Courtney Johnson, the teacher featured in the commercial, has received huge pay raises over the past 4 years. But she says Issue 2 is about...the children? An honest look at the ad by our friends at GOHP Blog.
Merit-pay is reliant on outcome of standardized tests. It's in the bill, (just not the small portion of a 300-page bill that your "fact checkers" showed for a few seconds.)
So by showing only a section of a bill and saying, do you see it there, this video already is intentionally deceptive.
I love how you guys say Issue 2 isn't about curbing teacher pay, but rewarding good teachers, but automatic criticize her because she's gotten a raise (allegedly). Do you have any evidence that she's not a good teacher meriting a raise?
As far as the other claims in the ad, the video implicitly admits that the ad is factual. Issue 2 would take away teachers right to bargain over class sizes, textbooks, and safety, but says that's okay because teachers can still talk to their managers in a process in which the teacher has no leverage and is outside of collective bargaining (a joke, right?)
Then it goes on to say that it's okay because why should teachers be able to mandate student-teacher rations and textbooks for three WHOLE years (newsflash, tell your friends schools don't have the money to change textbooks annually anyways, so a three-year commitment isn't really that outrageous, and it's normally a committment to a certain publisher, not a certain edition, so it's not like collective bargaining agreements have ever caused districts to have out-of-date textbooks.
We have no idea who is behind these videos, or their qualifications, but it's apparent they have only a superfical understanding of the issues, have zero experience with collective bargaining agreements in education, or how often schools do basic things like replace textbooks.
Its a video long in partisan, ideological rhetoric, but short on facts and glosses over the fact that the ad by WAO is factually accurate, the "author" of the video, just personally disagrees with it.
She got a pay raise "allegedly"? It's right there in the video, 4 straight pay raises, $10,000. I know No on 2 has a history of proven lies and distortions in this campaign, but then to deny something when they show you proof is even more pathetic.
In the 50 years that teachers have Unionized, the quality of education has dropped a lot. As soon as greedy Unions got involved it stopped being about the students and became about feeding the machine.
I know if my teacher union has millions to spend on two straight elections then they don't need me to vote yes on their levies. They must have a lot of cash to burn.
Pg. 39-40 of the LSC analysis on SB 5's teacher merit-pay provisions:
"At least 50% of each evaluation must be based on measures of student academic growth specified by the Department of Education. When applicable to a teacher, those measures must include student performance on the assessments prescribed under continuing law and the value‐added progress dimension prescribed under continuing law." ...
"When applicable to the grade levels served by a principalʹs building, those measures must include student performance on specified assessments and value‐added progress dimension."
"Specified assessments" = standardized tests. Yet again, you lie.
LSC is referring to page 181 of the bill, which specifically references by statutory citation(http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3301.0710) the Ohio Graduation Tests as a measure of teacher merit-pay. The OGT is a standarized test.
Seriously, you guys are horrible fact checkers. Can't find anything in the bill about merit-pay being tied to standardized tests, huh?
I simply turn the channel on the TV whenever she comes on. Or any ads from the WAO crowd, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteIt's adoreable how you guys cite each other like either of you are credible. LOL.
ReplyDeleteMerit-pay is reliant on outcome of standardized tests. It's in the bill, (just not the small portion of a 300-page bill that your "fact checkers" showed for a few seconds.)
ReplyDeleteSo by showing only a section of a bill and saying, do you see it there, this video already is intentionally deceptive.
I love how you guys say Issue 2 isn't about curbing teacher pay, but rewarding good teachers, but automatic criticize her because she's gotten a raise (allegedly). Do you have any evidence that she's not a good teacher meriting a raise?
As far as the other claims in the ad, the video implicitly admits that the ad is factual. Issue 2 would take away teachers right to bargain over class sizes, textbooks, and safety, but says that's okay because teachers can still talk to their managers in a process in which the teacher has no leverage and is outside of collective bargaining (a joke, right?)
Then it goes on to say that it's okay because why should teachers be able to mandate student-teacher rations and textbooks for three WHOLE years (newsflash, tell your friends schools don't have the money to change textbooks annually anyways, so a three-year commitment isn't really that outrageous, and it's normally a committment to a certain publisher, not a certain edition, so it's not like collective bargaining agreements have ever caused districts to have out-of-date textbooks.
We have no idea who is behind these videos, or their qualifications, but it's apparent they have only a superfical understanding of the issues, have zero experience with collective bargaining agreements in education, or how often schools do basic things like replace textbooks.
Its a video long in partisan, ideological rhetoric, but short on facts and glosses over the fact that the ad by WAO is factually accurate, the "author" of the video, just personally disagrees with it.
She got a pay raise "allegedly"? It's right there in the video, 4 straight pay raises, $10,000. I know No on 2 has a history of proven lies and distortions in this campaign, but then to deny something when they show you proof is even more pathetic.
ReplyDeleteIn the 50 years that teachers have Unionized, the quality of education has dropped a lot. As soon as greedy Unions got involved it stopped being about the students and became about feeding the machine.
I know if my teacher union has millions to spend on two straight elections then they don't need me to vote yes on their levies. They must have a lot of cash to burn.
Perhaps the Plunder-Pals would do well to actually watch the ad this video is talking about.
ReplyDeleteIt cites the portion of the bill we cite. And there's nothing there about testing.
If there was, don't you think None From Ohio would have cited that section?
Try again, Modern. All this swinging & missing is providing a great breeze to the backs of supporters of Issue 2.
Psst, GOHPBLOG:
ReplyDeletePg. 39-40 of the LSC analysis on SB 5's teacher merit-pay provisions:
"At least 50% of each evaluation must be based on measures of student academic growth specified by the Department of Education. When applicable to a teacher, those measures must include student performance on the assessments prescribed under continuing law and the value‐added progress dimension prescribed under continuing law."
...
"When applicable to the grade levels served by a principalʹs building, those measures must include student performance on specified assessments and value‐added progress dimension."
"Specified assessments" = standardized tests. Yet again, you lie.
Seriously, try to make it harder next time.
LSC is referring to page 181 of the bill, which specifically references by statutory citation(http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3301.0710) the Ohio Graduation Tests as a measure of teacher merit-pay. The OGT is a standarized test.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, you guys are horrible fact checkers. Can't find anything in the bill about merit-pay being tied to standardized tests, huh?
You have no credibility.
This is really scary for many teachers on the front lines. We need to make sure the facts are accurate or there will be needless panic.
ReplyDeleteModern makes a good point with the link he provided. Good discussion.
ReplyDelete