Get Schooled

By Jackson

October 10, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

I think if they pass a law barring baboons from serving on school boards our education system would improve ten fold.

By VOICE

October 10, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

As I see it, a large part of the problem is related to the fact that teachers are held accountable for much of what takes place in our schools, but they have very little input in policy-making decisions. Teachers/educators should be allowed to serve on boards, including their own local boards. If teachers were allowed to serve, we would probably have more policies requiring student and parent accountability, which should improve school performance across the state. Any problems such as conflicts of interest could be effectively dealt with as ethical issues by the PSC, which all educators are bound by. Ultimately, I think passing this legislation and allowing teachers to serve on boards will result in major improvements for our schools.

By lyncoln

October 10, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

Voice, I think you misread the post. Currently, teachers can serve on school boards. The proposed law would change things so teachers can no longer serve on school boards.

I still don’t see how not paying school board members will improve the performance of a school board.

I’m sure we will get some applicants who choose to be on the school board as a ‘labor of love’ or to ‘give back to the community’. But what happens when a loved one is very ill? Or there’s a divorce or any of a million things that changes one’s life? What do you give up first: your job that pays a salary or a volunteer position?

Not paying school board members will reduce the commitment of those members and school boards would become even less useful to the public.

And exactly what legal backing is there for the state to force a local government to follow specific ‘staffing numbers’ for any positions?

I don’t think the state is allowed to set the number of people serving on a city council.

Hmmm, maybe the old “we won’t send funds to systems that fail to do X” method of legislation. It worked for NCLB, so it must be good!! (ugh)

The state to take over poorly operating school boards is the only thing that I might consider as reasonable, but even then it goes against the standard of local control of school systems. Seems like a poor proposal so far.

By TheBlogger

October 10, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

All school boards should be required to have a teacher on them.

One major probem with school boards is that they lack insight to what happens in a classroom. What better way to solve this problem than to require that a teacher serve?

I would suggest that this teacher should not be “appointed” but rather elected by all employees of the school system. After all, it is this teacher that will basically be representing their perspective on the board.

This elected teacher would have all rights and responsibilities as any school board member.

I totally don’t see the logic of passing a law saying that teachers cannnot serve on boards - just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

By VOICE

October 10, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

OOPS! Lyncoln, I did misread the post. After re-reading it, I agree with you and TheBlogger. The state taking over poorly operating school boards and requiring every board to have a teacher may be a step in the right direction.

Now with regard to paying board members. Maybe a set salary statewide will be effective and fair. As it now stands, I think some board members are paid and others are not.

On second thought, maybe this legislation should not pass.

By catlady

October 10, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

I would like to have an experienced teacher or RECENTLY retired teacher on the school board. The board members HAVE NO CLUE about what is going on in the classroom, and in the past our board has rubber stamped any old thing the supt. comes up with. It would be nice to have someone in the know say, “wait a minute” with some of these harebrained schemes.

By V for Vendetta

October 10, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

I absolutely agree wit The Blogger: School boards should be REQUIRED to have an IN-DISCTRICT teacher on the board. Whose finger is better equipped to feel the pulse of what is happening in a given county’s school system? Who know better than a teacher what goes on in the classroom and how to improve education? It seems like it would be obvious, but apparently it’s not. Heck, why do you think counties like Clayton and Dekalb have problems and counties like Gwinnett and Cobb are sliding fast? Because they’re run by self serving educrats instead of people who CARE about what happens in the schools themselves!

Rocket science? No. Eighth grade science? No. Common freaking sense? Yes!

Fire the Wilbankses of the world and replace them with people who know what the heck they are talking about!

By high school teacher

October 10, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

I am leery about putting a teacher on a school board simply because teachers are human and have agendas. Do you want an elementary, middle, or high school teacher as a board representative? A high school teacher might fight for funding in a certain area where an elementary teacher would fight for something else.

If districts were to elect teachers, they need reps from all of the above.

I do think that teaching in one county and being on a board in another shows a lack of loyalty, but that’s just my humble opinion.

By Educational Deity

October 10, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

I am fine with whomever is put on the board as long as they are not from Clayton County.

By catlady

October 10, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

A teacher on the school board would be ONLY ONE voting member. Their ability to follow their own very specific agenda would be very limited. Their ability to bring some actual knowledge of what is really going on, of what a proposal really means, would be invaluable.

By GOB

October 10, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

I am leery about putting a teacher on a school board simply because teachers are human and have agendas.

No more so than any of the other board members. In my school, a school board member threatened the job of a teacher over playing time in a sport. Everyone brings some kind of bias with them anywhere they go, but a teacher on the board would at least add some day-to-day classroom perspective to the board.

By Maureen Downey, Professional Scapegoater

October 10, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Anyone eles notice that Maureen “Blame teachers first” Downey advocates taking away not only a teacher’s citizenship right to seek office, but even a retired teacher’s basic citizenship rights?

And of course it goes without saying that “Blames teachers first” says absolutely nothing about a candidates views on restoring discipline in the public schools.

If she mentions that, she has to then explain how she herself is an advocate for the students’ best interests, as she has been completely silent when it comes to falsified discipline data, and violations of teachers rights to tribunal hearings when they’ve been physically assaulted in the classroom.

Do you really think she wants to explain herself on those decisions, and show us all how she puts the AJC’s political agenda in front of basic citizenship rights of teachers to participate in the political process, and even puts that agenda in front of safe working conditions for teachers and safe learning conditions for students?

By What's next, teacher interment camps?

October 10, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

Why aren’t teachers outraged that their the state board of ed and this paper are advocating taking away their basic citizenship rights to protect the status quo in education?

What’s next, taking away their right to vote because it’s a conflict of interest?

Are teachers so imbued with Battered Wife Syndrome that they are just going to take yet another assault on them?

By Sam

October 10, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

In the county where I live, EVERY member of the school board is a teacher, principal, active or retired, education professor at the local Univ. and/or spouse of same. Needless to say, all these people are teachers union members. The teachers union writes its members self-congratulatory e-mails about “controlling” the School Board.

The purpose of the School board is to let the professional educators know what parents, potential employers, and other citizens want the schools to produce. Too many teacher-controlled school boards are just an echo to the union’s agenda: more pay, less work, and teaching socialism.

By Liha

October 10, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

Most teachers retire long before 65. A recently retired teacher is a great candidate for school board.

Corporate boards usually have at least one member from a comparable yet non-competing business. For example Home Depot has board members from Michaels and Quiznos.

By teachme

October 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

Many of you need to go back and read the recommendations and state law, which already prohibits teachers from serving on the BOE in the county they work in. The recommendation is to prohibit ANY Georgia teacher from serving on ANY board.

By Larry

October 10, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

Clearly, there are different opinions on who should serve on a local school board, which is precisely why the State BOE should keep their nose out of it.

These are - and should remain - local decisions, free from interference by an appointed board whose members cannot be replaced by unhappy voters.

By HB

October 10, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

I think it’s probably a good idea to prohibit teachers and other district employees from serving on the board. I do like the idea, though, of having a teacher to advise the board, or maybe even serve as a regular boardmember in a special teacher seat but only if teachers/employees are limited to that one seat.

Teachers absolutely, though, should be allowed to serve on boards if they do not teach in that district — it’s ridiculous that knowledge of the classroom would prohibit one from serving when there is no real potential for conflicts of interest. And I’m not sure why anyone would consider that disloyal. I’ve known many teachers who did not live in the same district where they worked. Why would it be disloyal to want to serve the community where they live and where their children likely attend school just because they are employed elsewhere?

By mmm

October 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Now I’m going to get myself in trouble—-but the core duty of a governance board member is to protect the interests of the “owners” of public education—-i.e. the citizens and taxpayers. In order to fulfill that duty they must serve their “customers” i.e. students in a way that produces the educated citizens that can be productive members of that behave in a way that strengthens our democracy. To that end, parental “satisfaction” is a marker of that accomplishment—but customer’s demands shouldn’t always be the final say on whether the taxpayers are getting good value for their expenditure. Likewise, teachers are employees—and teacher moral and satisfaction is not the purpose for which public education was created.

So the basic question for any board service is whether the individual is capable of realizing that the things that they may emotionally want to do to make their peers happy, and the “expertise” that they feel that they have from their role as an employee make them better able to serve the interests of the “stockholders” that it is their duty to protect.

Given the other responses that I see on this blog—it seems clear that many of you who want teachers on—or to control a board, don’t understand the requirements of good governance sufficiently to realize that it would be a rare individual that could have been an “employee” and then suddenly walk into a room shed the employee interests that are now built into their emotional responses in favor of the interests of the many taxpayers and citizens whose monies are being spent.

I do find the idea of taking away the citizenship rights troubling—-but I think it would be a rare individual that could do this well—-and if it is being considered, then it should apply to any employee of a school system, not just teachers.

By Lee

October 10, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

Current GA law regarding who can and cannot serve on local BOEs:

§ 20-2-51. Election of county board members; persons ineligible to be members or superintendent; ineligibility for local boards of education; ineligibility for other elective offices.

‘(a) No person shall be eligible for election as a member of a local board of education who is not a resident of the school district in which that person seeks election and of the election district which such person seeks to represent.

‘(c) No person employed by or serving on the governing body of a private educational institution shall be eligible to serve as a member of a local board of education. No person employed by a local board of education shall be eligible to serve as a member of that board of education. No person employed by the Department of Education or serving as a member of the State Board of Education shall be eligible to serve as a member of a local board of education.

More than likely, this committee probably did not know current GA law…

By Will

October 10, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this

We allow lawyers to become legislators. Why not allow teachers to server on school boards?

By HS Teacher

October 10, 2008 9:41 PM | Link to this

I think the Board of Education should include Educators. Who better to run things than those of us who know what to do. Thing is, we are seldom asked.

Living in the county, but not teaching in the school system, of course since that complies with current state law. I also agree with the reduced number of BOE members and they should not be paid more than a stipend that covers expenses only. It is not a second job.

Many school systems have had teachers on their BOE for years without problems. Of course, here in Clayton Co, we have had some problems. But, when personal agendas are the reason for being on the BOE, I guess you expect problems.

Maybe the BOE members should not have any relatives enrolled in the school system during their term (s).

By RF

October 10, 2008 11:39 PM | Link to this

As a teacher, I think it would be a conflict of interest to serve on a board of education. I would see my perspective as skewed unintentionally towards teachers, which would decrease the ability to be objective in all cases. In my mind, if there’s even a small chance of subjectivity, then one needs not serve in such a role. BOE members need to be as objective as possible. Having taught in Clayton County in the past, I can attest to what subjectivity causes, and we clearly have seen the results. I wouldn’t consider running for any BOE since I am a teacher and thus subject to some subjectivity in making decisions that affect the success, and accredidation, of a school district.

By Jackie

October 11, 2008 3:36 AM | Link to this

I should state from the outset that I am a teacher. Having acknowledged that, I think teachers should certainly be in a position to give input into School Board decisions. I have been involved for several years in school improvement activities. School improvement teams in high schools, for example, should include teachers, students, parents, and concerned community members. Why not include such people, at least as non-voting members, on school boards? People in schools know more about them than others do. They may not be right in everything they believe, but they know their schools—what will fly and what does not have a prayer. That’s helpful at times. Most teachers I know, contrary to some snide, derogatory comments, want the very best for their students, and they will change their practice when they know something new is really better.

By Battered Wife Syndrome

October 11, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Teacher RF,

You are the epitome of the Battered Wife Syndrome that has infected the teachers of Georgia. Even when the State Board of Education wants to take away your basic citizenship rights for political reasons (are you really so naive to think this is “for the children”?) you go right along with it because somehow you “deserve” it.

Why don’t you take a minute to think, and then come back on here and tell us who doesn’t have the potential of a conflict of interest? You don’t think a parent could have a conflict of interest? What if that parent/board member’s employer has a child thrown off a football team. You don’t think there might not be some pressure to intervene? Are you that naive?

What about a business person? You don’t think the contacts they have made over the years won’t be angling with a business person/board member for school system contracts? Are you that naive?

Apparently you are. And apparently you are imbued with the low self esteem that comes with Battered Wife Syndrome that of all the people that could have a potential conflict of interest (which for all pratcial purposes would be anyone living in the community) you think that teachers are the only ones lacking in the critical thinking skills necessary to approach an issue objectively.

It is indeed a sad indictment of the mindset of teachers today, if you think they, and you, are so selfish, ignorant, and so uncaring of students that they can’t even be trusted to exercise a right that we grant all citizens.

What’s next TF? Are you going to advocate that teachers not even be allowed to vote in school board elections, because they have a conflict of interest? Are you going to advocate that teachers should no longer have any rights, because those rights were fought for by people who had a conflict of interest?

It’s a basic citizenship right TF. On top of that it’s an insult to you as a professional, and it’s intellectually dishonest to say that teachers would be the only ones who could potentially have a conflict of interest (and it completely discounts the perspective they bring to the process).

And even though the Board of Education and lackeys for the status quo like “Blame teachers first” Downey would totally disrespect your rights as a teacher (have you ever read an article where “Blame teachers first” has advocated giving teachers more authority in the classroom, or it is always more “accountability”?) you go right along with the abolishment of a basic right as a citizen. Well TF, if teachers are so cowardly that they’ll acquiesce to having even basic citizenship rights taken away, then frankly, they get what’s coming to them. All of it.

By luvs2teach

October 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

I’m assuming that we are talking about elected school boards, no? The school board is elected, and not appointed in my county; I’m not sure what it is in other counties. so, that being said, I think teachers should be allowed to run in the county they live in, whether they teach there or not. As someone else said, teachers have no more or less conflict of interest than a parent or business person, and it’s up to the voters in the community to decide. We’re not talking about just taking away the teachers’ civic rights, but also those of the electorate by managing their choices.

Recently I’ve had the opportunity to research and visit some schools in other countries and in other states. Georgia is moving in the wrong direction of local control.

By elise

October 11, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

Even if a teacher was on a school board, their opinions would eventually be silenced. There is just too much bullying in most of our school systems.

By Lee

October 11, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

The main reason the law prohibits current employees (including teachers) from serving on their school board is that they would, in effect, be the boss of their boss.

If y’all can’t understand how that would be a conflict of interest, I’m sorry, I don’t know how to put it in any simpler terms.

Retired teachers are eligible to serve on the local BOE and our county has had several.

By Parent

October 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

Teachers should not be prevented from serving on school boards. They have the most knowledge about what is going on in the schools. Why would anyone think that someone outside of education would be a better candidate? That makes no sense. If school boards had more educators on the boards, our student achievement would be higher. Clayton County’s problems with educators on their board is the exception rather than the rule for educators serving on boards.

By Parent

October 11, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

I agree with you Lee, that a teacher should not serve on the board where the teacher works, but that should be the only restriction.

By Lee you don't get it.

October 11, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

Lee,

Please come on here and explain in “simplest terms” how a teacher, serving on a school board other that the one she is working for, is being “the boss of her boss”?

That’s what the state board of ed is proposing Lee. That a citizen not have the right to seek elected office in the county they live, vote, and pay taxes in. Not work in Lee, live, vote and pay taxes in, in Lee.

Is there any other profession where we would be some comfortable as to propose abolishing a person’s basic citizenship rights?

In “simplest terms” Lee, this is nothing less that abolishing a teacher’s basic right as a citizen to fully participate in the political process. And please don’t insult my intelligence by saying it has anything to do with being concerned “for the childern”.

By mmm you also TOTALLY miss the point

October 11, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

mmm,

When you make the case that teacher as employee can’t serve the best interests of the “stakeholders” you are forgetting one key point. In the county where the teacher lives (not works, mmm, lives, votes, and pays taxes) that teacher is a stakeholder, as much as ANY other citizen.

It is nothing short of vile and reprehensible that this paper, and the state board of ed will advocate taking away a basic citizenship right of a teacher when it cannot make a case that, as a non-employee of the school board they live in, they would have any more of a “conflict of interest” than any parent, business person, or any other citizen.

It shows nothing but COMPLETE contempt for teachers in their role and parent and citizen. If you want to make your case mmm, come on here and explain how a parent, a voter, and a taxpaying citizen is any less a “stakeholder” in the system they send their children and their taxes to, just because they happen to be a teacher in a COMPLETELY different school system?

Make that case. I don’t think you will, because I don’t think you legitimately can.

By luvs2teach

October 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

“the boss of her boss”?

OK, then, the teacher has to abstain from any vote directly affecting his/her school’s personnel. Again, problem solved.

Let the voters decide. If the voters don’t think that a given candidate - whether teacher, parent, business person - then they don’t have to vote for them!

What about the spouse of a teacher? Can they run? Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest if the teacher had an issue with his or her boss? Now pillow talk gives new meaning to the expression “from the bedroom” to the boardroom.” Some one else mentioned business people who might be eligible for contracts and parents looking out for the “best” interests of their children at the exclusion of others.

I work in my district school and I do it because I believe in my role as a stakeholder in this community. While I have no board aspirations, I am insulted that someone else wants to take that choice from me both in running or voting for a candidate that I think will do a good job.

By catlady

October 11, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

We have a banker on our school board. His bank does business with the school board (on a rotating business). We have other members of the business community who could profit from their association with the school system. Yet, there is no question they are allowed to run for office.

The reason I strongly support having ateacher on the board is because SOMEONE needs to ask some tough questions about some of the malarky that gets passed, without a glance, by school board members who will sign off on anything the supt puts in front of them. We really need some knowledgable oversight, and some appropriate questions asked.

Our school board has seemed to believe that they know all there is to know about school because they all went to first grade (some of them, years ago.) Their main concerns seem to be the sports program and the spin on CRCT scores. How many millions to fix up the stadium??? How much paid to the football coach???? How few classes do the coaches teach???? Who in the CO profits from “supervising” (meaning, going out of town to attend conferences) the “cure du jour”????? How many retired folks do we hire back to help in the CO???? I truly could go on and on. A teacher would KNOW to demand the answers for the taxpayers. Apparently the others do not.

By Lee

October 11, 2008 6:21 PM | Link to this

Oh good grief, for a bunch of EDUCATORS, y’all sure can’t seem to comprehend anything.

Current state law says “No person employed by a local board of education shall be eligible to serve as a member of that board of education.”

That’s it. If you work in one county and live in another, you CAN be elected to serve on the BOE of the county in which you live.

The State BOE cannot unilaterally make a rule to prohibit teachers from serving.

Now then, the one clause of that law that does not make sense is this: “No person employed by or serving on the governing body of a private educational institution shall be eligible to serve as a member of a local board of education.”

So, if I’m serving on the Board of a small, private church school, I cannot serve on the local BOE anywhere?

By Lee you STILL miss the point

October 11, 2008 8:06 PM | Link to this

No one is talking about the current law, they are talking about the PROPOSED law; a law that would take away a teacher’s basic citizenship rights by denying them to run for the school board where they live, vote, and pay taxes.

NOT where they work Lee, where they LIVE, VOTE, and PAY TAXES.

This isn’t about the current law; it’s about the PROPOSED law, a proposal that is a SLAP IN THE FACE to teachers in Georgia.

By Evy Lysk

October 11, 2008 9:33 PM | Link to this

Teachers ”SHOULD NOT” be on school boards. When teacher’s contracts come up, it’s teacher’s on school boards who give away the store to their fellow teacher friends. Infact, they make sure teacher’s get the stars and the moon. I sat on two school boards for 4 yrs and the one thing I learned is, teacher’s look out for other teachers. Another thing I have witnessed, school board members look out for their buddies and their relatives. They’re the people who get all the jobs in the public schools. Nepotism is rampant in the public schools and so are their cover-ups! They will do what it takes to get what they want. Another thing, sports is more important than education in the public schools. Infact coaches recruit kids from other schools, so their school can be number one. That’s against school policy, but they do it anyway! Coaches have an ego as big as the Grand Canyon! School boards and the administration are as crooked as the politicians are in Washington, DC. Our public schools are like Little Washington! All levels of government are leeches and they’re sucking the blood out of hard-working taxpayers. Parents, if you can, home-school your children, do it. Public schools will brainwash your children teaching them their liberal idealology. Beware if you child’s school has their ”Day of Silence.” Accepting homosexuality is okay, but not prayer in school. Go to your school board meetings and witness for yourself the many excutive sessions members go into, so they can hide things from you, the taxpayer. It’s your money they’re spending and wasting, but they don’t want you to know that. I had a front row seat to it all. I witnessed the underhanded behavior by board members and administrators, especially superintendents. They’re all in bed with each other to get those big raises, more money and free health care. If you don’t go along to get along, they will intimidate you and even threaten you with their lawyers or worse to shut you up. It didn’t work with me. Check out www.the-patriot’s-voice.org. My partners Bob Runyon, Becky Heller and I run this website to inform taxpayers in our area.

By Patriot?

October 11, 2008 9:51 PM | Link to this

Evy Lysk,

How in God’s name can you call yourself a “patriot” yet at the same time advocate that teachers’ BASIC CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS be abolished?

Even if you are right about the rampant nepotism, and executive sessions designed to hide things from the public, we are talking BASIC CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.

They aren’t talking about teachers serving on boards where they work; they are talking about NOT having the right to serve on boards where they LIVE, and PAY TAXES!

I would think a “patriot” wouldn’t want to travel down the road of taxation without representation, but that’s EXACTLY what the board of ed is proposing.

By Lee

October 11, 2008 10:31 PM | Link to this

Good grief #2:

It is not a proposed law. It is a report that outlines some basic changes. Changes that will be edited numerous times before it ever gets put on a bill for consideration - IF, and that’s a big IF, it ever gets considered for legislative action.

Since teachers represent one of the largest voting blocks in the state of GA, might I suggest getting off your duffs and contacting your state senators and representatives and letting them know how you feel.

Because I’m pretty sure most of them do not read this blog….

I’m curious just how many current teachers are on a local BOE and work in another county. My guess, none.

By luvs2teach

October 11, 2008 11:24 PM | Link to this

Lee - we have one in my county. She lives in this county, but works in another, and serves on our board. I can’t be more specific because I prefer to remain as anonymous as possible, but both counties are in the metro area.

By Dr. Craig Spinks/Augusta

October 12, 2008 7:13 AM | Link to this

luvs2teach, why do teachers tend to be afraid to stand up and voice their opinions under their own names? Last time I looked, there was a First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We teachers need to be brave enough to assert the rights guaranteed by this amendment. And, by the way, if a teacher is not brave enough to voice his/her opinion in a forum like this, is s/he brave enough to deal with some of the challenging students found in contemporary public school classrooms?

By luvs2teach

October 12, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Dr. Craig Spinks - I’m not afraid to stand up and voice my opinions under my own name - the things I say here are no surprise to the people who know me and the people I work with, including my principal and school board member.

I have shared on here before, and perhaps you missed it, that several years ago, when the AJC required you to post your name for commenting, I posted my real name to a topic. I was then asked to testify in a court case as a result of my post - some paralegal found my name in the hundreds of posts on the topic, over several days of commenting. I was subpoenaed at school. I had to miss a day of school for the trial. I was even interviewed by the AJC (Kristina Torres, as a matter of fact). While the entire thing was very interesting, and caused me no problems at school or within the county, I don’t care to repeat the experience.

By luvs2teach

October 12, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

And I forgot to mention, as a former Marine, I have no problems with either “bravery” or the “challenging students” found in my classroom - but I still want to keep my job, like most other people in these “challenging” economic times…if you think things posted on the web can’t be an issue, then you haven’t been paying attention to people losing their jobs (not just in education) over content of blogs, personal webpages, and social networking sites. People misunderstand the First Ammendment and what it really guarantees all the time. It doesn’t guarantee employment.

By Dr. Craig Spinks/Augusta

October 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

The USA will be a land of the free so long as it is the home of the brave. Being a patriotic citizen offers no immediate employment guarantees. Are you saying that you value the job you hold now more than you value your integrity? If so, you didn’t learn much on PI or CP? The Marines I know and with whom I work certainly value their integrity above all else.

By RF

October 12, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

BatteredWifeSyndrome- ever tried Prozac?? Your venom is laughable if it weren’t so pitiful. My OPINION is simply that: an OPINION. I have taught for twenty years and been honored multiple times. I don’t expect the likes of you to understand or accept that opinion, but your assumptions about me are baseless, pointless, and irrelevant. Save the vitriol for the McCain rallies pal. That’s the only place it’ll be welcome.

It is a simple fact that anyone can have a conflict of interest. It is incumbent upon an individual, however, to recognize that potential and recuse oneself from a situation where the body he/she represents cannot be represented without UNDUE influence from personal bias. If a teacher could handle the job with that understanding, go for it. I just think it would be tough to maintain objectivity when such a clear potential for subjectivity exists. It’s not about personal weakness, naivete, or whatever you want to call it. It’s about wanting to be fair and objective in a serious role that affects the futures of potentially thousands of children.

By GAQT466

October 12, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

IMO A school board member should never be paid. I was shocked when I moved here from New Jersey and found this out. No wonder these people are so often corrupt, they can be bought.

As for having techers on the school board it should be MANDATORY. Let’s face it many of the people on school boards, paid and unpaid haven’t been in a classroom in a minimum of 20 years. Many don’t even have college degrees. I have great neighbors here, but some of them are idiots and I don’t want them choosing the curriculum or making decisions about my childs education!

I think that the criteria for being a school board member should include a minimum of a 2 year college degree.

I think all potential candidates should be required to substitute teach for a minimum of 3 days in a school. If they have school age children, then they should sub in a school different from the one their children attend.

Contrary to popular belief a school is not a business even though it has a budget which must be adhered to. It is a non-profit entity. While many busines people have great ideas for making a school district run more efficiently, that is not the purpose of a school. The purpose of a school is to educate our youth. The education, safety, and well being of the student should be first and foremost in a board members mind.

By Evy Lysk

October 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

Yes I call myself a PATRIOT and I’m PROUD of it. You need to get your head out of the sand! If a teacher sits on a school board but he or she works at another school, it’s still a conflict of interest. What did you say your name was? I see no names here, just b***. That get’s you no where. No Guts, No Glory!!

By Yes Battered Wife Syndrome

October 12, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this

RF,

It is one thing, if in your personal opinion, you don’t think you can be objective. It is an entirely different thing to codify into law that a teacher cannot have the same BASIC CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS as any other member of society.

I happen to have a higher opinion of teachers, in that they can effectively serve the needs of students on a school board; just like they do in classrooms every day.

And I certainly have more respect for them than to accord them SECOND CLASS citizen status, by taking away their legal right to fully participate in the political process.

Notice NONE of the people advocating this can explain how a parent couldn’t have a conflict of interest, or a business person couldn’t have a conflict of interest. Thus the only thing that differentiates a teacher from either of the above is real working knowledge of what goes on in the classroom.

Again, it’s one thing to have an OPINION of who should serve. It’s entirely another to ABOLISH legal rights as to who has, and who doesn’t have, FULL access to the political process.

That a teacher would willingly go along with their own legal disenfranchisement is nothing short of astounding.

By luvs2teach

October 12, 2008 6:16 PM | Link to this

Dr. Spinks…

You said, “The USA will be a land of the free so long as it is the home of the brave. Being a patriotic citizen offers no immediate employment guarantees.”

You’re right. And your point is…? My point was that the First Ammendment is misunderstood. You are NOT free to say whatever you want without consequences. You are just protected from certain consequences in certain situations (namely you speak against the government without legal repercussion). You still can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. You can’t slander and you can’t libel.

“Are you saying that you value the job you hold now more than you value your integrity?”

Nope, that’s not what I said. I said I value my role in my school and my privacy in my community, and don’t care to be subpoenaed to a court case and interviewd by the AJC. Others may value their jobs enough to prefer to post anoymously - we all have different reasons for doing what we do. I was trying simply to offer insight.

“If so, you didn’t learn much on PI or CP? The Marines I know and with whom I work certainly value their integrity above all else.”

It was PI, and you don’t know enough about me from this blog to make a statement like that. I work hard within my comunity to make a difference in my corner of the world. I vote; I pay my taxes; I have raised my children to be decent citizens as well. I blog for fun and to offer my experiences and opinion. I certainly don’t blog to risk losing my job or to be insulted by someone who simply has a different opinion that I do.

Have a good day.

By RF

October 12, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this

That a teacher would willingly go along with their own legal disenfranchisement is nothing short of astounding

So there’s no misunderstanding, let me clarify my position. I said a teacher shouldn’t serve; I never said it should be law or that they couldn’t. That’s a personal choice that I believe a truly educated, thoughtful, unselfish person must consider before running for a BOE position.

Every local system receives some degree of funds from the state and every teacher is paid primarily by the state. It is a clear conflict of interest to recieve a salary and then turn around and have a vote in governance of money from the same budget, regardless of it being in another county/school system. It’s a choice each teacher must make. It’s not about citizenship rights or denying anyone a choice, okay? It’s about recognizing one’s better place of service to the community. I have no problem with a teacher pursuing political interests and holding political office in pretty much any role he or she desires. A school board, however, is just a bit close to the source.

Now, before you jump on the citizenship rights argument again, think about what I just typed. Any office other than a BOE seems proper. As a veteran of Clayton County (thankfully I left when the county had its first brush with accredidation loss), I can recall that the teachers on the board were a central part of the issue. That’s why I believe the SIMPLEST solution is just to stay out of the BOE business all together. Simple, no problem, no denying of rights or any of the other issues you keep bringing up.

By Now RF that makes ALL the difference

October 12, 2008 7:16 PM | Link to this

RF,

Your clarification makes all the difference. There’s a huge difference between thinking a teacher shouldn’t run, and taking away their legal right to run.

My whole point is that we need to tread, very, very, lightly when we go to take legal rights away from any citizens, including teachers; as that’s exactly what the state board of education is proposing we do to teachers, I think it’s appropriate for all citizens, not only teachers, to be outraged about it.

By RF

October 12, 2008 7:50 PM | Link to this

So do you think it’s a conflict of interest for a teacher to be paid from state education dept. funds and then have a voting interest in spending funds from the same dept.? I still can’t get past that point, even if it is in another school system. While the board member may have the best intentions in serving, it concerns me that the the person’s salary on the one hand comes from the same pot as the funds that person has influence over spending on the other hand.

By Conflicts of interest

October 12, 2008 8:41 PM | Link to this

RF,

If a teacher works in system A, but serves on the board in system B, nothing they vote on in system B (as far as I can tell) would effect their salary in system A.

Now are you saying that teachers shouldn’t serve in the General Assembly, because that’s where the decision for state funds comes from? If so, should we also ban lawyers, as the laws they pass could affect their legal practices?

And still, as much as the argument for conflict of interest can be made, I haven’t seen anybody explain how others are immune to this.

What about the parent on a board whose best friend’s son is thrown off the football team? You don’t think there might be some potential for conflict there?

What about the citizen who has no children in the system? Might not there be some conflict there in that they want their property taxes as low as possible, because the schools don’t directly benefit them?

What about the businessman, who has contacts with those who do business with the system?

All those people have a potential for a conflict of interest. But the state board of ed singled out teachers and proposed legal sanctions against them.

It’s nothing less than a slap in the face to teachers, to talk about taking away their legal rights as citizens.

By mae hester

October 12, 2008 9:03 PM | Link to this

Teachers are fine but not people with criminal records like Karl With a K White in DeKalb County. He failed to reveal that he was charged with assault when he was 25, old enough to know better. Anyone who votes for him is just asking for a Clayton County fiasco.

By Dave

October 12, 2008 10:03 PM | Link to this

I think teachers would be great on a board of education. Our board needs someone that has a clue about running a school system and that will not be just a puppet to the Superintendent. In Toombs County, all the board members and Superintendent do is place their children, in-laws, etc. in administrative positions WITHOUT even posting them (the jobs) or conducting interviews for the positions. Most people find out about the positions when they hear which golden child got the job! Oh, and they also occasionally cover up a sex scam involving their relatives that are in high places. I know they had to cover up two of these sex scams at the end of last year. What would get one fired in most places, gets one promoted in Lyons, Georgia!

By Lee

October 12, 2008 10:06 PM | Link to this

Craig Spinks, before you criticize someone for not posting their full name on this blog, may I suggest you Google your name and hometown. I’ll wait.

Tum de tum tum……….

You’re back? Good. Now then, are you sure you still want to put your name out there? In less than 30 seconds, I found out that you are a retired educator, your wife and childrens names, the city where your children and their spouses live (as of March 2007), and just about every opinion you have blogged over the past few years using your name. I could probably take that info and Mapquest driving directions to your front door.

Now then, consider this. There are a lot of teachers on this blog who are still working and will go to work Monday morning and face an administrator who may not like the fact that they are posting their opinion about administrators on a public blog. They may also let something slip about a current or former student and that student’s parent can certainly cause a lot of grief by filing a complaint with the Superintendent and/or the Professional Standards Committee.

No, I don’t blame anyone from using an alias on these blogs. It’s probably not a good idea for me to use my first name…

By Atmosphere of Retaliation

October 12, 2008 10:28 PM | Link to this

Let’s not forget, in addition to Lee’s points, that when whistleblower protection laws were passed by the Georgia Assembly, teachers were specifically excluded from being covered in the legislation.

We treat teachers like second class citizens, then wonder why we get second class results in education.

By dawggirl

October 12, 2008 10:33 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe it is even an issue. Doctors serve on the AMA. Lawyers serve on the bar. Insurance people serve on the insurance commission. Teachers serve on the school board. Why is it only the latter that disturbs people? It makes perfect sense that the people who know the most about education should be the ones with input into education. In none of the above scenarios would you put someone not in the profession in charge of making decisions for that profession, except education. Teachers on the board can not possibly make less-informed decisions, set mire ridiculous expectations, or make a bigger mess of education than the business people who are already serving.

By Emma

October 13, 2008 4:52 AM | Link to this

There needs to be some kind of standard for individuals that are part of the Board of Education. There are Board of Education members that can barely read or speak. Attend some of the local board meetings. You will be shocked at the lack of education and common courtesy that is displayed. These people cannot manage themselves much less guide students. At least a teacher would have an understanding of the issues that occur in a school.

By Emma

October 13, 2008 4:53 AM | Link to this

There needs to be some kind of standard for individuals that are part of the Board of Education. There are Board of Education members that can barely read or speak. Attend some of the local board meetings. You will be shocked at the lack of education and common courtesy that is displayed. These people cannot manage themselves much less guide students. At least a teacher would have an understanding of the issues that occur in a school.

By HB

October 13, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

“Doctors serve on the AMA. Lawyers serve on the bar. Insurance people serve on the insurance commission. Teachers serve on the school board. Why is it only the latter that disturbs people?”

Because the AMA and ABA are professional associations representing their field/members, much like the NEA, and therefore, not comparable to a school board.

I’m surprised that so many people see “conflict of interest” as an all or nothing deal. Can a parent of a kid who’s suspended have a conflict of interest? A businessman? Sure, but I would expect if a matter dealt directly with those issues (an appeal of the child’s punishment to the board, a vote on a contract pertaining to that business) that the involved board member would recuse himself. With a district employee, however, there would be an enormous number of issues that would warrant recusal — employee code of conduct, hiring/firing of employees, pay scale. It seems to me that the role of the board is to have community input and oversight from the outside, and I think it would be detrimental to potentially have a board full of prinicipals and teachers. I also think city employees should not serve on the city council. Generally speaking, boards of directors of nonprofits are not made up of employees. If a governing board can be made up of insiders, then where’s the oversight?

By Evy Lysk

October 13, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

One school in the area where I live had 7 teachers on their school board. The 8th director was married to a teacher. That school now has a $40,000 debt now. The teacher’s on that school board didn’t have a clue about money and how it should be spent. They just kept spending it and spending it as if the money was growing on trees. I just love that phony line that teacher’s repeat,”It’s for the Children.” No it’s not, it’s for the teacher’s and the administration! I sat on the school board with 3 teachers. One teacher couldn’t pay her own taxes that she helped to raise. She has been on the school board for 24 years. Her church bailed her out so she wouldn’t lose her home. I have a 12th grade education. I owe no one. My husband and I have no debts what’s so ever. We’re not rich people, just wise with our money. We don’t have a morgage or credit cards to pay off. We don’t live beyond our means. Teacher’s may be educated and book smart, but many are selfish educated idiots. Teacher’s forget that it’s the taxpayer who pay’s their salary. Teacher’s on school boards spells disaster for taxpayers.

By Evy Lysk

November 5, 2008 8:50 PM | Link to this

Someone has pointed out to me that the $40,000 debt I typed was wrong. I sure did type it wrong. This school’s debt is $41 MILLION, not $40,000. Again let me repeat myself. Teachers on the school board don’t care how they spend and waste other people’s money.