This is what should have started happening years ago under NCLB.
Nothing much more to say, other than to comment on how dorky one poor teacher’s sign looks:
“OUR STUDENTS?” Let’s just dispense with the shallow and sometimes scary idea that our children belong to the state? They don’t. Ask any public school student if they think of their teachers as family, and I don’t believe you’ll get answers worth putting on picket signs.
These are union teachers and they’ve been part of this failing school system for years. They have only themselves and their union reps to blame, if THE PEOPLE aren’t happy with their work product.
The union is apparently still trying to make sure they can keep the new school union:
The Obama administration is “pushing the envelope” more than would be traditionally expected by a Democratic administration supported by unions, Mr. Domenech says. But, he adds, there are also efforts under way for state superintendents and union representatives to reach some compromises for revising union contracts to support school improvement.
Four words: I Hope They Fail. It’s interesting that under an unprecedented pile of support from unions (mostly SEIU but certainly the NEA put a few tens of millions into getting Obama elected) the administration is seemingly allowing this sort of thing to happen. What gives?
My theory is that there will be a few more of these massive school reorganizations and just before the majority of the public begins to think they can start doing this to ALL their failing schools, and just before the unions start calling for nation-wide strikes, President Obama will come to the rescue.
Could it be possible that our president WANTS people agitated to the brink of civil unrest? If you read “Rules For Radicals” (the playbook for the Obama administration) then all of this pressure, unrest, and confusion makes perfect sense.
Who Is The Target?
As we see a few more of these mini revolts peek into the news, remember the big picture. Who is the target? Quoting from “Rules For Radicals”:
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When you ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
What does this mean? If, ultimately, parents revolting against compulsory state schooling are the targets (And why wouldn’t they be? They are the ones who are not forcing their children to go to school and feeding the schools with tax dollars!) then it seems logical to create situations whereby parents grow more and more agitated. To the point of revolt. THEN is when the target will be frozen. PARENTS will be the “bad guys.”
If a few union teachers lose their jobs in the process of the ultimate goal… so be it.