Rather than President Obama addressing school students across the nation, he might have accomplished more by focusing his attention on the educational poorness of schools in the nation's capital. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently released their 15th edition of "Report Card on American Education: A State-by-State Analysis." Academic achievement is impressive nowhere in the USA but in Washington, D.C., by any measure, it resembles criminal malfeasance. The numbers tell the sad story.
Just 14 percent of Washington's fourth-graders score at or above proficiency in the reading and math portions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test. Washington's national rank of 51 makes Washington's fourth-graders the nation's absolute worst. Eighth-graders trail even further behind the hapless mis-taught fourth-graders with only 12 percent scoring at or above proficiency in reading and 8 percent in math and again the worst performance in the entire USA. Not surprisingly, Washington student performance on college admissions tests have an average composite SAT score of 925 and ACT score of 19.1, compared to the national average respectively of 1017 and 21.1. In relation to national ranking, Washington's SAT and ACT rankings are as dismal as their fourth-and eighth-grade student rankings dead last at rank of 51.(5)
Shamelessly, the Washington,DC political and education establishment might arrempt to explain away these pitiful outcomes by arguing that because most students are black, the schools are underfunded and overcrowded. This is a bold-faced LIE. For the 2006-07 school year, expenditures per pupil averaged $13,848 compared to a national average of $9,389 which is roughly $4000 above most. Washington's per pupil expenditures was the third highest in the nation behind New Jersey with $14,998 and New York with $14,747. Washington's teacher-student ratio is 13.9 compared with the national average of 15.3 students per teacher, ranking 18th in the nation. Washington spends abundantly but what about teacher pay? Washington's teachers are the highest paid in the nation, having an average annual salary of $61,195 compared with the nation's average $46,593. Washington's students have a graduation rate of 61 percent compared to the national average of 70 percent. That, alone, suggests the that fraudulent high school diplomas are being passed out and "Johnny Can't Read" what is printed on his own diploma, in many cases.
Washington, D.C. has an Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allows qualified low-income families to claim a voucher up to $7,500 per student toward a private education wheresoever they choose. Obama's Democratic Congress, acting on the behalf of the teachers' unions, has terminated the Opportunity Scholarship Program forcing some 1,700 students currently enrolled "wheresoever" to return to D.C. public schools and the same lackluster education as the others.
The hard-nosed opponents of school choice are blatant hypocrites, because they desire, order up and are affluent enough to afford school choice for themselves but for others not so lucky are under-privileged and thus forced into probable under-achievement in public school. President and Mrs. Barack Obama enrolled Sasha and Whats-her-name in Washington's most prestigious Sidwell Friends School, gleefully handing over $28,000 annually for each. While Obama was the erstwhile senator from Illinois, the he and his beard enrolled the girls in the University of Chicago's Laboratory School which is a private school in Chicago at nearly $20,000 for per girl. We say per girl instead of per daughter because like Obama himself, their paternity is unproven. A Heritage Foundation survey discovered that 37 percent of the House of Representatives members and 45 percent of senators in the 110th Congress placed their children to private schools. Public school teachers often enroll their own children in nonpublic schools much more prevalently than the general population, sometimes four and five times more often than not.
Over 25 percent of public school teachers in Washington,DC and Baltimore send their children to private schools, a study reports.
Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own offspring, the study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found. Greater than 1 in 5 public school teachers stated that their children attend private schools.(1)
Philadelphia,PA has 44 percent of the teachers who put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.(2)(3)
In Cincinnati,Ohio, roughly 41 percent of public school teachers send their children to nonpublic schools. In Los Angeles 24 percent send their children to nonpublic schools. The behavior of public school teachers suggests that they are well aware of inferior instruction and pay through "the nose" to avoid it for their own offspring. This is much akin to a restaurant treat offer but your date finds out that neither the chef nor the waiters eat there. That fact alone suggests the restaurant help have some inside information that you might find significant.
So one can readily ascertain that when politicians in power seek to overlook the inadequacy of the Washington, D.C. school system is disdainfully despicable. For a black president to do this might be seen as remorseless and deceitful betrayal.
(1)http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/
(2)http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resul…
(3)http://takeyourkidsoutofpublicschool.com…
(4)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110221190508AAP37dU
(5)http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/education/5644-obama-s-betrayal-of-education.html
Is public education LOST?
U.S. Public education LOST?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Education Snafu Union
A liberal revealed that,"Waiting For Superman" really messed his liberal mind.
The LIBERAL wanted Davis Guggenheim to allow the children to make suggestions about how to improve education! Many did, no doubt, but what was Guggenheim to do with footage of kids talking about what an easy job with easy money, that the TEACHER had! "When I grow up, I want a nice easy job letting my students watch movies while I sneak off to the teacher's lounge leaving some dork studious student to "come get me in the teacher's lounge in case of students making NOISE or the film breaks." "No papers to grade, no homework to grade, 40 or 50,000 dollars a year with summers off...I want some of THAT action!" Davis Guggenheim did not want to reveal how being an OVERPAID bad example can WARP children!
Davis Guggenheim inserted the kids’ stories. All kids were sympathetic, and they appeared dramatized the deep inequality of opportunity in America in the eyes of the critical LIBERAL.
The critic forgot (unless HE was that studious dork) that kids want EASY CLASSES.
Many would relate that they come to school to look at the girls, make a little trouble, socialize,catch a nap during the class film in the dark, and get that FREE LUNCH.
With many classrooms are not even issuing text books because (1) kids do not take them home anyway, (2) kids would lose the books or tear them up creating problems, and (3) kids don't REALLY want to lug heavy books around anyway.
Instead of "kid suggestions for improvements", the LIBERAL whines, "we got Davis Guggenheim intoning that if this girl didn’t get into a charter school, her life would basically be hopeless."
Fact of the matter is, MANY charter schools are JUST AS BAD if not worse!
Local TV stations WHICH CARE TO MAKE WAVES, ROCK THE BOAT etc and not just be LIBERAL sounding boards, reveal lounging, bored, sleeping and otherwise preoccupied CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS in problem CHARTER schools. Like public schools, CHARTER SCHOOLS need to "weed out the bad apples" who are making MONEY and NOT educating the children.
The LAST THING a LIBERAL would suggest is that PARENTS with VOUCHERS of MONEY should get to pick a PRIVATE SCHOOL. NO WAY...This reputable school MIGHT be perochial or ran by some CHURCH or SENOGOGUE and mention GOD in passing. To expose a child to someone mentioning GOD once a day or reciting the Pledge of Allegence or playing the "Lord's Prayer over the PS system once a week...would be TERRIBLE.
Better for the children to LEARN NOTHING than to hear any sort of RELIGION TRAINING...unless of course, it is in a MADRASSA or ISLAM school...and that would be OK.
The liberal critic whines,"if Guggenheim believes that these kids are suffering because too many of their teachers should be fired but won’t be, why not let the kids say so?" We covered that above...emulating a bad example that is "raking in the coin with "money for NOTHING" is especially detremental to YOUTH who look up to and are influenced by their TEACHERS...good, bad or indifferent.
Liberals THINK a student will ALWAYS note if low expectations are expected of kids, they will see this for themselves. Personally, THIS BLOGGER recalls ONLY TEACHERS who SPOKE OUT LOUD of PERSONAL GREAT EXPECTATIONS FOR ME. The passion about the teaching profession ALWAYS CAME THROUGH. Why would ,Guggenheim in "Waiting For Superman EXPECT the kids to say that? If the kids instead talked about classes that were too big, (grassroots grumbling group Class Size Matters") or teachers that were overwhelmed or undertrained (Teachers' Unions), or being hungry in class (liberals who think parents cannot buy lunch meat and bread to make sandwiches OR have the child do this) , that would have been interesting?
Most people KNOW that 70-80-90% of many schools have FREE LUNCH despite the old axem,"There is NO free lunch". People who PROVIDE LUNCHES or LUNCH MONEY feel STUPID for their own children FEEL STUPID for doing so. All this does is TEACH KIDS that the school and society in general, should FEED PEOPLE! And parents can duck the responsibility of feeding or providing lunch meat and bread for their own children. THAT is a POOR example for YOUTH!
Many stories abound about college students STEALING FOOD. Is it any wonder when many get FREE LUNCH just for going to K through 12? Liberals see no reason why a college student should not GET FOOD STAMPS rather that subsist on FOOD they buy for themselves EVEN IF THEY LIVE AT HOME with the parents!
ANOTHER INSTANCE in "Waiting For Superman" was especially agitating or "FROSTED HIS BODY PARTS", was watching as the Governor of Wisconsin trying to permanently eliminate teachers’ bargaining rights GOUGING THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY." The Wisconsin governor was blamed for LIBERAL governor predicessor who had created a deficit! The liberal critic blamed "CORPORATIONS NOT PAYING ENOUGH i.e. corporate tax cuts, when ANY IGNORAMUS knows corporations do not pat taxes...CORPORATIONS get TAX MONEY from the shareholders and the customers!
And CORPORATIONS do not exist to provide JOBS...CORPORATIONS exist to provide PROFITS for shareholders and a product or service for their customers. CORPORATIONS will not exist very long IF FORCED to provide HIGH PAYING UNION JOBS and charge MORE than the competetion charges for goods and services ESPECIALLY IF FORCED by the US government to make CARS, services, or other products nobody wants at RIDICULOUS prices!
The liberal critic RANTED about montages of several US presidents signing bills and making rheteric and diatribe about education. The liberal critic said this implyed that nothing of significance has changed in the past several decades in US education WHEN US EDUCATION HAS DECLINED compared with many other nations WHILE tax revenue has INCREASED the cost of EDUCATION per child, mostly due to union scale HIGH wages for people who CANNOT be fired NO MATTER how lousy they teach!
The liberal critic DID THE B and MOAN about how schools are becoming more segregated WITHOUT saying ANYTHING about BLACKS liking ALL BLACK SCHOOLS and encouraging segregation. Nor how that affects kids’ learning because ALL black schools with ALL BLACK EDUCATORS performing POORLY reflects BADLY on ALL black schools with ALL BLACK EDUCATORS especially when they DO NOT and cannot BUS People to reflect "the percentages in the general population", which is politically INCORRECT. YOU MUST BLAME BUSH and "YT". Nevermind that school districts would be required to build dozens MORE SCHOOLS so that 13% black could be represented WHEN the student body is 60-70-80% black and there are NOT ENOUGH whites and Hispanics for a politically CORRECT mix due to "White Flight" into other cities. Should we bus WHITE children from Ohio into Detroit so schools will have 13% BLACK STUDENT POPULATIONS WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS 95% BLACK?
The liberal critic DID THE "B" and MOAN about No Child Left Behind when it WAS a bi-partisan WRITTEN DEAL from Ted Kennedy and Republicans. TRUE Davis Guggenheim SHOULD think NCLB was a good idea or a bad idea although there was not enough time to explain WHY since so many things are WRONG with No Child Left Behind and it's copy-cat "Room At the Top" by Obama is just regurgitation.
The liberal critic DID THE "B" and MOAN BECAUSE OF the off-hand mention that only one out of five charter schools gets really good resultsand this was not "dwelled upon" for several minutes. Again, this would go beyond the scope of a short documentary into a long and lengthy discussion which would go into politically INCORRECT charges that BLACKS are responsible because BLACKS own and run them poorly with INFERIOR EDUCATORS in charge while children sleep and are bored and distracted.
The liberal critic DID THE "B" and MOAN BECAUSE the repeated implication that education funding just isn’t that important. The liberal critic believes in UNLIMITED FUNDING for EDUCATION from LIMITED TAX revenues. The film came out during a period of nationwide teacher layoffs for this very REASON...Too HIGH UNION wages and "Cadillac Plans" for teachers from dwindling tax revenues because of LOST MORTAGES, LOST JOBS, PEOPLE moving out of OVER-TAXING STATES because of LIBERAL WASTE/GREED. Programs like Head Start and public preschool have LOTS of SEGREGATION/WASTE/DEPLICATION of services by buracracies PROVIDING the SAME or SIMILAR services for people who are NOT necessirily POOR but feel ENTITLED. "Waiting For Superman" could not include big fights over funding them. Nor could it mention, Jennifer Hochschild and Nathan Scovronick’s book,"The American Dream and Public Schools" which shows some of the problems with funding stats like Guggenheim’s, which stats cannot cover EVERYTHING IMPORTANT like mainstreaming Special Education students like Japan.
The liberal critic REALLY GOT CHAPPED at the moment when Davis Guggenheim says that Michelle Rhee “solved the most intractable problem in public education” by proposing that teachers give up job security for higher pay. Because “the greatest challenge in education” is how to fire more teachers because New York City has at least ONE convicted child molester on special assignment at a HUGE SALARY because of the teachers' union.
The liberal critic is perturbed to hear that “the Union was so threatened by Rhee’s proposal, it didn’t even let the members vote on it.” Guggenheim believes that union democracy should require that the members hold a vote every time management makes them a sensible offer. Keyword SENSIBLE... Did he also want Adrian Fenty’s constituents to vote every time the union made an offer back? Guggenheim could have made an argument that the union leadership, or the negotiating committee, was out of step with what the members wanted. But to do that, he would have needed to talk to the members.
The poor little liberal critic is especially FRUSTRATED and no doubt REBELLIOUS, that Davis Guggenheim didn’t talk to any of the current union members in Washington, DC, or elsewhere. else. Davis Guggenheim didn’t talk to any current teachers EXCEPT administrators, most of which are like the U.S. Department of Education, as USELESS as mamaries on a male hog. Davis Guggenheim featured illustrative clips from a movie he made ten years ago showing that teaching is difficult. Davis Guggenheim featured journalists and administrators expressing their opinions about teachers, and cartoons. Davis Guggenheim talked to kids, but didn’t really ask them about opinions they held about teachers. Does the poor little liberal critic think he could do a BETTER FILM and WILL make a BETTER FILM? Of course not. The poor little liberal critic groans on about Jonathan Alter telling us that teachers are great but their unions are “a menace” but offers no evidence that the greedy, liberal-politician-loving-HEAVY-DONATING-of-other-peoples'- union-dues-to-liberal-no-good-politicians-crappy-teacher-protectors are decent, human beings. The poor little liberal critic poses another non-rhetorical question: Does Davis Guggenheim think that most teachers support the changes Davis Guggenheim wants to see in teachers' working conditions? If so, why would he not interview some of them? Davis Guggenheim knows that, like the students who LOVE SLOTH, SLEEPING IN CLASS, and MEDIOCRITY if it makes life easy...will NOT SUPPORT REFORM especially if union thugs will beat them up and/or get them re-assigned to Podunk, Arkansas where students DO NOT LOOK LIKE THEM. Why would Davis Guggenheim seek to endanger teachers and cover so much territory that people would think he was Arizona's ONLY Lonely Unique Ranger? Why not make a few relevant cohesive points, open some questions for intelligent discussion and leave it at that? It’s easy to imagine that Guggenheim had great footage of himself stumping the head of a 1.5 million member teacher’s union and getting the snot beaten out of him, his cameraman, and cameras smashed by five or six uncouth, belegerant union (security) thugs on the way to the parking lot. But somehow we KNOW that the poor little liberal critic THINKS two guys can walk into union headquarters, ask pointed questions, and NOT receive the beating of their lives when they have to go home. Perhaps the poor misunderstood, little liberal critic should get a camera person and go to a union boss with pointed, nosy, politically incorrect questions. Asked in a polite, professional manner, of course. Maybe the poor little liberal critic would have a stand-by ambulance...just in case he stumbles going down the stairs to leave with all that film making the union boss look like a fool.
The LIBERAL wanted Davis Guggenheim to allow the children to make suggestions about how to improve education! Many did, no doubt, but what was Guggenheim to do with footage of kids talking about what an easy job with easy money, that the TEACHER had! "When I grow up, I want a nice easy job letting my students watch movies while I sneak off to the teacher's lounge leaving some dork studious student to "come get me in the teacher's lounge in case of students making NOISE or the film breaks." "No papers to grade, no homework to grade, 40 or 50,000 dollars a year with summers off...I want some of THAT action!" Davis Guggenheim did not want to reveal how being an OVERPAID bad example can WARP children!
Davis Guggenheim inserted the kids’ stories. All kids were sympathetic, and they appeared dramatized the deep inequality of opportunity in America in the eyes of the critical LIBERAL.
The critic forgot (unless HE was that studious dork) that kids want EASY CLASSES.
Many would relate that they come to school to look at the girls, make a little trouble, socialize,catch a nap during the class film in the dark, and get that FREE LUNCH.
With many classrooms are not even issuing text books because (1) kids do not take them home anyway, (2) kids would lose the books or tear them up creating problems, and (3) kids don't REALLY want to lug heavy books around anyway.
Instead of "kid suggestions for improvements", the LIBERAL whines, "we got Davis Guggenheim intoning that if this girl didn’t get into a charter school, her life would basically be hopeless."
Fact of the matter is, MANY charter schools are JUST AS BAD if not worse!
Local TV stations WHICH CARE TO MAKE WAVES, ROCK THE BOAT etc and not just be LIBERAL sounding boards, reveal lounging, bored, sleeping and otherwise preoccupied CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS in problem CHARTER schools. Like public schools, CHARTER SCHOOLS need to "weed out the bad apples" who are making MONEY and NOT educating the children.
The LAST THING a LIBERAL would suggest is that PARENTS with VOUCHERS of MONEY should get to pick a PRIVATE SCHOOL. NO WAY...This reputable school MIGHT be perochial or ran by some CHURCH or SENOGOGUE and mention GOD in passing. To expose a child to someone mentioning GOD once a day or reciting the Pledge of Allegence or playing the "Lord's Prayer over the PS system once a week...would be TERRIBLE.
Better for the children to LEARN NOTHING than to hear any sort of RELIGION TRAINING...unless of course, it is in a MADRASSA or ISLAM school...and that would be OK.
The liberal critic whines,"if Guggenheim believes that these kids are suffering because too many of their teachers should be fired but won’t be, why not let the kids say so?" We covered that above...emulating a bad example that is "raking in the coin with "money for NOTHING" is especially detremental to YOUTH who look up to and are influenced by their TEACHERS...good, bad or indifferent.
Liberals THINK a student will ALWAYS note if low expectations are expected of kids, they will see this for themselves. Personally, THIS BLOGGER recalls ONLY TEACHERS who SPOKE OUT LOUD of PERSONAL GREAT EXPECTATIONS FOR ME. The passion about the teaching profession ALWAYS CAME THROUGH. Why would ,Guggenheim in "Waiting For Superman EXPECT the kids to say that? If the kids instead talked about classes that were too big, (grassroots grumbling group Class Size Matters") or teachers that were overwhelmed or undertrained (Teachers' Unions), or being hungry in class (liberals who think parents cannot buy lunch meat and bread to make sandwiches OR have the child do this) , that would have been interesting?
Most people KNOW that 70-80-90% of many schools have FREE LUNCH despite the old axem,"There is NO free lunch". People who PROVIDE LUNCHES or LUNCH MONEY feel STUPID for their own children FEEL STUPID for doing so. All this does is TEACH KIDS that the school and society in general, should FEED PEOPLE! And parents can duck the responsibility of feeding or providing lunch meat and bread for their own children. THAT is a POOR example for YOUTH!
Many stories abound about college students STEALING FOOD. Is it any wonder when many get FREE LUNCH just for going to K through 12? Liberals see no reason why a college student should not GET FOOD STAMPS rather that subsist on FOOD they buy for themselves EVEN IF THEY LIVE AT HOME with the parents!
ANOTHER INSTANCE in "Waiting For Superman" was especially agitating or "FROSTED HIS BODY PARTS", was watching as the Governor of Wisconsin trying to permanently eliminate teachers’ bargaining rights GOUGING THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY." The Wisconsin governor was blamed for LIBERAL governor predicessor who had created a deficit! The liberal critic blamed "CORPORATIONS NOT PAYING ENOUGH i.e. corporate tax cuts, when ANY IGNORAMUS knows corporations do not pat taxes...CORPORATIONS get TAX MONEY from the shareholders and the customers!
And CORPORATIONS do not exist to provide JOBS...CORPORATIONS exist to provide PROFITS for shareholders and a product or service for their customers. CORPORATIONS will not exist very long IF FORCED to provide HIGH PAYING UNION JOBS and charge MORE than the competetion charges for goods and services ESPECIALLY IF FORCED by the US government to make CARS, services, or other products nobody wants at RIDICULOUS prices!
The liberal critic RANTED about montages of several US presidents signing bills and making rheteric and diatribe about education. The liberal critic said this implyed that nothing of significance has changed in the past several decades in US education WHEN US EDUCATION HAS DECLINED compared with many other nations WHILE tax revenue has INCREASED the cost of EDUCATION per child, mostly due to union scale HIGH wages for people who CANNOT be fired NO MATTER how lousy they teach!
The liberal critic DID THE B and MOAN about how schools are becoming more segregated WITHOUT saying ANYTHING about BLACKS liking ALL BLACK SCHOOLS and encouraging segregation. Nor how that affects kids’ learning because ALL black schools with ALL BLACK EDUCATORS performing POORLY reflects BADLY on ALL black schools with ALL BLACK EDUCATORS especially when they DO NOT and cannot BUS People to reflect "the percentages in the general population", which is politically INCORRECT. YOU MUST BLAME BUSH and "YT". Nevermind that school districts would be required to build dozens MORE SCHOOLS so that 13% black could be represented WHEN the student body is 60-70-80% black and there are NOT ENOUGH whites and Hispanics for a politically CORRECT mix due to "White Flight" into other cities. Should we bus WHITE children from Ohio into Detroit so schools will have 13% BLACK STUDENT POPULATIONS WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS 95% BLACK?
The liberal critic DID THE "B" and MOAN about No Child Left Behind when it WAS a bi-partisan WRITTEN DEAL from Ted Kennedy and Republicans. TRUE Davis Guggenheim SHOULD think NCLB was a good idea or a bad idea although there was not enough time to explain WHY since so many things are WRONG with No Child Left Behind and it's copy-cat "Room At the Top" by Obama is just regurgitation.
The liberal critic DID THE "B" and MOAN BECAUSE OF the off-hand mention that only one out of five charter schools gets really good resultsand this was not "dwelled upon" for several minutes. Again, this would go beyond the scope of a short documentary into a long and lengthy discussion which would go into politically INCORRECT charges that BLACKS are responsible because BLACKS own and run them poorly with INFERIOR EDUCATORS in charge while children sleep and are bored and distracted.
The liberal critic DID THE "B" and MOAN BECAUSE the repeated implication that education funding just isn’t that important. The liberal critic believes in UNLIMITED FUNDING for EDUCATION from LIMITED TAX revenues. The film came out during a period of nationwide teacher layoffs for this very REASON...Too HIGH UNION wages and "Cadillac Plans" for teachers from dwindling tax revenues because of LOST MORTAGES, LOST JOBS, PEOPLE moving out of OVER-TAXING STATES because of LIBERAL WASTE/GREED. Programs like Head Start and public preschool have LOTS of SEGREGATION/WASTE/DEPLICATION of services by buracracies PROVIDING the SAME or SIMILAR services for people who are NOT necessirily POOR but feel ENTITLED. "Waiting For Superman" could not include big fights over funding them. Nor could it mention, Jennifer Hochschild and Nathan Scovronick’s book,"The American Dream and Public Schools" which shows some of the problems with funding stats like Guggenheim’s, which stats cannot cover EVERYTHING IMPORTANT like mainstreaming Special Education students like Japan.
The liberal critic REALLY GOT CHAPPED at the moment when Davis Guggenheim says that Michelle Rhee “solved the most intractable problem in public education” by proposing that teachers give up job security for higher pay. Because “the greatest challenge in education” is how to fire more teachers because New York City has at least ONE convicted child molester on special assignment at a HUGE SALARY because of the teachers' union.
The liberal critic is perturbed to hear that “the Union was so threatened by Rhee’s proposal, it didn’t even let the members vote on it.” Guggenheim believes that union democracy should require that the members hold a vote every time management makes them a sensible offer. Keyword SENSIBLE... Did he also want Adrian Fenty’s constituents to vote every time the union made an offer back? Guggenheim could have made an argument that the union leadership, or the negotiating committee, was out of step with what the members wanted. But to do that, he would have needed to talk to the members.
The poor little liberal critic is especially FRUSTRATED and no doubt REBELLIOUS, that Davis Guggenheim didn’t talk to any of the current union members in Washington, DC, or elsewhere. else. Davis Guggenheim didn’t talk to any current teachers EXCEPT administrators, most of which are like the U.S. Department of Education, as USELESS as mamaries on a male hog. Davis Guggenheim featured illustrative clips from a movie he made ten years ago showing that teaching is difficult. Davis Guggenheim featured journalists and administrators expressing their opinions about teachers, and cartoons. Davis Guggenheim talked to kids, but didn’t really ask them about opinions they held about teachers. Does the poor little liberal critic think he could do a BETTER FILM and WILL make a BETTER FILM? Of course not. The poor little liberal critic groans on about Jonathan Alter telling us that teachers are great but their unions are “a menace” but offers no evidence that the greedy, liberal-politician-loving-HEAVY-DONATING-of-other-peoples'- union-dues-to-liberal-no-good-politicians-crappy-teacher-protectors are decent, human beings. The poor little liberal critic poses another non-rhetorical question: Does Davis Guggenheim think that most teachers support the changes Davis Guggenheim wants to see in teachers' working conditions? If so, why would he not interview some of them? Davis Guggenheim knows that, like the students who LOVE SLOTH, SLEEPING IN CLASS, and MEDIOCRITY if it makes life easy...will NOT SUPPORT REFORM especially if union thugs will beat them up and/or get them re-assigned to Podunk, Arkansas where students DO NOT LOOK LIKE THEM. Why would Davis Guggenheim seek to endanger teachers and cover so much territory that people would think he was Arizona's ONLY Lonely Unique Ranger? Why not make a few relevant cohesive points, open some questions for intelligent discussion and leave it at that? It’s easy to imagine that Guggenheim had great footage of himself stumping the head of a 1.5 million member teacher’s union and getting the snot beaten out of him, his cameraman, and cameras smashed by five or six uncouth, belegerant union (security) thugs on the way to the parking lot. But somehow we KNOW that the poor little liberal critic THINKS two guys can walk into union headquarters, ask pointed questions, and NOT receive the beating of their lives when they have to go home. Perhaps the poor misunderstood, little liberal critic should get a camera person and go to a union boss with pointed, nosy, politically incorrect questions. Asked in a polite, professional manner, of course. Maybe the poor little liberal critic would have a stand-by ambulance...just in case he stumbles going down the stairs to leave with all that film making the union boss look like a fool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)