When I first started teaching (in my first few weeks or so), I was actually somewhat relieved by Weingarten’s relatively conciliatory stance. The last thing I wanted to do was go right out on strike. The idea of a teacher strike is scary–it is so hard to think of leaving the kids in the lurches, even with hopes of obtaining a better situation for them as well as for us. And we’d probably just get fired anyway, and thousands of young and compliant teachers ushered in.

A few months later, I was disappointed that the contract didn’t give much weight to some of my highest priorities, such as professional freedom and the quality of school curriculum, resources, and environment.

There’s the flipside of a conciliatory stance: when you don’t strike (or when you end a strike), you negotiate heavily and make some compromises. Which ones do you make? Probably the ones that can be “sold” to the majority. Then many members feel betrayed by individuals such as Weingarten, and rarely fail to name names when expressing outrage. Some of the naming of names comes out on Edwize comments.

So, Edwize probably takes that as libel or slander, and deletes the comment. I agree with you that there should be an explanation if and when a comment is deleted. Then, at the very least, there’s an acknowledgement of the comment’s existence. At the same time, I’ve seen some comments that were no more than personal attack (on both or multiple sides). Surely we can are more resourceful than that!

Maybe I am oversimplifying or underestimating the problem–I’m sure I am–but this is definitely part of the dynamic I’ve observed. So, what to do? Find some way of addressing our concerns without focusing so much on individuals. Of course the individuals have something to do with it, but the problems go beyond them. (I’m no fan of Bush, for instance, but I don’t think even he would have gotten away with so much unless he had powerful political, economic, and cultural forces backing him up.)

Moreover, if we want to be heard at all, we need to start thinking of constructive proposals. If we really want to fight the destructive nonsense all around, we need to come up with something that does make sense, and implement it wherever we can. We do this all the time in our own classrooms–but what is it that we do, what are the principles behind it, and how could our best work be extended and supported?

I could go on, but this comment is getting too long. I’d love to see more debate and discussion on Edwize. The internet gets dull all too quickly–this “great technology” is only as great as the ideas and works it helps disseminate.

I don’t bother to post on Edwize, because unlike writing on one’s own or non-Unity blogs, this one censors comments. They don’t even tell you when a comment has been removed (as happens in other blogs), so we never get the full picture of the discontent in the ranks. A fair amount of it is the result of Weingarten’s actions and/or statements. I have posted any number of comments about these things in the belief that they have consistently harmed the profession. I believe she collaborates on a fairly regular and secretive basis with Bloom/Klein. These comments have always been removed within hours, as I suspect this one will be as well.

The point being, they (the school district) will find a way to rid themselves of the “bad apple”, for we (the teachers) are not to think or have thoughts of our own regarding what is best for our students, since those thoughts are most definitely against their (the district’s) status quo.

I teach in another state than New York, but the testing is absolutely ridiculous . . . all to do with politics and money and not one concern with the students that must be subjected to the gruel of these tests. We rarely have the opportunity to actually “teach”. We are required to make sure these students learn to make a choice between 4 options given in a multiple choice format. Of course we are “required” to take these students to “the next level” in their thought processes and use “higher-level” questioning to develop “higher-level” thinking skills, blah, blah, blah. There are no higher-level thinking skills applied when taking these tests.

I have been out of the teaching industry for 10 years and decided to get back in again this year, and at first, I thought, “Boy, did I ever make a mistake!” But, I have come to the conlusion after much soul searching, that it was not a mistake. I was led back into the education industry to be a mouthpiece for teachers that have careers they cannot or choose not to abandon for one reason or another, and those that choose to make the best of the bad situation. I was placed back in this mess we call public education because I AM an excellent teacher, because I DO care about the gain of the children left in my charge for one school year of their life, because I WILL do what is best for those children for the time that they are with me, in spite of what the political agenda is, because I am NOT locked into having to endure the travesty being done to teachers as well as their students. I WILL voice those thoughts, concerns, stresses, as well as hopes of my colleagues and hopefully render some sort of aid, for they are the true heroes in this battle to create leaders, thinkers and REAL decision makers of our young people.

I have more respect for myself than to ever allow someone to tell me how I should think and speak. Thank goodness, I know that I am more than capable of doing great things and don’t need “political correctness” to govern my actions!