"It's for the children" is one of those Orwellian phrases that generally masks an agenda contrary to the interests of children. Its usage surrounding issues of teacher pay and treatment are a case in point. I much preferred the honesty of the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, Albert Shanker, who once blurted, "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." As the Associated Press points out, New York City fired just 10 teachers out of 55,000 last year. Los Angeles, which employs 43,000 teachers, fires about 11 per year. Rounding to the nearest 1/100th of a percentile, teachers in New York and Los Angeles have a zero percent chance of getting fired. Are they uniformly that good? The shameful statistics have come to light in relation to a state law in New York that will make it easier to fire teachers who have been convicted of sex crimes against students. No doubt the defenders of molestors, who have landed dream jobs in education, will attempt to convince skeptics that retaining such miscreants is "for the children."

Dan I listened to a radio show which described in detail the "holding room" classes in NYC where they send useless and criminal teachers during school days. They still collect their paychecks, but they sit there and read or talk all day, sometimes for years. All of this on the taxpayers dime.

"Easier to fire teachers who have been convicted to sex crimes."

How can it be the case that there is any question, EVER about letting convicted sex offenders teach? Mind boggling.