Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

To me this is just wrong and is part of the problem with not only our government public education system, but with government in general.

 

A school lunch worker was fired for feeding a first grader because the child didn't have enough money for lunch.

 

This discussion can go so many ways, but off the top of my head a couple of issues come to mind.

 

First, what if we did away with the useless Department of Education and spent a portion of the savings on providing lunches for children?  Of course, ultimate responsibility for a child's welfare is on the parent(s) of the child.  However, I see no reason why a child should be denied a healthy meal because of the parents' incompetence.  Further money to pay for the program could be extracted from the parents' "tax refund".

 

Second, what if we got rid of the unions that siphon money from the school system and the teachers?  Perhaps teachers can earn at least just a little bit more than they earn now, along with the cafeteria workers, the janitors, etc.  Perhaps, hold the educators responsible for the success and/or failure of their students.  After all, these are all government jobs that are not driven by profit.  Why is a union necessary?  Exactly how much money flows to these unions and for what purpose?

 

There are many arguments and topics that can be discussed from this issue.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but i know that the union in this area has fought for pay raises for teachers here.


Last year, our school board decided to freeze salaries.  No Cost of Living Adjustment.  No Step Increase.  Nothing.  My wife made the same this year, as she did last year.  This is despite the fact that teachers in this area have been leaving in droves because of how low the salary is in our area (especially compared to neighboring counties).  Worse yet, employees from other districts that came into our area came with an advantage -- they got full credit for all the years they've worked, while teachers who have worked here for their whole careers did not.  Thanks to the union fighting for teachers in the area, she's able to get back on track as far as her step schedule goes.  I can only imagine where my wife's salary would be at if she didn't have someone fighting for her and other teachers like her.


My wife's first year teaching -- she nearly lost her job due to a RIF (reduction in force).  Had they gone through with it (and they only didn't because so many teachers in her department were leaving) there would have been three more starving children since we could not live on my salary alone.  The union would have protected her there.  


Hold educators responsible for the success/failure of their students? And how exactly do you plan on determining success/failure?  A test?  And what about other factors?  I wonder how other professions would feel if their pay were dependent on teenagers doing what they were told.   And not just one or two teenagers.  27 teenagers.  Times the number of classes taught.



 

And you know what?  A lot of teachers buy their students lunches when they can't afford them.  And they certainly spend their own money on supplies.  I know my wife spends plenty of money (even after the allotted money she's given, which isn't much to being with) on supplies for her classroom.  Many of which supplies disappear.  Some even buy things for their students that they need and can't afford.  A friend of mine back in high school had a teacher offer to pay his rent on the condition that he finish school.  (Sadly he dropped out instead).  My wife has a student this year who's family is in really bad financial shape, and she'd always share her lunch with the student.  She's also helping her find scholarships so that she can go to college, because she's a fantastic student. 


What are the unions doing with their money?  Well fighting for teachers to begin with.  Especially things like court battles..  Of course not every union is the same.  And there is corruption within some unions, but that doesn't make them worthless.  If unions were truly worthless, we'd no longer have them.  

Quote:I don't know how it is elsewhere, but i know that the union in this area has fought for pay raises for teachers here.


Last year, our school board decided to freeze salaries.  No Cost of Living Adjustment.  No Step Increase.  Nothing.  My wife made the same this year, as she did last year.  This is despite the fact that teachers in this area have been leaving in droves because of how low the salary is in our area (especially compared to neighboring counties).  Worse yet, employees from other districts that came into our area came with an advantage -- they got full credit for all the years they've worked, while teachers who have worked here for their whole careers did not.  Thanks to the union fighting for teachers in the area, she's able to get back on track as far as her step schedule goes.  I can only imagine where my wife's salary would be at if she didn't have someone fighting for her and other teachers like her.


My wife's first year teaching -- she nearly lost her job due to a RIF (reduction in force).  Had they gone through with it (and they only didn't because so many teachers in her department were leaving) there would have been three more starving children since we could not live on my salary alone.  The union would have protected her there.  


Hold educators responsible for the success/failure of their students? And how exactly do you plan on determining success/failure?  A test?  And what about other factors?  I wonder how other professions would feel if their pay were dependent on teenagers doing what they were told.   And not just one or two teenagers.  27 teenagers.  Times the number of classes taught.



 

And you know what?  A lot of teachers buy their students lunches when they can't afford them.  And they certainly spend their own money on supplies.  I know my wife spends plenty of money (even after the allotted money she's given, which isn't much to being with) on supplies for her classroom.  Many of which supplies disappear.  Some even buy things for their students that they need and can't afford.  A friend of mine back in high school had a teacher offer to pay his rent on the condition that he finish school.  (Sadly he dropped out instead).  My wife has a student this year who's family is in really bad financial shape, and she'd always share her lunch with the student.  She's also helping her find scholarships so that she can go to college, because she's a fantastic student. 


What are the unions doing with their money?  Well fighting for teachers to begin with.  Especially things like court battles..  Of course not every union is the same.  And there is corruption within some unions, but that doesn't make them worthless.  If unions were truly worthless, we'd no longer have them.  

 

You just gave the perfect example of why teachers unions need to go.  Again, teaching in a government school is a government job.  There is a pay scale and rules associated with that.  Now please don't get me wrong as I admire most teachers and even thought about doing so when I got out of the service.  However, teachers going into the workforce know (or should know) what the salary and benefits are for the position.

 

As far as measuring success, I don't advocate using a "standardized test", and I don't really have an answer.  But, there are so many that come out of our government public school system with a diploma that isn't earned.  There are so many that are "advanced" just to get them "out of the way".  I see it every day in my current job.  People that can't do basic addition and subtraction.  People that can't write or form a comprehensible sentence.  These are guys and gals that are supposed to be operating some of our most sophisticated technology, yet they are as dumb as a box of rocks.

 

I once was told by an EE graduate (electronics engineering) when he couldn't hook up a simple battery powered circuit without making it look like he was welding "I'm an electronics engineer, not an electrician".  This was a guy that had not only graduated from our government school system, but he also graduated from a highly respected university.  He couldn't even perform relatively simple math calculations on a white board.  He had to refer to his calculator (smart phone) repeatedly.

 

I would suggest that measuring this particular guy's "education" would probably label it as a failure.  Yet the "teachers" in his past gave him "passing grades" and allowed him to get to where he is.

1.  Why get rid of the department of education?  Why not work to make it run better?  We're a big country, you can't have uniform education administered to the nation without a centralized hierarchy.  Your a  military man, you should understand that.

 

2.  Union dues are like 14 bucks a pay check, at least in NM...  Unions aren't the problem, the Secretary of Education here in NM has done more to harm teachers and the educational environment with her push to standardize test and hold teachers accountable to that then the unions have.

 

Matter of fact, without the Unions existence, the Secretary of Education in NM would be doing alot more harm.  Having the ability to organize in order to provide a single solid voice of disagreement is helpful.  Especially in a democratic system.

Most public schools have programs to allow low income kids to basically eat for free. Dont know why that wasnt the situation here

Quote:1.  Why get rid of the department of education?  Why not work to make it run better?  We're a big country, you can't have uniform education administered to the nation without a centralized hierarchy.  Your a  military man, you should understand that.

 

Because education isn't a federal issue and frankly they've proven to be terrible at it.

Quote:To me this is just wrong and is part of the problem with not only our <del>government</del> public education system, but with government in general.

 

A school lunch worker was <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.news4jax.com/news/money/school-lunch-worker-i-got-fired-for-feeding-a-hungry-child/33371972'>fired for feeding a first grader</a> because the child didn't have enough money for lunch.

 

This discussion can go so many ways, but off the top of my head a couple of issues come to mind.

 

First, what if we did away with the useless Department of Education and spent a portion of the savings on providing lunches for children?  Of course, ultimate responsibility for a child's welfare is on the parent(s) of the child.  However, I see no reason why a child should be denied a healthy meal because of the parents' incompetence.  Further money to pay for the program could be extracted from the parents' "tax refund".

 

Second, what if we got rid of the unions that siphon money from the school system and the teachers?  Perhaps teachers can earn at least just a little bit more than they earn now, along with the cafeteria workers, the janitors, etc.  Perhaps, hold the educators responsible for the success and/or failure of their students.  After all, these are all government jobs that are not driven by profit.  Why is a union necessary?  Exactly how much money flows to these unions and for what purpose?

 

There are many arguments and topics that can be discussed from this issue.

Okay, I read the article, and it was more than one child. The fired worker in my opinion seems to have set herself up as some sort of Robin Hood. While we might admire stealing to feed the poor, it is still stealing.

Quote:1.  Why get rid of the department of education?  Why not work to make it run better?  We're a big country, you can't have uniform education administered to the nation without a centralized hierarchy.  Your a  military man, you should understand that.

 

2.  Union dues are like 14 bucks a pay check, at least in NM...  Unions aren't the problem, the Secretary of Education here in NM has done more to harm teachers and the educational environment with her push to standardize test and hold teachers accountable to that then the unions have.

 

Matter of fact, without the Unions existence, the Secretary of Education in NM would be doing alot more harm.  Having the ability to organize in order to provide a single solid voice of disagreement is helpful.  Especially in a democratic system.

 

1. What percentage of the actual curriculum being taught at the local level is under the control of this dreamy federal centralized hierarchy you're talking about? 
   
2. How many teachers are there in this country.  Multiply that piddly $14 per teacher by all of them and it's a war chest that helps fund all sorts of political agendas, most of which I'm pretty sure you'd be giddy to support. 
   

One thing you got right in that last statement.  Your governor is trying to hold teachers accountable to a test which is ridiculous in its own right, but that's what happens when you cede control to a higher authority.  The last thing unions push for on any front is accountability.  It's all about political power and influence.

 

 

Quote:Okay, I read the article, and it was more than one child. The fired worker in my opinion seems to have set herself up as some sort of Robin Hood. While we might admire stealing to feed the poor, it is still stealing.

 

Why does the number of kids matter?  At the end of the day, the food she was giving away would have more than likely been thrown out.

 

My sister in law teaches here in Duval County in a public elementary school.  They started a new policy recently where the school breakfasts that were previously distributed through the school cafeteria were now to be handed out in the classrooms before the start of the school day.  Each classroom was allotted breakfasts for every kid in the classroom whether they wanted it, needed it, or not.  My sister in law was required to put a breakfast on each desk that included milk or juice, fruit, and some other breakfast item.  For the kids who didn't want their government mandated breakfast, she was required to take it and throw the leftovers away.  There was no plan to store food beyond the day it was to be distributed, so everything that wasn't eaten went in the trash, and continues to do so. 

 

I saw this woman interviewed, and she said that the food would have been thrown out if it wasn't eaten by the kids, so she didn't feel this was an issue.  While technically she was in the wrong, is it better that she should have let these kids go hungry and simply toss the food in the trash?

Quote:To me this is just wrong and is part of the problem with not only our government public education system, but with government in general.

 

A school lunch worker was fired for feeding a first grader because the child didn't have enough money for lunch.

 

This discussion can go so many ways, but off the top of my head a couple of issues come to mind.

 

First, what if we did away with the useless Department of Education and spent a portion of the savings on providing lunches for children?  Of course, ultimate responsibility for a child's welfare is on the parent(s) of the child.  However, I see no reason why a child should be denied a healthy meal because of the parents' incompetence.  Further money to pay for the program could be extracted from the parents' "tax refund".

 

Second, what if we got rid of the unions that siphon money from the school system and the teachers?  Perhaps teachers can earn at least just a little bit more than they earn now, along with the cafeteria workers, the janitors, etc.  Perhaps, hold the educators responsible for the success and/or failure of their students.  After all, these are all government jobs that are not driven by profit.  Why is a union necessary?  Exactly how much money flows to these unions and for what purpose?

 

There are many arguments and topics that can be discussed from this issue.

.If the school lunch worker was in a Union, she may not have been fired. She may have gone through progressive discipline and been warned that its verboten. But if this was a first infraction? I cant see a discharge. But if you are at the mercy of the bosses discretion, well, that's the way it is.

Not knowing the particulars of this case, but if it went down as it sounds, its the classic example of why workers unionize.

On the other side of the argument...parents who consistently dont have enough money to put a sammich in a bag for lunch at school should be closely examined. Hate to put the "back when I was in school" cliche in here, but many here had hard times. I know we did, but never was there a time when we couldnt get a couple pieces of bread and some peanut butter or something on it. Again, its not the kids fault, but maybe parents need more accountability?

Quote:To me this is just wrong and is part of the problem with not only our government public education system, but with government in general.

 

A school lunch worker was fired for feeding a first grader because the child didn't have enough money for lunch.

 

This discussion can go so many ways, but off the top of my head a couple of issues come to mind.

 

First, what if we did away with the useless Department of Education and spent a portion of the savings on providing lunches for children?  Of course, ultimate responsibility for a child's welfare is on the parent(s) of the child.  However, I see no reason why a child should be denied a healthy meal because of the parents' incompetence.  Further money to pay for the program could be extracted from the parents' "tax refund".

 

Second, what if we got rid of the unions that siphon money from the school system and the teachers?  Perhaps teachers can earn at least just a little bit more than they earn now, along with the cafeteria workers, the janitors, etc.  Perhaps, hold the educators responsible for the success and/or failure of their students.  After all, these are all government jobs that are not driven by profit.  Why is a union necessary?  Exactly how much money flows to these unions and for what purpose?

 

There are many arguments and topics that can be discussed from this issue.

Teachers are being held accountable for the success/failure of their students now. Now look at what you first posted and see if that makes sense. The child you referenced for not being given money by parents, or a bagged lunch. Think about the home life. You think they are helping the student at home be a succesful student? Multiply this by...well, a whole lot.

 

Regarding the lunch lady, that's crazy she lost her job based on trying to help the kid out. (didn't read the article, so assuming that's all the case entailed).

It is notable that some of you who are most opposed to the government feeding the poor are okay with stealing to feed the poor.

Quote:1.  Why get rid of the department of education?  Why not work to make it run better?  We're a big country, you can't have uniform education administered to the nation without a centralized hierarchy.  Your a  military man, you should understand that.

 

2.  Union dues are like 14 bucks a pay check, at least in NM...  Unions aren't the problem, the Secretary of Education here in NM has done more to harm teachers and the educational environment with her push to standardize test and hold teachers accountable to that then the unions have.

 

Matter of fact, without the Unions existence, the Secretary of Education in NM would be doing alot more harm.  Having the ability to organize in order to provide a single solid voice of disagreement is helpful.  Especially in a democratic system.

 

1.  What is the purpose of the Department of Education?  What exactly do they do?  What have they ever accomplished?  We don't and shouldn't have a "uniform education administered by a centralized hierarchy".  As of 2011 the discretionary budget is $69.9 billion.  Here is the "mission" of the Department of Education.  To promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.  If you ask me, this a total waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

2.  As I said before, get rid of the unions and perhaps those teachers can take home that $14 bucks per pay check.

Quote:Okay, I read the article, and it was more than one child. The fired worker in my opinion seems to have set herself up as some sort of Robin Hood. While we might admire stealing to feed the poor, it is still stealing.

 

Quote:It is notable that some of you who are most opposed to the government feeding the poor are okay with stealing to feed the poor.

 

While "technically" yes, it is stealing, but what is the alternative?  Throw the food away and let a first grade student go hungry?  The woman that got fired even noted that at times she would go into her purse and pay for lunches.  If you ask me, the woman is a Patriot in my eyes, especially since she accepts losing her job to try to bring about awareness and change the situation.

 

I'm not opposed to the government feeding the poor, but I am opposed to how it is done.  Giving assistance to people that need it is fine with me (I often donate to such causes personally).  However, look at all of the abuses of the EBT card program.  There is even a rap song made titled "It's Free to Swipe Yo EBT".  I would link to it, but it has explicit lyrics.  The point is, there are many who see their EBT card as an "entitlement" rather than assistance to better themselves.

Quote:.If the school lunch worker was in a Union, she may not have been fired. She may have gone through progressive discipline and been warned that its verboten. But if this was a first infraction? I cant see a discharge. But if you are at the mercy of the bosses discretion, well, that's the way it is.

Not knowing the particulars of this case, but if it went down as it sounds, its the classic example of why workers unionize.

On the other side of the argument...parents who consistently dont have enough money to put a sammich in a bag for lunch at school should be closely examined. Hate to put the "back when I was in school" cliche in here, but many here had hard times. I know we did, but never was there a time when we couldnt get a couple pieces of bread and some peanut butter or something on it. Again, its not the kids fault, but maybe parents need more accountability?

 

That also illustrates the problem with unions.  The woman who was fired acknowledged and accepted that she knew what she did was wrong and against the rules.  Union people tend to think that they get "three strikes" or whatever if they break the rules.  I have never been fired or disciplined at a job personally, but there were times that I messed up, owned up to it, and expected to either be fired or reprimanded.  Fortunately for me, I've always had a good relationship with my employers and the worst I ever got was a "verbal reprimand".

 

I'll address the part that I bolded from your quote below.

 

Quote:Teachers are being held accountable for the success/failure of their students now. Now look at what you first posted and see if that makes sense. The child you referenced for not being given money by parents, or a bagged lunch. Think about the home life. You think they are helping the student at home be a succesful student? Multiply this by...well, a whole lot.

 

Regarding the lunch lady, that's crazy she lost her job based on trying to help the kid out. (didn't read the article, so assuming that's all the case entailed).

 

That's a problem in today's society.  If it's not "children having children" it's irresponsible people procreating.  The "traditional" family is slowly disappearing.  Look at how many children that are born out of wedlock or belong to single parent homes.  It's more of a priority for "parents" to have their smart phones, their cigarettes and their beer rather than providing for their children.  The culture of "working hard" and "doing what it takes" is fading away.  Today we live in a "it's all about me" society.

Quote:That also illustrates the problem with unions.  The woman who was fired acknowledged and accepted that she knew what she did was wrong and against the rules.  Union people tend to think that they get "three strikes" or whatever if they break the rules.  I have never been fired or disciplined at a job personally, but there were times that I messed up, owned up to it, and expected to either be fired or reprimanded.  Fortunately for me, I've always had a good relationship with my employers and the worst I ever got was a "verbal reprimand".

 

I'll address the part that I bolded from your quote below.

 

 

That's a problem in today's society.  If it's not "children having children" it's irresponsible people procreating.  The "traditional" family is slowly disappearing.  Look at how many children that are born out of wedlock or belong to single parent homes.  It's more of a priority for "parents" to have their smart phones, their cigarettes and their beer rather than providing for their children.  The culture of "working hard" and "doing what it takes" is fading away.  Today we live in a "it's all about me" society.

I grew up with a kid who's mom was beat up by her husband all the time. She never left and still gets beat because "marriage is marriage and it's for life". I'd say a single parent home is better than those types of homes of which there were plenty of back when divorce was incredibly frowned upon. 

Quote:1.  What is the purpose of the Department of Education?  What exactly do they do?  What have they ever accomplished?  We don't and shouldn't have a "uniform education administered by a centralized hierarchy".  As of 2011 the discretionary budget is $69.9 billion.  Here is the "mission" of the Department of Education.  To promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.  If you ask me, this a total waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

2.  As I said before, get rid of the unions and perhaps those teachers can take home that $14 bucks per pay check.

 

That $14 they're forking out in union fees could be better spent buying supplies or other things for their students because any public school teacher I know is spending their personal money on such things because some parents just don't care.

 

My sister in law has opted not to be a member of the Duval Teacher's Union here.  They at least have a choice in Duval.

Quote:I grew up with a kid who's mom was beat up by her husband all the time. She never left and still gets beat because "marriage is marriage and it's for life". I'd say a single parent home is better than those types of homes of which there were plenty of back when divorce was incredibly frowned upon. 

 

 I would counter with the fact that the majority of single parent homes are not the product of a failed or abusive relationship.  Trying to "justify" the many single parent homes is pretty much a losing argument.

Quote: I would counter with the fact that the majority of single parent homes are not the product of a failed or abusive relationship.  Trying to "justify" the many single parent homes is pretty much a losing argument.

Hey, I don't think most married couples are qualified to have children let alone the non married ones. People need to stop breeding just 'cause... You won't get an argument from me on that one. I am just pointing out that there are many reasons why, one being it's culturally more acceptable to get divorced. On the other hand there are a myriad of married people with gobs of kids that ought not have them because "go forth and multiply", or it's the only way they think they can find purpose and other such nonsense. 

Quote:Hey, I don't think most married couples are qualified to have children let alone the non married ones. People need to stop breeding just 'cause... You won't get an argument from me on that one. I am just pointing out that there are many reasons why, one being it's culturally more acceptable to get divorced. On the other hand there are a myriad of married people with gobs of kids that ought not have them because "go forth and multiply", or it's the only way they think they can find purpose and other such nonsense. 

 

So what exactly is your point?  Is it that people don't need to breed?  Is it that divorce is acceptable?  Is it that you don't like certain christian families that have several children?

Quote:So what exactly is your point?  Is it that people don't need to breed?  Is it that divorce is acceptable?  Is it that you don't like certain christian families that have several children?

Why do I get the impression you are just cruising threads looking for a fight again?

 

I guess I can type it against for you since you didn't read it the first time? 

 

"I am just pointing out that there are many reasons why, one being it's culturally more acceptable to get divorced."