Okay, today I want to go back a few days to the Las Vegas Democratic Debate. There were a few things said at this debate that really got under my skin. And it had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, or illegal immigrants with drivers licenses. No, it had to do with Education. Education is important to me, and I think that a lot of the issues that we deal with as a society – poverty, racism, crime, etc…. – can be cured through education. Well, maybe not “cured”, but certainly diminished.
Now I have been very fortunate as far as education is concerned. I was lucky enough to grow up in Cedar Falls, Iowa, a community with a strong school district. And while I wasn’t the best of students, I had several great teachers (along with a few not so great ones) , and their effort made me a good enough student to get into college, where after a slow start, I did pretty well. And when my wife and I found out we were pregnant with our first child, we bought a house in the best school district we could afford. And by the time we were pregnant with our second child, we sold that home and moved to Templeton, a town with the best school district in the county. Like I said, we were fortunate, but a lot of people in America are not.
Most people in America are not so fortunate. Most people in America are stuck sending their children to the nearest school, and a lot of those schools – for lack of a better word – suck. And most of these people can’t afford to send their children to private schools. The problem is that the government and the National Education Association run the school systems, and those people DO NOT have the best interest of the students in mind. The left preach about the evil of monopolies (and they are not that far off of the mark), and yet they are the biggest supporter of the biggest monopoly in this country, The Department of Education.
And before my liberal friends start jumping on me on this one, let me point out that their isn’t a lot of brilliance coming from the right on this issue as well. There is bipartisan blundering on this issue, however the fact that about 90% of political donations from NEA members goes to Democrats, you’ll understand if I attack the liberals a little harder. But again, I’m not letting the right off either, because while they haven’t played as strong a roll in keeping education in it’s current quagmire, their wimpiness on this issue has not advanced education in this country at all.
Which brings us to the recent Democratic Debate in Las Vegas. There were several minutes spent on education in this debate, and a lot of promises made, but very few solid answers. Senator Dodd was asked about the need to A) reward quality teachers, and B) terminate bad teachers. This is a very, very serious issue, and one of the biggest problems with Unions today, and the NEA is no exception. Before we go to Dodd’s response, go to this link and see what it takes to fire an inept teacher these days:
http://cgood.org/assets/attachments/firing_chart.pdf
Now, if you didn’t go to that link, please back up and click on it. It’s okay, I can wait…..
Disgusting isn’t it? And the problem is, that’s only half of the problem – It’s also just as difficult to reward quality teachers, which is why burnout is such a big deal. Look, lets assume you start a new job. And once there, you take a look around at the people you work with. Over here is Jenny. Jenny has only been with the company six years, but she is enthusiastic and hard working, and Jenny makes $75,000 a year. And on the other side we have Stu, who has worked her for twelve years, and always does just enough to keep from being fired. Stu makes $45,000 a year.
Now imagine the same workplace, but in this workplace Stu makes more than Jenny because Stu has tenure. Also, since Stu can’t be fired, he is no longer trying anywhere near as he was, and Jenny lost her ambition by year four, and is on her way to becoming the new Stu. The difference between these two workplaces is simple: The first workplace represents many of those found in America today, the second represents many of America’s public schools.
Is this an accurate representation or a caricature? You’d be surprised. My son has always been a good student, but he struggled a bit in 5th grade. Not a lot, but up until that year school never challenged him much. His 5th grade teacher, who will remain nameless, was the first one who really challenged him, and because of her efforts Blake really shined in her class, and for the first time in his young life he really worked hard at his school work, and really shined (and I am happy to report that he continued to shine throughout High School and is doing quite well in college).
Now my daughter is another story. She’s a good student, but she is also a social one, and she needs a teacher who keeps her on task, and her fourth grade teacher was not that type. We requested the same 5th grade teacher that Blake had, and we were lucky enough to get her. At least we thought we were lucky. In the seven years since Blake had Ms. Whats-her-name, she went from Jenny to Stu, or worse. The bottom line is Madison’s 5th grade experience was horrible, and she spent her summer in summer school. Fortunately, sixth grade has been much better.
Now is it possible that our daughter just isn’t as bright as our son? Sure it’s possible, but we talked to several other parents who had the same teacher, and a vast majority had serious issues. And several of those parents had children in her class earlier, and they were just as disappointed as we were.
Does this one incident prove anything? Maybe, maybe not. But this story is being repeated in school after school. But lets get back to Dodd’s response to terminating and rewarding teachers. He said:
Well, I think if you define excelling by teachers who will go into poor -- rural or poor urban areas and make a difference, mentor children after school, put in extra time to make a difference, then I think that sort of merit pay has value.
Now I have been very fortunate as far as education is concerned. I was lucky enough to grow up in Cedar Falls, Iowa, a community with a strong school district. And while I wasn’t the best of students, I had several great teachers (along with a few not so great ones) , and their effort made me a good enough student to get into college, where after a slow start, I did pretty well. And when my wife and I found out we were pregnant with our first child, we bought a house in the best school district we could afford. And by the time we were pregnant with our second child, we sold that home and moved to Templeton, a town with the best school district in the county. Like I said, we were fortunate, but a lot of people in America are not.
Most people in America are not so fortunate. Most people in America are stuck sending their children to the nearest school, and a lot of those schools – for lack of a better word – suck. And most of these people can’t afford to send their children to private schools. The problem is that the government and the National Education Association run the school systems, and those people DO NOT have the best interest of the students in mind. The left preach about the evil of monopolies (and they are not that far off of the mark), and yet they are the biggest supporter of the biggest monopoly in this country, The Department of Education.
And before my liberal friends start jumping on me on this one, let me point out that their isn’t a lot of brilliance coming from the right on this issue as well. There is bipartisan blundering on this issue, however the fact that about 90% of political donations from NEA members goes to Democrats, you’ll understand if I attack the liberals a little harder. But again, I’m not letting the right off either, because while they haven’t played as strong a roll in keeping education in it’s current quagmire, their wimpiness on this issue has not advanced education in this country at all.
Which brings us to the recent Democratic Debate in Las Vegas. There were several minutes spent on education in this debate, and a lot of promises made, but very few solid answers. Senator Dodd was asked about the need to A) reward quality teachers, and B) terminate bad teachers. This is a very, very serious issue, and one of the biggest problems with Unions today, and the NEA is no exception. Before we go to Dodd’s response, go to this link and see what it takes to fire an inept teacher these days:
http://cgood.org/assets/attachments/firing_chart.pdf
Now, if you didn’t go to that link, please back up and click on it. It’s okay, I can wait…..
Disgusting isn’t it? And the problem is, that’s only half of the problem – It’s also just as difficult to reward quality teachers, which is why burnout is such a big deal. Look, lets assume you start a new job. And once there, you take a look around at the people you work with. Over here is Jenny. Jenny has only been with the company six years, but she is enthusiastic and hard working, and Jenny makes $75,000 a year. And on the other side we have Stu, who has worked her for twelve years, and always does just enough to keep from being fired. Stu makes $45,000 a year.
Now imagine the same workplace, but in this workplace Stu makes more than Jenny because Stu has tenure. Also, since Stu can’t be fired, he is no longer trying anywhere near as he was, and Jenny lost her ambition by year four, and is on her way to becoming the new Stu. The difference between these two workplaces is simple: The first workplace represents many of those found in America today, the second represents many of America’s public schools.
Is this an accurate representation or a caricature? You’d be surprised. My son has always been a good student, but he struggled a bit in 5th grade. Not a lot, but up until that year school never challenged him much. His 5th grade teacher, who will remain nameless, was the first one who really challenged him, and because of her efforts Blake really shined in her class, and for the first time in his young life he really worked hard at his school work, and really shined (and I am happy to report that he continued to shine throughout High School and is doing quite well in college).
Now my daughter is another story. She’s a good student, but she is also a social one, and she needs a teacher who keeps her on task, and her fourth grade teacher was not that type. We requested the same 5th grade teacher that Blake had, and we were lucky enough to get her. At least we thought we were lucky. In the seven years since Blake had Ms. Whats-her-name, she went from Jenny to Stu, or worse. The bottom line is Madison’s 5th grade experience was horrible, and she spent her summer in summer school. Fortunately, sixth grade has been much better.
Now is it possible that our daughter just isn’t as bright as our son? Sure it’s possible, but we talked to several other parents who had the same teacher, and a vast majority had serious issues. And several of those parents had children in her class earlier, and they were just as disappointed as we were.
Does this one incident prove anything? Maybe, maybe not. But this story is being repeated in school after school. But lets get back to Dodd’s response to terminating and rewarding teachers. He said:
Well, I think if you define excelling by teachers who will go into poor -- rural or poor urban areas and make a difference, mentor children after school, put in extra time to make a difference, then I think that sort of merit pay has value.
If you're judging excelling by determining whether or not that teacher has students who do better because they're in better neighborhoods or better schools, I'm totally opposed to that.
Now I’m not saying that what Dodd proposes isn’t without merit, but it doesn’t really answer the question, does it? Dodd defines “good performance” by someone willing to teach in a poor neighborhood, which is great, but what if that someone is our pal Stu. Dodd is rewarding placement, not performance. And what’s wrong with an outstanding teacher in a good school system. Do I think there should be an extra incentive for outstanding teachers in poor areas? Absolutely, I’m 100% for it.
But there are other issues, and believe it or not, a few solutions as well. But alas dear reader, that will have to wait until tomorrow. And possibly the day after as well (we have a lot to cover here)
Now I’m not saying that what Dodd proposes isn’t without merit, but it doesn’t really answer the question, does it? Dodd defines “good performance” by someone willing to teach in a poor neighborhood, which is great, but what if that someone is our pal Stu. Dodd is rewarding placement, not performance. And what’s wrong with an outstanding teacher in a good school system. Do I think there should be an extra incentive for outstanding teachers in poor areas? Absolutely, I’m 100% for it.
But there are other issues, and believe it or not, a few solutions as well. But alas dear reader, that will have to wait until tomorrow. And possibly the day after as well (we have a lot to cover here)
1 comment:
Doug & I think that open enrollment is really a good answer- along with a voucher system. If you can send your child to the school you prefer it will basically "shut down" the schools that under achieve or make them shape up.
But, sadly, the real problem is that many parents just don't get involved. They send their kids to school and that is where their involvement ends. Parents must be involved in their children's lives and demand change if we really want to see changes on that level.
Post a Comment