Blacks were tortured into confessing crimes they didn't commit in Homan Square. Indictments and imprisonments should have followed. Instead the Head Torturer was promoted.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel didn't know?
Rahm Emanuel covered-up a video showing a young black man being shot in the back and there's much else.
Chicago continues to PAY settlements while closing schools and protecting police killings?
Rahm Emanuel is a Democratic Huckster who would have been indicted otherwise.
How will Hillary Clinton “Eliminate the Criticism” that Unions Protect Bad Teachers?
By Anthony Cody.
A couple of weeks ago, Anderson Cooper asked Hillary Clinton a challenging question. Here is what he asked, followed by her answer:
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you’ve been endorsed by two of the biggest teachers’ unions. There’s an awful lot of great teachers in this country. It’s an incredibly difficult job, one of the most difficult jobs there is but union rules often make it impossible fire bad teachers and that means disadvantaged kids are sometimes taught by the least qualified. Do you think unions protect bad teachers?CLINTON: You know, I am proud to have been endorsed by the AFT and the NEA, and I’ve had very good relationship with both unions, with their leadership. And we’ve really candid conversations because we are going to have to take a look at — what do we need in the 21st century to really involve families, to help kids who have more problems than just academic problems?A lot of what has happened and honestly it really pains me, a lot of people have blaming and scape-goating teachers because they don’t want to put the money into the schools system that deserve the support that comes from the government doing it’s job.COOPER: So just to follow up, you don’t believe unions protect bad teachers?CLINTON: You know what – I have told my friends at the top of both unions, we’ve got take a look at this because it is one of the most common criticisms. We need to eliminate the criticism.You know, teachers do so much good, they are often working under most difficult circumstances. So anything that could be changed, I want them to look at it. I will be a good partner to make sure that whatever I can do as president, I will do to support the teachers of our country.
As I pointed out at the time, we need to know precisely how she would “eliminate the criticism.” We do not have a crystal ball to foretell how she will go about this, and I am not sure anyone will have the prescience to ask her for a clear answer. But I have been thinking lately about the Clinton’s record, and there is an eerie way that this “eliminate the criticism” phrase resonates with previous policy choices that the Clintons have made.
Remember what the major criticisms of Democrats were prior to Bill Clinton’s presidency? Ronald Reagan pilloried Democrats for being soft on crime and generous with welfare handouts. Clinton attacked these two issues, in order to “eliminate the criticism.” He supported tough crime legislation that expanded the death penalty and encouraged states to lengthen prison sentences. Hillary Clinton actively lobbied for this legislation, saying:
We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and you’re out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.
There was a similar project to “eliminate the criticism” that Democrats were responsible for generous welfare benefits. As a result of the “welfare reform” championed by the Clintons, welfare was given a five year lifetime limit, and work requirements were imposed. This has had a significant effect on levels of childhood poverty. According to this article in The Nation, “Whereas welfare benefits lifted 2 million children out of extreme poverty prior to 1996, this was true for only 629,000 children in 2010.”
Democrats have also been accused of being soft on terrorism and reluctant to flex the United States’ considerable military muscle around the world. Here again, Hillary Clinton has done what she could to “eliminate the criticism,” as evidenced by this speech last fall. Salon reported:
She vowed that in dealing with Iran, she will be tougher and more aggressive than Reagan was with the Soviet Union: “You remember President Reagan’s line about the Soviets: Trust but verify? My approach will be distrust and verify.”
Thus the basic outline is clear. One eliminates a criticism by essentially adopting the policy solution that the criticism demands.
So how might Hillary Clinton “eliminate the criticism” that teacher unions protect bad teachers? I think this is a question that must be answered.
Anthony Cody worked in the high poverty schools of Oakland, California, for 24 years, 18 of them as a middle school science teacher. He was one of the organizers of the Save Our Schools March in Washington, DC in 2011 and he is a founding member of The Network for Public Education. A graduate of UC Berkeley and San Jose State University, he now lives in Mendocino County, California.
http://www.livingindialogue.com/how-will-hillary-clinton-eliminated-the-criticism-that-unions-protect-bad-teachers/
Here is a fact that Candidate Hillary Clinton might find useful to learn, the fact that when Rahm Emanuel closed 50 schools, fired thousands of certified, union teachers, the union was not able to protect all the good teachers. What Hillary needs to know if unaware, is that the campaign to attack teacher's union is the best weapon the profiteers have. When Emanuel turned over the Chicago public schools to private managers, they didn't have to hire union teachers. Its all part of the corporate education reforms.
No comments:
Post a Comment