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.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Sixth Amendment slowly and painfully disappears
The famous Gideon v. Wainwright supreme court case is nearing its 50th anniversary and now, sadly, it is not a cause for celebration, instead it is a time for sorrow. Why is that? It has become obvious that state govts have gone out of their individual way to deny counsel for those accused of felonies.
Now, with all the creative incentive they can muster, state govts have established criteria that makes it almost impossible for lower income citizens to qualify for counsel under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Abe Fortas, Clarence Gideon's lawyer, would be ranting before the supremes today if he could open his casket. From six feet below he could see the disingenuous of it all and demand that the supremes put an immediate stop to such silly rules that deny counsel to the accused should h/she own a car of $5000.00 value, or if h/her home is valued over $20,000, or if he is gainfully employed (as if he/she were making money while they sit in the clink), and the list goes on and on.
So why the whine over a bunch of losers who just happened to arrested? Let's see: false arrest, racial profiling, arrest quotas. More important is the fact that numerous states are thumbing their noses at the supremes and the 6th Amendment. The caveat from law enforcement appears to be: the only amendment with weight is the 10th.
Now, with all the creative incentive they can muster, state govts have established criteria that makes it almost impossible for lower income citizens to qualify for counsel under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Abe Fortas, Clarence Gideon's lawyer, would be ranting before the supremes today if he could open his casket. From six feet below he could see the disingenuous of it all and demand that the supremes put an immediate stop to such silly rules that deny counsel to the accused should h/she own a car of $5000.00 value, or if h/her home is valued over $20,000, or if he is gainfully employed (as if he/she were making money while they sit in the clink), and the list goes on and on.
So why the whine over a bunch of losers who just happened to arrested? Let's see: false arrest, racial profiling, arrest quotas. More important is the fact that numerous states are thumbing their noses at the supremes and the 6th Amendment. The caveat from law enforcement appears to be: the only amendment with weight is the 10th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
