Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So...now the kids are in charge? What planet are you on?
If I ask the kids, we'll have no homework and no tests. I'll allow sleeping in class and unsafe practices like drinking pop during chemistry labs.
What kids want and what may be right in a situation may not be the same thing. It isn't right to hold back another human being just because you don't want them to go. Unless you're willing to make up the difference in what they will get by going compared to what they have now, you don't even have the right to ask.
If I ask the kids, we'll have no homework and no tests. I'll allow sleeping in class and unsafe practices like drinking pop during chemistry labs.
What kids want and what may be right in a situation may not be the same thing. It isn't right to hold back another human being just because you don't want them to go. Unless you're willing to make up the difference in what they will get by going compared to what they have now, you don't even have the right to ask.
So, now your story is that it doesn't matter to you that leaving mid-term disrupts the students' learning?
Well, that's at least internally consistent.
(And your students are different from mine - or your teaching is.)
Possibly the owner or it could come out of liquidated assets. I would hope they can't really do this. They are holding our wages and give us no choice to be paid over 10 months. You'd think they'd have some responsibility.
I wonder how much in assets a charter school has. It isn't a true private school and is an adjunct of a school system with independent operations and probably a loan of equipment and space etc. Not sure but you may know or want to inquire. If it is a Charter school is there really a private owner?
I wonder how much in assets a charter school has. It isn't a true private school and is an adjunct of a school system with independent operations and probably a loan of equipment and space etc. Not sure but you may know or want to inquire. If it is a Charter school is there really a private owner?
Some charters are owned and operated by for-profit corporations. Most are not-for-profits which, when the money is gone, simply go away.
I was going to write about how COL is dependent on location and how how much you need to live off of depends on things like how good your benefits are (for example I have no pension and very expensive and lousy insurance) but I think I'll just ask why you think it's ok to pay teachers less because there's another adult in the house to make up the difference? This is the kind of logic they used in the 50's to keep teacher's wages low.
It doesn't matter what my husaband makes. I deserve fair wages. Why would I deserve less if he makes more? In our case, it happens that neither of us has a pension through our current employer so one consideration is saving enough to fully fund retirement. Another is very expensive insurance premiums and high prescription bills. You can't just pull out a number and say this is ok. You have to look at the whole picture.
You're reading into things. What I think is that it's fine to pay teachers whatever they agree to accept when they take the job. And it has been my experience that two-income families have a certain latitude in wage choices that one-income families do not, and that there is a difference between "needing a living wage" and wanting what one wants. There's nothing wrong with wanting more, or with valuing oneself highly. But it's dishonest to act like a pay increase is the only thing keeping Tiny Tim-ette from starving when in fact it's an ego issue (or an "I spend more than my income" issue).
Part of making your family a priority is earning enough to care for them. Which is what this is all about.
So a chemical engineer loves her family more than a teacher? And the President loves his kids more than that? (Presumably SAHMs don't love their kids at all since they claim no wages.) Since, yanno, love is income-based...
In my education-related field one issue that my colleagues and I sometimes struggle with: if we accept a low-paying job just to have a job, any job, in the field does that mean we are enabling the profession to continue to exploit workers? That's another issue, too, but it sounds like for teachers like Ivory (and those in other schools that pay non-union wages and no benefits) might have to struggle with, too. It's not an easy question.
It's a consideration argued every day in largely non-union professions and locations. I'd tend to respond that both parties in an exploitive contractual agreement bear responsibility, absent evidence of coercion (narrowly defined) or actual slavery.
I wonder how much in assets a charter school has. It isn't a true private school and is an adjunct of a school system with independent operations and probably a loan of equipment and space etc. Not sure but you may know or want to inquire. If it is a Charter school is there really a private owner?
I'm not sure of the details but I know of one charter that has a definite owner. I believe ours has one too. The director is not appointed. He started the school.
The other school is, extremely, well run. They even have a grant writing department. They have about $2000 more per student to work with than the next charter over. They pay much better than the other charters in the area too. They still have a high teacher turn over rate.
I would really hope that my school can't just not pay us 1/4 of our salary. I'm not sure the point of putting that in our contracts unless it was just to declare they are boss and we'll take what they dish out whether we like it or not. If there is a situation where they could, legally, stop paying us, I'd think they could do it without a contract saying they have the right. Of course, contract or no, exactly zero of us would return the next school year.
I know companies can avoid paying some kinds of payments. I was notified this summer that my almost 20 year pension from my engineering days is gone. The company filed bankruptcy and all the money is going to pay the creditors. There won't be anything left to pay pensions when they are done. Which is another reason I need to find a decent paying job in a district where they don't put clauses in your contract that say they can keep 1/4 of your pay.
I'm not sure of the details but I know of one charter that has a definite owner. I believe ours has one too. The director is not appointed. He started the school.
The other school is, extremely, well run. They even have a grant writing department. They have about $2000 more per student to work with than the next charter over. They pay much better than the other charters in the area too. They still have a high teacher turn over rate.
I would really hope that my school can't just not pay us 1/4 of our salary. I'm not sure the point of putting that in our contracts unless it was just to declare they are boss and we'll take what they dish out whether we like it or not. If there is a situation where they could, legally, stop paying us, I'd think they could do it without a contract saying they have the right. Of course, contract or no, exactly zero of us would return the next school year.
I know companies can avoid paying some kinds of payments. I was notified this summer that my almost 20 year pension from my engineering days is gone. The company filed bankruptcy and all the money is going to pay the creditors. There won't be anything left to pay pensions when they are done. Which is another reason I need to find a decent paying job in a district where they don't put clauses in your contract that say they can keep 1/4 of your pay.
They are probably like Edison and some of the other contractors.
YOU are the person who asked:
"Does a change in a kid's life for 30 minutes a day really throw them for such a loop??"
Clearly, you don't like the answer to your question, so you want to change the issue.
And
Yes, the children are in charge of their education and always have been.
Thanks for the red ink.
I don't think that a change in one of their teachers can cause major emotional trauma in a child. I really don't. I can certianly pull together a 'poll' that will support my opinion. YOU were the one who changed the issue with the idea that kids answer the question....which kids, exactly, what kind of classes, what kind of school...etc. Just because YOU think so, and your 'poll' states so, doesn't MAKE IT so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
