“Sorry but young people have opportunities to make far more than 50k a year while being voiceless and being told to "F off" by adolescents and teens. And there's not the respect for teachers among the public that people want to act as if there is. Good for you for doing what you do, but you can't expect others to work grueling 60-hour weeks for little pay and a million headaches when they have opportunities to do so much more. And, yes, I am a teacher--a veteran one, who has seen the climate change drastically the past 20 years from one of shared responsibility to one in which all accountability and everything else rests on the shoulders of the teacher.”
jp90 on Apr 16, 2013 at 19:48:29
“Agreed, and in fact, we have a lot of teachers in our district not even CLOSE to 50k a year. I don't know how theyare even surviving on 35k plus paying healthcare and increased pension costs as it is. Many have second FULL TIME jobs. It's not right. It's very hard to encourage anyone to get into that type of situation-I certainly wouldn't tell someone to.”
“Good question. You'd have to be pretty stupid. Better opportunities and far more peace of mind for sanitation workers. I'm fed up (and I've received the highest evaluations and my students' test scores were regularly at 99%) and planning to change careers before I go back to one of Dante's lower levels of Hell in August. People who comment in these sections and don't teach simply have no idea.”
Darthwave on Jun 29, 2011 at 07:45:25
“Exactly. I work in Information Technology for the local public school system and there is no way teachers are just doing this for a check. Maybe a small minority but very minimum at that. It's a very stressful job and often you are given and expected to teach kids who come from horrible situations. Situations where kids are coming from abject poverty, or where kids are coming from abuse. It's really a shame to see these comments from people who really dont have a clue what they are commenting on. The folks who become teachers nowadays have to care because considering how much under attack you are from parents, government, right-wing hacks, ect you would be a lot better off choosing another line of work. I don't know if it's fair to blame a fictional movie though. The focus needs to be on the coordinated right-wing movement to dismantel the public school system in the United States.”
“Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Why is it that Asian kids generally excel regardless of the school they attend? Just think about that for a minute, and you'll realize that problems in education, which are exaggerated (we are ahead of most OECD countries according to the Program for International Student Assessment; the countries we are behind are primarily homogenous Asian states that place a high emphasis on education), have next to nothing to do with unions or any of the crap you've read or heard from politicians and the media. I would recommend reading these two articles if you want to actually understand rather than simply accept falty perceptions.
“Yes, but then progressives claim you're racist if you point out that it's the parents, not the teachers. After all, the minority parents of underperforming kids are victims too, right? Aren't they all victims??”
“"Detroit is becoming a ghost town," Russo said. "It's almost a poster child for the need to reform teacher performance."
Yeah, Detroit's problem is all those BAD teachers! It's amazing how idiotic that people society assumes are smart can be. I guess the teachers in wealthy suburbs are really good ones. Everyone in education knows that if you switched Detroit's teachers with those in, say, Bel Air that the all-important test scores would be almost exactly the same in both areas.”
jtwalk45 on Jun 11, 2011 at 11:30:40
“you can not change a poor home life,no father and loaded with so many problems by teachers.
when you send kids to a good private school and the child misbehaves and is out of control he is asked to leave and go to public school and save his parents money.Private schools are the best at what they do because the kids want to learn and the parents make every effort to help their children.
its not possible to compare these two different worlds.
we must find the answer to poverty and helplessness that plagues school systems like Detroit”
broui on Jun 11, 2011 at 08:59:54
“I work in a district with two high schools.
On one side of the district, the population is almost entirely white upper-middle class or rich and the homes are largely stable. On the side I work, the homes are among the most diverse and poor in my state and highly unstable.
The "rich" kids school is relatively new. It is 10 years old. Most of that staff consists of teachers who found it too difficult to work with the poor, diverse kids. But, miraculously, the test scores of the kids on the west side (the rich school) were much higher. Those same teachers were "terrible" on one side of the district and brilliant on the other.
Meanwhile, on the poor side, we've made AYP in every catagory (improved all measurable numbers) save one each of the last seven years. But because we miss by one each year, we're labelled a "failing school". The catagory? Community and parent involvement.
What the heck does that have to do with good or bad teachers?!? Still, we're looking at new evaluations now too.
“"Where I -- and a lot of us -- teach, quality education is crime-prevention."
Exactly. And I've feared for my safety on more than one occasion.
Most people are just absolutely clueless about education today. Until we realize that learning is a two-way street, we won't make any progress. Geez! I wonder why the privates and more affluent suburban districts do well? Just can't figger that one out. Duh.
Give Nick Saban a squad of 85 guys who would be second-stringers at Wofford, have no interest in playing football, and won't do what Saban tells them half the time, then tie his pay to his performance. See what a great coach he is after you do that.”
“You don't know what you're talking about. Most well-to-do suburban districts do very well in most areas, including international comparisons. The problems are inner-city schools, and 90% of the reason for that is cultural pathology, not teacher unions.”
“More of the same nonsense from someone who's never taught. Obviously other teachers get it, but it's refreshing to see so many people who aren't educators do as well. Today's societal problems and how they conflict with learning (try teaching a novel when students' attention spans have been reduced to about the size of a germ; I won't even mention discipline) are as obvious as the nose on one's face, but we continue to have "experts" tell us that teaching is the problem. The legal system is blatantly unfair to the poor and minorities. Why isn't anyone discussing the need for better-trained lawyers and judges?”
senorlou on May 9, 2009 at 00:48:49
“This guy never taught? Are you sure? He's the Chancellor of Education for NYC. I find it hard to believe they would elect a man who's never had any teaching experience. Then again, It's been done in LA too.”
“Biden's had a few gaffes, but the idea that he's a "gaffe machine" is a media creation, an example of perception being reality. Any authentic human being--something rare for a national pol, and the reason the perception exists--who's been in the national spotlight for 35 years would misspeak or forget information or get a fact wrong on occasion.”
Dr Independents Day on Nov 17, 2008 at 12:09:59
“True, it's like they had to be balanced because Palin was such an id* iot”
FirstShirt on Nov 17, 2008 at 12:02:04
“Can't take it huh? Get ready for 4 years of material from Joe.
He said they had TV during Roosevelts Presidency.
Said Obama was not qualified to be President.
How about running for Senate and the Vice Presidency at the same time? That's confidence.
Everybody knows he was handled during the campaign. Bad news for the democrats is that now he will not be watched daily.
It should be fun.”
independent32955 on Nov 17, 2008 at 11:10:28
“it's just satire...we won...enjoy it...dont sweat the folks who make jokes for a living, just be glad tina fey isn't going to be doing palin for the next 4 years.”
“Actually, I have a B.A. in history. Goldberg was raised by her mother in NY in the 50s, not Mississippi. I wouldn't be surpised if she made the story up. But if her mother had trouble voting it would have been before 1964--something like, as I said, "1948 or WHENEVER."
“"EH just won't listen. EH is completely resistant to others' viewpoints - completely"
Bullcrap. Like Goldberg is the font of objectivity, the sage who hears and weighs all opinions equally. She's every bit as "resistant to others' viewpoints." I'm sorry her mother wasn't allowed to vote in 1948 or whenever, but that was 60s years ago. MLK was a college kid, and Jackie Robinson was just breaking into MLB. We're about to elect a black man president. I don't watch The View, though I am aware Hasselbeck is conservative and probably would disagree with her 90% of the time. But she's right about this. Sure, we still have racial problems, but the idea that it's fine for blacks to use the word yet a white will lose his or her job over it is nonsense.”
watchingfromCanada on Jul 18, 2008 at 14:07:12
“Ya gotta watch EH in action for a little while - you'd be surprised at just how rigid she is. I don't like the word, and would prefer noone uses it, but I'll listen to those that have borne the brunt of the meaning. Equality doesn't happen on a timeline, so "60 years ago" isn't the point at all - I'll listen and encourage the next generation to listen, until there is respect & equality for everyone.”
ruffmama on Jul 17, 2008 at 23:15:26
“I agree with you!”
JoyceBains on Jul 17, 2008 at 20:33:56
“1948? You mean 1964, when the Voting Rights Act passed?
A history book: Get one.”
EarthToZoey on Jul 17, 2008 at 20:31:18
“We are about to elect a "Black man" President whose race has been a continual subject of interest for most people. If our country had come so far as to warrant your "get over it" attitude we wouldn't need to even refer to Barack Obama's skin color, would we?”
Ethics101 on Jul 17, 2008 at 20:21:10
“Ya have a point there!
I say this working in a global workplace.”
“Well-said, Senator. There are many moderates in this land who are appalled by what has happened to the party of your father and the President's father as well. Many of us admire you a great deal, and hope you have a place in the Obama administration.”
“Well, he could run from a far left position, lose (just like Lamont in CT), and then we could be angry for another four years with a president who wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue Bush's domestic policies. Folks, it is what it is. Two quotes from P.T. Barnum,
"Many persons are always kept poor, because they are too visionary."
And then the famous one,
"There's a sucker born every minute."
A lot of Americans are suckers, and will fall for what the GOP is about to unleash. Obama is a progressive, and I'm sure he'll govern as one. But he can't do that if McCain wins the election, and elections are as much about who projects the best image as who has the best ideas. See Bush v Gore.”
“Molly Ivins was a great wit and writer, but she didn't question people's sexuality. No one is saying Dowd shouldn't keep writing satirical columns about politicians, both male and female. But the ridiculous, over the top comments about people's sexuality should come to a screeching halt, regardless of whether she's claiming Al Gore lactates or Hillary Clinton has testicles.”
“Great ! Tom Hayden. And Abbie Hoffman posted! Maybe we could resurrect the real Abster to give Obama advice on winning the presidency. No wonder you think Kucinich and Sanders are representative pols. Look, Obama is doing what he has to do to win Reagan Democrats in the Midwest and independents in the Rocky Mountain States. Daily Kos readers won't put him over the top. Obama has to appear center to center-left, just as Clinton did, especially as the first African-American candidate and one rated "the most liberal senator." He'll govern more from the left, but the first order of business is winning the election. You know what they say about Republicans: They don't know how to govern, but they know how to win. Democrats need to learn to do both, and cut their candidates some slack when they do.”
ProudLiberalDan on Jul 5, 2008 at 19:01:07
“If Obama is not "doing what it takes to win", doesn't that mean he is entitled to the same vitriolic level of criticism that the Obamaniacs threw on Hillary Clinton and her supporters?
It is breathtaking in irony how Obama has become the real second coming of Bill Clinton -- a slick politician who is great a getting elected, but who wont actually change the direction of the country once in office.
How sad this election has turned out already.”
BigBen on Jul 5, 2008 at 08:13:22
“"Look, Obama is doing what he has to do to win Reagan Democrats in the Midwest and independents in the Rocky Mountain States." Instead of stating what he believes, he is now "doing what he has to win...."sad to see the dream becoming a nightmare.”
“I've always liked Dowd, but was unaware of how she savaged Gore, and have been taken aback at the so-called "gender blending." Gore is a decent, well-meaning, brilliant man, who would have made such a difference had he won (and that includes 4000+ people still being alive), and she tried to paint him as a woman? There's no doubt that the press had a major impact on the perception of Gore as some kind of effete, snobbish jerk. And how far would Hillary Clinton have gotten in this world if she weren't aggressive? I applaud her for being a role model for women.
Wit and biting sarcasm are fine. Terms like Dr. No, the Black Adder, etc. are funny and telling. But constantly attacking good people's sexuality is "over the top." We all know that in our culture, issues of masculinity and femininity are profoundly visceral and as damning to a person's character as committing a felony. Of course Dowd's craven toady of a "boss" would claim all is well, as would her colleague, Gail Collins. But most of us in the real reality-based community don't make half a million bucks or whatever to write a couple of short essays each week, and neither do we like to see such incredibly venomous piling on of our public servants' sexuality in a mainstream publication. Dowd is too talented and perceptive a writer for that. Besides, we can listen to Savage or Limbaugh if we want trash.”
“I think Ms. Dowd's pushing 60. Not sure she's a "sex kitten." But focusing on her looks is as sexist as anything anyone's accused her of doing. I don't think Tom Friedman's sex appeal or Paul Krugman's beard would be items of discussion anywhere. She's a brilliant writer. She has gone overboard with the "gender blending," but I would hope that might go by the wayside now. We'll see. What she's best at is dissecting the motivations of the powerful (left and right), and she's able to because she's smart and she studied Shakespeare, which provided her a better understanding of human nature than graduate psychology courses could have. She's pretty much an equal-opportunity eviscerator. If the Clintons can't stand her and the Bush Administration refers to her as "the Cobra," you have to figure she's not coming at her columns from an ideological perspective.”
The piece was not about the KGB or Ronald Reagan's Communist Party connections; it was about government experience. As a two-term governor of the most populous state in the union, Reagan's experience for the presidency, regardless of how well he governed, was greater than Obama's is just as Nixon's was superior to JFK's. I'm voting for Obama, and I'm no fan of Reagan's policies. But I'm not a fan of herd mentalities either, especially when they're moving in the wrong direction.”
“"I LOVE Keith, and I agree with everything he says!!!"
Isn't that what Rush Limbaugh's fans say? I would hope liberals would be more thoughtful. Olberman is very talented, but he now often uses his show to boost his ego and hit back at his enemies. Switch the ideologies and take away the Barbie doll talking heads, and he's essentially become the same as the guy with the Frankenstein forehead, lazy eye, and affinity for loofahs.”
“Actually, Carlson is being objective, and, assuming he meant recent modern history, he's right. Reagan was governor of California for eight years. There's no bigger political executive position in the United States. Being a U.S. senator for three years and a state legislator for about eight does not equal being the chief executive of the largest state in the U.S. and the 10th largest economy in the world.”
BaileyWo on Jun 12, 2008 at 02:35:20
“Largest state, eh? You guys from California just rip it, don'tcha?
According to documents released by the KGB, the California Communist Party refused Reagan's application to join because they thought he was just too stupid. Ha! So the Republicans made him president!”