Lisabob

No. Our wages are already so low that it only takes about 3 students per class to pay our salaries for teaching that class. (seriously - I'm not exaggerating). Median salary for my union is in the low 30s and that's for full time employment. Now tuitions have increased in the last 10 years, just as they have at nearly every single public university in the country, but that's largely because we have gone from a situation where our public university was funded 75% by the state and 25% by tuition, to a situation where state funding now accounts for less than 25% of our "public" university budget and is projected to drop yet again for this year and the foreseeable future. It raises challenging questions about what it means to call us a "public" university these days. A poor economy hurts student enrollment & retention (and our bottom line), and inflation & rising energy costs also need to be factored in. Despite this, the University has been able to keep annual tuition increases under 10% in most years, and in a couple of years the increases were actually under 2%. Unfortunately, we are still probably out of reach for some families. Annual tuition for an in-state resident is about $8000. I wanted to add: While there have been improvements in salary for instructors in my union (hey we moved from below-poverty-line wages to slightly above poverty line wages), most of what we've gained as a result of unionization has been in the area of working conditions, input, and processes for dealing with problems. As I think I posted elsewhere, prior to our contract we weren't given offices, library privileges, school IDs or email accounts, computers to use, etc. We had no way to formally address problems that might occur due to mismanagement (ie, no grievance process). We also had no evaluation process to see whether we were doing our jobs well, poorly, or at all. Today we have a grievance process that tends to result in avoiding many problems and resolving many others (though not always, and of course we don't always get what we think we should - but it is a mutually agreed upon process w/ the administration and that's important by itself). We have a formal eval process and people know how they'll be evaluated, so they can meet the benchmarks (and that allows for people who miss the marks to be placed on improvement plans or even gotten rid of). We have access to the tools we need to do our jobs (email, computers, office equipment, offices, library). So a lot of what we've gained came in non-monetary terms, and that's just as important to most of us as the salary increases.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

I thought you said you were in the kitchen for the whole thing and missed the derby scream-fest entirely? Let this dad make a fool of himself by raising a ruckus. Keep your head and you'll end up looking like the reasonable party. Before making any more announcements about what the pack program will/won't be, take a breather and think through what you're willing to do and what you aren't. It is probably more damaging (to your own credibility) to announce that the pack is going to hold a BBQ & fishing derby if nobody helps with the campout, and then to change your mind and announce that they WON'T be holding a BBQ & fishing derby if nobody helps. Makes people wonder whether you'll cave in at the end or vacillate some more along the way. Just go to this meeting this afternoon with an open mind and try to avoid the bitterness. What is the worst that could happen - IH asks you to step down? Well good, it sounds like you wanted to do that anyway. Good luck.

OGE it is debated in public forums by teacher unions all the time. Take a close look at NEA or AFT and their stances on NCLB, for example. Both have played a very active role in trying to shape this debate and improve the testing regime. It could just be that you (and most of our media) haven't been paying much attention to this, which is understandable enough - people generally pay attention to their relatively narrowly defined interests. I know practically nothing about Xray technologist training, for example. But you asked specifically, why don't we hear teachers talking about standardized tests when we hear about contract negotiations or strikes? And the answer there is because standardized testing is a broader policy issue and not a contract issue.

Maybe some of you have heard the recent press coverage about the Detroit Public Schools? They are under emergency financial management (with good reason). They are hundreds of millions of dollars in debt with no foreseeable way out, even after making years and years of very difficult cuts to everything from extracurriculars (got rid of arts/music programs) to closing neighborhood schools to cutting workforce to pay & benefits give-backs. At this point they're borrowing money just to meet payroll. Although it has obviously been rancorous at times, the teacher's union has consistently worked with the school system to try to soften the blows on the kids and get the district back on solid footing (if that is even possible). So here is the emergency manager's final plan: he put together two options. One allows the school district to basically declare bankruptcy and emerge with a new balance sheet. This is obviously drastic, but then DPS is in dire straits. The other plan is to close HALF of the remaining schools in the district, eliminate school busing entirely, and increase class sizes at the remaining schools to an average of 60 students/class. Even the emergency manager himself admits that the latter plan would be "catastrophic" and "draconian." And this for a city where, until recently, the 4-year high school graduation rate was under 25% (it is up to 62% this year, whoopee, but some of that is about playing numbers games, too) and in a district that routinely ranks dead last among major urban districts nationwide in math, science, and literacy scores. The state legislature told him NO to the former, and GET MOVING on the latter. Now I ask you: does anybody really think that's going to work? And will it be the teachers' faults when it doesn't? Will it be the union's fault? (Frankly, I continue to be amazed that anyone is actually willing to teach there under these conditions, and maybe we should be thanking these teachers for their service and sacrifice, instead of blaming them.) Would you accept 60 kids per class, no money for supplies, no busing, no art, music, phys ed, or tech classes, or anything else remotely like that in YOUR kid's school? We could, of course, blame those kids who remain or just write them off as collateral damage in a larger ideological war about who gets more tax cuts (oh wait, I think we've already pretty much done that). You can blame unions, which is easier, or you can look at the larger picture, which is harder.

No, they could not threaten to strike unless the tests improve. Why? Because you can't strike over stuff that isn't bargainable to begin with, and the tests are not written by the school districts. They are typically written either by the state ed dept or by some outside testing company. Teachers, and their unions, have no say in these tests. That is why you hear them complain a lot, but you don't see them fixing it - because it isn't under their control and it is not a negotiable contract matter.

desert - I believe it! Interesting to note, though, that the best & worst are both union environments. Hey I couldn't resist, here's a clip from the Daily Show on this topic: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-28-2011/crisis-in-dairyland---message-for-teachers

Just wanted to note that I live in MI too, and: a. Your wife should have complained - loudly and often - to her union. That's lousy service and she had a right to better treatment. (On the other hand, did she get engaged in her union at all? Or was she waiting for them to check up on her? As a union rep, I know that many times, the silence we hear from members is deafening and it can be hard to know what that means.) b. In MI, as is the case in all other "agency fee" environments, everyone who works in a union shop has the choice to join, or not join (just as you did - and your wife could have). If you choose not to join then yes, you still pay a service fee because the union does things that presumably positively impact you, and the union is still obligated to provide service to you even though you aren't a member. For example, the union would be obligated to defend your contract rights, just as they would for any member. And that defense often requires time & money to do (well). Agency fee payers in MI (and elsewhere) DO have a right to receive a refund of any dues/fee money the union uses for political purposes, and the IRS is very strict about making unions prove that they do this properly. The fines for a union that fails to do this or that don't keep adequate records of how they do this, are quite stiff. c. About keeping bad employees - It isn't the union that "let them stay." It is the management that "let them stay." Unions do not hire or fire employees. Management does. If management can't figure out how to do its end of the job right, then Houston, we have a problem, but the problem isn't the union. (This message has been edited by lisabob)(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Hey, desert, which 4 states?

Here's what's wrong with "teaching to the test." As Beavah notes, truly comprehensive testing is very expensive, and we all know that there's no extra money for education floating around out there. Further, the test-driven culture that was created (expanded) by NCLB was a classic example of an unfunded mandate, right from the start. States & school districts got told "you have to test all the kids every year to see if they're learning" but not given money to write, score, or analyze the results of these tests. So we settle for badly written standardized tests because they make us feel like we're accomplishing something, on the cheap. We get numbers that we can compare, year on year (even though they are often actually not methodologically comparable, but hey, who cares about that). States write dumbed-down tests that make it look like they're providing stellar educational bang for their buck when in fact, American kids continue to fall further behind on just about every major international standard in existence. Parents are fooled into thinking that their little darlings are learning what they need to know. Teachers may know better, but they have little choice or say in the matter because these tests are mandated in state & federal law. Meanwhile, the need for remediation in math & writing among first-time college students is SOARING. Kids come to college knowing all about how to take tests, but badly lacking in content mastery or analytical ability. Not to mention, seriously burned out by the way education (which could/should be fascinating!) has been made into nothing more than a never-ending series of badly written, boring, high stakes standardized tests. Deep knowledge, insight, creativity, and intellectual curiosity have no place in this model of "education" because they are much harder to test and therefore have become expendable. Eagle92's is a good example. If you spend, say, 3 hours a week for a whole school year practicing the ACT then yes, you will probably do well enough on the "real" ACT. But that amounts to roughly 120 hours of instructional time (3 hrs/week * 40 weeks) that is lost to test taking practice! These days, many schools are doing something like this EVERY year. So, 120 hours/year times 12 years = 1,440 hours of "test prep." Imagine what kids and teachers could have done with those thousand+ hours, instead.

For my tastes, one letter should not satisfy all three requirements. The standard here is experiential - do something. Short-cutting the experience kind of undermines the standard, in my opinion. Surely the boys could find different people to write to, or (in the computers belt loop requirement) a different sort of document to produce? (Then again - it would be nice if there weren't quite so much overlap in some of the requirements, too!) PS: I notice that there are 16 different options for the communicator webelos pin - and the boys could do any 7 of these. No need for duplication here!(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Last year, a public university in my area found itself facing a unionization drive by its roughly 700 adjunct (part time) faculty. The administrators attempted to laugh it off, claiming that these 700 faculty were not "real" faculty, were nothing more than "casual laborers" like one might find outside of Home Depot on a weekday morning, and that they were just there for a "nice experience and a little money." The vote on that campus was overwhelmingly in favor of unionization. Probably would've been regardless, but adding insult to injury made it a sure bet. Much of what drives unions (whether in education or elsewhere) is tied up in issues about respect, and due process. If all employers always treated all employees fairly and respectfully, unions wouldn't exist. Experience tells us that this is not the case, though. Now unions cannot mandate respect, but they can work together with employers to establish processes, for things like hiring/firing/promotions, evaluation of job performance, disciplinary policies, and more. And when both sides (management and labor) actually follow the agreed-upon processes, things work pretty well. Over time, that often results in heightened respect and a good working relationship, too. Unions can be excellent partners and not just mulish opponents. Now the single most common complaint I hear about teacher unions is that they protect bad teachers. I'm a contract officer for my (public university) teacher union. It is a little different from the K-12 world, but not really all that much different. Let me put it this way: I don't, and my union doesn't, have any interest in protecting bad teachers. We do have an interest in ensuring that the process for correcting bad teaching and possibly even firing bad teachers is correctly followed. This means administrators should do their jobs and evaluate teachers as per the contract that the administration negotiated. It means there should be multiple, documented, instances of problems & pro-active interventions, improvement plans, etc, as the contract spells out (every teacher contract I've ever seen includes these kinds of things to some degree). It means that people can't get fired just because one student (or parent) complained that "s/he's too hard!" or because some administrator or other teacher has a personality conflict with a teacher. It means that administrators had better have a paper trail, and it had better be legit, before they go and fire someone. It means that if someone is getting fired because of poor performance, there is very little that I, as their contract officer, can or will do to "save" their job, assuming that the administration did their job right. If administrators did their jobs then bad teachers wouldn't be in the classrooms. But time and again, I hear administrators moan and wail about how that's just too hard to do and takes too much time & effort. My response? Earn your damn 6 figure salary, or get out of the way and let someone else who has a spine do the job. And finally, the answer to this is not to get rid of tenure - it is to use tenure more wisely. If you have a person who teaches for 3-5 years in a "probationary" status and you can't tell during that time if they're any good or have potential? Then you are NOT paying attention. Again, it isn't the union's fault that administrators frequently fail to do their job here.

In most states where there is collective bargaining, there are also laws requiring "good faith" bargaining. That means, among other things, that unions (or management) cannot simply refuse to negotiate, as some are claiming. To do so would be a violation of state labor law, and this type of law is usually zealously enforced. As for bargaining, benefits, and "union greed:" Here are some of the "benefits" that my union "won" that matter a whole lot to me. (I teach at a public university). 1. An office. Prior to our first contract, the university wasn't required to give us an office space, although we were required to do all sorts of things that having an office would have made easier (like meet with students, meet with other faculty, keep records ad nauseum, etc.) 2. Use of office equipment like photocopiers, and of office staff/secretarial support. That's right, before I had a union, some campus departments denied their instructors access to copy machines. Apparently we were supposed to photocopy exams, etc., at the local Staples and pay for this out of our own pockets. 3. Library privileges at the campus library. Prior to our contract instructors were not allowed to check out books!!! Or access library databases!!! Though we were expected to teach our students to use these same resources. 4. University email accounts & IDs. Again, until our contract, we didn't have these, meaning that we couldn't use a lot of University services that required an ID. These are just a couple of examples. Did they cost the University money? Well probably a little bit (all those plastic ID cards), but realistically, not very much. What they did do is make it easier for us to do our jobs, do them well, and do them in a way that made sense. There are legitimate concerns about pensions & benefits, but what many of the anti-union proposals in many states would do right now, is make it illegal to bargain over these types of provisions, too. And that's beyond silly, it is stupid and shows a real lack of understanding about what modern unions do and how they do it. By the way: median salary for a full time instructor at my public university is now in the low $30,000s. Prior to our first contract, median salary was in the high teens. We actually had full time college professors making so little money that they were eligible for food stamps and public housing assistance. Few of us went into this profession expecting to get rich, but that's just crazy. Don't tell ME I'm overpaid to teach your children.

Good question, Eamonn. It seems like one of those questions that is really hard to answer while you're in the thick of things, but in retrospect, the answer becomes easy to see. In the last couple of years I have cut back, then walked away from scouting, except to serve as driver for my son to get to his troop meetings. I was at a point where a) I wasn't having any fun at all and b) I didn't think I was making a positive difference and c) my dislike of some things that were occurring was so strong that it was probably affecting my son's views of scouting, too. Probably, I should have cut back sooner than I did. Having stepped back and then stepped OUT of being a scouter, I am able to better play just a supporting role to my son. And I know my spouse, who frequently told me how glad he was not to be part of the crazy adult nonsense, appreciates not hearing me talk about it anymore, either! Everybody ends up happier. I'm glad I stepped back, though there are some things I miss. Maybe, down the road, I'll get back in as a leader. I really enjoy working with the kids, esp. the cub-level and 1st year boy scouts. (I've also learned that dealing with 13-15 year olds is not my strong suit.) I also appreciate the camaraderie and can-do spirit of most adults involved in scouting. But it isn't worth the personal stress and frustration (and sometimes, anger) that I was feeling when I was up to my neck in it.

The concerns I'd have with "current events" questions are that: 1. A lot of adults don't know enough about current events to have a legitimate discussion. I hate to sound snobby about it, but come on, we all know some of these people. They're the ones who appear on Leno's "Jay Walking" series and unfortunately, there are a lot of them. and 2. A lot of adults have very strong ideological bents, which may not match the boy's views. I live in an area where there is a solid majority (an over-abundance, in my view!) of social conservatives. What would they make of a boy who took an opposite tack on some current social issue? I can just imagine an inquisition on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or the union-busting tactics in WI, or health care reform, or gay marriage, etc. And it could go the other way too, for an area where there are a lot of liberals. So I'd be concerned that "current events" wouldn't mean a quick check to see that the kid is paying attention to the world, and instead would quickly become a political litmus test, possibly based on all sorts of misinformed views (on either side of the spectrum). And of course that has no place in scouting.

I hate to say this, but that's not a good enough reason to stay. Find another way to "save the troop." Recruit non-cub scouts. Do something else, anything else. I have to agree with moose, you clearly, strongly, dislike being involved with this cub pack. I can't help but think that vibe comes through loud & clear to people in the cub pack, too. If you (as CM) aren't having fun, ain't nobody else in the pack gonna have fun, either. I am not blaming you; some of the problems you've described would make me hate it, too. While your service & sacrifice are admirable, at the same time, you can't expect to succeed in rebuilding a stable pack that will continue on without you in the future, by following down this road. And I assume that's the goal, right? A stable pack that continues on without you and keeps supporting the troop? As for this latest incident w/ the parent & (former?) den leader, it really is a shame. I hope the DL will decide to come back, and I hope she *does* press charges. If some jerk slapped me in the face, I'd be doing so in a heart beat. But aside from all that, the pack needs a plan for how it will build up a stronger leadership core, and you need to not be the keystone in that leadership core. Since you are meeting with the COR and IH tomorrow anyway, maybe that needs to be the focus of your discussion (from your end, anyway). Again, sorry that you have to deal with all this drama. As somebody who has been through almost this exact situation I know how draining it can be. (And oh yeah, I used to get calls from a crazy parent too, screaming & ranting at me about how I wasn't treating her little darlings right. She finally laid off a bit when the choice was starkly put: either shut up, or leave. Her kids turned out to be horrid bullies who didn't fall far from the tree & continue to make lots of other people's lives miserable both in and out of scouting.)

Not around here.

Good advice so far. Might also help to remind him that the purpose of a den chief is to help the boys in the den and keep them excited about scouting - which he has evidently done, since 6 of 8 are joining a troop. It doesn't matter all that much *which* troop, as long as they stay in scouts. Hard for a young man to see, but all troops are just part of one big family anyway.

Congrats on a successful program. Just got home after retrieving my son from his weekly troop meeting tonight and they had a small herd of new crossover guys there, too. The troop he is with now had under 15 scouts a couple of years ago, and today it stands at about 60 (many crossovers, a few others like my son who transferred from other troops). Yes indeed, scouts vote with their feet. It brings new challenges, not least, "where will we put them all?!" but that's part of the fun, too. The older guys in my son's troop are excitedly talking about the new projects they can launch, and how to maintain the very boy-led feel of the troop as it grows (good sign, I think, that the boys are taking charge of this discussion). Have fun, Brent!

Why don't you pick up the phone and call the Scoutmaster? Best way to get info is directly from the person who has it. About the "courting" stuff, think of it more like a 2-way street.

"Just because they have been together since Tigers really has little to do where they should go and where they will end up when they age out. " Bingo. Boys (and girls of course) change so much in the middle school years. It is easy to say "oh they've been together since 1st grade so that means they should stay together." But most likely, they're going to start separating some anyway. Some will play sports, while others won't. Some will get into Band, Marching Band, Wind Ensemble, etc., while others won't. Some will become serious students taking a heavy academic courseload, while others won't. Some will go the Vo-Tech route, others won't. Some will end up in separate high schools depending on their families' estimations about their needs and wants. Some will drop out of scouting. Some will move. Even within scouts, they'll choose their own paths more and more. Some will stay in scouting for a few years, "Eagle Out" at age 13-14. Others will stay til they're 18 and never get past 1st class. Some will dive into merit badges, others will hardly earn any of them. Some will love summer camp & go on to work staff while others won't go more than once or twice. Some will do Philmont, Boundary Waters, Sea Base, National Jambo, etc. Some will join OA. Others might just go camping every once in a while. The temptation is there to think that as parents, we can continue to engineer our child's social experience as we did when they were little (play dates, after school programs, cub scouts, etc.). But that's not reality and they aren't going to let you anyway, so no point in trying to keep it that way as they get older. Two closing thoughts: 1. Let each family go where they feel they fit best, whether that's the troop in town or not. 2. Wish this parent/boy well, and ask ALL of the families to support each others' choices, as opposed to undermining each others' choices. (A nice way to tell this lady to quit bad-mouthing the local troop) Then (by yourself) celebrate that Drama Mama is going to a different troop than you are!

Oh good lord. Been there, seen that. In our case, everyone involved either left or was removed, and quite a lot of other pack families also jumped ship. It nearly killed the pack. (In fact this is exactly how I became very involved as a scout leader. I was one of the few adult leaders left to pick up the pieces after the storm blew over.) Was the volunteer at fault, too? Or just the parent? Suggestion #1 - the parent who slugged your volunteer becomes uninvited. The boy can stay in the pack (though he likely won't), but the parent will need to find someone else to be responsible for the boy at den/pack functions. If our volunteer was equally at fault then the same should apply to them. In our case, this meant that one parent/former DL spent a good bit of time sitting in their car because they just could not handle themselves. They drove the boy to events, sat in the hallway or in their car during the events, and drove the boy home. Suggestion #2 - find out who your UC is, or if you don't have one, demand one today. Get your UC up to speed quickly and invite them to help you referee any upcoming meetings. Suggestion #3 - find the most respected person/people in your leadership (CC? COR? ) and have them write an open letter to your pack's families in which you outline (generally - no lurid details) that there was a problem, that you are handling the problem, and that you value their continued participation & input as you move forward from the problem. Put it in your next pack newsletter. Suggestion #4 - next year, either don't hold a PWD at all (we nearly didn't), or make sure everyone understands that the most important thing about the PWD is building cars together and having scout spirit. Make the biggest prize(s) you give out reflect that, rather than fastest car. Invite some outsiders (we had a local troop who were not affiliated with our pack at all help us with this - in fact, the SM and ASM were two guys I met at WB & knew I could trust to lend a hand in this delicate matter) to help you determine who gets the scout spirit award. And of course, if there are flaws in your PWD timing/judging system, iron them out before next year!

While what BadenP says is unfortunately all too true, it is also illegal. The same laws that prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace also prohibit retaliation for filing complaints about harassment, even in cases where the initial complaint is found to be unsubstantiated. Thus, if she is reinstated and her (current or future) boss makes her life a living hell as a result, this might well be a violation - again. EEOC will do an initial investigation to see whether or not the claim merits further action. This costs you nothing and, in this situation where your wife has already been forced out of her job, might be worth doing. Your state may have its own state-level version of EEOC too, which the folks at the EEOC can help you figure out. (Although I have some experience with these kinds of situations, I am not a lawyer & I don't play one on TV, either.)

Agreed, re: following the process as outlined in the link provided. Also, your District Executive should be overjoyed to help you out. DE's are evaluated (& paid) partly on the basis of how many new units they start each year, so your church's decision will be music to their ears. Good luck! And I hope you'll come back occasionally to tell us how it is going.

What you are describing may be a violation of federal civil rights law, as well as possibly your state's laws on employment & civil rights. John is correct - contact an attorney who deals with labor law and ask them whether you have a case. The federal EEOC may also be a point of contact. Here is a link to the EEOC page: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm In the meantime, I agree you should post no further on public boards such as this. What might be helpful is to quietly and methodically gather together any paper trail you already have, including emails on this subject. (If you have emails, print hard copies.) Beyond that, contact a lawyer & EEOC.

This may be unusual for you, but it is quite normal elsewhere. Boys (and their families) should choose the troop that fits THEM, not the troop that you think they should go to. I've been on both ends as a cub leader and a troop leader, and let me tell you, it is not uncommon for there to be 3-4-5 troops present at a Blue & Gold to receive the scouts who are joining them. At every single one of these that I've attended, all troop leaders play nice with each other and congratulate the boys - all of them - on moving on to boy scouts, regardless of which troop. End of story.