I will say that while I have worked with many angry men, I still find
humor in their discountenance of a female opinion. I love it, it makes
me laugh, so thank you. :)
I am also successfully going through ADEPT, Mr. Rogers. I know the
"rules." I also know that in the state of SC, one of the most protected
jobs is a government job which is what teaching is. I'm not trying to
belittle my own job by calling it a "government" job. There's no shame
in that, but that is what it is. All of the co workers I'm going
through ADEPT with are also successful in this first semester. I'm
thankful for that. I love the people I work with and I hope they stay.
I will admit though...Mr. Jones, I do not have the time nor want to read
your entire post. Lecture bores me.
Have a great day!
On 12/27/09, Will Rogers wrote:
> Mr Jones and Ms. Angie,
> You two do not know the law and have a REALLY wide streak of anger!
> WOW! I just went through ADEPT, and Passed, and a co-worker did the
> If you fail ADEPT, you have the RIGHT to DEMAND a year of
> remediation. That means the administration, BY LAW, MUST PROVIDE
> YOU A SET OF REASONS YOUR FAILED AND WHAT QUANTATIVE METHODIOLOGIES
> AND ACTIONS YOU MUST TAKE IN ORDER TO PASS.
> Why tear down all the time, try to make the system better! If YOU
> have issues, fix them and move on.
> On 12/22/09, Theodore A. Jones wrote:
>> No person or organization, especially a government organization,
>> is allowed the latitude of contemptuousness of public
> policy in
>> the United States without becoming conspicuous. It may have
>> skipped your notice but deliberately with holding pertinent
>> information to a person to whom a government organization
>> proposes an employment situation that will result in the
>> inevitable detriment to the person employed is indeed
>> objectionable and contrary to the public policy of the Untied
>> On 12/22/09, Angie wrote:
>>> This may come as a shock to most teachers, but in any other
>>> profession no reason has to be given for a termination of
>>> employment. Everyone is an employee at will and SC is a state
>>> where the employer can terminate employment as they see fit.
>>> While it appears that the district used the guise of ADEPT to
>>> rid itself of unwanted employees, it is not illegal. I do not
>>> pretend to know the reasons, but I'm certain there are some.
>>> Take solace in the fact that for everything there is a reason
>>> and a purpose; there's no such thing as 'accidents.'