Hot for (a good) teacher

While I’m not going to name names *cough* Ms. Coleman *cough* crazy bitch *cough*, I’ve endured my share of teachers who never deserved tenure. These were teachers who a) could never get enough control over their classes to make them shut up and work, b) were too busy spewing hearts and rainbows to know what “work” was or c) just didn’t care. And our parents paid for those idiots. So I’m not upset to see certain states changing their tunes and valuing performance over seniority, as if we can only have one.

39 states still have automatic tenure for teachers who perform satisfactorily after a certain number of years, but the tide is slowly turning. Since 2009, eight states have made student performance central to decisions about layoffs. Opponents of these changes complain that they disproportionately affect older teachers and are too contingent on standardized test scores. Proponents point out that a good teacher is more valuable to students than one who just shows up.

I’ll agree with the opponents about the test scores. A student’s preparedness for the next level of their education encompasses a lot more on their ability to memorize facts; while some of them, such as critical thinking, are much more difficult to quantify, it is not beyond the bounds of modern psychology to figure out a way to factor them in. Parent input, as has been introduced in Idaho, is one way to get the ball rolling on a more holistic approach to preparedness.

As for the part about older teachers: Yes. That’s the point. Young and talented education graduates shouldn’t be up against ineffective older teachers who can’t be fired for the usual reasons. Anyone who values seniority over performance in this way is suffering from a form of ageism that posits that older workers are inherently more valuable to an organization’s success than younger ones. That’s the kind of mentality that leads to excuses to stop trying.

Some fear that removing tenure will cause teachers to be fired for all manner of reasons. While it wouldn’t be fail-safe, the same criteria for wrongful dismissal in other industries should apply equally to teaching. In addition, one year of poor teacher evaluations should not be the deciding factor; I would give it three. Finally, there are problems with the educational system that have nothing to do with teachers, and school boards should be mindful of those and take the lead on resolving them, with plenty of input from other stakeholders.

On questions of K-12 education, I always think of how proposed changes would affect my mother, an elementary school music teacher. I’m not biased when I say she’s one of the top teachers at her school. I don’t want her given equal treatment to a co-worker who sucks at their job. She deserves better.

Insert obvious “edumacation” joke here

Yes, many people will look at this story and make a crack about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and her lack of edumacation. A sizable percentage of these people will be the young Canadian social democrats I like to annoy on Facebook. “Of course she wants to abolish the Department of Education!” they’ll chortle. “It’s not like she’s edumacated!” Please, restrain yourselves.

Bachmann was at a forum hosted by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), the emperor of Tea Party-style conservatism. Among other things, she listed the federal Department of Education as something she would axe as president on constitutional grounds. After all, the word “education” or any permutation thereof does not appear in there. (Neither does “health,” but that department, surprisingly, went unmentioned.)

Bachmann may be the most passionate defender of the Constitution among the pack of Republican presidential candidates on paper, but don’t take it too seriously. Her support of constructionism does not extend to other social issues that merit far more private decision-making than education. Until she admits that enforcement of a ban on abortion and anything LGBT-related would most likely entail an unreasonable search, I will not accept her status as the Constitution’s publicist. Having studied PR myself, I know consistency is a virtue.

On this one, she can make a case beyond the Constitution. No Child Left Behind has proven beyond a doubt that the federal government has no place making decisions about curricula. Local geographies, histories and civics, plus existing governments, make that logistically impossible. The very first Office of Education was established in 1867 to collect statistics on the largest educational institutions. Mandate? Exceeded.

If the federal government is going to be in the business of education at all, there are a few things it can do: collect stats on the most productive lessons and programs, which would enable them to determine appropriations better, and occasional regulations that already do match up with their mandate (civil rights, etc.). Once that’s done, we can do the same for Health and Human Services. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare was a sensible enough idea back when it existed.

Now, if Bachmann can keep her constitutional opinions straight and come up with an alternative to the Department of Education, she may be able to stifle a few of those edumacation jokes.

Tragical history tour

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the current state of history and civics education in American schools. The National Association of Educational Progress published its latest “report card” on the subject a month ago; it was brought up recently by people who think former Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) mix-up about Paul Revere’s midnight ride was quite natural in today’s America, based on the numbers. The report included a couple of very sobering facts: civics and history are American students’ worst subjects.

I cannot claim to have received much formal education in either subject myself, not even the Canadian version. Most of what I know about politics is the result of independent study. It was at least lacking in my high school as much as any other. But considering the richness of American history and the uniqueness of its political systems, I can’t imagine why it’s been getting this much of the short shrift. Math and science are certainly vital to the country’s economic future; I still don’t know what English lit is good for. But what about its political future?

I have often listed a number of subjects lacking from secondary education, all of which would better prepare all students for adult life – not just those with aptitudes for the innovation sectors of any given time. Home economics and, to a lesser extent, industrial arts are two of them. Civics and history are two others. The first has a fairly obvious benefit: It would help students see why engagement and regular voting are considered virtues.

History is somewhat different. A few years ago, I heard some conservative commentator complain that American schools lacked lessons in “patriotism.” Of course, it’s not good enough to tell our kids that America is exceptional, with a few “we have the greatest/best/largests” thrown in. The point should be to give them the facts that would equip them to see for themselves why America is exceptional. Its formative years have some of the best lessons on this topic.

I would like to see all states set a goal for every student to be able to pass a citizenship test by graduation, and fill out an essay on the subject like we do for our English exams. It would be better for them than 500 words about “inspiration.” (No, really.)

Good thing she didn’t steal a pen, too

I live in a neighborhood called Garden City. I went to a high school in a neighborhood called Grant Park, eight miles away, in another school division. I got in because of the “open boundary” system: Any student can be enrolled as long as their placement wouldn’t crowd out someone who lives in the division. I don’t know about our city’s policy on false addresses, but I don’t imagine many families ever have to contend with those.

That’s what Tanya McDowell, a homeless woman from Bridgeport, CT, had to use to enroll her son in a school 14 miles away in Norwalk. Unbelievably, for this reason, she’s been charged with first-degree larceny and sentenced to 20 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Convicted murderers around here have gotten it easier. McDowell’s crime was deceiving the school district so her son could get a better education.

Perhaps I’m young and idealistic, but I always had the idea that a sentence should be proportional to its benefit to the community. Who wins when a mother, who already has it as rough as possible, is punished to such an extent for wanting the best for her kid? Ask Jack Chiaramonte, president of the school board: “There has to be a penalty for stealing our services.” He is legally correct that McDowell was stealing, but the fact that he considers this theft on principle is more than a little dismaying.

When such stories come up, many are tempted to call for more independently run charter schools in underperforming districts. Others say the best-performing schools should get expansionary funding on the basis of increased enrollment, and if that means the worst schools shut down, so be it. The example used in this article from Education Week is New Orleans, in which students choose from a mixture of government-run schools and charter schools. They refer to this as a centrist “mixed model.”

It seems reasonable enough to me. The mixed model allows the district to maintain the standards of accountability that have been lost in other cities with charter schools, and it levels the playing field for public ones. Most importantly, it shields districts from having their services “stolen.” I weep for you, Mr. Chiaramonte.

If the right people are teaching and administrating in them, charter schools could be the best way to go, especially when tailored to meet the needs of students who show great promise in specific areas. If I’d attended a school that emphasized politics and debate, I’d have been less bored.

We do need no education

The now-bipartisan drive to cut as much from the federal budget as possible means many sacrifices will have to be made for those who have depended on it thus far. Non-essential defense spending? Fine. Farm subsidies? Whatever. Cowboy poetry festivals? We’ll get over it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Public education? OK, now we have a problem.

President Obama says education should be shielded from budget-cutting efforts on the part of congressional Republicans, on the grounds that it’s an investment in jobs. (Dur.) These same Republicans had proposed $61 billion in cuts to the budget, including “grants to local schools” and aid for college students. Their Democratic counterparts are offering $6 billion in cuts, shaving 0.36% off the deficit as opposed to 3.7%.

Now you could easily look at these amounts and accuse Obama and the Democrats of being soft on the deficit, which Republicans have done. That’s especially considering Obama wants to spend an extra $390 million on competitive grants for innovative schooling. But that’s far better for the deficit than blank checks. Besides, schools are in pitiable condition, and the states haven’t been able to step it up.

I have stated many times that spending hawks must decide if they’d rather have investment in job creation or a smaller budget, since they tend to blame the government (when the president is a member of the rival party) when job stats don’t look promising. This is the compromise. We can all agree that an effective education is a better indicator of future professional success than how many Pell Grants you get.

Obama likes it when people come to him with better ideas than he and his people could have come up with; that’s been a consistent strength of his character as a president. If Republicans have a way to improve the quality of education without taking too much of a hit on the deficit or tying everything to scores on standardized tests, by all means, let’s hear it. Their only coherent education agenda seems to be that the feds shouldn’t get involved. I agree with that as far as curricula, but funding is another matter. No Child Left Behind needs a proper burial.

As for plans for the deficit, I have previously written about a “traffic-light system” that would grade all proposals for cuts on the basis of necessity and viability. This is a damn fine example of how such a system would come in handy. I would place public education on the lowest end of the yellow light, at the very least.

Voucher? I didn’t even know her

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Gov.-elect Rick Scott (R-FL) and his “bold” education plan. Actually, it’s anything but bold; it’s the coward’s way out. On average, the state of Florida spends $5,500 per student on public education. Scott wants those amounts to go into “education savings accounts” for each child, allowing parents to spend it as they wish when selecting schools for their children. That seems fine at the outset. My parents were never forced to send me or my brother to any school in particular and it worked out well for us both. School choice is a fantastic concept.

School vouchers, however, are not. Ostensibly, the goal is to force public schools to improve in various facets and compete for students with private and charter schools. But doing it in this way is akin to withholding your kid’s allowance as punishment for not renovating his or her own room. It runs the risk of draining money from Florida’s public schools entirely and rendering them even less competitive. Never meant that Scott has already promised to slash property taxes.

I’m the first to say that public schools have major problems: outdated equipment and textbooks, no enforcement against bad teachers, poorly maintained facilities, largely useless curricula. Scott’s proposal does nothing to address those underlying issues. If he wants some use for his $5,500 per child, he might consider making the full payment conditional upon how the districts spend it, charging them a certain percentage if no change in student performance is evident.

Every now and then, you’ll find a Canadian university activist baying about how education is in the public interest. On their level, that’s not always true; nobody can convince me that a philosophy degree is worth as much to society as an economics degree. But it’s certainly true up until high-school graduation, and it would be even more so if public schools were provided with more guidance.

However, given the limits of the Florida government’s influence over education, it may become necessary for the guidance to come down from the district, municipal or county level. Yes, they might actually have to get some serious work done at those PTA meetings. Scott certainly isn’t willing to do it.

New computers for naming rights? It’s a good deal

About two weeks ago, I published a column on why a community college diploma can be just as valuable, if not more so, than a university degree, depending on your career plans. I only briefly mentioned the influence of corporate sponsorship over community college operations. Today we will discuss that issue more in depth, since it was brought into U.S. news following a pre-announcement announcement of President Obama’s newest education initiative, designed to encourage more private investment into community colleges, along with more enrollment.

My take? I’m all in favor of it. My college charges a relatively low amount for tuition and doesn’t get as much government funding as our universities. Yet we have state-of-the-art computers all over the campus; fully functioning TV, radio, photography and illustration studios; enough camera gear to supply a class of 25 people at any given time, and enough editing suites for all of us to use later; and network and server labs for student use. In exchange, a few rooms have names of corporate funders on the doorways, and the library is named after a top businessman and his wife. Do we care? No.

You might wonder why I’m saying this as if it’s going to lead into someone’s ridiculous opposing viewpoint. Yes, one exists. Gregory Furmaniuk, a first-year student at the University of Winnipeg, was quoted in the campus newspaper saying this: ”The idea of corporate sponsorship sends the message to the government that they don’t need to keep funding post-secondary education because the private sector can handle it. Because of that, sponsorship moves away from the idea that school is for everyone.”

Huh? Maybe my experience with corporate sponsorship in a school is different from others, but here at RRC, it goes to improve the total educational experience. As professionals, we will be dealing with the latest equipment and software, and college is the best time for us to learn how to use it. Everyone accepted into the program does so.

I will not deny that there are some examples of corporate sponsors taking these opportunities to inject their own propaganda into lesson plans. A particularly disgusting example is a study guide published by American Coal Foundation, claiming increased carbon dioxide was good for the environment. That is absolutely worth speaking out against.

But to assume all corporate sponsors would do this sort of thing is a gross generalization. It certainly doesn’t help when, in the case of Furmaniuk, you attend a university with computers that still run on a Windows 2000 platform. Increased carbon dioxide isn’t good for the planet, but increased sponsorship is good for the students, if done appropriately.

Man, I love community college!

The White House may have just kick-started one of the most important job-training initiatives conceived in the past decade. As an impetus for Congress to pass $12 billion in funding for such institutions, Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden will be headlining the first-ever White House Summit on Community Colleges. I knew I liked her.

I’ve never made any secret of my bias in favor of community colleges over universities. Within a week of classes at Red River College, I was overwhelmed by the culture shock after having attended the University of Winnipeg. My first year at the former was enough to prepare me for an entry-level communications job; two years at the latter taught me nothing except, occasionally, the proper words to apply to concepts I already understood.

I don’t expect all community college experiences to be like mine, but here are just a few of its improvements over university: lower costs for tuition and books; state-of-the-art facilities and technology, due in no small part to corporate sponsorship; a students’ association that never forces anyone to be associated with its political ideology; and coffee that doesn’t taste like rat vomit. Even little touches like comfortable chairs and coat hangers in classrooms, as my friend Tristan cleverly pointed out.

There are things which universities are better equipped to teach than colleges, such as all the hard sciences and professions (i.e. law, medicine, etc.), economics, political science, psychology, criminal justice and languages. The humanities and certain social sciences need not be mentioned. If you intend to be gainfully employed as a result of your post-secondary studies, skip those. (A recent piece in the U of W’s student newspaper attempts to convince readers that the humanities really do have practical application. Enjoy.)

As for the funding, President Obama says it will help keep the nation’s workforce competitive with China and India. He is very likely correct; those two nations have gotten a jump on new computing and environmental technologies that the U.S. should not miss. The extra funding, if properly spent, could allow American community colleges to pay for the tools needed to teach these technologies, in much less time than it takes to earn a standard engineering degree. Indiana’s Green Technologist apprenticeship program is a good example of how this could work.

For this project to live up to its full potential, students across the U.S., not to mention employers, will need to realize that a community college education can be just as valuable, if not more so, than a university degree. I will beat it into the head of whoever the administration wants on board.

Outlearning Chinese kids since 1980

Honesty is a valued trait, but Senate candidate Sharron Angle’s (R-NV) honesty about her beliefs may be the bullet lodged in her foot. Wanting to have the press be your “friend” by refusing to talk to them? Yeah, that works. Threatening to sue your opponent for posting a screen grab of your old website? You know the law real good!

Wanting to abolish the federal Department of Education? Ridiculous! Preposterous! Absolutely, without a doubt . . . well, actually, that’s where she and I get into agreement territory. Almost. Her campaign has revived a decades-old argument against the department by calling it “unconstitutional” and its policies and programs “one-size-fits-all.” Unfortunately for her, the best example of that last part is the fault of a Republican president (but, bizarrely, “shepherded through the Senate” by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy [D-MA]).

The DoED (called this way because the DoE is the Energy Department) was established in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter’s signing of the Department of Education Organization Act, meant to “supplement and complement” state- and community-based education efforts. It employs 5,000, which may seem absurd but is actually the smallest Cabinet workforce. So its founders didn’t think it that much of a behemoth.

Its programs have mostly been in the realm of funding and research, a notable exception being the No Child Left Behind Act of of 2001, which left the states to determine standards for testing but took far more federal authority than needed, and perhaps allowed, over curricula. This may keep the whole of U.S. students competitive in the global market, but . . . well, so what?

Is it not more important to provide lessons they will use enough to want to stay in school? If they can’t find the Iraq on a map, it might be because they’re too busy preparing for a standardized English test for geography. The federal government should oversee anything that crosses the line into foreign relations; geography class is as far as elementary and secondary students will get there. The states ought to decide if they can and should learn it, based on regional values and education frameworks.

To abolish the Education Department outright would be socially and fiscally irresponsible. It ought to be rolled back to the point that it does not determine curricula at all, and it only determines funding on the basis of local and state need and ability to pay back. So Angle is not entirely wrong about this one. As usual, though, she’s jumped to the easiest conclusion.

Dick Armey’s illogical history tour

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by a battery of hardcore conservatives, led de facto by former Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), whose history fails were recently summed up in this article from McClatchy. Are you smarter than Dick Armey? Keep in mind that all of these are things you ought to have learned by eighth grade.

Question #1: The first settlers of Jamestown, Virginia, were:

a. capitalists
b. not capitalists

Answer: Capitalists. You only need to watch the first few minutes of Pocahontas to know this about the settlement, which may have been financed by the Virginia Company but was done for a profit.

Question #2: Teddy Roosevelt was:

a. a capitalist
b. not a capitalist

Answer: A capitalist. While he encouraged the rich to help the poor, his efforts to force them to do so were nothing compared to Karl Marx, whose theories he soundly rejected. But you know Glenn Beck, who forgot all this. He could cry “SOCIALISM!” if your kid offered him a discount at their lemonade stand just to be nice. (Kids: Don’t do that. And don’t add the sugar.)

Question #3: The trade bill widely considered to have contributed to the Great Depression was passed during the administration of:

a. FDR
b. not FDR

Answer: Not FDR. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law in 1930, two years before FDR won his first election. It was also written by a pair of Republicans, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress (both chambers), and signed by the Republican President Herbert Hoover. But that’s not how Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) understands the “Hoot-Smalley” bill. Good God, woman, if you’re going to lie about a bill, at least get the name right.

Maybe a history test should be required of all incoming politicians and political pundits?