news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

This teacher’s top priority: her students

Thursday, June 11, 2009

(Updated 3:00 am)

Counterpoint:

By Gail Williams

After reading Charles Davenport’s column, “Teachers should quit whining about pay” (May 31), I must address some of his points. As an educator who loves my career, I know firsthand how off base he is about what teachers do in the classroom.
We may get paid for only 38 weeks, but we spend evenings, weekends, holidays and summers grading papers, attending workshops, creating lesson plans and calling parents. I don’t recall ever being paid overtime.

I worked in the private sector before entering the classroom and was free to grab coffee with a friend or run errands. I am not complaining about my teaching, but there is never any down time. When I enter the door, I hit the floor running until long after the kids have left at 3:40 p.m.

As for home-schooled students being smarter than public school ones, please. I could perform miracles if I only taught one child. Try close to 100 each semester. Let’s be realistic when making a point. Home schoolers are usually highly motivated, work on a computer and are free to attend outside activities that enhance their education. I teach kids from broken homes and some from no homes at all. I am counselor, policeman, disciplinarian and even parent.

Teachers are not “whining” because of a pay cut. We are now being hit with job losses, meaning more students in classes and lack of educational supply money.

Mr. Davenport stated that NCAE’s priority is not students. All I can do is speak for myself. My students are my priority. That is why I teach.

According to him, anyone could teach effectively. Consider this from “To Kill a Mockingbird”: “You never understand anyone until you walk in his shoes.”

Mr. Davenport, walk in my shoes, and I feel sure you will retract your “whining” comment.

The writer lives in Greensboro and teaches at Southeast High School.

What do you think?

6 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments on letters to the editor are only accepted for 24 hours.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

Get A Clue

June 11, 2009 - 6:37 am EDT

Money talks, bs walks. If you think Chucky D is not simply annoying but disingenuous (if not outright dishonest), then write to the paper's editor and spell out your concerns. Then write to the paper's advertisers--especially the ones who support public education, and let them know how you feel. That's the quickest way to affect meaningful change.
The truth is, Chucky D generates income for the N&R every time someone clicks on his site; online revenue streams are tied to page clicks. So all online media need pseudo-bomb throwers like Chucky D to generate clicks.
And let's be clear--if someone loses their job over their writing or speech their First Amendment rights have not been violated. Chucky D will always be free--as an American--to spew his bile. However, the U.S. Constutution doesn't guarantee him the right to get paid to do so by a private enterprise. That's strictly a business decision.

histrion

June 11, 2009 - 7:40 am EDT

Fact is, folks, there are a good number of people out there that agree with Mr. Davenport. In a perfect world, part of a newspaper's mission is to explore the philosophies, opinions, and prejudices of its community and shine a light on (and help dispel) ignorance. I think Mr. Davenport's column does that quite effectively. And you have a forum to present arguments refuting his opinions.

I guess the newspaper could try to only print stuff that presented the world as you'd like it to be, but why, then, would you read it? To get the warm fuzzies? How dull.

truman

June 11, 2009 - 8:51 am EDT

clue & histrion, thanks for expressing the two very relevant points of view and suggestions!

Panacea

June 11, 2009 - 8:54 am EDT

Well, you're right about this: Davenport is a terrific muckraker. He's great at plucking nerves on purpose.

I would like to read positive things in the paper, though I know scandal sells. My objection with Davenport is he creates artificial controversy with outrageous statements.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

June 11, 2009 - 6:42 pm EDT

Yes, very good points Histrion. Sometimes I forget I need the ridiculous (Davenport) to keep me passionate about my values.

Kind of reminds me when I was one of the estimated 300,000 who marched on Washington a few years back to protest the war in Iraq. I spent far more time with the war-protest PROTESTERS than I did with the war-protest itself. The protest protesters were FAR more interesting, in a clinical kind of way...

I suppose it is very possible the N&R editorial board keep giving him space so those of us who are grounded in reality can easily tear him to shreds. Sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. Crazy like a fox, the N&R is!

Even so, Davenport is still a tool.

Get A Clue

June 11, 2009 - 6:42 pm EDT

I call 'straw man,' histrion.
Any given number of people doesn't equal right. I am not saying I am therefore right, I'm just calling out that weakness in the argument you've made.
Nor do I expect to read a 'warm fuzzy' paper. But I do enjoy seeing people who pick up Limbaugh and Hannity's ham-fisted style of clouding the issue, though. I always find that amusing.
I expect any respectable news organization to present many sides of an issue. And even when they choose to post a piece in the Op-Ed pages, I expect said organization to edit pieces for reasonable balance and factual citations. Blogs are for bomb-throwers and niche writers; that's a more acceptable way of garnering page hits for the sheer purpose of raising online revenue.
Mr. Davenport, in my opinion, is simply a BS artist, nothing more. He can barely contain his hatred for those unlike him and it shows in the thin veneer with which he attempts to coat his bi-weekly diatribes. He can only paint with that one broad brush he owns. In my opinion, he is more to be pitied than worth getting angry over; my original post was actually taking the N&R to task for not demonstrating stronger journalistic ethics in choosing whom they pay to publish.