Hubris Sans Dignity

I "get it" when a leader, mayor, governor, etc stands by h/her political or economic philosophy. I find it refreshing that anyone in a leadership role would reason that they were elected to make decisions based on their intellectual skills and that they would stay the course on what brought them their initial success in the first place.

Governor Mark Sanford, however, goes beyond the pale when he refuses to help the people of S. Carolina. How he could look into a camera and proudly proclaim that his state can and will withstand the massive unemployment, the huge turn down of private donations in the Palmetto State? Ok, Ok, his hubris at that point was acceptable; sort of a "keep a stiff upper lip" response. But he irritated the hell out of me when he declared that he would only take stimulus monies to "pay down the state debt".
The whole concept of the stimulus package is to create more shovel-ready jobs, not to shove the money into banks or pay off debts that stimulate nothing. Sanford knows this yet he refuses to help his hurting populace. He knows full well that United Way has exhausted its funds and that the food stores for the needy are bare but he refuses to help.
When supposed leadership hurts rather than helps, when it becomes more Machiavellian than compassionate one could deduce a change must result.

Stimulus Package: Where's Ross Perot When We Surely Need Him?

Where's Ross Perot we need him? No, I am not talking about leading the country, although I do think he would be a great source of knowledge in these troubled times. I am talking about his ability to get up close and personal with his flip charts. Who could forget his visual effects during the 1992 presidential campaign? Whether we want to admit it or not he did inculcate a lot of difficult information with those big charts and keen pointers.

Every one is in a tizzy over the stimulus package and the bail out of banks. The information is so esoteric that the average citizen doesn't gasp the rationale for the continued loaning to A.I.G. and Citibank, for example. For that matter, many well educated people "get it" but continue to berate the Obama plan for no other reason than to follow the party line.
One huge reason why we must continue to bail out the big boys falls to a concept known as "credit default swap". This is a very complicated bank-to-bank scheme wherein world banks pay off a monthly type of insurance plan (this plan that must be paid monthly for fear of a run on the banks). In other words, A.I.G. and Citibank are wrapped up in a world web from which they cannot be extracted.

So, why bring in Ross Perot? Well, maybe not him physically, but someone who could graphically explain the whole process to us in order to bring credibility back to Wall Street. Yes, we need a Perot type person who is not connected to the financial barons who could flip chart us into some modicum of sanity.

Say No to Merit Pay for Teachers

Here comes the cure-all for ills suffered under the huge umbrella called education. It's posted everywhere, it's ubiquitous, it's the answer... it's Merit Pay for Teachers. Don't buy this snake oil. At least have a conversation with a teacher before you believe the hype coming out of school superintendent offices nationwide.

First the old chestnut is thrown out on the public square to get our pulse rate up: "Throwing more money at the problem won't solve the problem". The truth of the matter is that we haven't put enough money in education for decades, save for the huge amount that is spend out of the general fund for special education (about 25%). The last huge influx of dollars into common education occurred in the 60s during the race to space. The results were unbelievable and positive.

Second, the anti-ed crowd will shout to the heavens that we need to get rid of bad teachers. I agree, but the average citizen would be stunned at the low percentage of teachers who are doing an unacceptable job. More often than not, educators are placed in positions of which they have little or no skills or training. One simple example could be a beginning teacher who, in need of a job, will be placed in a classroom for special needs children. This teacher may not have a clue as to how to write an appropriate lesson plan for these children. Sadly, these teachers are left to figure out what to do with little or no assistance from h/her fellow teachers or administrators. A really excellent biology teacher may be assigned to teach physics, a subject h/she may not have the skills to teach. It certainly doesn't suggest that this teacher is a bad educator.
As unbelievable as it may sound, a school principal may have a conflict with a teacher over politics, religion, or even sports with (I am not kidding here) the principal looking for ways to "write up" that teacher with a "needs to improve" evaluation. Is this an exaggeration? Absolutely not!

Third, merit pay should be based on the tests performance by their students. The inherent unfairness in this concept is almost too difficult to explain because there are too many scenarios to explain. For example, Mrs. X teaches Honors English while Mr. Z teaches 10th grade English. It doesn't take an I.Q. over the temperature of table water to determine that Mrs. X's students will perform well above Mr Z's students.
What about Ms. Bell and her art class? There isn't a statewide/nationwide test over art. or for that matter physical education, or government, music, etc. Is it fair that Ms. Bell would be denied a pay increase while Mrs. X will probably enjoy a hefty bonus? What about the school librarian or the school nurse?
Speaking of tests, more Americans don't know that the tests never compares , for example, sophomores to sophomores of a given class, region, state, or the nation. Instead, it compares the current a sophomore class to the previous year's aggregate sophomore group.

Lastly, there remains the group who calls for the Arkansas Model for Merit Pay. It is even more bothersome than merit pay on its face. This model calls for a bonus to all of the employees (cooks, janitors, secretaries, and teachers) of a school when that school raises tests scores to a specific level. The idiocy of this plan is to suggests that the secretary or custodian worked as hard as the history teacher to raise the actual scores. Did the football coach truly deserve the same merit pay as the biology teacher who is stressed to the max to improve tests scores.

My real point is that a true conversation is needed the between concerned citizens and the educators. Have you ever noticed that when it comes to complex issues such as this one the principal/administrator is paraded out to "speak for the school" in an effort to muffle the voices of those who are truly and harshly impacted, the teachers.