Replies

Well, as odd as this may sound, the very first step in my reformation recipe is “tort reform” including, possibly, a “loser pays” addition to the system.

This would further hurt teachers defending themselves against the biased court system.

If your belief in the courts system is that far skewed then we are all doomed. DOOMED, I TELL YOU, DOOMED

In contrast, it happens to be my observation that we have the best model (jury system) for a judicial system humanly possible. Nonetheless, I will freely admit that the system is skewed by some limited number of liberal judges who seem to think that their function is to legislate rather than interpret the law. Additionally, I will also willingly concede that there far too many, opportunistic, under-principled and over-litigious lawyers who abuse the system.

However, both of these ills are curable. The problem of overly liberal judges is cured by elections (either directly in the case of many state and local judges or election of conservative sources of appointment and confirmation in other cases). Admittedly, this will be a less than speedy solution, but an effective one, nevertheless.

The problem of the overly-litigious lawyers is cured by a “loser pays” system. Anyone, except those with money to burn, will think twice about hiring one of these “legal gunslingers” when they know that if their suit fails they have to pay, not only their lawyers, but those of the other side as well, in addition to possible income losses, etc., for the victim of their suit. Additionally, the accused in such a frivolous suit may very well be more willing to stand against a groundless suit, knowing that vindication through a legal victory does not require bankruptcy. Perhaps, you could explain how such would disadvantage a teacher defending him/herself against a frivolous, lawsuit.

A basic, comprehensive, inexpensive, legal liability policy would be available to any, ...

Already is, through charter school teachers' associations... The notion that teacher's insurance is only available through the teachers' unions is propaganda pushed by the teachers' unions…

As a substitute teacher, I have been present during some informal, full-time colleague discussions of the types of liability policies you are proposing. From these sources (who are neither union ideologues, nor HR types hired to “flog” the union alternative) as well as my own limited research, the alternatives you cite are neither as comprehensive, inexpensive nor as extensive as the alternatives offered by the unions.

Most of the other stuff might be OK except that the NEA, ed schools, and PC bleeding heart liberals would oppose it. Which means short of another revolution, it probably won't happen.

I must disagree with part of your assertion. While it is probably true that real reforms of the type I cited would be opposed by those entities you cite, it is also true that mere opposition does not translate into political victory. The overwhelming majority of the American electorate is not composed of teachers. Additionally, a significant number of teachers do not support the entities you cited. Consequently, I conclude that if a sufficient number of our fellow citizens take the trouble to fully inform themselves, become politically active and vote accordingly, educational reform is a potential reality without a revolution.

If your belief in the courts system is that far skewed then we are all doomed. DOOMED, I TELL YOU, DOOMED

Court corruption exists. Yes, perhaps we are doomed, by naiive people who think reflexively, not reflectively, and use sarcasm as a shortcut around reasoning, investigation, and analysis. If you are trying to make a point, it is not clear.

Most lawsuits don't get to the jury phase. Some are settled out of court, but the court wields the power to grant motions to dismiss, in which case your point about the quality of the jury system is moot if the court system is biased and/or corrupt. Something tells me your legal observations are highly selective in nature. The problem is happening now, and electing or recalling judges is a nice idea, but won't address the current or near future abuses, nor will it address the long haul abuses without some comprehensive strategy to bring the issues to the attention of the voting public.

Teachers are plaintiffs in cases in which they are the odd persons out. Often by contrived means, conservative teachers are weeded out, leaving a residue of incompetent and/or liberal teachers. Such teachers will be more reluctant to use the court system to fight for their rights if the court system is perceived as corrupt to begin with and loser-pays is implemented.

As a substitute teacher, I have been present during some informal, full-time colleague discussions of the types of liability policies you are proposing. From these sources (who are neither union ideologues, nor HR types hired to “flog” the union alternative) as well as my own limited research, the alternatives you cite are neither as comprehensive, inexpensive nor as extensive as the alternatives offered by the unions.

That's news to me. I have personally used the insurance as have many other charter school and private school teachers. Otherwise charter schools and private schools would be wiped out by being limited to credentialed teachers, which is to say, often pre-screened liberal and/or incompetent teachers, and would not be able to offer an effectively differentiated product in the marketplace.

I must disagree with part of your assertion. While it is probably true that real reforms of the type I cited would be opposed by those entities you cite, it is also true that mere opposition does not translate into political victory. The overwhelming majority of the American electorate is not composed of teachers.

No but organization and solidarity count big as well as the ability to sway elections by delivering votes in blocs and through big political ad money. Pay attention during elections and you will see the effects of teachers' and government workers' unions.

These are the groups that have landed us in the current situation to begin with. To deny that they have political clout seems to me to equate to head-in-the-clouds idealism out of touch with reality. Additionally, most teachers are liberal and do support the NEA, while ed schools weed out conservative and libertarian citizens who aspire to teach in public schools. IOW, it's a racket. Step 1 in any solution is to recognize it is a racket. The racket is furthermore protected by judges trying to reduce their caseload (liberal or otherwise) and by the MSM. You need to define effective strategies to defeat these forces, not merely assert that the public can somehow be magically awakened to the problems and solutions.

You also dropped my mention of model solutions that are more effective and exist outside the US, such as Belgium. What happened there?? You are refuting only selective portions of my argument. Do you deny Japan, HongKong, Singapore, Belgium and many other countries do better than we do in teaching essential skills such as reading, writing, and math?