NEA endorses Kerry

It is sort of to be expected after Bush's Secretary of Education called them a terrorist organization (he said it was a joke).

Right, acquiunk, but do you think it will help Kerry? I'm curious about this, because I always thought that public schools were the corner stone of democracy.

Letty,

I was a member of the NEA when I was a teacher. I agreed with them on many things and appreciated their advocacy. The NEA has the support of most teachers I know (or they would be out of business, wouldn't they?). But anyway...

I personally have yet to meet a teacher who agrees with Bush on education. Of course, I am sure there must be some out there... but from an educator's perspective, "No Child Left Behind" and other Bush policies are disasterous for the education system.

I am now working in the educational research sector (developing software that will be used to teach Math and Science). Among educational researchers Bush is almost universally reviled.

The republicans love to bash teachers.

But it is the people who are in the classroom who are doing the work. It seems ridiculous that politicians think they know more about education than educators.

I don't really think it does anything one way or the other as far as Kerry is concerned. The NEA endorseing the Democratic Party candidate is pretty much a given.

The only way it would have mattered is if they had refused to endorse him. THAt would have said something.

ebrown, the point that I am making, is that the NEA pulled a fast one when they unified. That's coercion in a way. I hate that empty No Child Left Behind bit. The standardized testing programs are killing teachers and students. I do wonder what kind of teacher either candidate would make.

fishin', you're probably right on that score, since the NEA always goes democratic.

Didn't Kerry just pledge billions of $$ for education if he's elected? I guess, he's pledged to raise taxes to generate that billion.

There is a small very wealthy elite who's taxes have been consistently going down under Bush. It is time those taxes went back up.

Why's that?

The only people wanting higher taxes, are those who won't be affected. Does it make sense to raise taxes at a time, when inflation is creeping into the economy?

Miller,

Education is a darn good investment.

Our economy today depends on investments in education we made in the past. Likewise the future of our Nation depends on the investments we make in education today.

I think most Americans are more than willing to use tax dollars for education.

The facts are that Bush is cutting investment in education at a time when we should be increasing spending.

The fact is that there is a teacher shortage, especially in the critical areas of math and science.

I left a good paying software job to teach science in a public high school. I took a $20,000 pay cut to do this. I soon found out that teaching was far more work, and far less rewarding than any job I have ever had.

Anyone who wants to be in the teaching profession is either a Saint or an idiot (I discovered after three years I was neither).

But, my point is that if you want to attract qualified teachers, you need to pay them well, and you need to provide them with the facilities, resources and support they need. If you believe, as I do that education is crucial for our nation -- It is simply ridiculous that anyone qualified in math or science can make so much more in industry than they do in the classroom.

Bush is also cutting spending on development of resources that make a better education system. This includes funds for teacher training and new material development.

I said nothing about higher taxes, although I would gladly accept higher taxes to improve the education for my children and the future of my country.

But we are spending how many billions of tax dollars in Iraq? How many billions are we spending on Star Wars and to develop better nukes?

If you don't want to raise taxes, why couldn't we just take a couple billion from from Halliburton and the defense contractors.

They probably wouldn't even miss it.

Re: NEA endorses Kerry

Finn, you ever taught? Have you any idea what being in the trenches is all about? I believe exactly what ebrown has said. There are some things that we would do for NOTHING. The investment in children is worth every penny. I'm just not sure that the NEA has that in mind.

Quite frankly, I think education should be funded by per capita tax. Everyone should contribute, including the President of the United States. This isn't about liberals and conservatives--it's about minds and saviors.

just an observation:

i think kerry will do to education what clinton did to welfare with the welfare reform act of in 96.

the nea has nowhere else to go, but kerry will move away from some core issues dear to the nea when he begins to target education reform.

it is this "middle-of-the-road" issue that kerry will use to appear bi-partisan (and it will build up some bargining chips for cash-in elsewhere). after all, we all can agree that education is good, right?

first he will gut the essentials of what some refer to as "tenure" security and union member rights in a quest for demanding excellence from teachers. he will counter the resultant conflagration from teachers by supporting other issues dear to educators such as spending equity and salary increases. unfortuantely, this is actually affected at the state and local levels, so all the nea will get back is fancy words and useless rhetorical bones that will die in state legislative committies.

all politicians lie. the question is whether or not you are willing to support a liar who lies for something in which you believe.

If pledging billions of other peoples' money made education better, why are Washington DC's public schools the worst in the country, while spending $14,000 per student per year?

All the criticizms of the "No Child Left Behind Act" are that it is "too hard" to comply.

Is it a bad idea to set high goals? Even if you fail to achieve these especially high standards, arent you likely to do better than if you had no standards to measure your progress in the first place?

Money won't solve the schools' problems, everybody's hard work will.

I haven't taught, but I have been a student, and the father of students, and the range of ability and dedication among teachers is extremely wide.

"Being in the trenches" is a rather hackneyed metaphor for any profession and no more apt for teaching than for collecting garbage, policing a neighborhood, supervising a factory unit, practicing as a defense attorney, or nursing in a Critical Care ward.

I have no doubt that in some schools, serving as a teacher is roughly akin to fighting a war, but this is the exception and not the rule.

I also sympathize with teachers who have been hamstrung through disciplinary restrictions imposed by overprotective and permissive parents, but I am reminded that, generally speaking, teachers tend to promote the sort of Liberal thinking that has led to this dilemma and so consider it something of a self-made pillory.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should not try to educate our children on the cheap, but I don't for one minute believe the answer to the flaws in our education system is to simply increase the pay of teachers. As a former student and as the parent of three students I have met quite a few teachers who didn't deserve the salary they were being paid, let alone a raise.

It is a myth, told only by teachers and those currying their votes, that all teachers are capable and dedicated educators slaving away for coolie wages because of their commitment to the youth of America.

The old cliche that you can't have your cake and eat it too, is quite applicable to the goals of teacher unions. If the focus is going to remain on a degree of job security that approaches the root structure of a 100 year old oak, then it is unlikely that a competitive pay structure based on merit can be obtained as well.

I am all for raising the salaries of teachers so that we may attract the best and the brightest, but only if there is a way to measure their performance and prove they are worthy of the wages we pay, and if it is as easy to fire an incompetent teacher as it is to fire an incompetent accountant.

Money is not the sole answer to improving education in this country. I don't follow your per capita tax suggestion, but I do know that now that my three children are out of the public school system, I will have to continue to pay taxes to support that system for the rest of my life. I also know that people who have lost faith in the public school system and chose to send their children to private schools, also must pay taxes for a system in which they do not participate.

When my children were very young, we moved from the Northeast to a Southern city in which busing was the law. Many of our fellow transplants opted for putting their kids in private schools, but my wife and I were big supporters of the public school system and thought it would be of benefit to our children for them to attended a deliberately integrated school.

It was a huge mistake that we regret to this day. To explain the reasons why would take more space than should be added to this post. Suffice to say that at the end of the day we found that we had shortchanged our children's education to satisfy our personal ideals, which I may add proved to be misplaced.

Education of our youth is tremendously important and it's state in this country is not where it needs to be, but the notion that our current teachers are, as a whole or as a majority, unappreciated heroes who deserve more regard and more money is simply a crock.

Now that Kerry has received the endorsement of the NEA, do you think he will advocate the elimination or radical modification of tenure or the notion of merit based pay for teachers where the merit can be objectively measured?

If Kerry has such earthshatteringly effective plans to improve education, many will question why he has kept said plans so well hidden for the past thirty years, while he was in a position to propose them...

What he has proposed, sponsered and voted for and against should be a blueprint on a Kerry Presidency. And, you thought you couldn't do worse than Bush...

I hope you are right.

Finn, please don't use the word hackneyed. I know them all:

prosaic, banal, ho-hum, pedestrian, just pick a word, but it does not alter the concept of BEING THERE.

Kuvasz, when I look at the face of that fantastic dog, I think of all that our four footed friends can teach us, but I won't go there, because my crazy Domino was a constant source of worry to me, as was my Shepherd.

It is not Kerry, nor Bush, nor Nader, nor McCain that sculpts the face of a leader, it's you and me and those we hold dear.

As Carl Sandburg put it.."The people...Yes..." and in turn, the "people" will cheat each other and justify it.

You forgot "trite" which is surprising. I guess you're not an English teacher.

If you insist, I won't use "hackneyed," although that doesn't change the fact that your assertion that teachers "are in the trenches" is trite.

I've not followed your postings enough to reach a certain conclusion, but since BEING THERE is so crucial to you, I will have to assume that you have not posted a criticism of anyone other than a teacher in these threads.

I notice that you ignored all of my other points. Didn't fit the syllabus?