Kick the Anthill

Well, it’s certainly been an interesting morning.  Or afternoon, depending on when I get this thing published here.  Which depends on how much research I get done before I publish it.  Let’s just hope I get it out there by 3:00, as I have to leave early today, shall we? 

This post is all about Oblahblahblahma’s Education stance.  And I’m sure it’s one that teachers everywhere will be utterly pissed about.

I’m married to a teacher.  Fortunately, she’s a Conservative, but unfortunately, she works in a school system that is radically Liberal.  Her principal is an Obamaniac who cannot stop gushing about how wonderful The One is.

I wonder, after she’s read this morning’s Yahoo report, if she’s going to change her tune.  I certainly hope so.  But at the same time, I seriously doubt it.

Most of this centers around Merit Pay.  But I’ll get to that in a second.  I’ll start with the Charter School subject, which our current PotUS loves, apparently.

Charter Schools, for those of you who do not know, are elementary or Junior High schools who receive public monies (tax dollars), yet are treated differently than regular public schools.  What does that mean?  Basically, they don’t have the same restrictions that normal public schools have.  Instead, in order to receive tax dollars, they have to perform at or above a certain level.  Basically, it’s a Play-To-Get-Paid type of thing.  And while it makes sense, at the same time, it doesn’t.

You see, not just any child can get into a Charter School.  It’s almost like trying to get into college.  They have to make certain grades, at some schools they have to be certain race(s), have to maintain those grades, must not be a discipline problem, etc. etc. etc.  Basically, they must be perfect, or they’re gone.  Something that I admire about these schools is that they are (typically) subject-specific driven.  This means that they may focus on Math, or Science, or Language, or various Arts.  If your child is exceptionally gifted in, say, science, then you could attempt to get into a Science-focused Charter School. 

And I say “attempt,” because it’s not the easiest thing in the world to do.  They have a limited amount of spots, and those are frequently filled to capacity quickly–as well as a waiting list years long that you’ll go on the bottom of, should you choose to send your child to that school.

There are a few of these Charter Schools here in Oklahoma City.  I have a son who is extra-ordinarily talented with Math.  He is literally teaching math other students in his class, when his teacher asks him to pull them aside so that she can go on with the concepts with the rest of the students.  Basically, he tutors a handful of them so that she can teach the other (roughly) twenty who are “getting it.”  Unfortunately, my wife and I do not have the political connections to get our son into the one Charter School that focuses on mathematics.

Or maybe it is fortunate.  I don’t know.

Since my wife is a teacher who has been at a lot of schools over the past seventeen years (she’s a Pre-K teacher, so is moved from school to school if the one she’s currently in doesn’t have enough children to warrant a class), so consequently knows a lot of other teachers.  Some are teachers who used to be in Charter Schools.  They will tell you that it is one of the most stressful situations any teacher can be put into.  Why?  Because if their students don’t perform adequately, not only are those students removed from the school, so are the teachers.  Especially if enough students out of a class don’t make the grade.  Which I can understand, from a certain point of view.  Especially given the strenuous gymnastics that a parent has to go through to get their child into that school.  And political connections always help with that.  Well, political connections and race.  Some Charter Schools want specific ”minorities” and give greater weight to them than whites and Asians.

But this brings me to the ‘merit’ portion of the column.

AFT–the American Federation of Teachers–is probably (and unsurprisingly) one of the most liberal groups in America.  If you are a teacher, you had darn-well better be a liberal.  If you’re a conservative, you keep your mouth shut about it, and play the liberal game.  Basically, instead of being a RINO (Republican In Name Only), you become a DINO(saur). 

If you are a teacher–at least here in Oklahoma–you must be a member of a teacher’s union.  Most are members of AFT.  And as a member of AFT, whenever it comes to an election time (whether national, state, or even school district), you will receive several phone calls from AFT volunteers.  These volunteers will not let up until you have said that you will vote for whoever or whatever it is that they want you to vote for.  In my house, we have gotten to the point that my wife will either just agree with them to get them to stop, or, if I answer the phone (which causes my wife to groan and worry about her job), I rather directly tell them what I think of whatever stance they want my wife to take.  I take great pleasure in telling them exactly what I think, and how their stance cannot possibly be what’s good for the children.  I love doing that. 

Sorry, I’ve gotten off-topic, haven’t I?  I was talking about merit.

According to AFT, merit pay doesn’t work!  Here’s what this article–on AFT’s website–has to say:

While the AFT is encouraging locals to explore various teacher compensation systems based on local conditions, it is not abandoning the traditional salary schedule. Failed attempts to implement differentiated pay options, like merit pay systems, identified a few teachers as “outstanding” and paid them extra, rewarding teachers on the basis of supervisory ratings or student test scores. Nevertheless, these schemes have failed. Why did they fail? Research and experience show that the merit pay schemes:

• were underfunded;
• used quotas for determining quality;
• had questionable or difficult-to-understand assessment procedures for evaluating teaching, resulting in perceptions that favoritism rather than merit was driving the system;
• were designed so that either you earned merit or you didn’t — there were no gradations of merit, only “winners” and “losers”;
• gave rewards to teachers in the wealthiest schools more often than to those teaching the neediest students;
• did not improve student performance and were unconnected to outcomes; and
• created teacher morale problems stemming from the creation of unfair competition in a profession where cooperation and collaboration are valued.

In another article written two years prior to the one above, they had this to say:

The coming teacher shortage is bringing renewed attention to the importance of excellent teaching. Some good ideas for attracting and keeping high-quality teachers have been floated, including the commonsense notion of paying teachers competitive salaries. But this being a political season, the idea of merit pay has also come up again. Although merit pay sounds plausible, it has been tried in many school districts over the years, and it has always failed, largely because traditional merit pay plans lack objective criteria.

Interesting.  While AFT likes the idea of paying more to teachers who do their job, they keep finding that the idea of merit pay doesn’t work.  For various reasons, obviously.  Personally, I like the one that showed that it ‘didn’t improve student performance, and were unconnected to outcomes’ the best.  Why?  Because it depends on the students, primarily.

Students come from all walks of life.  Schools are located in all kinds of different areas around the country.  True, there are schools in the poorer areas that are truly excellent, and have worked wonders with the underpriviledged there.  But, by the same token, if you look at standardized test scores, those who fall into the “underprivileged” or “economically deprived” demographics (generally) do far worse than those who are not “economically deprived.”  Take, for example, California.  Go to this webpage, and for “Group” select “Economic Status,” then select “Economically Disadvantaged” for the Subgroup.  Click on the “View Report” button.  For CST General Mathematics, it shows that 3% scored on the “Advanced” scale, 18% were “Proficient,” 28% had a “Basic” understanding, 40% were “Below Basic,”  and 19% were “Far Below Basic.”  Now, go up and change the “Economically Disadvantaged” to “Not Economically Disadvantaged” and hit the “View Report” button.  CST General Mathematics shows that 9% scored on the “Advanced” scale, 29% were “Proficient,” 29% had a “Basic” understanding, 23% were “Below Basic,” and 11% were “Far Below Basic.”  Significantly (in my opinion) different numbers!  Should the teachers who were teaching the “economically disadvantaged” be penalized because their students didn’t score as well as the “not economically disadvantaged?” 

And with more and more findings about how unfair these standardized tests that determine a teacher’s merit that are coming out, well…  Hmmm…  What’s basically being said about these “standardized tests” is that, when it comes to testing, demographics plays heavily in how a student will do on them.  For example, a child from Houston may perform lower on the English section of a standardized test than, say, a child from Chicago.  They’re from two completely different demographics, so have different life experiences.  The child from Houston may speak Spanish primarily, so won’t necessarily have the same grasp of the English language as the African-American child from Chicago.  So when asked to define a certain word, or find a synonym or antonym to it, one child has more advantage than the other for being able to answer it correctly.  But should the Houston student’s teacher be penalized because his student(s) perform more poorly on that section than the teacher in Chicago? 

So basically, that throws out a NATIONAL merit pay, but what about state?  Well, the same argument could be made.  Since schools are funded primarily through property taxes (at least, here in Oklahoma they are), the school system in Bartlesville tends to be a better school system than, say, Wapanucka.  And yes, before you wonder if you read that correctly, there is a town here in Oklahoma called Wapanucka. Bartlesville simply has more money in it than Wapanucka, so tends to attract better teachers.

Well, if STATE merit is now out of the question, what about LOCAL?  Good question!  Unfortunately, the same argument can once again be made against merit.  Take Oklahoma City Public Schools, for example.  There are different demographics within the city limits, just as, I’m sure, there are different ones within any city in the US.  Southern Hills’ school may not do as well on tests as, say, Horace Mann.  Why?  Well, money and ethnic background do apply.  But then, so does school year.

What?

Yes, school year also makes a difference.  There are two or three elementary schools here in Oklahoma City that are year-round schools.  The rest of the public schools go the standard dates (Aug-May).  While the year-round schools still get the same amount of time off as regular schools, it’s spread out more.  For example, instead of a two-day Fall Break, they get two weeks.  Instead of a one-week Spring Break, again, they get two weeks.  On the flip-side, normal schools get much much much longer Summer Breaks, while year-round schools only get about six weeks.  This tends to allow less time for students to forget what it is they’ve just spent a year learning, and teachers are able to do far less review, enabling them to go on to new stuff that the students need to learn.  And their test scores reflect that.  So, that skews the merits to teachers of year-round schools over “normal” schools.  So that throws out merit pay on a local level.

Do you get what I’m saying?  This isn’t an easy thing to do.  I’m sure that The One has an idea of how to accomplish it, but at the same time, I seriously doubt it’ll work.  This kind of thing has been tried over and over and over again, each time with dismal results.  So while I understand teacher’s liking the idea, many question how it’ll play out.  And even if it’ll work at all.

So while The Prez may have his ideas, I question if it’ll be as “successful” as President Bush’s No Child Left Behind idea.  It certainly looked good on paper, but in practice?  Not so much.   Because of that, I wonder how AFT will respond, as they haven’t done it yet.

And that’s not to mention the fact that we’re now having to “save” one of the worst school districts in the nation.  All thanks to the stupid Stimulus.  I wonder how throwing millions at Detroit’s school district will help stem the awful corruption that’s been going on there?  Probably won’t.  Well, whoever benefits from stealing the money away, I congratulate you on pulling the wool over Congress’ eyes.  /sarc off

UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin has some interesting news on the Detroit Public School situation.