It’s between that and someone saying y’all in Massachusetts.

Summer school isn't required. You can't get fired for not working summer school. A district could be unreasonable and not renew a teacher without tenure/professional status for not doing it, but right now, they're in no such position.

PD isn't required. Prepping isn't required. And when the first day of school hits, teachers are judged on their ability to teach. Protesting in the summer to an audience of no one and calling bad lessons later on the summer's protest makes no sense.

>I quite literally proposed an alternative way to bring about contract agreement.

So did I. Tell districts to be proactive. If not, teachers can be "retroactive" and protest after a long period without changes. Seems to work. Make it so this kind of protest can't work and you'll be in good shape. No one wants to have to protest, but we don't live in that kind of world.

I work to my contract. If you don't like the contract, get a new contract during negotiations - the same way any other company would have to deal with it.

I'm begging you to stop making a fool out of yourself, though. No teacher is so vindictive. You want quality educators? Pay them. Simple as that. Far better to strike for a lousy one week than watch a slow leak of qualified veterans turn to other fields. Even lower-paying fields that are just easier to process and handle healthily.

2 days, but those are part of the 183-185 day contract. Summer school is optional already. Prep is optional, and the onus to prep is put on teachers without pay anyway. Keep trying these entry-level responses to an actual teacher.

Teachers only get paid in lump sums at the end if that's how they distribute their paychecks. They still get paid for the days they work, fair and square. You don't lose out on that pay if you quit - that's the same as any other job. It's just chunked up a bit differently.

>If it is about compensation, put forth legislation to fund a pay raise. There is no need for a union.

What happens if you don't get that legislation through but they do put forth legislation to increase teachers' workloads?

As a teacher, I have never once attended anything during the summer that was required. Not at all.

You'll get down-voted (not loaded) because it's a dumb opinion. You haven't provided any way for teachers to advocate for their interests in ways that matter. If teachers were paid what they needed already, and supported in the classroom, and not given bullshit work, they wouldn't need to strike in the first place. Nearly all strikes can be avoided.

Trying to use children as human shields in a negotiation is gross.

>If government is going to change the law to permit teachers to strike, it should only be during the summer or other, ‘non-teaching’ working days (e.g. professional development).

Then it isn't a strike. Teachers are already free to gather and complain during the summer. There's no point.

>Most importantly, the government should change the laws to force school districts and local governments to come to the table during negotiations in good faith.

That is already legally required.

>I’m not saying it’s the teachers fault, but allowing strikes could further weaken people’s faith in their reliability.

Then your comment would be more popular.

So they should have gone to school anyway, but instead of teaching their curricula, they should have taught something else? That's almost worse, FYI. And it wouldn't work unless everyone did it. I know it seems odd, but going on strike was the better thing to do.

We're talking about a child in this instance, so I'm gonna ask you at least reflect a tiny bit on why you immediately went to "sex" instead of coming up with a real answer.

It isn't. I understand the issue from every relevant angle. Maybe that looks like misunderstanding, somehow, from yours, but this is obviously not forcing religion on anyone.

Kids use foul language. You probably did. I did. They just do this. They say "fuck" when they're together.

The problem, and I think it's relatively new, is when kids don't filter themselves for teachers. Did you know when you were a kid that you could swear and say "fuck" to your friends? Did you also not want to say "fuck" with a teacher even nearby?

It's that.

We can't catch kids like we're Big Brother, but at the same time, kids today don't think they need to have tact. Who's needs Big Brother when they genuinely cannot see differences between community members?

In this case, it's a teacher, so it's pretty fucking stupid to piss off the teacher exactly how they asked your student not to piss them off. Never mind we can tie religiousness into this. If a kid kept drawing Mohammed in front of a teacher, but was simply asked to stop at first, would it not be reasonable to expect that kid to stop? Can't stop him from doing it at home, though it's weird. In this case, you just aren't used to the pushback many have because, again, Reddit is biased toward and hates Christians.

Which isn't happening here.

Never mind the obvious question: if you aren't religious, why talk about God then?

>It's not a swear word, offensive phrase or harming anyone by saying it.

Neither is profaning God by using one's freedom of speech, but doing so repeatedly in a classroom setting would be obviously over the line. Some people consider it a grave offense, and swearing is contextual.

It's also kind of like if a kid holds up a ring finger but says "I'm not swearing though!"

>Is this an offensive phrase or something?

We are atheists and non religious.

Christians and Jews consider it as taking the Lord's name in vain, which is a commandment from the Old Testament. It's a very big rule, though as always, there can be debate over what it means entirely.

Reddit's shoe is on the other foot, because there are numerous other examples you could find with other religions that would be offensive, but Reddit hates Christians. If a student constantly offered a Muslim student pork, it wouldn't be seen as a neighborly gesture. If a kid kept saying "YHWH" to a Jewish staff member who asked him to stop repeatedly, it would be considered offensive.

But for Reddit, the attitude is "fuck Christians", because many here grew up with that as their background, and it's what they're rebelling against.

Even as a teacher, I wouldn't myself do anything, but see it from the other side: why is your child having so much trouble with one phrase? This shouldn't be a hard lesson in either being mindful or learning about others' differences. And not only saying the phrase, but getting caught, which seems ultra stupid.

Maybe in a single day. I remember years ago (I was either in high school or college) there was a winter where temperatures were regularly a little warmer than this. Weeks of it.

Why is it selfish - any more than someone negotiating for their salary at a private company?

BU has grade deflation? I’m feeling a little flattered now. I thought it was inflated.

That sucks, and I can certainly believe that you could be told that.

For the record, a blinking yellow light means to proceed cautiously. You shouldn't be speeding, but a car that isn't speeding should at least take their foot off the gas and just be aware. I don't see too many of those myself, which means you probably got a little unlucky.

Not sure how to approach it. I'd find the instructor again and ask them. If you can get it in writing, even better. My test decades back was a tough one, but I passed. Watched a kid fail within 1 minute. Didn't even make it around the block because he choked when taking a right. They made me parallel park and do a three-point turn out of it on a really narrow street in Cambridge. Passed it my first time. But I still realize that others would have probably been fucked.

Okay. We get it.

Forgiveness is one thing, but obviously that doesn't mean getting her out of legal consequences. I think he will have to forgive her, but from outside prison, where she will likely end up.

I'm totally with you. I'm just of the opinion that this would be 20-30 years down the road at best.

I don't think forcing bids on predetermined designs if forcing anything. I'm big on that and hadn't considered that process. Shame on me! But we're talking about force. I think we're on the same page.

I'm for government force in this case. I'm just for force in ways I want, and I think there are too many NIMBYs who are all heart, no head. Never mind that these modern 5/1 monstrosities tend to make things bland and useless, and real businesses can't really move in.

My take is this. How many streets in Charlestown look beautiful? The brick and tight streets with shade. Beacon Hill is famous. One of the most famous streets in the country is Elfreth St. People want this.

People have sterile white, gray tones because that's easier to sell. It's ironically easier to sell because it's easy to paint over.

We just need to force developers to develop what we want. They aren't going to build to the vernacular anymore. They keep building stuff that makes no sense to me.

But that's like someone saying "the government should have healthcare", and someone pointing to the Tuskegee Study. We have examples of public housing in the US. We know what it looks like. A lot of public housing in Europe isn't what you linked to, either.

>Why do you need to force developers to do anything?

Because they develop in short-sighted ways, and that fucks everyone. They're building on land, which means it's limited and subject to public opinion, to say the least. I wouldn't force anyone to design a cup, painting, or so on, but if we're talking about a necessity that's inelastic, then we should come together to figure something out. No reason localities can't actually put thought into their building codes instead of just adopting whatever people decided elsewhere, which is really what happens.

You're the only other person I've seen mention that term, only I use it for all the approved, "luxury" housing going up that's flimsy as shit, locked in time right now, and poorly designed from so many angles. We're just going to get more of that, but with the same care the state gives to its schools that are falling into disrepair - or however many state-run buildings for things like educators or police, in some cases.