Comments on: More On The United States Department of Union Busting http://www.edwize.org/more-on-the-united-states-department-of-union-busting Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:46:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Jackie Bennett http://www.edwize.org/more-on-the-united-states-department-of-union-busting/comment-page-1#comment-7049 Jackie Bennett Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:22:46 +0000 http://edwize.org/more-on-the-united-states-department-of-union-busting#comment-7049 I know this has nothing to do with the post (well, actually, it does tangentially), but I'm just wondering about Rod Paige’s piece in the Times today – “weighted student funding,” the idea being that money is attached to the child and not the school . As Paige puts it " each child receives a "backpack" of financing that travels with him to the public school of his family's choice. The more disadvantaged the child, the bigger the backpack. Then the principal gets to spend it on whatever it is he wants. I keep picturing the principal at the rich school opening up the poorer child’s backpack and takingall the money out. Then he spends it on, say, the fencing team, or maybe crew. Well, I don’t know anything about it, but something seems to stink here. An end run around the voucher defeats? He stresses public schools, but I’m guessing he really means non-union charters, which currently have a different funding formula than regular publics. And anyway, don’t we basically have student-based funding now? Anybody know? I know this has nothing to do with the post (well, actually, it does tangentially), but I’m just wondering about Rod Paige’s piece in the Times today – “weighted student funding,” the idea being that money is attached to the child and not the school . As Paige puts it ” each child receives a “backpack” of financing that travels with him to the public school of his family’s choice. The more disadvantaged the child, the bigger the backpack. Then the principal gets to spend it on whatever it is he wants.

I keep picturing the principal at the rich school opening up the poorer child’s backpack and takingall the money out. Then he spends it on, say, the fencing team, or maybe crew.

Well, I don’t know anything about it, but something seems to stink here. An end run around the voucher defeats? He stresses public schools, but I’m guessing he really means non-union charters, which currently have a different funding formula than regular publics.

And anyway, don’t we basically have student-based funding now?

Anybody know?

]]> By: NYC Educator http://www.edwize.org/more-on-the-united-states-department-of-union-busting/comment-page-1#comment-7044 NYC Educator Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:18:15 +0000 http://edwize.org/more-on-the-united-states-department-of-union-busting#comment-7044 Well of course the Bushies don't like unions. Is that news? Were you asleep when Reagan was President? GW is Reagan on steroids. Aren't you the same guy (or at least one of them) who claimed all those months ago that in this "political climate" you have to take whatever the hell you can get and be content with it? Wasn't it you who said, therefore, it was OK to suspend teachers for 90 days without pay on the basis of flimsy allegations? Wasn't it you who thought it was a great idea to give up the UFT transfer plan? To go back to the lunchrooms, hallways, and bathrooms, not every third semester, but forever? To teach a sixth class? To open the door to merit pay? To send teachers to toil forever as subs at the whim of highly politicized principals? And didn't you think it was a great idea to do all this stuff, work more hours, and more days, and do so without even being compensated cost of living? Didn't you think it was a great idea to throw all the benefits we bought with zeros away? For nothing? Didn't Edwize say we needed to do this because, oh, what will the Daily News and the NY Post say if we don't give in utterly to their every demand? Didn't the Daily News, just the other day, applaud the teachers' contract as a great example of what a one-sided, union-busting Taylor Law with no consequences for managerial intransigency could accomplish? They were right, you know. Guess what? We gave away the farm, and they still hate us and everything we stand for. As do the Bushies, of course. The only surprise is that you're surprised. I'm not. Well of course the Bushies don’t like unions. Is that news? Were you asleep when Reagan was President? GW is Reagan on steroids.

Aren’t you the same guy (or at least one of them) who claimed all those months ago that in this “political climate” you have to take whatever the hell you can get and be content with it?

Wasn’t it you who said, therefore, it was OK to suspend teachers for 90 days without pay on the basis of flimsy allegations? Wasn’t it you who thought it was a great idea to give up the UFT transfer plan?

To go back to the lunchrooms, hallways, and bathrooms, not every third semester, but forever? To teach a sixth class? To open the door to merit pay? To send teachers to toil forever as subs at the whim of highly politicized principals?

And didn’t you think it was a great idea to do all this stuff, work more hours, and more days, and do so without even being compensated cost of living? Didn’t you think it was a great idea to throw all the benefits we bought with zeros away? For nothing?

Didn’t Edwize say we needed to do this because, oh, what will the Daily News and the NY Post say if we don’t give in utterly to their every demand?

Didn’t the Daily News, just the other day, applaud the teachers’ contract as a great example of what a one-sided, union-busting Taylor Law with no consequences for managerial intransigency could accomplish?

They were right, you know.

Guess what? We gave away the farm, and they still hate us and everything we stand for. As do the Bushies, of course.

The only surprise is that you’re surprised.

I’m not.

]]>