Just a Quick Shake of the Head
Reading Pat Crowley’s reaction in the comments section of my previous post, I find myself shaking my head at the inability of a certain type to comprehend that some people take an honest interest in the world around them and pursue and present knowledge with the intention of finding the truth.
I meant it when I said that everybody involved in the latest round of the Tiverton teacher contract spat may be better informed than me, and I mean it when I say that I’m interested in the counterarguments to that which I’ve found. I’ve no direct personal investment in this fight — except, of course, as a taxpayer and a parent in Tiverton — and I’m not colluding with anybody to affect negotiations.
I’m not even especially invested in my argument. If it turns out that Pat is correct on the law (which would seem to require that subsequent case law had gutted the legislated language, although I could be wrong about that, too), I’ll admit it and move on to argue that the law is perverse and that Mr. Rearick was right to challenge it.
But, Jus, why not ask for the other side of the story before just leaping to conclusions?
Like you did here “Rearick Leads the Way”
and here ” seeking to bully the school administration into assenting to an unaffordable contract should count as a “personal reason.”
And what does that mean… “a certain type” ?
And this post, complaining that someone called you on your bias rings a little hollow, don’t you think?
By the way, the Projo NEVER contact me for this story you cite, so I am sorry to have said you got a copy of the letter and only “selectively” quoted it. I am deeply surprised I wasn’t contacted about this story, and I have let the Journal know.
Ann (and Monsieur Crowley),
Can’t you just post your financial compars to Mr. Hawthorne’s ? If you think he is so off the mark, then show us the difference.
Please don’t sit back and say its only for those who are negotiating, because in reality, it is those of us who pay the taxes that need to understand the whys and wherefores.
As for going off to grade papers and such, thanks Ann for your insights on after school activities, but for those of us who run businesses 24/7, raise our children, take care of our parents and try our best to be faithful friends, that comment is insulting. Yet another example of why teachers in RI no longer get the respect they did when my mother in law was a teacher. Why? Because you and your colleagues no longer deserve that respect.
Susan,
Would it really matter to you? It would only serve to justify Don’s warped view of math anyway. The number of “assumptions” in his analysis is the financial equivalent to saying “and then miracle happens” and poof, 2+2=5.
Milton Friedman’s invisible finger, at it again!
So NEARI’s official stance is apparently “Your facts are wrong but since we’ve determined that you won’t believe OUR facts anyways, we’re not going to give them to you.”
And these are the ‘adults’ we entrust with the education of our children. And that explains why today’s public school-educated children are morons.
BTW,
Does Anchor Rising have the capability to post PDF’s?
The reason I ask is because when Pat Crowley posts his letter that he sent to Tiverton’s Superintendent, I’d like to see a scan of the original.
That way we can all see what color Crayon Pat used.
I’m curious as to whether he’s a “primary colors” kind of guy, or if he skews toward more exotic colors.
“Enquiring minds want to know!”
Justin,
On what basis do you assume that this is an “unaffordable contract?” Do you have access to details of the current contract negotiations or budget data that the rest of us residents and parents don’t have? Again, you are assuming one side is telling the truth and the other isn’t, which is my dilemma. Based on my experience with this school committee and Superintendent over the last four years, reliablity and integrity aren’t high on the list of their positive traits. So finding myself in a quandary, if you have info I don’t have, please share.
Quote from Pat:
“Susan,
Would it really matter to you? It would only serve to justify Don’s warped view of math anyway. The number of “assumptions” in his analysis is the financial equivalent to saying “and then miracle happens” and poof, 2+2=5.”
I think this is an insult to the readers of this blogs’ intelligence. We want the truth, Pat & Ann, it sure would serve a heck of a lot of purpose.
I do not understand why debunking Don’s postings seems so futile? Do you think all the readers here just don’t care about the facts?