Showdown in Wisconsin

[Smiley and West]

		Smiley: "We are just seeing the tip of this iceberg."   West: "M.L.K. smiles from his grave just like he did on Cairo and other parts of the Mideast."

[Muriel Mitchell Lawrence]

You are right, Bunny, we have strayed. But it all comes back to the same core issue-control! The tax structure reflects control. The Koch brothers are a part of the control system and they want more. I tried to teach public school 41 years ago in Atlanta where they didn't even have organized employees. I was never able to even get a response back to my M.Ed resume. The real core issue with education is that we have lost site of how important education is in the short and long run. We think Wall Street Bankers are more important to our culture and our society than teachers and police. Why do you think that is the case? Because the plutocracy requires it and capitalism & the belief that money can acquire control, are the core values of a plutocracy! My daughter is a commercial airline piolet and the same core issues run rampant in the airline industry. She started out making less money than most secretaries. Check out Michael Moore's "Capitalism-A Love Story" next time you rent a movie. It will blow your mind!!

[Penguin Board of Directors]

@ Bunny

"That is merely "stealing from Peter to pay Paul." (I know "stealing" is supposed to be "borrowing", but with what is going on in the public employees service unions, stealing is what is going on."

Bunny,

Actually, stealing is more on-the-money than borrowing. The actual word in that saying is "robbing" as in robbing Peter to pay Paul. By legal construction, robbery is more heinous than stealing. The former involves the use of force or the threat of the use of force.

The "Koch brothers" involvement you cited illustrates the point of this being a class struggle, not race. Here is my take on the assault on the Unions. All these are a build-up to "taking back our country." At America's Next Chapter, the guy that Smiley confronted could not coherently answer Smiley's querying of the Tea party's "We are taking back our country." Smiley had wanted to know "From whom?" Of course, I could sense an undertone of justified sarcasm in Smiley's query. The Tea party's sloganeering is coined as a deliberate ambiguity, to appease different constituencies as they choose to spin it. Republicans know for a fact that the Unions are a huge vote-base for Democrats. If you strike the unions decisively, then, you cripple a significant part of the machinery that can drive Obama's chances at second term. The de-funding of Public Broadcasting is also conceived by Republicans in a similar light. Though, for a different reason, I will want to see Public Broadcasting eventually de-funded. I have already addressed that.

The point I am trying to make is that the mass of our people are not going to rise up and respond to unions being decimated when they have no understanding of the political implications for them. You might think they know or should know; that is a dangerous assumption. That is why the people must be thoroughly educated (not just by acquiring paper PhDs, DBAs, EdDs, DMs and all the other APCs and TTCs), networked and organized to see the big picture. Many people who are not members of the union and others who may even be unemployed are (ignorantly) saying

"Hell, no...they have jobs, they can thank their stars. I have been looking for job in the last two or three years! I have a wife and kids I cannot effectively fend for. None of them (union people) has ever been in my home to see how we live. I am not going anywhere to protest for them ... they should sort themselves out." That is what you get when people are not organized. Many of our people are acquiring meaningless 'meal coupon' degrees from education factories from where they will not improve themselves marginally intellectually. Yet, they will end up with mortgage-sized education loans. Now, you see the premise of my 'Uhuru' question. 

The Koch brothers may be billionaires, but it is too simplistic to say they are not looking for more money, they just want power. Not so. That power is money in a different form; it is a perfect clone of the dollar, especially if the Koch made their money through the same route. Many do.

If they are smart, Democrats will mobilize now to counter this Republican offensive for the White House. Last time, they waited too late to react. You have no tears to shed when the head is off. My sing-song is mobilize and organize the masses, so that (we) the people who are the kingmakers can control the excesses of the king; regardless of whether the king is from the ruling house of Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers or others. If there are parasites even within the Unions, such should be flushed out. Parasites are the same anywhere. They are as bad for the system as the fraudulently rich corporatists. Peace.    

Bunny Bransford said:

We've been talking money and taxes and parity of tax laws and class differences and foreign aid. We have strayed far from what is happening in Wisconsin and the effect the events there have had on other states with Republican governors who have legislative branches with Republican majorities and are considering or already trying to strip rights from public employees unions.

My daughter, the beginning teacher, has now gone through the interview process and has risen to the top three candidates for the position of second grade teacher in a PRIVATE school. 420 people applied for this position. My daughter applied for it because the school system here in our city is hiring only teachers from the Teach for America program. They cost less and require fewer benefits and are not part of a public employees union. So, while my daughter has trained hard to achieve her dream of working with at-risk students in the public school system to not only teach them the knowledge content of the grade she teaches, but to instill in them a love of learning in general, she is being blocked from that goal right now because of the move against public employees unions.

Our states are crying about budget deficits and the necessity of recovering funds from public employees for the most part because of one of the following two reasons: 1) the budget deficit was created by giving tax cuts to businesses, or 2) the budget deficit will be created after the state government gives tax cuts to businesses. Give me the biggest break! In Minnesota, many school districts have gone to four-day school weeks because they can't afford to run their schools five days a week. Several states have districts that have shut down their schools altogether because they don't have enough money. These are our schools, people. This is our future.

You don't create new jobs by hiring people whose jobs have been stripped from them. New jobs are jobs that give work to people who have not worked before, not jobs that are created by money that has been stripped from one program and put into another. That is merely "stealing from Peter to pay Paul." (I know "stealing" is supposed to be "borrowing", but with what is going on in the public employees service unions, stealing is what is going on.

One thing that has not been discussed very much in relation to this issue is POWER. A lot of what is going on is a grasp for power. For example, the Koch brothers, who seem to be behind so much of the union unrest, are billionaires. They aren't looking for more money. They enjoy the power of what they are doing, the ability to stay above the fray and yet be the invisible power pulling the strings. I have done a lot more research since my last post on March 3. The Koch brothers fund organizations on all sides of different issues. Their goal appears to be to gather more power by making more organizations feel beholden to them. Their money is used to fund these various organizations and their objectives, while appearing to be unconnected, always boil down to gathering a larger hold on the power structure within the US.

I'm not saying this is a conspiracy. I'm just looking at these two particular power brokers and their role in the systematic weakening of the public employees unions. I don't think it is worth dismantling our police departments, fire departments, school systems, hospitals, etc. just to make the Koch brothers a little more powerful.

[Delwyn X. Campbell]

It sounds like your daughter wil get her chance to fulfill her passion after all. I grew up in Gary, IN,  where the unions are an integral part of the community. There was a different perception of steelworkers adn teachers, though, as I recall when I was growing up. After all, the mill is a brutal, dangerous place to work, and back in the 70's, teachers were well respected in the black community, so classrooms were not the jungles that they have become in many inner cities. When the teachers went on strike, not too many parents sympathized with them.

Believe me, I I feel for your daughter, but her ability to teach has not been comprimized by the situation in WI. If she is a good as you feel that she is, her portfolio should represent her well at that private school.

[Bunny Bransford]

The situation regarding the showdown in Wisconsin has become far greater than Wisconsin itself. Wisconsin was merely the starting point, the place where the Republican template for the destruction of public employees unions was put into effect.

We have been lucky so far that Scott Walker has been contemptuous of the voters, his own legislature, and now the courts. His actions have contributed to the recall movement against several Republican senators in Wisconsin. His arrogance and refusal to obey the law have made him an easy target. Perhaps those very things will allow our country to awaken to the fact that our country is under attack from within.

What I know is that our best and brightest hopes, the people who are most interested in contributing to society by becoming members of the teaching profession, police departments, fire departments, hospital employees -- they are being systematically stripped of their hopes and dreams by politicians. These people who are being stripped of their hopes and dreams are the very people who work so very hard to make it possible for the rest of us to pursue our hopes and dreams.

I am carefully watching what happens with this sudden move to remove power from the voters.

[Bunny Bransford]

Delwyn, the situation in Wisconsin is already effecting schools in our state. Teachers being hired from Teach for America are not members of a union and are not paid as much as regular teachers. Nor will they be allowed to teach long enough to get tenure.

My daughter will be able to get a job, but not working in schools that need her skills. She will be teaching the children of the wealthy, the affluent, people who can afford private tutors as well as private schools. The public schools, especially the inner city schools, will have the teachers who can't go anywhere else, or the teachers who are dedicated to what they are doing to decide to transfer to a better school or get out of education altogether because of the lack of respect and even threats of violence they get from their students. My daughter has already had to handle a situation in which a fourth grader brought a gun to school -- and it was his gun. When I talked to her the evening after the situation occurred, she was in tears and said, "Mom, when I was in the fourth grade, my most traumatic decision was whether or not to get a training bra. These kids are deciding whether or not to bring weapons to school for their own protection. I can remember being 9 years old and none of us took guns to school!"

I don't worry about my daughter. She will land on her feet. I worry about our children and what our politicians are doing to our schools and our other public workers. I hope I haven't sounded selfish

Delwyn X. Campbell said:

It sounds like your daughter wil get her chance to fulfill her passion after all. I grew up in Gary, IN,  where the unions are an integral part of the community. There was a different perception of steelworkers adn teachers, though, as I recall when I was growing up. After all, the mill is a brutal, dangerous place to work, and back in the 70's, teachers were well respected in the black community, so classrooms were not the jungles that they have become in many inner cities. When the teachers went on strike, not too many parents sympathized with them.

Believe me, I I feel for your daughter, but her ability to teach has not been comprimized by the situation in WI. If she is a good as you feel that she is, her portfolio should represent her well at that private school.

[Delwyn X. Campbell]

Well, since most of your conversation has related to the impact upon your daughter, that is what the focus has been. I don't believe people who view teaching as a vocation are drawn because of the union benefits. Even those who come via Teach for America (perhaps, especially those candidates) do so from a sense of calling. After visiting the website, I wished I had heard about it before I got started. It looks like a worthwhile program, and ddraws people into it who have a genuine interest in working with the very children that you say you and your daughter are the most concerned about. When I began working on my M.A.T., I was not thinking about union benefits, but of the impact I could have for boys.  I would feel your angst even more if your child were a son, for, to be honest, I believe that we need more men teaching at the elementary level, because it is the boys who are having the biggest problems.

Having said that, not all of the kids in private schools are wealthy. I went to a Catholic school , and a lot of the kids in that school were of the same lower income economic background as I was. Catholic schools offer scholarships and get support from the Church. I think your daughter will be able to fulfill her calling, and, if she feels this in a biblical sense, then she will believe that the path she is on is God-directed, whatever way it goes.

Again, I wish your daughter all the best, I understand the issues that come with trying to break into the teaching profession at this time, and I am also trying to work my way through this situation, which began crumbling long before the events of WI kicked in.

[Bunny Bransford]

I agree with you on the need for men teaching at the elementary level. My daughter had a man as a first grade teacher. To this day she refers to him as one of the best teachers she ever had.

I should not have tried to put a name and a face to what is happening in Wisconsin that is quickly spreading to the rest of the country. I just thought it would make things more real to people to hear how the situation affects people who are just starting out. And I agree with you: people who want to teach don't usually worry about union benefits while preparing to teach. It is only afterwards, when they find out they are pawns of the political system that a union becomes important to them.

I wish you all success in the attainment of the M.A.T.

Delwyn X. Campbell said:

Well, since most of your conversation has related to the impact upon your daughter, that is what the focus has been. I don't believe people who view teaching as a vocation are drawn because of the union benefits. Even those who come via Teach for America (perhaps, especially those candidates) do so from a sense of calling. After visiting the website, I wished I had heard about it before I got started. It looks like a worthwhile program, and ddraws people into it who have a genuine interest in working with the very children that you say you and your daughter are the most concerned about. When I began working on my M.A.T., I was not thinking about union benefits, but of the impact I could have for boys.  I would feel your angst even more if your child were a son, for, to be honest, I believe that we need more men teaching at the elementary level, because it is the boys who are having the biggest problems.

Having said that, not all of the kids in private schools are wealthy. I went to a Catholic school , and a lot of the kids in that school were of the same lower income economic background as I was. Catholic schools offer scholarships and get support from the Church. I think your daughter will be able to fulfill her calling, and, if she feels this in a biblical sense, then she will believe that the path she is on is God-directed, whatever way it goes.

Again, I wish your daughter all the best, I understand the issues that come with trying to break into the teaching profession at this time, and I am also trying to work my way through this situation, which began crumbling long before the events of WI kicked in.

[Delwyn X. Campbell]

You know, something that just struck me is, given that most principals were once teachers, why isn't there more of a natural empathy between principals or deans and the teachers? In reality, they should all be on the same side of the equation with there being, maybe, some communications issues between school personnel and the political leaders (school boards, district superintendents). Again, since most parents have mor eexperience with teachers than with teh political leaders, parents ought to also be on the same side as the teachers and principals.

That is not the reality today, as everyone is looking to stick the blame for our educational problems on someone, but no one really wants to be the target. Maybe that's why, of all the public sector employees that I question teh need for union representation, educators come close to the top. Why should parents be adversaries of teachers; why should principals be adversaries of teachers? I ask this question of both sides, not just of the subjects of that sentence. Teachers think that they need to show parents who's boss, doesn't make sense to me. Parents feeling that they need to put their child's teacher in check doesn't make sense to me. I just hope that the union issue becomes less important as everyone remembers why they are a teacher/principal/parent or even why they have given of their time to become a school board member or school superintendent.

Bunny Bransford said:

I agree with you on the need for men teaching at the elementary level. My daughter had a man as a first grade teacher. To this day she refers to him as one of the best teachers she ever had.

I should not have tried to put a name and a face to what is happening in Wisconsin that is quickly spreading to the rest of the country. I just thought it would make things more real to people to hear how the situation affects people who are just starting out. And I agree with you: people who want to teach don't usually worry about union benefits while preparing to teach. It is only afterwards, when they find out they are pawns of the political system that a union becomes important to them.

I wish you all success in the attainment of the M.A.T.

Delwyn X. Campbell said:

Well, since most of your conversation has related to the impact upon your daughter, that is what the focus has been. I don't believe people who view teaching as a vocation are drawn because of the union benefits. Even those who come via Teach for America (perhaps, especially those candidates) do so from a sense of calling. After visiting the website, I wished I had heard about it before I got started. It looks like a worthwhile program, and ddraws people into it who have a genuine interest in working with the very children that you say you and your daughter are the most concerned about. When I began working on my M.A.T., I was not thinking about union benefits, but of the impact I could have for boys.  I would feel your angst even more if your child were a son, for, to be honest, I believe that we need more men teaching at the elementary level, because it is the boys who are having the biggest problems.

Having said that, not all of the kids in private schools are wealthy. I went to a Catholic school , and a lot of the kids in that school were of the same lower income economic background as I was. Catholic schools offer scholarships and get support from the Church. I think your daughter will be able to fulfill her calling, and, if she feels this in a biblical sense, then she will believe that the path she is on is God-directed, whatever way it goes.

Again, I wish your daughter all the best, I understand the issues that come with trying to break into the teaching profession at this time, and I am also trying to work my way through this situation, which began crumbling long before the events of WI kicked in.

[Penguin Board of Directors]

Delwyn,

I am glad to hear that you belong in the noble profession. As far as education is concerned, I want to see an effective 'Operation Teach the Teacher' implemented at every level. That way, we can begin to restore the profession to a semblance of its old glory. We have taken a major step just by many of us, if not most, now admitting that we lag behind many other nations in the quality of our education. We can make it back to the front of the line in short order, if we mean it and act our resolve.  

I enjoin teachers (and parents) to spread the word that the use of "As far as XXX" currently assumed to be correct is misleading our kids and the innocent public. In the opening of this post, I wrote "as far as education is concerned;" I could also have written "as far as education goes;" it is incorrect usage by many on Main Street and even in mainstream media to say or write "as far as education, I am not impressed" and similar incongruousness. This is different from the correct contextual usage as in "About an hour from now, I would have traveled as far as downtown Santa Monica." 'Operation Teach the Teacher' should enjoy its deserved place of pre-eminence in the scheme of things.

PS: I shall be out of state for the next one week or so and may make minimal appearance here for that period. I shall look in once a while if I identify some downtime. Thank you.

[Bunny Bransford]

Principals don't represent teachers. They represent the administration. A teacher in the classroom is one of the most difficult work situations to keep in balance. A teacher's classroom is his/her kingdom until...until he/she does something that goes against the administrative rules and regulations. Then he/she has to answer to the principal who, even if he/she believes the teacher's actions are correct, must still uphold the position of the administration. ...Until the teacher holds a student to a rule of conduct or academic performance that the parent doesn't think is fair. Also people who are less fortunate than others and have children in school frequently, although perhaps unconsciously, use the school system as a platform from which they can air complaints and demands that are really about their place in society rather than what is happening in school. The teacher takes the brunt of these complaints because the lower down in the pecking order that a complaint can be stopped, the better it is for the existing system -- at least this has been my theory based upon many years of observation.

We have become a society that turns over its parenting responsibilities to daycare centers when our children are six weeks old. We expect the daycare centers to teach our children to talk and walk

Delwyn X. Campbell said:

You know, something that just struck me is, given that most principals were once teachers, why isn't there more of a natural empathy between principals or deans and the teachers? In reality, they should all be on the same side of the equation with there being, maybe, some communications issues between school personnel and the political leaders (school boards, district superintendents). Again, since most parents have mor eexperience with teachers than with teh political leaders, parents ought to also be on the same side as the teachers and principals.

That is not the reality today, as everyone is looking to stick the blame for our educational problems on someone, but no one really wants to be the target. Maybe that's why, of all the public sector employees that I question teh need for union representation, educators come close to the top. Why should parents be adversaries of teachers; why should principals be adversaries of teachers? I ask this question of both sides, not just of the subjects of that sentence. Teachers think that they need to show parents who's boss, doesn't make sense to me. Parents feeling that they need to put their child's teacher in check doesn't make sense to me. I just hope that the union issue becomes less important as everyone remembers why they are a teacher/principal/parent or even why they have given of their time to become a school board member or school superintendent.

Bunny Bransford said:

I agree with you on the need for men teaching at the elementary level. My daughter had a man as a first grade teacher. To this day she refers to him as one of the best teachers she ever had.

I should not have tried to put a name and a face to what is happening in Wisconsin that is quickly spreading to the rest of the country. I just thought it would make things more real to people to hear how the situation affects people who are just starting out. And I agree with you: people who want to teach don't usually worry about union benefits while preparing to teach. It is only afterwards, when they find out they are pawns of the political system that a union becomes important to them.

I wish you all success in the attainment of the M.A.T.

Delwyn X. Campbell said:

Well, since most of your conversation has related to the impact upon your daughter, that is what the focus has been. I don't believe people who view teaching as a vocation are drawn because of the union benefits. Even those who come via Teach for America (perhaps, especially those candidates) do so from a sense of calling. After visiting the website, I wished I had heard about it before I got started. It looks like a worthwhile program, and ddraws people into it who have a genuine interest in working with the very children that you say you and your daughter are the most concerned about. When I began working on my M.A.T., I was not thinking about union benefits, but of the impact I could have for boys.  I would feel your angst even more if your child were a son, for, to be honest, I believe that we need more men teaching at the elementary level, because it is the boys who are having the biggest problems.

Having said that, not all of the kids in private schools are wealthy. I went to a Catholic school , and a lot of the kids in that school were of the same lower income economic background as I was. Catholic schools offer scholarships and get support from the Church. I think your daughter will be able to fulfill her calling, and, if she feels this in a biblical sense, then she will believe that the path she is on is God-directed, whatever way it goes.

Again, I wish your daughter all the best, I understand the issues that come with trying to break into the teaching profession at this time, and I am also trying to work my way through this situation, which began crumbling long before the events of WI kicked in.

[Delwyn X. Campbell]

I wonder why? Teachers and principals both represent the school. The administration should represent the community in its political aspect. Why does this not make sense to those who are the educational professionals? Principals have no school without teachers, and teachers need the principals to back them up in the class room. Again, to me, both principals and teachers represent the school - they hav eth esame purpose for existing - the education of the children who attend. there should be nothing that puts them on opposite sides. Salaries and benefits should reflect the value that we place on their duties, and should not require an adversarial relationship between them.

Why so we not need a union in the Armed Forces? Because everyone who wears a uniform recognizes that they are on the same team. Every Marine is a Marine, every member of the Army is a soldier, from Private to General. Every Navy person is a Sailor, from Seaman Recruit to Admiral (I'm not as sure about the Air Force, because the Fighter Pilots think that the world revolves around them (j/k)). When it comes to the mission, there is no division between Officers and Enlisted - they live together, and they die together. In the mission of teaching our children, teachers and principals should be no different. When did this perception change, pitting teachers in the class room against principals in the front office? to the detriment of the school? In theory, Superintendents should be people who have teaching experience, since they are doing the job of ensuring that every school in the district does the job of teaching students. Why do we not expect this as a given when the mayor is looking for candidates? I understand that the School Board would represent a broader perspective, but at the bottom line, they should at least have experience as a parent, because they are elected by parents and others who realize that they have a vested interest in the schools' success. Where did we get so off-point, that the whole labor/management paradigm of Karl Marx entered the class room in the first place? When did we decide that teachers could be treated as if they were assembly line workers - "all in all, just another brick in the wall?"

I have always said that "Unions are the bad checks written by owners to their employees." When you don't love your staff as yourself, they view you as an adversary. I get that in manufacturing and other labor-intensive fields, but how did this happen in the class room?
Bunny Bransford said:

Principals don't represent teachers. They represent the administration. A teacher in the classroom is one of the most difficult work situations to keep in balance. A teacher's classroom is his/her kingdom until...until he/she does something that goes against the administrative rules and regulations. Then he/she has to answer to the principal who, even if he/she believes the teacher's actions are correct, must still uphold the position of the administration. ...Until the teacher holds a student to a rule of conduct or academic performance that the parent doesn't think is fair. Also people who are less fortunate than others and have children in school frequently, although perhaps unconsciously, use the school system as a platform from which they can air complaints and demands that are really about their place in society rather than what is happening in school. The teacher takes the brunt of these complaints because the lower down in the pecking order that a complaint can be stopped, the better it is for the existing system -- at least this has been my theory based upon many years of observation.

We have become a society that turns over its parenting responsibilities to daycare centers when our children are six weeks old. We expect the daycare centers to teach our children to talk and walk

Delwyn X. Campbell said:

You know, something that just struck me is, given that most principals were once teachers, why isn't there more of a natural empathy between principals or deans and the teachers? In reality, they should all be on the same side of the equation with there being, maybe, some communications issues between school personnel and the political leaders (school boards, district superintendents). Again, since most parents have mor eexperience with teachers than with teh political leaders, parents ought to also be on the same side as the teachers and principals.

That is not the reality today, as everyone is looking to stick the blame for our educational problems on someone, but no one really wants to be the target. Maybe that's why, of all the public sector employees that I question teh need for union representation, educators come close to the top. Why should parents be adversaries of teachers; why should principals be adversaries of teachers? I ask this question of both sides, not just of the subjects of that sentence. Teachers think that they need to show parents who's boss, doesn't make sense to me. Parents feeling that they need to put their child's teacher in check doesn't make sense to me. I just hope that the union issue becomes less important as everyone remembers why they are a teacher/principal/parent or even why they have given of their time to become a school board member or school superintendent.