believe in absolute truth go on to make arguments about morality.
Mandatory birth control coverage lowers the cost as most plans would cover accidental pregnancies.
You’re right, but it doesn’t make my argument any less valid. Government interference in the insurance market, on balance, drives up the price and leaves us paying for services that we don’t need, and wouldn’t ever need. And as I said, in a free society a person buying insurance has a right to shop around for a policy that reflects their values.
We have just your ipse dixit for that claim. Medicare actually delivers a better insurance product with less overhead than any private insurer out there. No private insurer would touch the over 65 insurance pool without incredibly high rates.
Medicare is successful, if you want to call it that, because they don’t pay their bills. They pay a fraction of the cost of care, and those of us with private policies end up paying through increased costs passed along to our insurance companies.
You are confusing MaineCare (or Medicaid) with Medicare. Medicare pays a much higher percentage of the bill and very few doctors refuse to accept it. Private insurers, since they are simply marking up the price they pay as part of their premium pricing, have less incentive to drive the underlying costs down. Every other industrialized society has a more regulated health insurance or health care industry than the USA and they produce better health results at a lower cost. Look at the Dutch and Swiss examples in particular.
I’m not confused; Medicare doesn’t pay the full cost of care. Do you dispute that fact? You can point to all kinds of statics about cost and outcomes, but I’ll put my care up against theirs any day, and I’m confident that I’ll come up ahead. When you’re making a comparison to countries with socialized systems, you should only include those Americans who have insurance in assessing the outcomes.
Private insurers don’t pay the full cost of care either. Everyone but the uninsured get a volume discount.
The word is statistics, not “statics.”
Neither the Swiss nor the Dutch systems are socialized. The private insurers are simply better regulated. Of course, I’m not sure you even know what “socialized” means.
Please burn your Medicare card when you turn 65. I would hate to see you rely on a socialized insurance system.
They’ll be burning me before I turn 65. Live it up with all that money I’ve been paying in.
If your paranoia now extends to an unnamed “they” setting you on fire, I suggest it is time to get back on your meds. Remember, we are all here to help you with these delusions.
In regards to the oppressive teacher unions and how horrible they are, why is it that out of the top 10 performing states in regards to student achievement, 6 of those states have strong teacher unions……take a look folks. It’s about direction….strong curriculum. Don’t give me the charter school thing either….all they do is kick the poor performing kids out of school.
It’s good that some people are paying attention to what is really going on in the education field.
Finland, the standard for educational excellence, has a very strong teachers’ union.
Isn’t it interesting that contractors and administrators fight fiercely against their teachers forming a union when things start to go south at a charter school.
That’s just over half. Can’t do statistics, but I would interpret that result to mean the presence of a strong teachers union has no impact on the quality of the school.
Facts are great, if they are relevant.
Harvard Educational Review did a statistical analysis of state SAT/ACT scores, controlling for factors like race, median income, and parental education. They found that the presence of teachers unions in a state did have a measurable and significant correlation with increased test scores — that going to school in a union state would, for instance, raise average SATs by about 50 points
………. they concluded that Southern states’ poor academic performance could be explained almost entirely by that region’s lack of unionization, even when you didn’t take socioeconomic differences into account.
OK, you clearly seem to have the data at you finger tips. But I will say that 1) I thought scores were not the best measure of teacher performance (or, more specifically, student performance on tests shouldn’t be used to measure teaching outcomes) and 2) they can conclude whatever they want, but I would only say there is an association, which does not prove causation.
Plus, I was only pointing out that the original poster was presenting limited, questionable data. Of course more data would change the argument!
A single test score for one classroom for one year is only one of many other measurements in determining individual teacher effectiveness. However when you studying the overall performance of an entire state you generally have only test scores available to work with.
As to causation, nobody was claiming that teachers’ unions caused high achievement. However, there is an association between high scores and unions and low scores and states that prohibit teachers’ unions.
Why don’t you read one of the studies. They discuss the how the interaction of teachers and their unions promote higher achievement.
Excuse typos of which there are many. Sigh
http://ww.wisconsinsfuture.org/publications_pdfs/education/unions.pdf
CONCLUSION
The data generated in this study demonstrate that collective
bargaining is not responsible for poor student performance. In fact, in states
with high levels of teacher unionization, student scores on standardized tests
are higher than in states with low levels of teacher participation in
collective bargaining or meet-and-confer activities. There are many possible
explanations for the higher scores obtained in states with unionized schools.
Through negotiations, unionized teachers have more leverage over conditions
that impact school performance such as class size, academic resources, teacher
training, academic and social support services than non-union educators. In
addition, higher wages and benefits, as well as negotiated grievance procedures
obtained through unionization, create a work environment that encourages
teacher stability and commitment, essential characteristics of an effective
school.
In short: • Collective bargaining is not a destructive force in
public education. Students have higher
test scores in unionized states. • Contrary to the claim of
privatization advocates, there is no evidence that increased
competition from private schools improves public school
performance. • Socio-economic factors are the crucial factors in determining
student performance. • Class size matters. Smaller classes are correlated with
improved test performance.
Public education faces a number of serious problems that do impact
children’s education and performance. Efforts by teachers to organize for
decent wages and working condition standards is not one of them
THE INSTITUTE FORWISCONSIN’S FUTURE
Impact of Teachers’ Unions on Student Performance
TEACHER UNIONS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RESEARCH FINDINGS
While only 17 prominent studies have looked at the teacher
union-achievement link, the evidence suggests that unionism raises achievement
modestly for most students in public schools. These favorable patterns on
unionism include higher math and verbal standardized test scores, and very
possibly, an increased likelihood of high school graduation. Although most
studies were conducted on high-school students, favorable union effects were
also found at the elementary level. At the same time, a union presence was
harmful for the very lowest- and highest-achieving students. Research to date
is only suggestive as to why unions may improve achievement for most students.
Two promising explanations include the possibility that unions standardize
programs, instruction, and curricula in a way that benefits middle-range (most)
students, and that unions “shock” schools into restructuring for greater
effectiveness by improving connections and communication among district
administrators, principals and teachers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Policy makers should view teacher unions more as collaborators than as adversaries. • Policy makers and school districts should reconsider current union proposals for educational improvement. Given the empirical evidence, unions have a solid track record of supporting policies that boost achievement for most students.
• In unionized school districts, policy makers should direct particular attention to programs for very low- and high-achieving students, and should ensure that appropriate resources and specialized curricula are available.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Chapter10-Carini-Final.pdf
Flagged!
If you hate unions so much, why don’t you move to one of the various garden spots on earth that don’t allow them. Like Mexico. The climate is wonderful if you’re into heat, the average salary is $6 a day, no silly benefits to worry about, don’t have to buy oil to heat your tin roofed mud floored shack, you won’t need a TV or computer because you won’t be able to afford them or the electricity it takes to run them.
He would be the first one to organize down in old Mexico.
They won’t need a tv. There is plenty of fast action with violence on the streets, in the casinos, at kids’ parties, in restaurants ……
Frank: I have a hard time saluting any flag which has brought death and destruction to millions of human beings both in this country and around the world in the name of corporate interests.
Lemme hear from all the “oh you’re a commie” and “you better leave this country if you don’t like it” people who have no clue that 1) The U.S. has carried out some super slimy things under the guise of the American flag and/or “protecting national interests” and 2) I am exercising my supposed right as an American (well, except in time of war thanks to Schenck v U.S.) to exercise the freedom of speech and press which that flag supposedly represents. Don’t like it? Feel free to exercise YOUR supposed rights of free speech and press.
No human institution is perfect. However, this is my country. I was born here, I benefit from living here; I think most of the people are pretty good people, and our government is better than many others on this planet. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are models for most of the rest of the world. And so, although I agree we have sometimes done wrong, and I have often disagreed with my government, I am glad and even proud that I am allowed to disagree. This is my country and my government, and I salute our flag with pride.
I recommend a quote from Civil War Union Army General and U.S. Senator Carl Schurz (1829-1906): “Our country, right or wrong. When right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right.”
Keith Taft, I enjoyed the letter. Constantine I, however, lived from 272 to 337 AD, not the dates you give, which are more than 200 years too early. Constantine famously presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325. You have him long dead before that.
Thank you. You are correct Penzance. Constatine the Great: “Born: Feb. 27, c. 280
Died: May 22, 337” : http://historymedren.about.com/od/cwho/p/who_constantine.htm
I would check my e-mail to see how I made such an inconstant date, but the letter sent last Saturday was replaced by this one in my “Sent” file, sent two weeks ago:
The shaved-ice glaring streetnik guarding his paper
coffee cup like a fisher king outside the Pinellas Park, Fla. labor pool 3
blocks from the former Jim Morrison / Jack Kerouac frequented Beaux Arts Coffee
House was avoided by the other laborers ’cause now and then he’d smack someone
upside the head for no apparent reason.
Found out after carefully informing him of the Earned
Income Tax Credit he was a probably Polish homeless ex-marine studying algebra
at the public library.
He got the few hundred extra bucks back on his refund,
gave me beer money, got me on a good ticket laying cable lines in Bradenton,
told me a Polish joke I can’t relate being probably Irish and showed me the
calculus textbook he eventually wrote.
Think short term oil futures speculators are ashamed
paying 12 percent less tax than comparable stock traders? Or Maine businesses of
sales tax exemptions for 95 percent of manufacturing energy costs? Or the 83 of
the top 100 US businesses cbsnews.com says had offshore tax havens in
2008?
So why let Mr. Grinch cow 15 – 25 percent of you due
EITC from claiming it, or the American Opportunity (college) Tax Credit, Child
Tax Credit, Dependent Care Tax Credit, deducting medical care car mileage, or
claiming your Maine Rent Refund, when you’re Mr. Grinch’s market?
Find free tax help at http://www.ptla.org/tax-tips or dial 211.
How’d the Irishman break his leg raking leaves? He fell
out of the tree.
Keith C. Taft
Van Buren
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/an-addition-to-the-list-of-tax-loopholes/ –
NY Times futures speculators pay 23% top rate for short term trades.
http://www.maine.gov/decd/mainebiz/business_assistance/business_assistance/tech_tax_credits.asp –
Maine businesses exempt fromsales tax on 95% of Manufacturing energy costs,
sixth paragraph
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20054892-503983.html –
83 of top 100 companies in 2008 with offshore tax havens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit –
“Uncollected Tax Credits” scroll 2/3rds down unclaimed EITC
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=211309,00.html –
American Opportunity Tax Credit
http://20somethingfinance.com/child-tax-credit/ – Child Tax
Credit extended 2012
http://www.taxcreditsforworkingfamilies.org/child-and-dependent-care-tax-credit/ –
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit extended 2012
http://finance.duke.edu/travel/news/items/2012_01_06-mileage.php –
23 cents / mile deduction for medical care driving
http://www.maine.gov/revenue/taxrelief/tnr.htm – Maine rent
refund
<*)))-{
Oh. I had sent it to "Saved mail".
I made the mistake.
Kathy W. Walker- If you CHOOSE to kill the baby that is living inside you, by all means pay for it yourself.