Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What Kind Of People Are Teaching Our Children
Topic Started: Jan 31 2005, 11:11 PM (2,976 Views)
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
CalRed
Feb 13 2005, 02:47 PM
Corky

Actually Churchill made it my business. He included all Americans in his essays and writings so I have as much right to speak out about him as anyone else.

I wonder what the Americans fighting for our country right now would have to say about what he called them?

The point, it seems to me to be two fold. One, while CalRed certainly has a right to speak about Churchill's writings, he really ought to speak with some degree of fairness and intellectual honesty. Second, CalRed should have absolutely nothing to say about Churchill's employment by Colorado.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
Colo_Crawdad
Feb 13 2005, 02:00 PM
In conclusion to a rather brief response, I find that folks like CalRed and tomrobin much more predisposed to claim that they "know more about my profession" than I. I find very few, if any, teachers who seem predisposed to claim that they know more about others' professions than do the "others." In fact, it appears to me from the brief description that it was specifically that predisposition that caused the reaction to tomrobin from a member of the teaching profession.

Lowell
CalRed has already told you he was a former teacher. Although I haven't mentioned it previously, I too spent a year as a prof at the local community college. No, of course that doesn't make me an expert. When I was in college one of the best instructors I had was one who worked as an engineer, and taught part time. It just amazes me how you won't give an inch and dogmatically defend the indefensable. That IMO, is an undesireable trait developed in many years of acadamia, where you were the authority figure, and your peers were like minded, and having little contact with the realities of the work a day world. The incident with my educator friend was not provoked by me, unless you consider disagreement provoking. He just blew me off like I was one of his less informed students. I won't hold it against him, as I understand why, you should too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Lowell, I think I have to agree with Cal and Tom on this point, they not only have a right to opine about the publicized essay but also, given the ever increasing nationlization of politics in this country, to opine on what Colorado and Colorado U do about this. Not only a right but a responsibility. I may not agree with their opinions, may even find theirs obnoxious (to echo a point in another parallel thread), but I do agree and support thier being free to express their opinion--and here their feeling free to do so. On this I am consistent for I also feel because the world is affected by US policy that the world should also have not only the right but that responsibility.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
I'm going to go off topic one more time. Apparently I need to apologize for not being clear in an earlier post. I will say openly that I consider very few of my past college professors and instructors "teachers." They have spent very little time in studying the art and science of teaching. My reference was cons=concerning those in the real trenches of public education. Often those who are not there and have never been there, other than as a student, are the most vocal in their criticisms. The loudest and longest harangues against the National Education Association often come, not from real teachers, but from those who "know" all there is to know about education because they were once students in public schools. Again, I compare that type of criticism to one who thinks they "know" all about performing surgery because they once had a surgical procedure performed on them. Please note that this is not intended to degrade or take away anything from college instructors and/or professors.

Now, back to the topic, I would agree that CarRed and tomrobin have some right and responsibility to be critical of Colorado"s hiring practices if they do not base that criticism on Churchill being an employee of the taxpayers. I say this since such a very small proportion of his salary may come from tax money and because absolutely no tax money, other than that paid by Colorado taxpayers, goes to his salary. That restriction is by law.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
"I'm going to go off topic one more time. Apparently I need to apologize for not being clear in an earlier post. I will say openly that I consider very few of my past college professors and instructors "teachers." They have spent very little time in studying the art and science of teaching. My reference was cons=concerning those in the real trenches of public education. Often those who are not there and have never been there, other than as a student, are the most vocal in their criticisms. The loudest and longest harangues against the National Education Association often come, not from real teachers, but from those who "know" all there is to know about education because they were once students in public schools. Again, I compare that type of criticism to one who thinks they "know" all about performing surgery because they once had a surgical procedure performed on them. Please note that this is not intended to degrade or take away anything from college instructors and/or professors."

I agree 100%. I am constantly amazed at how many education "experts" there are out there that have never been behind a teacher's desk.
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Yes, some of us are just poor simple peasants, I mean parents concerned about their childrens' education.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
Quote:
 
Now, back to the topic, I would agree that CarRed and tomrobin have some right and responsibility to be critical of Colorado"s hiring practices if they do not base that criticism on Churchill being an employee of the taxpayers.


To suggest that direct salary is the only basis that determines whether Churchill is an employee of the university and hence the taxpayers who OWN that university, is patent nonsense.

Fom this source, a comparison of a number of colleges, we find that the University of Colorado got $15420 in revenues, $7197 was tuition, $2680 was grants, mostly Federal from the above, $643 from "sales and services", $3153 for operations from Colorado taxpayers, $830 for capital improvements from Colorado taxpayers, $917 from gifts and endowments. So Colorado taxpayers provided DIRECTLY towards salaries and benefits for about 20% of EVERY employee's paycheck.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:a4Z6X...+of+funds&hl=en

In addition, all grant projectos are charged a portion of the university's general overhead under the contract category of "general and overhead". Usually, that is somewhere in the range of 10% of the total contract cost. That's worth another $200 or so.

Sales and service revenue may or may not be directly allocated to the sales/service provider within the University. We'll assume it is although a more general practice is to throw everything in the same "pot" and then allocate the budget from there.

Although not direct compensation, instructors cannot "teach" without a classroom to teach in that is constructed, maintained, heated and cooled. They all have offices with telephone and I would assume internet service. These had to be built, maintained, and provided with utilities. These facilities are owned by the taxpayers and supplied to Churchill as part of his compensation since he obviously could not "practice" without them.

The University is owned by the State of Colorado, that makes it public property and Churchill is a public employee whose check is signed by officials of a public entity, the University of Colorado. If this goes to Court, the ACLU and Churchill will be suing the STATE OF COLORADO. The University of Colorado, the Board of Regents, probably Governor Owens will be named as co-defendants.

Dan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
DanHouck
Feb 14 2005, 12:32 PM
Quote:
 
Now, back to the topic, I would agree that CarRed and tomrobin have some right and responsibility to be critical of Colorado"s hiring practices if they do not base that criticism on Churchill being an employee of the taxpayers.


To suggest that direct salary is the only basis that determines whether Churchill is an employee of the university and hence the taxpayers who OWN that university, is patent nonsense.

Fom this source, a comparison of a number of colleges, we find that the University of Colorado got $15420 in revenues, $7197 was tuition, $2680 was grants, mostly Federal from the above, $643 from "sales and services", $3153 for operations from Colorado taxpayers, $830 for capital improvements from Colorado taxpayers, $917 from gifts and endowments. So Colorado taxpayers provided DIRECTLY towards salaries and benefits for about 20% of EVERY employee's paycheck.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:a4Z6X...+of+funds&hl=en

In addition, all grant projectos are charged a portion of the university's general overhead under the contract category of "general and overhead". Usually, that is somewhere in the range of 10% of the total contract cost. That's worth another $200 or so.

Sales and service revenue may or may not be directly allocated to the sales/service provider within the University. We'll assume it is although a more general practice is to throw everything in the same "pot" and then allocate the budget from there.

Although not direct compensation, instructors cannot "teach" without a classroom to teach in that is constructed, maintained, heated and cooled. They all have offices with telephone and I would assume internet service. These had to be built, maintained, and provided with utilities. These facilities are owned by the taxpayers and supplied to Churchill as part of his compensation since he obviously could not "practice" without them.

The University is owned by the State of Colorado, that makes it public property and Churchill is a public employee whose check is signed by officials of a public entity, the University of Colorado. If this goes to Court, the ACLU and Churchill will be suing the STATE OF COLORADO. The University of Colorado, the Board of Regents, probably Governor Owens will be named as co-defendants.

Dan

Dan,

Thanks for supporting what I really said, that only taxpayers of Colorado support Churchill's salary. Therefore, only Colorado taxpayers are his employers.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
Well obviously in terms of who directly has a dog in this fight, it is COLORADO taxpayers. However, that is not what your statement that I quoted said. It used the generic term "taxpayers". And, as noted above, some of the Federal grant funds DO go to support the general operations of the University.

You're welcome. :)

Dan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
DanHouck
Feb 14 2005, 12:45 PM
Well obviously in terms of who directly has a dog in this fight, it is COLORADO taxpayers. However, that is not what your statement that I quoted said. It used the generic term "taxpayers". And, as noted above, some of the Federal grant funds DO go to support the general operations of the University.

You're welcome. :)

Dan

Uh . . . . Dan,

You might want to reread that statement of mine which you quoted. I think it says that two specific people cannot claim they were taxpayers who paid Churchill's salary. Neither of them are from Colorado.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
Uh Lowell. . .

Quote:
 
Now, back to the topic, I would agree that CarRed and tomrobin have some right and responsibility to be critical of Colorado"s hiring practices if they do not base that criticism on Churchill being an employee of the taxpayers.


That last sentence does NOT say "their (CarRed and tomrobin) employee as taxpayers." Hence, there is no connecting reference between "taxpayers" and Calred/tomrobin.

So I got the impression you were trying to make the case once again that, because the majority of operating funds come from tuitions and not direct taxpayer subsidies, that Churchill was not an employee of a public institution. Thank you for clarifying the reference in your statement.

Dan

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Feb 13 2005, 11:22 AM
My thread reversal was inspired by...

Posted Image

Does anybody really think that all a Liberal would have to say is "er -- uh"?

:floorrollin: :floorrollin: :floorrollin:
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
No, a right wing cartoon would show the left winger all blah blah blah and the right winger not hearing a word.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Feb 14 2005, 08:08 PM
No, a right wing cartoon would show the left winger all blah blah blah and the right winger not hearing a word.

You missed the point..... ;)
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
Jim Miller
Feb 14 2005, 01:34 PM
I agree 100%. I am constantly amazed at how many education "experts" there are out there that have never been behind a teacher's desk.

Most of my experience is in the automotive field. Lots of people are experts on cars, and don't engineer or build them. Why should I have the audacity to think I know more than the customer who is paying the bills. That reinforces what I said earlier, those experts in the classroom often have the idea, that they have all the answers, and should not have any accountability. That's the very reason, those who pay the bills take them to task on occassion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply