Wednesday September 17, 2014
Jump to content
Tom: Of course I agree ! Tenure laws do not restrict the firing of a teacher for "cause". The rub is that the school Principal or other appropriate officials must document the poor performance (or criminal) issues and follow the given guides for dismissing a teacher. It is a cumbersome process but it can and should be done when appropriate. I have done so. One handicap is teacher Unions who tend to support poor teachers. Another handicap is lack of personnel to back the Principal. The Principal needs associates who also can observe the teacher in action, document the faults over a period of time, offer remedial action plans, consistently meet with the teacher in regard to improvement in documented areas of poor performance, and prepare written documents detailing all efforts to improve the poor performance of the sub-par teacher. It is a chore! If the teacher's Union takes the position that "poor teachers hurt everyone" and is supportive the task is easier. I will conclude by stating that a third handicap is a Principal who is not dedicated to sound principles of teaching and is not dedicated to teaching for learning. Student outcomes are the priority.
Tom, "For once you're wrong". It would not be the first time or last time. However, I stated that your remarks seem to be an endorsement. They are. I did not infer that you were speaking for the Roundup and did not think that. I am taken aback because your remarks were not part of a string; they came "out of the blue". Second, when a topic is presented you generally take a very "moderate", open stance that I assume is taken to promote discussion. Third, after allowing a string to develop you often state your opinion as part of the total discussion. So, it is not unusual that you state your opinion but it seems unusual in its abruptness and singularity. Sum: you caught me by surprise but you are entitled.
Tom, I am taken aback ! This clearly is a political endorsement. What sort of trend will it set?
Cockadoodle Don't !
John Naughton Again I give you my thanks for acting on a principle. When the posts of people become distracting because of content, morality, lack of interpersonal courtesy, etc., you have a duty to intervene as you have. Ms. Flowers posts definitely distract from the flow of the topic at hand.
I support Don's idea ! Further, perhaps it would not be so bad if we do repopulate the Grizs so long as we make the radical environmentalist live in that territory.
Tom, The Sheriff's office has provided people to operate a pedestrian crossing over the last several years. I do not know what can be done about the parking situation. It is a balance between the need for parking and the convenience of folks wishing to conduct business in the area. The visitors bring dollars. Perhaps on Saturdays "guards" could be provided by some group to patrol the entrance to the P.O.?
Mr. Naughton, Thank you. When I say the following I am speaking from my point of view and not from an intent to insult others: Often I listen to "extremists" about various points of view and think more or less about what was presented. Some remarks give me reason to seriously think. More often, however, I am bored to tears and feel badly for those whose lives are consumed by non-productive veins of thought. As I stated in an earlier post, it could be that it is not Satan behind every bush. Perhaps it is God.
Tom, One gets the impression that the CBD, PETA, and cohorts will soon ask that we live as primitively as our ancestors. By the by, it is unlikely that bears or wolves will soon be stalking pets in Hollywood.:)
Last login: Sunday, September 14, 2014