Comments on education unfounded


In Gordon Philpot's letter in the Oct. 4 Union-Bulletin he made broad, derogatory statements concerning education and teachers' unions in our country.

Specifically, in what area(s) does he have documentation that our educational system is "... inferior to that of some Third-World countries...." and which Third-World countries? Is free education available to all (regardless of sex, race, religion, physical/mental handicaps, etc.) in those other countries to which he refers?

To truly compare education in various countries wouldn't a complete rather than a selective comparison be more accurate?

Since the membership of teachers' unions is made up of teachers it makes sense that those organizations would be concerned with factors affecting their members. The implication of Mr. Philpot's statement is that teacher unions and their member teachers do not care about the students they work with nor conditions affecting their education.

As a retired life member of the Washington Education Association and National Education Association (after 36 years in the classroom) I find that line of thinking ill informed, incorrect and divisive.

Generalized statements without specifics too often work when trying to sway uninformed people to a particular way of thinking, but if the statements are questioned and found to be unsupported they lose their effectiveness, if not their following.

Jim Davison




marketinsider says...

According to the annual report sent out to taxpayers by school district 140, they want $10,000 per student, per year. For a family of four with two kids that is $20,000 per year. In a city where the average family makes $45,000, the city only wants $20,000 of it for K-12 education, that seems fair. That leaves the average family $25,000 for everything else: food, shelter, medical, college, not to mention all the other costs for all the other government services like military, police, fire, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, roads, and it goes on and on. No wonder 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps, and half the families in WW say they cannot afford to pay the full amount for a lunch at school for their kids. Now add that with the fact that most community colleges are complaining that the students they get from K-12 are not even able to take college level classes, that the students must do 1-2 years, or even more, of remedial classes, just to get up to college level classes. Add that to the fact that even the young adults who now make it out of college, only about half of them, can find a decent job. This all means that when a teacher retires at say 55, they will need a retirement check for about 30 years, which means they will need those young adults turning into high paying taxpayers, which obviously is not the case. Even the powerful teacher unions will not be able to get blood from turnips. The blood being money, and the turnips being a younger generation without any skills and even if they have the skills, they will not be able to find a high paying job, they will be lucky to just find a low paying job and collect food stamps themselves or yes, if they live with their parents, maybe they will be able to buy an Iphone (or grow pot with regards to another story in the U-B today). If you are a teacher who is planning on retiring, you had better retire now and get grandfather into a pension system that is in not in any better long-term shape than Social Security. I almost forgot, I know the solution, tax the rich, but just to let you know there was a great song back in the 70s called, "I'd Love to Change the World." A line from the song went like this, "Tax the Rich, Feed the poor, till there are no rich no more." Well, it has been over 40 years and the Boomers still have not been able to tax the rich, in fact, quite the opposite, the rich have never been so rich.

Posted 4 October 2012, 4:24 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment