Teacher's New Contract

[Miulang]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

Yeah, that's WAY out there.

And I'm sure you'd have to step over the prostrated bodies of many ACLU members before that ever happened.

Miulang

[waioli kai]

Re: Teachers' New Burden: Lingle's Contract on Teachers

On searching the subject the following site provides some relevant info on the subject of drug testing: www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4934#wrong

The most common misconception about drug urine testing is that it detects drug-impaired workers, whereas it actually detects evidence of past drug use that need have no relation to on-the-job performance. Because drug tests are highly sensitive to marijuana, random testing can promote use of other, more dangerous drugs such as cocaine and opiates, which wash out in 2-3 days, or LSD, which is rarely tested. At the same time, most drug tests totally disregard alcohol, the nation's leading drug of abuse. Urine testing is thus an inherently flawed technology: it rules out the most innocent off-the-job marijuana use, while permitting flagrant on-the-job alcoholism.

Is there a long waiting list of qualified teachers wanting to teach in Hawaii public schools, or public schools anywhere? Alcohol and tobacco use and addictions are not transferrable to students but moderate uses of "illicit" plant chemicals are transferrable?

How far away is this government from from making church attendance mandatory for teachers? afterall taxpayers seem to be gung-ho for expecting more of their childrens' teachers than many of those same parents expect of themselves.

Should the state or federal governments get their drug testing of the lower echelons passed, one good thing for the individual just beginning to think about his or her future career is that she/he will not have invested time and money in preparing for a career in teaching only to be caught midstream by a law that ensures their privacy will be violated once they start teaching in Hawaii.

In other words, why teach school? For the love of more government intrusion into one's life? To teach the kids that such intrusion is increasingly the norm and that they themselves should, like their teachers, just bow down to their state and federal governments...and preferably sign up for whatever war and or war preparations our governments have us paying for at the time?

What an absolutely sorry LIE we were fed about the so-called "Peace Dividend" when the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) Era of the 20th Century came to a close....just another thing to teach the children: "Expect to be lied to and you won't be disappointed.", in addition to: "Don't ever think you can know what is good or bad for you because only your government knows for sure."

[scrivener]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

The only thing squishy is the sound of my brain popping upon reading these arguments against drug-testing school staff. And I will be honest here: if the teacher lacks the self-discipline to abstain from a drug-induced living, they don't deserve to teach my kids. I do my part and abstain, I do my part and send kids to school who follow the same ethic and abstain, and I expect the same in return out of my kids' school staff. I want my school staff to be compensated fairly, and I want us all to hold each other to the highest level of accountability: parents, teachers and students.

Let's take this out of the general and discuss the specific, for it is the individual teacher who gets hired by a principal -- these are not nameless, faceless nobodies with pieces of paper; they are citizens, neighbors, friends, and relatives.

So let's take me. Pua`i, you know me, pretty much. There are people here who know me better, and they'll probably vouch for me where you might be unable to, but would you really ask me (forget about everyone else) to take a urine test to prove I'm clean before you let me teach your children? You have every right to expect that your children's teachers be drug-free. Well, here I am. Ready, qualified, and more than able to teach those children. Will you really ask me to pee into a cup in order to reach that "highest level of accountability?"

I don't think, if you think about who these teachers are, it should "make your brain pop" to hear some of us resist. I am no saint, but there is not one thing in my personal history that would indicate to anyone that there is any reason to suspect I might be on drugs. I've already been fingerprinted (twice!) for criminal checks and I'm still teaching. My references are impressive, my teaching record even moreso.

I'm not trying to convince you not to be in favor of the testing (in this case), but at least to understand where I'm coming from. I understand your sentiment -- it does not cause my brain to pop. Can you understand mine?

[Miulang]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

Unfortunately, Scriv, in this society, the louder you protest, the more suspect you become! ("Why would he be protesting so much? Does he have something to hide?" "Is he just trying to send up a smokescreen to hide his actions?") . The current MO seems to be "prove him innocent" instead of "prove him guilty".

People forget about the foundations upon which this country was built (i.e., the Constitution) sometimes, and obviously moreso recently because of the way the current Administration has run roughshod over many of our basic liberties (by cheating and lying).

Miulang

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

Let's take this out of the general and discuss the specific, for it is the individual teacher who gets hired by a principal -- these are not nameless, faceless nobodies with pieces of paper; they are citizens, neighbors, friends, and relatives.

So let's take me. Pua`i, you know me, pretty much. There are people here who know me better, and they'll probably vouch for me where you might be unable to, but would you really ask me (forget about everyone else) to take a urine test to prove I'm clean before you let me teach your children? You have every right to expect that your children's teachers be drug-free. Well, here I am. Ready, qualified, and more than able to teach those children. Will you really ask me to pee into a cup in order to reach that "highest level of accountability?"

I don't think, if you think about who these teachers are, it should "make your brain pop" to hear some of us resist. I am no saint, but there is not one thing in my personal history that would indicate to anyone that there is any reason to suspect I might be on drugs. I've already been fingerprinted (twice!) for criminal checks and I'm still teaching. My references are impressive, my teaching record even moreso.

I'm not trying to convince you not to be in favor of the testing (in this case), but at least to understand where I'm coming from. I understand your sentiment -- it does not cause my brain to pop. Can you understand mine?

Scriv, for the degree of privacy I hold here, can I confidently state that you know me? Character makes the man; regardless of my little personal details, have I not been quite consistent and forthright in my points of view, particularly when it comes to protecting children? For all you know, I might be some dude from Sweden, but isn't it more likely the case that there is a vigilant mom on the other end of the keyboard?

When it comes to teachers, like it or not, fair or it ain't, fact is that teachers are among the most needed gateways for our youth. Is a child being abused at home? Tell a trusted adult. Is a child living in a house full of drugs? Get help and tell a trusted adult. Is a child suffering at night because her father is coming into her room and molesting her? If she cannot go to her mother, find safety! And tell a teacher.

Teachers are among the most frequent adults that our children come into contact outside of the home. Society asks so much out of them; teaching, it isn't just for teaching anymore. However, the sound of teachers suffering is the just weight of accountability upon their shoulders, and so you ask me if trading some of your bodily fluid is a worthy price I ask you to pay as you bear that accountabilty, I say yes. Hell yeah.

What you get for that trade is a workplace free of drug addiction. For your compatriots who are drug users, they pop a positive and they get rehab out of the deal. Since a vast majority of those successfully rehab-ed consider rehab to saving their lives, this is a bonus. And for those who will not be rehab-ed, then getting them out of the school is better for the children, and for you, because that is one less coworker draining morale.

I used the term before and I mention it again: social contract. What we are willing to trade in personal freedoms for the benefits of a peaceful society. We citizens oblige anyway; seatbelts might infringe upon your personal comfort level, but traffic doesn't go 5mph anymore. Sign of the times. Same thing with drug testing. If we didn't have the epidemic we do, drug testing wouldn't be an issue. Again, I have crossed that bridge for more than ten years, by choice, and my job isn't so critical that I couldn't afford to be high--but there are people in my company who have front-line critical jobs, and we so do test across the board. I believe it is worth it.

[scrivener]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

I used the term before and I mention it again: social contract. What we are willing to trade in personal freedoms for the benefits of a peaceful society. We citizens oblige anyway; seatbelts might infringe upon your personal comfort level, but traffic doesn't go 5mph anymore. Sign of the times. Same thing with drug testing. If we didn't have the epidemic we do, drug testing wouldn't be an issue. Again, I have crossed that bridge for more than ten years, by choice, and my job isn't so critical that I couldn't afford to be high--but there are people in my company who have front-line critical jobs, and we so do test across the board. I believe it is worth it.

Okay. Then we are at an impasse. I believe that when those votes are counted, you will be proven right and I will be proven wrong: Teachers will consider the extra pay worth the professional injury. And I mean "professional injury" in the gravest sense, because what's happening here is going to harm the profession far more than the work-stoppages, the sexual relationships with students, and the rare case of drug use.

What you are asking me to do just isn't worth it, and I guess that's why I take fifteen thousand dollars fewer every year not to deal with it. It is my (financial) loss, but it is also your (educational) loss.

Very often, I hear a student complain that Mr. So-and-So "hates" him. My response is always this: This job is HARD. It is hard, and it is thankless. They just don't pay me enough to do this job for students I hate. The day I hate a student is the day I find another career, because for all the benefits I get from being a teacher, adding "hating students" to the list would finally tip the balance toward doing something else.

I will be proven among the minority, I am sure, when those votes are counted, but I feel the same way about these random drug tests. That would finally send me toward the private schools or some other career entirely if that were forced upon me. "Social contracts" are wonderful, but why are we getting the raw end of the contract? When I ask, "What's in it for us?" if the only response is "an eight percent raise," that's just not good enough.

It has been twelve years since I graduated from college, and I am still paying for the degree that enabled me to get the job that now I am being asked to pee into a cup for. The Master's degree I will (hopefully) have in my hand in September is going to give me $3,000 more per year, but it will be seven years before the salary increase pays for the M.Ed. itself.

You can talk "social contract" all you want, but in addition to a nearly impossible job for comparatively little pay, you want to treat me like a suspect? Yes, we must be on drugs to keep doing this job for employers (the tax-paying citizenry) who (a) compensate us poorly, (b) threaten us when the students we teach don't pass a standardized test when we are but one tiny piece of the achievement puzzle, and (c) refuse to treat us with the dignity we deserve.

And for what? To prevent harm to our children that has never even happened yet, as far as we know.

The profession already faces a dearth of excellent practitioners because those of us with the brains can make a ton more doing something else. Now you want to lure us into peeing into a cup with a (comparably) laughable raise. As has been mentioned here, this is going to lead even more of us to find something else to do. What I can't believe is that all you lovely people who are in favor of this thing refuse to acknowledge that this is even a big deal. Not only do you tread upon my professional dignity, you won't acknowledge that my dignity is even bruised.

At this moment, I think I hate you all.

Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. You deserve it. The teachers are going to approve this thing, so it won't even be something forced upon them. Sure, we're so hard-up for whatever scraps you're going to toss us that we'll sit up and beg, whatever the indignity, but in the long run, this is not going to help anyone, least of all your children.

[pzarquon]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

Wow. I don't think I've ever felt better to see a workforce elect to have drug testing than this very moment.

Private companies have been able to require drug testing for years. Most of those employees didn't have the benefit of an all-powerful union to fight it. You want to work at Company X, you take the test. Even if your job doesn't bring you in contact with kids, little fluffy bunnies, or anyone or anything else, for that matter.

I had random drug testing at my last job, and I sat in a cubicle and worked on manuals and policies all day.

Public school teachers are not private employees of private companies. They'd be the first to tell you they're "special," with an all-important mission, and meanwhile paid by everyone, even people who don't consume their services. But they do have an all powerful union to fight for them. They're lucky to even have the choice to vote on this question.

And it looks like they're going to approve it. In part, of course, because with the stick comes the carrot of a raise. But in part, I'm certain, because they're just as annoyed with the effect drugs have on their ranks than anyone else would be.

And for the record, the provisions for a teacher who tests positive seem positively generous compared to most zero-tolerance, one-strike arrangements. Even if a teacher is an addict, they're going to work to get them back on track and back in the classroom. I doubt everyone would be so forgiving.

When it comes to the question of drug tests, I certainly don't think there's sinister specter of absolute catastrophe, some unproven, immediate danger posed to our children where drug addicts threaten the very fabric of our education system. I don't think that we need to act "proactively" against all teachers because of one teacher that might be a disaster waiting to happen. I agree, there are a lot more real threats out there.

But frankly, if drug tests are keeping widgets flowing over at Bob's Widget Co., I would almost expect they'd be applied to the people who are teaching my kids.

What you are asking me to do just isn't worth it, and I guess that's why I take fifteen thousand dollars fewer every year not to deal with it. It is my (financial) loss, but it is also your (educational) loss.

You like to say this, I see. It's your choice to "opt out," and more power to you, man. But I guess I have more confidence in public school teachers than you, or than most, 'cause of those things my kids are probably missing out on, teachers who don't like drug tests aren't high on the list.

[waioli kai]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

I'm with you on this scrivener although I still halfway believe that HSTA teachers will vote down the proposal, not that in the long run it will make much difference. Teachers will still get shafted by their governments and there will be ever fewer reasons for well educated and talented individuals to want to become or remain in the teaching profession in the public schools; and then, as with this sorry "representative government" of ours, the adult population will get what they deserve while their children end up suffering the biggest losses of all. What should have been a great nation is rendered a great has-been in barely more than one generation.

As for such observations like "What you get for that trade is a workplace free of drug addiction. For your compatriots who are drug users, they pop a positive and they get rehab out of the deal. " How naive is that? If drug use equals drug addiction then every user of a prescription is an addict! And what about alcohol? When is that going to be addressed? Its use (not even talking about addiction!) is responsible for more vehicle deaths and injuries than any other single reason.

A social contract? When does that start? At birth? Who in any of the 50 states who has an employable consciousness is not bound by such a contract? Under the terms of such a contract everyone should be glad to be subject to random drug tests anywhere and anytime! Society could be so much better as a result of such testing: test positive and rehab is automatic; whether use or addiction it doesn't matter. Required prescriptions for alcohol and tobacco would make for a healthier society not to mention saving public monies that would otherwise be spent to cover costs associated with the use of alcohol and tobacco products; of course, a significant amount of federal and state tax revenues would decline with lowered consumption of alcohol and tobacco products so maybe those two drugs should just remain exempt from social scrutiny.

[scrivener]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

But frankly, if drug tests are keeping widgets flowing over at Bob's Widget Co., I would almost expect they'd be applied to the people who are teaching my kids.

Please review this statement and ask if it's consistent with your beliefs. I suspect that it's not. If you think drug testing should be done on teachers, I don't fault you the position, but is "it's being done elsewhere" really supportive of your position?

You like to say this, I see. It's your choice to "opt out," and more power to you, man. But I guess I have more confidence in public school teachers than you, or than most, 'cause of those things my kids are probably missing out on, teachers who don't like drug tests aren't high on the list.

You know that's not what I mean. That's not what your kids are missing out on. What they're missing out on is someone passionately devoted to the professionalism of educators. Someone who will never stop school because of a pay dispute, someone who will never compromise the teacher-student relationship, someone who consistently and constantly works to improve methodology and pedagogy through research, practice, and education. I hold myself to a high professional standard (as does the OVERWHELMING majority of my colleagues) and won't settle for less than professional treatment.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

So lets say random drug testing isn't approved. And let's say that a teacher under the influence of a drug doesn't harm a child.

Take these statements and reword them: No Drug testing! I can handle drugs and with no testing I'll have no worries at all about getting busted so long as I teach well.

What do we end up here? Teachers who will defy the laws and boldly come to work under the influence because no checks are put into place to catch them.

What's wrong here? It's drug abuse and it's against the law, the only difference is that you won't get caught. YOU WON'T GET CAUGHT!! Fear of getting caught means you are doing something wrong and you know it.

Is that what we want to teach our kids? That as long as you don't get caught go ahead and break the laws? Well why not rob a bank! Why not do something more heinous AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GET CAUGHT!

No random drug testing almost guarantees that one that can hide drug addiction can come to work under the influence. If the threat is gone, don't you think others who cannot hide their addiction will attempt your same feat of masking? Don't you think some will fail? How many teachers that do fail the ability to think coherently under the influence of a drug will cause harm to our children?

One that's all, not a herd of teachers, but one and only one. That's all it takes.

The pillars of society is a perfect example of what I'm saying. Come on Scriv, if your house was falling to termites and you found them in one major supporting beam holding your roof up, wouldn't you check all the beams to make sure the whole house doesn't come crashing on your head?

Each teacher represents a pillar of society. You want distinction, you are a pillar that upholds the future of our youth thru education. You may be strong but can you hold the entire education structure upon your shoulders? NO WAY. It takes the combined strength of all teachers to do the job.

So a few bad teachers were rooted out, how many more are there? How do you find out? How do you do it fairly without singling out any one teacher?

You can test all of them or choose a random selection.

And poinographer the whole notion that one could teach under the influence and should be able to is totally ubsurd! We don't allow people to smoke within a certain proximity of a school zone and yet you advocate that it should be alright for a teacher of all people to be allowed to enter a school campus loaded up on Crack or Pakalolo? Yes? Is that what I hear?

There is something fundamentally wrong with an answer like that. Drug use is ILLEGAL whether you use it on or off the clock. There is no place in our lawful society for drug abusers. And more importantly, there is no place for a drug user to be sending the message to our kids that it's okay to come to work stoned! That's just basically wrong!

As a parent of six boys I try my hardest to keep them straight and clean. Teachers beg parents to help educate their kids at home. Teachers that send the wrong message about drug use only make it harder for parents to do the job that teachers demand we do...and that's to educate our children and educate them on the values of right and wrong.

A DOPE SMOKING CRACK HEAD TEACHER ISN'T HELPING A MUTUAL CAUSE OF EDUCATING OUR YOUTH.

Teachers want parents to kokua...parents are telling teachers to kokua too by being the role models they pertain to be when they graduated with a teaching certificate.

If a parent smokes dope a child will tend to do also. If a teacher smokes dope, a student will tend to do so also. If both smoke then that child doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to succeed.

Parents can eliminate one factor. They don't need to believe they have to fight their kid's teacher to eliminate the other.

As a teacher, why did you chose that profession? To educate children? Or just get a paycheck. If you want to educate the children then send the right message. If you want just a paycheck, then chose another profession because as a parent I will do my part in protecting my kids from influential people bent on making my child believe drug abuse in class is okay.

You as a teacher have to think more than your own selves because your actions are pivital to the social aspects of our budding youth. Your action in a classroom of 30 will affect 30 minds and those 30 minds will influence 30 more and it goes on.

poinographer you seem to condone drug use in the classroom. Scriv all you want is dignity as one who probably doesn't do drugs right? Do you see the differences between one camp that does do drugs and the other that simply wants to be left alone? One is affecting the rights of the other. You Scriv should be focusing your energies on those making your job as a teacher harder. It's the drug abuser, not the DOE that is making it tougher for you.

Deal with the drug abuser. That person is the root of all this strife. Or do you simply turn a blind eye and make someone else do the dirty work. At some point in time you have to take the responsibility to preserve your right to work before someone else makes that decision for you.

[waioli kai]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

.

--If a parent smokes dope a child will tend to do also. If a teacher smokes dope, a student will tend to do so also. If both smoke then that child doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to succeed.-- cw

Then it follows?: If the preacher abuses his flock his flock will abuse others? If a parent overeats himself into obesity that parent's child will do the same? If a parent smokes tobacco until he or she dies of cancer her and or his children will do the same?

--It's the drug abuser, not the DOE that is making it tougher for you.-- cw

Are you suggesting that it is the DoE that tied pay raises to random drug testing?

At some point the stupidity of the public in general just prevails over what used to be called "common sense"; there is precious little nowadays in the United States that is common about rational thought.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

.

--If a parent smokes dope a child will tend to do also. If a teacher smokes dope, a student will tend to do so also. If both smoke then that child doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to succeed.-- cw

Then it follows?: If the preacher abuses his flock his flock will abuse others? If a parent overeats himself into obesity that parent's child will do the same? If a parent smokes tobacco until he or she dies of cancer her and or his children will do the same?

--It's the drug abuser, not the DOE that is making it tougher for you.-- cw

Are you suggesting that it is the DoE that tied pay raises to random drug testing?

At some point the stupidity of the public in general just prevails over what used to be called "common sense"; there is precious little nowadays in the United States that is common about rational thought.

I do believe an abusive preacher will allow his flock to abuse others.
I do believe a parent that over eats will have an obese child.
I do believe a parent that smokes will have children that will smoke.

And no I'm not suggesting the DOE is tying pay raises to Random Drug Testing. There's no conspiracy here at all Waioli...none at all

Common sense tells us to get rid of the perpetrator. Civil Rights laws tell us how we cannot do it. There comes a point in time when common sense and civil rights will duke it out with each other. In the end common sense always will prevail because it simply makes sense.

So if Privacy rights fall under civil rights, then common sense become unlawful. And if common sense prevails despite the laws, then the laws need to be rewritten.

Hence, common sense would allow less privacy. That to me is common sense. No conspiracy here, no complex thoughts, just simple common sense, the way the world was meant to run on.

Sometimes it's just easier to simply take the test and get it over with rather than spending too much valuable time fretting over nothing. And it is nothing to worry about right? Unless you got something to hide.

[waioli kai]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

Unless a person has something to hide, why should he care if his government(s) wants to read his e-mail whenever the government wants to? Why not have the government be able to see a patient's medical records whenever a government agency wants to do so? Why not make individual tax returns a matter of public record? Why not permit the government to easily access all and any of a consumers purchases to verify that an individual's reported income corresponds to what the individual can afford to buy? Why not do DNA tests on every baby born to verify that the recorded father is indeed the father? Why not do DNA profiles on every baby born so that all those whose lives take a turn that is deemed harmful to society/the government can be easily identified, located, treated, punished? Unless one has something to hide there is no reason for anything to be private is there?

--Hence, common sense would allow less privacy. That to me is common sense. -- cw

--Sometimes it's just easier to simply take the test and get it over with rather than spending too much valuable time fretting over nothing. And it is nothing to worry about right? Unless you got something to hide.--cw

Yes, that's how authoritarian and totalitarian governments exists: "..it's just easier to simply take their medicine and stop fretting over individual rights. Nothing to worry about then. Just toe the line, smile and say 'Thank You Master for allowing me to breath'."

[craigwatanabe]

Unless a person has something to hide, why should he care if his government(s) want to read his e-mail whenever the government wants to? Why not have the government be able to see a patient's medical records whenever a government agency wants to do so? Why not make individual tax returns a matter of public record?

Why not just stick to the issues and take the stupid test. You got nothing to hide don't you?

Don't you?

Somehow that doesn't sound grammatically correct...Do Not you? just doesn't sound right but anyway Waioli...don't you?

[waioli kai]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

.

--Why not just stick to the issues and take the stupid test. You got nothing to hide don't you?-- cw

What you refuse to answer are very much the issues. What you are stuck on is a single issue that you choose to pretend has nothing to do with anything else. Though perhaps you are not pretending: then, apparently, you absolutely must reduce that which is complex to ridiculousness because to fail to do so would put you in an indefensible position.