Teacher pay based on everything but performance


To the editor:

Brent Bandhauer's lengthy letter in Sunday's Review-Journal ("Teachers just want what they've earned") reveals a great deal about what is wrong with our education establishment. Particularly telling is a passage in the fourth paragraph, where he complains about not getting higher pay for having taken courses and says, "Many of us would likely have paid the tuition fees into mutual funds or something similar had we been told ahead of time the pay schedule was no longer going to be honored."

In his own words, Mr. Bandhauer tells us the money is more important than improving as a teacher.

An additional conclusion is that the courses don't improve teachers but are a device to justify higher pay. Continuing education is the norm in many professions -- doctors, dentists, nurses, lab technicians, tax professionals, lawyers, pharmacists, veterinarians, etc. These people have to take courses to keep their licenses and don't get pay increases for completing hours.

Additionally, in fields without licensing, many employers encourage or require employees to continue their education.

The bottom line here is that teacher unions and compliant school administrations have gotten us to a place where teacher pay is based on everything but classroom excellence. Lest it be thought I am anti-education, my father was a life-long college professor and author whose texts are still being used on campuses today close to 50 years after his death.

Bob Lafleur

Las Vegas

Out the window

To the editor:

Come on, people. Is anyone really surprised regarding the lavish GSA spending?

This Las Vegas episode in the news is endemic and systemic of how the Obama administration's governs: spend, spend, spend and the public be damned, recession or no. Take the taxpayer's money and toss it out the window. (Solyndra, anyone?) Let's have fun at their expense.

We have a leader who winks at our doings and smiles for the camera.

George Pucine

Las Vegas

No professor

To the editor:

President Obama's recent comments on the Supreme Court's role in deciding the constitutionality of ObamaCare has lead to numerous references to his past as a constitutional law professor. For instance, one of Sunday's editorial cartoons referred to him as a "constitutional law professor."

A quick review of President Obama's work history (try Wikipedia) shows he has never been a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty. He has not earned the title of professor or even adjunct faculty member.

From 1992 to 2004, he was listed as a lecturer in the University of Chicago Law School, along with several hundred other lecturers. A lecturer is not a member of the school's faculty and has not earned the right to be addressed as professor. To give President Obama the unearned rank of professor is wrong and should be corrected whenever referenced.

Larry Blackwelder

Las Vegas

True identity

To the editor:

In response to Michael Dunegan's April 2 letter, on requiring ID at the polls, Gloria Edrich wrote Friday to assure us that the voter's signature is "matched" with the signature given at the time of registration and that should, therefore, suffice in establishing the voter's true identification.

I recall that there was a slight problem with a group called ACORN, which got into trouble over false registrations.

If someone illegally registers a voter and has that voter sign his name, how is the integrity of the voting process protected by merely requiring the illegally registered voter to sign his name at the polls?

Even more importantly, why are the Democrats so afraid of having people prove their true identity prior to voting?

Dave Downer

Henderson

 

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum. Read our guidelines for posting. If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon next to the comment.