Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (221019)	2/25/2007 4:14:42 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually, Brumar, if you'd stop being intellectually lazy and google the letter, you would be able to sum up their argument in one word. That word is "redundant". The NEA rejects the proposal simply on the basis that it is redundant. There are already teacher incentive programs in place that are working very efficiently. The NEA recommends that Congress reject the current proposal as a free-standing program because it would add another layer of beauracracy to implement it. The NEA would prefer Congress come up with a proposal that piggy-backs on the existing incentive programs in place across the country and send the proposed amounts of money out to those states in the form of block grants. The implication was that Congress didn't seem to know the extent to which teacher incentive programs were already operating. There was certainly no rejection of incentivizing teacher pay, as you seem to ridiculously suspect.