I'm a teacher. Here's why I am cheering my new freedom from unions

[jc456]

can we just make one blanket statement and that is that leftist love to mandate people pay them

 

[Crixus]

I'm A Teacher. Here's Why I'm Cheering My New Freedom From Unions

I know exactly how she feels,my mother was a teacher for 15 years and went ABOVE and BEYOND her normal duties and she never got paid more for it. It was literally based on seniority which is BS...

Weren’t just teachers you know. Many more are glad to no longer getting shaken down by yet another group of thugs on payday .

 

[Unkotare]

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

You are wrong, but it’s not entirely your fault.

I am quite copacetic with the accuracy of my assessment. Standardized tests have not improved education. And the most certainly have not resulted in a more informed and knowledgeable population.

Have you noticed that many of the countries with whom American students are unfavorably compared rely on very high stakes standardized test in their educational systems? Have you noticed that?

They also actually teach REAL math, physics and other REAL science, reading and writing.

....

So, the tests aren’t hampering REAL education?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why didn’t she get the union to change that in the contract?

But hey, go see how awesome things aren’t union schools . Good luck having everything being decided by politics and connections .

How do you think unions work? you just described it........you are so naive

I’ve worked union and non.

The union is barely an issue . They only time you even hear from them is during contract negotiations or when there’s a dispute .

Are they perfect ? No . But at least you have a contract and clear job descriptions .

Well the problem is people are forced to join them. They shouldnt' be, if they are so good, it shouldn't require compulsion.

That problem isn't that people are 'forced' to unions. That's not really true. If an employer voluntarily signs a contract, agreeing to only hire union members, that's valid and fair. The problem is deeper, with the labor law that allows unions to essentially force themselves on employers - forcing them to sign a contract.

I disagree. When unions make demands, they have to be met for the company to avoid suffering a strike. There is no company in the USA that would be willing to hire strictly union people, or not allow people who don't want to be in the union to take a job unless they were threatened to be in that agreement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I get it. You non union free loaders ...

I love the hypocrisy of liberals blustering about 'free-loaders'. When did stingy and uptight become liberal values?

To a liberal, a freeloader is one that doesn't want to be extorted for money.

This coming from a person who thinks the government is stealing from him when he pays taxes.

I guess that would depend on how much they take.

Theft is the act of somebody taking another persons property against their will, or leaving them with no reasonable alternative.

If I'm walking down the street one night, and a guy pulls a gun and says hand over your money, I have two choices: give him my money and hope I don't get shot, or not give him my money, he shoots me and takes it anyway: no reasonable alternative.

So, you get to decide how much taxes you pay?

You bitch about supporting your country. You know it. You dipsticks cry about it here all the time.

We have no problem supporting this country, but everybody should do it as well. When half of our population pays no income taxes at all, and libs want to take more money, they always turn to the people that give the most money in the first place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

democrats understand dependency. They count on it; always have.

Funny chit. Democrats realize that an advanced society takes care of their poor , sick & elderly.

A trumpette society says fuck the poor, sick & elderly & give money to the corporations & wealthy people.

This is how much you stupid fucks have been duped

Big difference between taking care of your elderly and poor and allowing them to take advantage of our generosity.

You on the left see welfare mama's with six children and applaud them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes. I was 18 smoking my ass off. The union saved my job. I should have been fired.

Sounds like you are still smoking .

How bout some details ?

Years ago when I got my first driving job, I delivered goods from one part of our company to another. There was a gun who unloaded me, and he was a nice fellow, but he was only there half of the time.

The curiosity got the best of me, so I asked his replacement one time why the regular receiver was only there part of the time?

He told me that the guy was an alcoholic. At lunch time, he would run to the bar and get plowed. Of course the company didn't allow him to drive a tow motor, so every time the got drunk they sent him home for the other half of the day.

I asked why our company just didn't fire the guy? He answered because he was in the union, and the union forbade the firing of a union worker for getting drunk on the job provided he was a member of AA which this guy was.

I only worked that job for a year, but that drunk was still with the company when I left. Today, if you get drunk on the job (non union) you are rightfully discharged from your duties.

The idiots were the management who negotiated that little tidbit in the contract and let it stay. They are the ones responsible for not saying no.

They could have said no, and the union could have went on strike. Back then (later 70's) companies were scared to death of unions. I have first hand seen several of our customers either forced out of business, or out of state or country because of unions. That's how much power and influence they had.

I could write a book on my union experiences.

For about the hundredth time it has been posted on this thread, the vast majority of schools are barred from striking. Catch a clue man!


The reason you anti-union know-it-alls can't seem to get anything right is you like to ignore facts.

Go back and read what I wrote. I was talking about unions in general--not specifically teachers unions. But as long as you brought it up, we have had many teachers strikes here in the Cleveland area. The latest one a few years ago in Strongsville, Oho. You can look it up if you like.

 

[sealybobo]

You can't win with me. If you make $50K, you're an idiot. If you make $100K then I get why you vote GOP. Just don't tell people who make $50K they should be voting GOP because they are in a different tax bracket than you.

Why should people who make $50k vote democrat?

Social security and medicare

You mean if they vote Republican, they won't get SS and Medicare?

You know it's the GOP's dream to do away with these socialist programs. You know you believe they are unconstitutional. You guys deny your real motives while you slowly chip away at things like ss, medicare and roe v wade.

Admit you believe you'd do better if they did away with those programs and you invest that money yourself, which you wouldn't. You're already having a tough time making ends meet. You would just spend that money and we'd have to take care of you if you could no longer work.

SS is a great program. I may die at 66 and never take a penny out. But I may also live to be 100 and then I'll collect for the rest of my life. What a great program that you guys want to destroy.

And we are waiting for Republicans to make healthcare more affordable.

They polled 100 Republicans. They all like the Affordable Care Act but they hate Obamacare. Dumb fucks.

I don't know that social programs are unconstitutional, but without a doubt it was not what our founders intended, in fact most were against federal government dependency.

Yes, those were different times, but certainly if they wanted government dependents, they could have created similar programs to what we have today: Government log cabins instead of HUD. Cash for Carriages instead of Cash for Clunkers. Government farms instead of Food Stamps. A national tax to support lazy people instead of welfare. Government firewood instead of utility assistance.

The thing is our founders wrote (in the Constitution) what the federal government is to be responsible for. All other things outside of those obligations were left up to the states.

Would I like to have all my SS money so I could have invested it personally? You bet. And I'd be retiring earlier with more money than I'd ever get from SS. But what about the irresponsible? Well.......you leftists have been manufacturing irresponsible people for decades, now you're surprised??????

But don't worry about social programs. If we wanted to end them, we would have done so this past year, or even during the Bush years when WE HAD CONTROL over the entire federal government.

You see, social programs can be compared to what I call Ray from Cleveland's Raccoon Theory. You see a hungry raccoon digging through your garbage can. So you go inside the house and fetch him that half ham you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal eats in delight. Now give it about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (especially Democrats) are well aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give something to people, it's virtually impossible to take it back; at least not without getting your hand bitten off. So Democrats try to hand out more half-hams and Republicans are afraid to take them away even with full support of the voters.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Republicans are slowly chipping away.

Most Americans won’t save that money. That why I like it. Also because the people who die early make up for the people who live to 100.

Social security and Medicare played a huge part in creating a middle class the world has never seen before. That means life got better for the masses. Social security and Medicare are good programs.

The rich have convinced you these are bad programs.

I like your theory though

 

[sealybobo]

You can't win with me. If you make $50K, you're an idiot. If you make $100K then I get why you vote GOP. Just don't tell people who make $50K they should be voting GOP because they are in a different tax bracket than you.

Why should people who make $50k vote democrat?

Social security and medicare

You mean if they vote Republican, they won't get SS and Medicare?

You know it's the GOP's dream to do away with these socialist programs. You know you believe they are unconstitutional. You guys deny your real motives while you slowly chip away at things like ss, medicare and roe v wade.

Admit you believe you'd do better if they did away with those programs and you invest that money yourself, which you wouldn't. You're already having a tough time making ends meet. You would just spend that money and we'd have to take care of you if you could no longer work.

SS is a great program. I may die at 66 and never take a penny out. But I may also live to be 100 and then I'll collect for the rest of my life. What a great program that you guys want to destroy.

And we are waiting for Republicans to make healthcare more affordable.

They polled 100 Republicans. They all like the Affordable Care Act but they hate Obamacare. Dumb fucks.

So you admit SS is a Ponzi scheme


Check...

Yes and the rich should be chipping in more

 

[whitehall]

Municipal unions can bankrupt a small city and sometimes even a big city. Union leaders walk away with a golden parachute and taxpayers are left holding the bag.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why should people who make $50k vote democrat?

Social security and medicare

You mean if they vote Republican, they won't get SS and Medicare?

You know it's the GOP's dream to do away with these socialist programs. You know you believe they are unconstitutional. You guys deny your real motives while you slowly chip away at things like ss, medicare and roe v wade.

Admit you believe you'd do better if they did away with those programs and you invest that money yourself, which you wouldn't. You're already having a tough time making ends meet. You would just spend that money and we'd have to take care of you if you could no longer work.

SS is a great program. I may die at 66 and never take a penny out. But I may also live to be 100 and then I'll collect for the rest of my life. What a great program that you guys want to destroy.

And we are waiting for Republicans to make healthcare more affordable.

They polled 100 Republicans. They all like the Affordable Care Act but they hate Obamacare. Dumb fucks.

So you admit SS is a Ponzi scheme


Check...

Yes and the rich should be chipping in more

Why? They already put in $8,000,000,000,000,000 dollars


Compared to you: 57 cents


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why should people who make $50k vote democrat?

Social security and medicare

You mean if they vote Republican, they won't get SS and Medicare?

You know it's the GOP's dream to do away with these socialist programs. You know you believe they are unconstitutional. You guys deny your real motives while you slowly chip away at things like ss, medicare and roe v wade.

Admit you believe you'd do better if they did away with those programs and you invest that money yourself, which you wouldn't. You're already having a tough time making ends meet. You would just spend that money and we'd have to take care of you if you could no longer work.

SS is a great program. I may die at 66 and never take a penny out. But I may also live to be 100 and then I'll collect for the rest of my life. What a great program that you guys want to destroy.

And we are waiting for Republicans to make healthcare more affordable.

They polled 100 Republicans. They all like the Affordable Care Act but they hate Obamacare. Dumb fucks.

I don't know that social programs are unconstitutional, but without a doubt it was not what our founders intended, in fact most were against federal government dependency.

Yes, those were different times, but certainly if they wanted government dependents, they could have created similar programs to what we have today: Government log cabins instead of HUD. Cash for Carriages instead of Cash for Clunkers. Government farms instead of Food Stamps. A national tax to support lazy people instead of welfare. Government firewood instead of utility assistance.

The thing is our founders wrote (in the Constitution) what the federal government is to be responsible for. All other things outside of those obligations were left up to the states.

Would I like to have all my SS money so I could have invested it personally? You bet. And I'd be retiring earlier with more money than I'd ever get from SS. But what about the irresponsible? Well.......you leftists have been manufacturing irresponsible people for decades, now you're surprised??????

But don't worry about social programs. If we wanted to end them, we would have done so this past year, or even during the Bush years when WE HAD CONTROL over the entire federal government.

You see, social programs can be compared to what I call Ray from Cleveland's Raccoon Theory. You see a hungry raccoon digging through your garbage can. So you go inside the house and fetch him that half ham you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal eats in delight. Now give it about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (especially Democrats) are well aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give something to people, it's virtually impossible to take it back; at least not without getting your hand bitten off. So Democrats try to hand out more half-hams and Republicans are afraid to take them away even with full support of the voters.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Republicans are slowly chipping away.

Most Americans won’t save that money. That why I like it. Also because the people who die early make up for the people who live to 100.

Social security and Medicare played a huge part in creating a middle class the world has never seen before. That means life got better for the masses. Social security and Medicare are good programs.

The rich have convinced you these are bad programs.

I like your theory though

I didn't say they were bad programs, just badly run programs.

I spent ten years in the medical business where we dealt strictly with insurance companies and government entities. Trust me, government is all Fd up when it comes to handling those programs.

I agree "some" Americans will not save for the future, but that's because we have so many social programs and rescue operations that people don't care. I'll spend money now, and the government won't let me starve later; and we don't.

But it's not about that, it's about control and politics. Okay, so we can't trust everybody, then why not make it a law where the worker contributes to their own IRA instead of SS? It would be a law just like SS. But instead of the money going to the government, it goes into your private retirement account. It's deducted out of your check just like SS and you can't touch it until retirement.

It would be a better system, but the problem is Democrats could never use it against Republicans come election time. Every election, the Democrats tell the public what Republicans want to take away from you. They couldn't do that if we all put our money into a private IRA.

 

[boedicca]

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

You are wrong, but it’s not entirely your fault.

I am quite copacetic with the accuracy of my assessment. Standardized tests have not improved education. And the most certainly have not resulted in a more informed and knowledgeable population.

Have you noticed that many of the countries with whom American students are unfavorably compared rely on very high stakes standardized test in their educational systems? Have you noticed that?

They also actually teach REAL math, physics and other REAL science, reading and writing.

....

So, the tests aren’t hampering REAL education?

Yes, they are. When time is spent on memorizing rote tests instead of actual learning, that hampers real education.

In economics, this is what is known as an opportunity cost.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why didn’t she get the union to change that in the contract?

But hey, go see how awesome things aren’t union schools . Good luck having everything being decided by politics and connections .

How do you think unions work? you just described it........you are so naive

I’ve worked union and non.

The union is barely an issue . They only time you even hear from them is during contract negotiations or when there’s a dispute .

Are they perfect ? No . But at least you have a contract and clear job descriptions .

Well the problem is people are forced to join them. They shouldnt' be, if they are so good, it shouldn't require compulsion.

That problem isn't that people are 'forced' to unions. That's not really true. If an employer voluntarily signs a contract, agreeing to only hire union members, that's valid and fair. The problem is deeper, with the labor law that allows unions to essentially force themselves on employers - forcing them to sign a contract.

You obviously don't understand unions if what you stated is what you think is true. If unions are incapable of forcing themselves on companies by law, there never would have been unions! Study some history please!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What does that mean? I've had some good teachers and some bad ones, but I remember the great ones like my 7th Grade social Studies teacher, she was fantastic. If you have no incentive to perform, then you get shitty results. Which is why the school system sucks like it does. The unions control everything. teachers cant do anything without their approval. They cant innovate, they cant discipline, they cant do anything to make a subject fun and exciting.

I'm don't know about the union stuff affecting what a teacher can do in a classroom, but I do know all the geniuses at the dept. of education do everything they can to prevent teachers from teaching. Over a month a year, they force teachers to teach students to take a test that does nothing for college admissions.

Again, standardized testing is the only way to make sure people are being taught. I'm a big fan of it. The problem is whats in the test. It should be basic stuff, easy and then you can move on to more difficult things.We had a test in high school (my sr year we were doing the test but we didn't have to pass, but the classes afterward did) And man was it easy, I don't know how anyone could fail it......it was like a citizen ship test.......it's easy crap, how does anyone not know such basic things?

BALONEY!

The best way of making sure students are being taught is parental oversight and involvement.

Standardized tests are gamed; and all students end up being "taught" is how to pass a bogus test. That is not education.

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

The best judges of learning are the local people responsible for the kids. Curriculums were stronger and resulted in better educated students overall before the Feds ruined things.

Guess what? The federal government has not ever dictated curriculum. You don't understand the terms you are using.

So you think things are not better today than 40 years ago? When I attended school, we had no such thing as Advanced Placement classes, no dual enrollment programs with colleges, and we were lucky to have qualified teachers for the advanced math and science classes. The only computer was accessed via teletype in a one classroom.

I suggest a good dose of reality may soothe your cognitive dissonance.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Social security and medicare

You mean if they vote Republican, they won't get SS and Medicare?

You know it's the GOP's dream to do away with these socialist programs. You know you believe they are unconstitutional. You guys deny your real motives while you slowly chip away at things like ss, medicare and roe v wade.

Admit you believe you'd do better if they did away with those programs and you invest that money yourself, which you wouldn't. You're already having a tough time making ends meet. You would just spend that money and we'd have to take care of you if you could no longer work.

SS is a great program. I may die at 66 and never take a penny out. But I may also live to be 100 and then I'll collect for the rest of my life. What a great program that you guys want to destroy.

And we are waiting for Republicans to make healthcare more affordable.

They polled 100 Republicans. They all like the Affordable Care Act but they hate Obamacare. Dumb fucks.

I don't know that social programs are unconstitutional, but without a doubt it was not what our founders intended, in fact most were against federal government dependency.

Yes, those were different times, but certainly if they wanted government dependents, they could have created similar programs to what we have today: Government log cabins instead of HUD. Cash for Carriages instead of Cash for Clunkers. Government farms instead of Food Stamps. A national tax to support lazy people instead of welfare. Government firewood instead of utility assistance.

The thing is our founders wrote (in the Constitution) what the federal government is to be responsible for. All other things outside of those obligations were left up to the states.

Would I like to have all my SS money so I could have invested it personally? You bet. And I'd be retiring earlier with more money than I'd ever get from SS. But what about the irresponsible? Well.......you leftists have been manufacturing irresponsible people for decades, now you're surprised??????

But don't worry about social programs. If we wanted to end them, we would have done so this past year, or even during the Bush years when WE HAD CONTROL over the entire federal government.

You see, social programs can be compared to what I call Ray from Cleveland's Raccoon Theory. You see a hungry raccoon digging through your garbage can. So you go inside the house and fetch him that half ham you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal eats in delight. Now give it about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (especially Democrats) are well aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give something to people, it's virtually impossible to take it back; at least not without getting your hand bitten off. So Democrats try to hand out more half-hams and Republicans are afraid to take them away even with full support of the voters.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Republicans are slowly chipping away.

Most Americans won’t save that money. That why I like it. Also because the people who die early make up for the people who live to 100.

Social security and Medicare played a huge part in creating a middle class the world has never seen before. That means life got better for the masses. Social security and Medicare are good programs.

The rich have convinced you these are bad programs.

I like your theory though

I didn't say they were bad programs, just badly run programs.

I spent ten years in the medical business where we dealt strictly with insurance companies and government entities. Trust me, government is all Fd up when it comes to handling those programs.

I agree "some" Americans will not save for the future, but that's because we have so many social programs and rescue operations that people don't care. I'll spend money now, and the government won't let me starve later; and we don't.

But it's not about that, it's about control and politics. Okay, so we can't trust everybody, then why not make it a law where the worker contributes to their own IRA instead of SS? It would be a law just like SS. But instead of the money going to the government, it goes into your private retirement account. It's deducted out of your check just like SS and you can't touch it until retirement.

It would be a better system, but the problem is Democrats could never use it against Republicans come election time. Every election, the Democrats tell the public what Republicans want to take away from you. They couldn't do that if we all put our money into a private IRA.

Why can't supporters of the privatization ever explain how we will fund the current social security expenses? Do we need another tax?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are wrong, but it’s not entirely your fault.

I am quite copacetic with the accuracy of my assessment. Standardized tests have not improved education. And the most certainly have not resulted in a more informed and knowledgeable population.

Have you noticed that many of the countries with whom American students are unfavorably compared rely on very high stakes standardized test in their educational systems? Have you noticed that?

They also actually teach REAL math, physics and other REAL science, reading and writing.

....

So, the tests aren’t hampering REAL education?

Yes, they are. When time is spent on memorizing rote tests instead of actual learning, that hampers real education.

In economics, this is what is known as an opportunity cost.

Memorizing rote tests? WTF does that even mean?

Rote memorization has been gone from education for decades, which is why most kids cannot multiply without a calculator. I'm sorry, but you are simply clueless on this topic.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Again, standardized testing is the only way to make sure people are being taught. I'm a big fan of it. The problem is whats in the test. It should be basic stuff, easy and then you can move on to more difficult things.We had a test in high school (my sr year we were doing the test but we didn't have to pass, but the classes afterward did) And man was it easy, I don't know how anyone could fail it......it was like a citizen ship test.......it's easy crap, how does anyone not know such basic things?

BALONEY!

The best way of making sure students are being taught is parental oversight and involvement.

Standardized tests are gamed; and all students end up being "taught" is how to pass a bogus test. That is not education.

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

The best judges of learning are the local people responsible for the kids. Curriculums were stronger and resulted in better educated students overall before the Feds ruined things.

Like I said, states can do it. But we have to have something to show what kids are learning. We need some metrics to measure the progress.

Why do "we" have to have any such things. Local school systems pay teachers, principles, and administrators...along with school boards to provide and manage the educational process. If we don't trust them to be honest about kids being proficient enough to pass a class and graduate, some do-gooder know-knowing bureaucrat is not going to "fix" things with a rigged standardized test which is so watered down and politicized that it MEANS NOTHING.

Let's look at the evidence: the more the Feds have taken control, the more functional illiterates are being graduated.

Nuff said.

Please don't post on education topics if you cannot even spell "principals" correctly.

Your idea of local control was why the Education Department was formed. Certain areas of the country were doing a lousy job of educating the students and federal oversight was needed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

You are wrong, but it’s not entirely your fault.

I am quite copacetic with the accuracy of my assessment. Standardized tests have not improved education. And the most certainly have not resulted in a more informed and knowledgeable population.

Have you noticed that many of the countries with whom American students are unfavorably compared rely on very high stakes standardized test in their educational systems? Have you noticed that?

They also actually teach REAL math, physics and other REAL science, reading and writing.

We don't do these well in the U.S. anymore.

You are so wrong.

Our top student's score in the US is comparable or exceeds the best and brightest of the other countries. The other countries just do not average their score with the low performing immigrants to this country which make up a high number of students in the southwestern US and inner cities.

What kind of score do you think you would have if you averaged Albert Einstein's math score with a kid who's parents slipped him across the border last week?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Again, standardized testing is the only way to make sure people are being taught. I'm a big fan of it. The problem is whats in the test. It should be basic stuff, easy and then you can move on to more difficult things.We had a test in high school (my sr year we were doing the test but we didn't have to pass, but the classes afterward did) And man was it easy, I don't know how anyone could fail it......it was like a citizen ship test.......it's easy crap, how does anyone not know such basic things?

BALONEY!

The best way of making sure students are being taught is parental oversight and involvement.

Standardized tests are gamed; and all students end up being "taught" is how to pass a bogus test. That is not education.

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

...

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

Do you realize the SAT does not test any knowledge outside math and language arts?