Don't Give Raises for Poor Performance

This was in response to Catalina’s editorial regarding teacher pay raises.

I’m not wholly convinced that the current crop of teachers in the state of Texas deserve one. Texas educators have provided less for our children when compared nationally. We fall behind the national average in the most basic testing of fundamental skills. I don’t see that giving an across-the-board raise to part-time poor performing employees is needed.

If I went into college with an expectation that I’d eventually get a part-time job at the State, why wouldn’t I expect to get paid less than any professional in the private sector? Teachers have a shorter work day than other professions with the average being fewer than 38 hours a day. I understand the argument that they also take their work home with them, but many other professions mimic this. They also get the perk of having an entire season off, which many professions envy. All of these items equate to a part-time position. Why then would I pay a full-time rate?

Attending recertification exams and additional training is not mutually exclusive to teachers. Many professions also have to attend to classes in certification. Computer specialists frequently have to keep up with new technologies or programs by attending training classes or completed certifications. Nurses, medical technicians, and coders have to submit to tests every year to prove that they are still capable of doing their jobs. I just don’t see why teachers being subjected to training suddenly make them more deserving than everyone else.

I do agree with you on the importance of the profession. I can’t argue that they are instrumental in shaping a child’s emotional and mental state during development. Unfortunately, I can only name one out of the many teachers my son has had that I would say was the “ideal” teacher. Most were new teachers just waiting to hear back from a better neighboring school district or alternatively burnt out from dealing with troubled kids. I believed my case was an anomaly, however the more I talked with parents it became the norm.

The educational system in Texas is poor. My personal views have been colored by bad experiences with the primary education system. Increasing funding would go a long ways in attracting a talented work force that would actually care about our kid’s education. However I believe the current pool does not deserve a raise. Examples of low standard test scores in math and science and an extremely high dropout rate reinforce the fact that the state has a serious issue in their educators. Like any other job, if someone’s performing poorly there would be no reason to reward that person.

The Children are Quiet

If the kids are silent, does it mean something’s wrong? The sounds of the in-fighting that plagued a legislature under Tom Craddick were absent during a house proposal for the budget plan under the new leadership of Joe Straus. Stranger than that, they were in unanimous agreement on raising the money allocated to such services as financial-aid for college students and raising the enrollment to Children’s Health Plan. This whole situation of the lege singing “Kumbaya” and holding hands while passing social bills is great, but also off-putting.

It’s exceptionally pleasant that the legislature is finally being fiscally smart instead of dumping it into Governor Rick Perry’s Enterprise Fund. The stories regarding previous major cuts to health and educational services makes one wonder if Texas elected officials really champion their constituent’s best interests. Perry’s railing against taking federal funds is inane in saying we would create a situation where we would just further exacerbate the issues. We’ve gutted these services long enough and I’m happy that the legislature recognized the elephant in the room and chose to ignore Perry’s incessant screaming. Never mind the man behind the curtain. Perry’s Oz seems to be plagued with an infestation of the uneducated, sick, and poor.

Tom Craddick is the equivalent of an abused kid who then becomes the bully. His early political years in the democratic majority legislature provided him only with frustration and resentment. When he rose up in ranks to become Speaker of the House, the first Republican in 130 years, he unleashed what had been bottled up. All of Craddick’s history doesn’t excuse him for his oppression in the legislature. The guy was a hard-lined asshole.

His use of maltreatment to push his agenda fostered a legislature where open discussion about issues was disregarded. He’s killed bills regarding school finance reform that both democrats and republicans agreed with. In one instance in May 2004 during a special session regarding education, he turned off the microphone of a dissenting representative. I’m glad he’s gone and I’m positive that the entire legislature is relieved too.

So is it just a honeymoon period in the legislature under Joe Straus’ new lead? While the legislature is enjoying their newfound freedom, Straus’ hands-off approach might eventually backfire on him when it comes to controversial issues such as embryonic stem cell research. At least for the time being, we can sit back and enjoy the momentary silence.

Four Days of Reasearch about Marcel Duchamp + Handgun = x

In response to Lauren’s Blog Article entitled “Carrying Handguns onto a College Campus?”

Lauren,

I’ll preface this with that I hate guns. I disagree with you on the idea of allowing concealed guns on college campus would be a great thing. I’m not about to say that allowing weapons on the campus will turn all universities into reproductions of the O.K. Corral. I won’t vocalize that the sudden increase in the hobbies of carjacking and murder will indeed take the stead of study groups and library research. These types of reduction ad absurdum arguments against your position is exactly like the ones the pro and anti gun groups are using.

The use of Virginia Tech as evidence for the pro-gun movement seems odd, since in our own backyard we’ve had the horrible instance of the UT Tower. Maybe the detachment from our home makes it easier for people to relate or it could be bringing the Austin incident would be in bad taste. Either way, I don’t believe that if a CHL bill had been passed in Virginia it would have altered the events at Virginia Tech. Neither does John Woods, a student who went to Virginia Tech and lost his girlfriend and friends in the massacre. These what-if type disaster scenarios can be dangerous. These beliefs dwell in a hypothetical fantasy world where everyone plays the hero and not the victim.

You bring up the shining example of low crime rates in the Georgian city of Kennasaw. The city has never enforced its mandatory gun laws. This allows people to still live in the town without sharing the adamant belief of owning firearms. The statistics regarding the crime rates in Kennasaw can be adjusted to give favorable light to both movements. Either way, that city is not a university. The idealism and thinking that universities provide students clashes with others a lot more frequently than normal suburban life. We are taught to commonly critique individuals which can be perceived as a confrontational action. Adding weapons to misinterpretation seems like a bad recipe.

I don’t think it’s a good idea at all. I believe that equipping overstressed students and faculty member with loaded firearms to use only in the event of a school massacre is the metaphorical equivalent of living in a bomb shelter just in case someone drops the big ones on us.

John

I’m apologizing for putting this in but I found it as a funny side note. In this Associated Press story, one of the pro-gun supporters is Luke Farmer. This unlikely mascot carriers a neon green sign which says “Don’t Listen to Liberal Fear Mongers” and proudly states, “Just sitting around waiting for the police… doesn’t sound much like a plan.” I find it funny that the poster boy that the AP arrived at is a trigger-happy, dem-hating guy that talks like a bad action-movie star.

The Problem with Nicklebee's Dime

Did you know that fifty is the new zero? Grading guidelines in many public school districts have put limits on how low a student’s grade can drop. Most of these schools set the grade restriction at a minimum of 50. However some have set it at an appalling 70. This means that a student would not have to participate, do their homework, or even take a test and they would still manage to pass. How are students demonstrating a satisfactory understanding of a subject if no level of participation ever takes place?

A new bill hopes to reestablish law back into the universe of public schools and I hope it succeeds. A recent Dallas Morning article by Terence Stutz chronicles the bill aiming to remove the grade limits that the districts have established. Authored by Senator Jane Nelson of Flower Mound, SB 2033 states that a district’s grading policy “(1) must require a classroom teacher to assign a grade that reflects the student’s relative mastery of an assignment; and (2) may not require a classroom teacher to assign a minimum grade for an assignment without regard to the student’s quality of work.” I fear that this might make too much sense to pass the senate.

This redefining of the grade systems can be traced back to 2001 with the enactment of “No Child Left Behind”. Mostly meant for primary education, added rules in late 2008 applied harsh mandates to middle and high schools. The additional rules created a situation where federal funding could be reduced based on the amount of dropouts and the percentage of dropout based off of differing demographics. These penalties provide enough incentive for districts to create a grading system that caters to the lowest common denominator so that they have enough motivation to stay in school. A vicious cycle was born where we continually set the bar lower and lower.

My son goes to a school in Elgin and is a straight “A” student. He works hard for his grades by studying all the time. His school district set the minimum grade at 50. Does this diminish his accomplishments? I believe he earned his grade and I’m very proud of him. There’s still that “but” and it’s hanging out there not directed at him, but at the district. It’s troubling that the school district claimed that the most basic act of sitting in your chair constitutes halfway mastery of any class. Let’s hope that Senator Nelson’s bill gets an “A”.

To Be Continued on Normal School Days

When did science class become Sunday school? Dave Mann’s blog entitled “And so it Ends” in the Texas Observer chronicles the recent defeat of pushing creationism into school science books. He retells the dysfunctional atmosphere within the State Board of Education during the finalization of the science standards. The air of incompetence he describes in his piece is brimming with napkins scrawled with various amendments fraught with misspellings. Dave Mann has been a writer for the Texas Observer since 2003 and is a senior editor. Mann’s article is intended for those people deeply afraid that an evangelical public school system, headed by a dentist from Bryan, will teach our children that the only phase in the scientific method is developing a hypothesis.

I agree with Mann’s belief that the defeat was a victory, but I do disagree with his thought of that the compromises made at that meeting were “harmless.” Lee Nichols’ article details many of the amendments passed and adds a counter to the severity of the situation. Amendments promoting differing “theories” on the creation of the universe, evaluation of the sudden appearance of fossil records, and even the existence of global warming undermine the teaching of science.

The formulation of scientific theory is not done on a whim or a feeling. They are tested not just by the original scientist, but be many others once the work is published. If after many years the work cannot be disproved, the work can be established as scientific theory. A scientific theory is the best conclusion one can ascertain with the evidence provided.


Why in the world would we then allow cynicism to broach upon that? There is no evidence that supports the belief that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. If evidence came to light, the theory would be disproved and that would be the end of it. The attacks on evolution are wildly erratic. The population explosion of dinosaurs does not prove evolution is wrong. The theory provides the process of natural selection, not population growth. The melting of the arctic and Antarctic sea ice, glacial disappearance, and the trend of warming temperatures are all evidence of global warming.

Even thought the books will not display the subtext regarding creationism, the teachers will endorse it and reinforce the belief that science is not a science at all. In the end, are we just shaping children’s minds to always be wholly skeptical even in the face of empirical evidence?

Happily Ever After FOREVER

The Austin American Statesman commentary piece entitled “How to achieve ‘happily ever after’” by Ashley Sanchez relates her favorable opinion regarding House Bill 480. A creation of Free Market Foundation, HB 480 adds barriers for no-fault divorces for couples who have a child. The bill found a sponsor in Representative Warren Chisum of Pampa and is currently in the legislature. Free Market Foundation also abridges on such doctrines as the separation of church and state in other bills such as the push for bible classes in public schools.
Ashley Sanchez is a regular contributor to the Statesman. Her previous articles such as embracing clean entertainment tend to spotlight her focus on family values. Her piece seems to be aimed at Christian conservatives, hoping they agree with her stance.

Sanchez’s opening paragraph deals with her belief that marriage equates to happiness and those who do exchange vows are immediately carted off to “live happily ever after.” She then condescendingly notes that statistics suggest that we might not know how to be happy. The idea that happiness is somehow mutually exclusive to marriage is ludicrous. Sanchez later brings up a report from the group American Values who note that “(u)nhappy married adults who divorced or separated were no happier, on average, than unhappily married adults who stayed married.” I’m unsure if this was supposed to reinforce her position, since it seems like a complete wash. I’m sure the unhappy married person will quantifiably be unhappier when he sees the wait time involved from getting out of his miserable marriage.

Texas Department of State Health and Human Services show that less than half of all divorces involve children. That number does not take into accounts which of those divorces are cited as “no-fault”. The idea of using a “no-fault” reason to some couples might be a way to assure equal division of property. Placing blame on either individual for the reason of separation can be used by the court in determining property and custodial rights. Having the government tell me that I can’t finalize my divorce until two years have passes seems to be a tad big brother.
The author’s rose-colored view that marriage only occurs between people that are in love is a façade. People marry for different reasons. Chisum’s bill hammers government into our private lives. It intrudes by adding barriers. Mandating classes and wait times of divorce does not help individuals who are unhappy; it only replaces their will with the state’s.

Liberally Conservative?

Lee Nichols’ Austin Chronicle article title “One Pol’s Stimulus is Another Crack Cocaine”, details the Texas legislature’s issues with the stimulus package given from the Obama administration. The battle between Democrats, who want to distribute the funds, and Republicans, who fears increasing state programs due to federal regulations on some of the dollars, is heating up. Nichols details the arguments regarding portions of the stimulus package that would be distributed to Medicaid, Texas Department of Transportation, and unemployment insurance. The later item includes inflammatory remarks made from Governor Perry compares the unemployed to drug addicts, and the democratic response lambasting him. The article notes that the timetable required for approval is drawing closer, even though doubts have been raised if it can be met due to the conflicts. Nichols’ article is interesting in that it shows the Republicans attempting to be conservative about an economic theory that is counter to their entire ideology.