Principals have to take courses in school law before they become administrators. They are well aware of who does the hiring and firing. It would be possible for a principal to relieve a teacher from her post of duty without firing her. Teachers usually work under contractual agreements regardless of whether or not they are members of the “union.” They are professionals and are also informed about the chain of command.
The National Education Association is not a union. There is a national teachers’ union (AFT), but it doesn’t have nearly as many members as the NEA. Membership dues cannot be used for political purposes. The NEA does have a Political Action Committee and members can choose to donate to that separately.
Bear_Nenno, would you teach your students and other crime scene investigators to jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence, conjecture and projection and to act upon those conclusions as if they were true? Your posts indicate that you do not differentiate between fact and opinion
That’s your “Presidential montage” - pictures of Bush, his dog, the Oval Office, Air Force One, a copy of the Declaration of Independence, and a poster with all the presidents’ signatures.
Actually I think my total guesses are much more likely than your total guesses!
You think she’s a reasonable debater. There is no evidence of that. This woman simply walks out of a job rather than discuss things with her boss.
Even if your wild guesses are true, you paint a disturbing picture of a woman put in charge of educating children:
you state she’s an opinionated Republican.
That has no place in the classroom.
you state there is no way to hide her political affiliation from students.
For goodness sake! I’ve been a teacher for nearly 30 years, and no student has ever known my age, whether I’m married or who I vote for.
you come up with ridiculous statements you think the students made to her e.g. ‘Bush is trying to make all people slaves’.
Apparently she can’t deal with this. Has this woman no training?
she lets slip some politically biased statements.
Gotta love that ‘let slip’. I suppose if she shot a few of them, you’d say ‘it’s a perfectly understandable mistake.’
weeks go by. She is still being pestered.
Gee. If only there was someone she could talk to. Her head of department. The Principal.
No, there’s simply nothing you can do about students except let the pressure build. :rolleyes:
the parents approach her at a parent’s evening and start yelling.
This is so true to life. :smack:
Why at every single one of my parent-teacher evenings, someone takes out an axe and chases a teacher around the room. And nobody notices.
the Principal doesn’t really know Ms. Diaz. She’a a new teacher
Of course not. It’s not as if the Principal hired her, or has any interest in how a new member of staff is doing.
I’m sorry, but your whole scenario is incredibly unlikely, and you have no evidence for any of it.
You set out to slur parents, students and the Principal, just because this teacher supports Bush.
It’s the Village of the Damned. The evil children used mind control on the parents and the principal to do their evil bidding, because they knew that the teacher knew. Yeah. That’s the ticket.
That may be true in some areas, but in others the union rep is REQUIRED.
Especially in places where non-members must pay fees. Maybe it’s the way it is phrased, but:
makes it look like she specifically requested the cop, but doesn’t mention if the union rep was there at her request or because they were required to be.
Being human, the local membership may also feel she is a freeloader if she is not paying dues, or hurting the union’s position by NOT being a member. The union rep could also feel if she gets fired, they can get a union member in.
What about when they are paying members to be on a party’s board?
General operating funds. Not PAC funds. And while actual contributions may come from a PAC, the PAC’s fundraisers are on the general fund:
Steve, your union may work differently. Some do. But there are questions here about some organizations. She may be a media-hungry zealot. Or not. I think it too early to judge. Anyway, thanks for the civility lacking in many of the exchanges in this thread.
Oh please! I never claimed any of this was fact. I offered a possibility. I never tried to prove any of it, because it’s not provable. No one here has all the facts. Not even you.
There are two completely different statements out right now. Are you going to take the second one to be 100% fact because it came out second? Geeez.
That’s just lame. This has nothing to do with Bush. On the contrary I think you believe the teacher is 100% wrong solely because she supports Bush. If she likes Bush, every bad thing that was mentioned about her must be true.
okay, lurkernomore, you’ve got me confused with your last post. You keep going on about the NEA, even after it’s been pointed out that the NEA is not a teacher’s union. You conflate that with a somewhat vague assertion that in some [unspecified by you, but I’m willing to let that pass] areas the presence of a union representative is required when labor-management dispute issues are proceeding.
If you want to move from “required to pay fees” to the NEA spending general operating funds for their members to serve on a political party’s board, you need to do a better job of connecting dots to show that the NEA took any of Ms. Diaz’s money.
If Ms. Diaz was talking up the president and Republicans and preaching her politics, why would the parents email the Assistant Principal complaining that she was “suppressing free speech because the teacher refused to talk to pupils about why the color photo hung in the room.” If she is refusing to talk about the photo, then she is not taking every chance to preach her beliefs. Shouldn’t the complaint be, “My son asked her why the picture was there, and she told him it’s because he is a great president and because democrats are morons.” If she was doing this, the complaint would not be that she “refused to talk to pupils” about the picture.
Want to know how I conclude that?
To start, a seventh grader is only going to know/repeat what his parents say about politics. (With the exception of an extreme minority of genius 12 year olds)
The students made comments to her like, ''You like George Bush? He’s killed people!" That is not the statement of an informed, intelligent person. An informed person would say something like, “You like George Bush? How can you get past the fact that because of his wrongful invasion of a foreign country, thousands of innocent lives have been lost. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and Americans”
So, with that in mind, and the fact that I’ve been told by middle school students that George Bush wants to “make all the black people slaves again” I’m wagering that these students are similar to the ignorant inner-city types that I dealt with.
Again, I am not trying to claim this is a FACT. I’m offering a version of events that will fit all the testimony giving. Your version only seems to incorporate the Administrations spin on things.
Well then I ask, if the administration is so mad about her talking about Bush and politics, why would the Assistant Principal order her to “address questions that arose because of the photo.” According to the link above, it was Ms. Diaz’s policy to not talk about politics in class. But because of all the students’ questions, and the parents’ complaints about her ignoring those questions the AP tells her she must “address” those questions.
So not only did the principal and assistant principal not prevent this from unfolding, it appears they may have unintentionally provoked it by forcing Ms. Diaz to talk about the photo.
I was only describing my own local, because that way I could be sure of my facts. I am sure there are other locals/unions that operate the same way. However I am not willing to stick my feet in my mouth by speaking for all of them. By the way, great siggy line
so there are several places where the union CAN go to a meeting whether the grievant wants them or not. Maybe not required, at least in these cases - but where the grievant did NOT have a choice.
Lurkernomore, I don’t know how to say it any clearer. The National Education Association is not a union. Union rules do not apply. I was a member in good standing for twenty years. I was also a member of the Tennessee Education Association and the Metropolitan Nashville Association. Because I was a member, I had the right to request their assistance in the handling of any grievances. If I had not been a member, I would not have had that particular benefit.
The union is the American Federation of Teachers. Union rules apply there. I am pro union but I was not a member. It was not necessary or appropriate where I live.
You are confusing things just as your sources did. It is a common mistake to refer to NEA as a union. But it is not.
