Monday, July 07, 2008

Which is more important: the students or the teacher?

Schools were originally created to provide an education to the students. The goal was to provide children the knowledge and understanding to function as adults.

Teacher Unions often seem to see schools as a place for job security for teachers.

California Assemblyman Bob Huff reports on a recent senate bill:

"One bill, Senate Bill 1105 (Margett) would revoke the teaching credentials of those convicted of sex offenses, drug crimes and other violent crimes if they plead guilty or no contest. I was surprised to hear representatives of the California Teachers Association testify in opposition. Keeping sex offenders and other dangerous individuals out of our schools should be something we can all agree upon. It is just plain wrong to put both students and teachers at risk in our schools just to keep more dues-paying union members on the payroll."

Dave, who brought this to my attention, reports:

"I verified on their site that they oppose the bill and according to Assemblyman Huff apparently testified against the bill. I just don't get it. I'd love to hear their justification for opposing the bill. It seems like a no-brainer."

I doubt the union could justify their position. They just care more about the teachers, than the students.


---------
Technorati tags: government schools, public school, public education, education

2 comments:

Crimson Wife said...

What about someone who successfully completes a rehab program and is willing to undergo random drug and/or alcohol tests as a condition of maintaining employment?

There was an excellent teacher at my high school who was a former alcoholic. His drinking had gotten out of control after he lost his wife to cancer in her 30's. He wound up arrested for DUI (fortunately nobody was hurt) and that was the wake-up call he needed to get sober. He went on to have many subsequent years of successful teaching.

Should we really be automatically excluding someone like that from teaching without taking into consideration his/her personal circumstances?

I don't think it's quite fair to lump everyone who has experienced a substance abuse problem in with sex offenders or violent felons.

Anonymous said...

Providing children with the ability to function as adults is nothing more than lip service. In other words, telling the parents what they want to hear so they'll be willing to give their kids up to government influence.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/hp/frames.htm