Escape from Monkey Island: The small minds of a teacher’s union
Most of the nasty letters I get are simple name calling with no merit of an argument suggested, because honestly, there isn’t one that can be given. There is only the hope that provocation through name calling will quell my desire to point out the obvious. However, Bill Schmidt is pretentious enough to believe that his knowledge of the situation surrounding the teaching profession in government schools justifies defense and he often provides an interesting look into the warped mind of a typical levy supporter. Recently he wrote me about the steps my district of Lakota is taking to keep their excessively high wages somewhat managed. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. Reading his comments is like visiting the zoo to watch monkeys swing from the trees as they call-out strange sounds only they understand. As a thinking human being we can only wonder how those monkeys can stay content on a tiny island in a zoo fed by zoo handlers and not desire to cross that vast moat to freedom and the world beyond. Instead they stay on the island and create a small micro society only they understand. In this way, monkeys at the zoo are like the teaching profession in government schools, inward looking and small-minded. Read the letter Schmidt sent me recently to get a look into this small canvas of thought.
On Monday, October 27, 2014, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Rich,
If a new Lakota teacher were hired in 2011 and is still working at Lakota, that person would still be classified as a 1st year teacher, yet would be providing the district with 3 years of experience. By the fact that voters rejected levies many times in previous elections, Lakota is no longer giving step increases. There is no clear indication that this teacher will ever get a step increase. By not getting step increases, this teacher has sacrificed about $7,500 in income by June of 2015. Looking at this prospect, I believe this teacher should work a normal 8 hour day. This teacher should work hard (not less) during that time and do it with enthusiasm. At the close of the day, this teacher should then work even more. That work should be towards recouping some or all of the $7,500 that has been sacrificed as the Lakota community has readjusted their educational priorities in rejecting several levies. If the “job” at Lakota has been found coming up short in achieving a “high destination” for the students being served, despite a hard and enthusiastic effort, other personal should be hired to work the extra hours to make this high destination achievable. It is possible that the money is not there for that to happen, but that is what the voters of Lakota have chosen in their rejection of previous levies. When you do not have enough personnel to do the job, then hire more just like a major business would.
I wouldn’t classify writing e-mails to you as “pulling strings”. It is you who have placed copies of my e-mails on your blog, without asking my permission and certainly not at my encouragement. At least one of the responses to posting my personal e-mail to you involves a physical threat, which you certainly did not discourage. You have misidentified me and misrepresented me in several of your blogs. Except for your actions, my views would only be known to you and that would not be imposing myself into “local management” by doing something like establishing a blog and taking a spot on a radio show.
You and some of your readers seem to think I should be learning something from you. Why would your opinions be any more valid than my own? Wouldn’t it be just as valid to say that you should be learning from me?
I hope that Lakota teachers realize that they could give all the extra effort possible, apply all expertise available to them, accept any reduction in salary imposed and it would not satisfy you and your supporters. This statement isn’t a “grief-stricken diatribe” — just the truth.
William Schmidt
The biggest trouble with Schmidt’s thinking is that he assumes a teacher is worth a $7,500 increase just for being employed—as if it were just years alone which dictated value. At Lakota this is the primary problem with their wage structure—they allowed too many employees to make in excess of $65,000 per year just because they showed up for work long enough to get step increases due to tenure. They didn’t earn their wages by beating out others to become the best in their field; they just had to put enough time in to gain a guaranteed percentage of wage increase regardless of performance.
Then Schmidt suggests the impossible—he actually believes that the best strategic position that can be conducted under these labor driven circumstances—inspired by radical left-wing economic philosophy, he suggests that teachers work even less than they do now.
The reason we had tax fights in Lakota was pure management or resources. The school administration wanted an unlimited community budget through taxation. Members of the community, like me, wanted competitive alternatives to drive down the cost of education and imposition upon tax payers. Without that fight, the big government—all day baby sitting lusting, left-leaning progressives would ask for tax after tax, after tax for the rest of existence. It is up to the tax paying base to apply pressure to those in charge of the purse strings to let them know that it will be painful to spend money. If pain is not introduced, it is proven that government workers will never stop taking, and taking—until there is nothing left. In Lakota they certainly did and even though they finally scammed their way into getting more money—they did exactly with it what we promised they’d do—they give an instant raise to their teachers. They lied to the public and the public saw it for what it was.
This put Lakota in a bad position. They know if they try for another levy in 2017 as they are projected to attempt, that there will be another fight—and it will be bloody—again. It is highly unlikely that they will get it approved the first time—statistically, it takes about three times to pass a levy in the Lakota district, at least over the last 15 years—so they are not looking forward to the attempts as they will take a serious public relations hit. So they will avoid it as long as they can, because the promise of a fight forces them to manage their resources. Without that promise, the government employees will abuse the money foolishly and the value of the overall product will be reduced.
So here is William Schmidt who doesn’t even understand the concept of management of money—he just believes that people are entitled to money because they breathe. And if they don’t get this perceived value, they are encouraged to work less…………………..how? Most teachers—not all—but most are glorified baby sitters, just as strippers are variations of prostitutes, and physical therapists are glorified masseuses’. They are all from the same family of occupation. Kids as proven by their test results and worldly knowledge are not being “educated.” They are simply being watched by other adults paid for by tax payers with a thin mask of “education” to make parents not feel guilty about the service. That is modern public education and William Schmidt wants more money for this baby sitting service just because someone has been one for a number of years established by a collective bargaining agreement ignoring value for the positions all together.
His letter further explores the possibility of opinion value assuming that just because he’s alive that his opinion is equal to mine. But it’s not. I know how hard I have worked to achieve my opinions and here Schmidt believes that he and I are equal just because we eat similar food, sleep in beds, and have other similarities that are human in origin. Monkeys like humans have similar features—they tend to eat similarly, dispel waste in a similar manner—yet monkeys and humans are vastly different from each other just as I am different from Bill Schmidt. Our opinions are not equal. They only thing I can learn from the letter above is just how right I have always been at the vast ignorance stirring at the center of the debate of public education and the value of dollars spent on the teaching profession. It is expected that these strange public union types do learn a thing or two from me and my readers—because we are trying to help them not be so treacherously foolish and a detriment to human civilization. But they have nothing to offer us of value as their entire existence is a parasitic one—in every facet of their lives.
After our brief email exchange I told him that he had the depth of a dried up creek—meaning that his thinking prevented him from an advanced discussion of the matter in much the way that driving a car could never be explained to a monkey at the zoo. It is just a concept that is too far removed from their culture on their little island display. He replied to me that I’m a fascist—which is always the retreat of a left—leaning loons when they run out of arguments—and facts to twist like a funhouse mirror. Arguments like Schmidt’s require non-thinking application of mental acuity lacking any intelligence. And because they do, they use name-calling to pound their point home. But—unlike in the past, those names only hit a brick wall of resolution and are flattened upon contact. Once it is understood that thinking destroys the position of people like Schmidt, they are left defenseless without anything to do but threaten with name-calling and collective opinion framed by their brain-dead followers.
Rich Hoffman
