Saturday, August 30, 2014

Is Mike Rosen Writing The Post's Editorials Nowadays?

Whenever we subject schools to more than our usual scrutiny, which is to say whenever an election is impending or contract negotiations are underway, we are shocked--shocked!--to discover them filled mostly with flawed people, you know, people like you and me and the clerk at the 7-11 and the ill-tempered nurse last time you went to the doctor and the guy in the cubicle down the aisle who spends entirely too much time on Facebook.  The Jeffco school board has just decided not to award pay raises to those teachers who have been rated partially effective or worse.  Gasp!  You mean to tell me that there are partially effective teachers in schools?  I guess I run around with the wrong crowd, but I don't know anyone who isn't partially effective.

The problem, of course, is determining what exactly it means to be partially effective and how an evaluator might spot partial effectiveness when it comes up to bite him/her on the ass.  Is there any institution in society that will look better when subjected to the kind of scrutiny that teachers and schools regularly see.  Haven't we all grown up scrutinizing our teachers?  And with a few notable exceptions, weren't our teachers easy prey?  Is there anyone who hasn't mimicked a teacher or been outraged by a teacher or been disappointed by one?  When Franny was in first grade and she learned the truth that there was no Malcolm in the lake close to Mrs. Spayd's house, she was furious.  I'm sure she still hasn't forgiven her.

We grow up familiar and therefore contemptuous of schools and teachers.  That's just how it works.  It is very difficult not to be contemptuous of anything we know that intimately.  We certainly can all find things about our parents, our friends, to be contemptuous about.  But just because we are familiar with something doesn't mean we know anything about it.  Look at today's editorial in the increasingly irritating Denver Post:  "Jeffco gets it right on pay increases."

The major thesis of the article is if Jeffco can't trust its principals to know a partially effective teacher when they see one, who can?  Therefore withholding incremental raises based on Jeffco's evaluation process is the right thing to do.  At first blush that sounds reasonable, but if the argument is subjected to the same scrutiny it is asking teachers to face, it doesn't hold water.

The first sentence says a fact-finder "allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good" when he recommended that raises not be tied to evaluations.  It sounds like Mike Rosen is writing the staff editorial.  The only loaded word missing is "liberal," as in "liberal fact-finder." I am ready to agree with the "goodness" of Jeffco's evaluation process when the rest of this article proves it to me, not because it was stuck inside a cleverly spun lead.

A few paragraphs later the essay casually dismisses the fact-finders recommendation as "bad advice." How so?  It's bad because even though the evaluation system is not perfect ("Perhaps not" the Post sneeringly says in response), it must be good.  That word "must" is my editorial comment because the tone of this article isn't focused enough to say that anything IS the case.  Mostly, the article just keeps ratifying its undying faith in the wisdom of Jeffco's school board.

There are evidently three reasons why the system MUST be good.  First of all, "either the district trusts its principals or it doesn't."  Secondly, ". . .they are, after all, trained to supervise and evaluate teachers."  Finally, "if they don't know who is effective within their buildings, it's hard to imagine who would."  This is beginning to sound like a DAILY SHOW routine.

I taught for 35 years.  I had somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 principals and maybe 20 assistant principals.  There were only a couple of that group who were not genuinely nice people.  Only two of them did I think were completely incompetent.  Many of them were smart and fun to be with.  But I can only think of two who really understood what it took to be a COMPLETELY effective teacher.

Just to illustrate the incoherence of the Post's and by extension the school board's argument, let us consider the bottom two paragraphs of the first column.  In the first paragraph the essay says that Snyder (the fact-finder) "admits" (does that sound like a loaded word to you?) no evaluative process can be perfect because some subjectivity is always present.  In the second paragraph the essay says Snyder contradicts himself by saying that "a teacher should receive the same rating no matter who performs the evaluation."  That doesn't sound like a contradiction to me.  Isn't it clear that Snyder's argument is that since all such systems will smack of subjectivity and since, for the system to be fair, the evaluations should be the same no matter who the evaluator, it follows that raises should not be tied to systems that are inherently unfair.

The Post goes on to conclude that even though it is obvious that Jeffco's evaluative process is fundamentally inconsistent it is still a "good one" and "will have to suffice."  Wow, that certainly makes me feel better.

Finally, the Post looks down its editorial nose at the whole situation when it claims that less than two percent of the teachers would be denied raises.  Not only that, the Post continues, but fully 45 percent of Jeffco's schools had no one (well, at least no teachers) who were rated partially effective or below. The Post's editorial staff is, to put it mildly, skeptical that there are so few partially effective teachers out there.  "Is it really possible, for example, that 45 percent of schools have no teachers who are partially effective or ineffective?"

As a matter of fact, yes, it is quite possible that our schools are filled with good, well-intentioned, hard working, partially effective human beings who still manage to kill in the classroom.  Too bad the same thing can't be said about the editorial staff at the Post.  


Thursday, August 28, 2014

Feeding at Texas Roadkill

Have you ever noticed those restaurants that are always packed to the gills--Hacienda Colorado, The Claim Jumper, Texas Roadhouse, et. al.--always serve up portions that no normal human being could eat in one sitting?  The food itself is just passable and, allowing for the different "cuisines" being featured, tastes the same, has the same texture, the same shiny plastic sheen on the salad dressings, the same apps, the same house special margaritas, the same sad low end wines from California.

The people, both customers and waitstaff, look the same as well.  There will be lots of overweight families out celebrating a birthday, or a graduation from junior high, or the purchase of a new pick-up.  The men will be sporting guts that strain their "Nobama" tee-shirts and chances are they'll be wearing ill-fitting baseball caps with mesh panels built in and a brim that advertises bull semen or something along that order.  The women, except for the lack of a baseball cap, are pretty much indistinguishable from the men and the little children are all clinically obese.  Everybody at the big table set for eight (the grandparents are tagging along) has a great time talking about the day and the special event.  But when the young and depressingly happy servers bring out the groaning plates of artery clogging meats and potatoes, the conversation stops and the family gets down to the serious business of feeding.  These places are not dining rooms; they're feeding troughs.

We went to a Texas Roadhouse a couple nights ago.  I would have written this yesterday, but it took me longer than normal to digest (ahem) the whole experience.  The place was packed.  There were people beginning to line up by the front door waiting to get a table just as we were getting seated.  We were led through this maze of cedar planking to a two-top booth in a back cubby hole next to two tables celebrating birthdays and both looking remarkably like my description above.  They seemed nice enough and the fact that there was just barely enough room for our happy waiter and his even happier busboys to squeeze through between our two tables didn't bother me at all until it was time to bring out the cake, or the cupcakes in this case.

From the back of joint, somewhere by the glass case displaying different cuts of withered looking beef came an incessant pounding and then a parade of all the staff led by a waiter carrying a full sized leather saddle.  I can only assume it was imported from the lone star state.  They wedged the saddle in the aisle between our tables and got everyone in the restaurant--everyone except Kathe and I--to yell a big Texas "Hee-Haw" in celebration of this chubby little kid's special day.  He had a hard time climbing up on the saddle and his leg was a little too chubby to fit between our tables, but hey, who noticed?  After the little celebration the folks in the restaurant all took a few minutes to settle back down to the serious business of stuffing chunks of, in most cases, well-done beef in their mouths.  The folks at the birthday table immediately quieted down after the saddle had been removed and dug into their chocolate sundaes, the ones they ordered to supplement the cupcakes.

The birthday celebration may have been annoying, but our food, with the exception of some pretty good fried pickles, wasn't even mediocre.  But mostly it is the service at such places that sets them apart.  The folks at Texas Roadhouse are evidently bound and determined to turn their (at least) 75 tables four times a night.  We got our cokes right away.  The pickles took a little longer and we were just starting to appreciate how thin and crispy they were when we had to push the plates aside to accommodate our salads.  I had just sprinkled my blue cheese crumbles when Kathie's prime rib and my rib eye came.  They must order their meat from the same company that supplies King Soopers.  That's exactly how indigestible it was.  I ate half of mine and took the rest home.  K did the same.  She likes masking the taste and texture of sub-prime beef in tomato soup the next day.  I would do the same, but I don't like tomato soup.  We decided to forego dessert and beat a fast retreat, determined never to return.  When we walked through the throngs of silent feeders, everyone on the wait staff smiled broadly and wished us a pleasant evening.  They smiled so much because they probably felt guilty about feeding us such swill.

Some people eat to live.  Those are the folks who get excited when they see a Cracker Barrel up ahead on the interstate.  I ate at a Cracker Barrel in Nebraska once.  The breakfast buffet was bountiful, crowded, and nightmarish.

Next time I go out to eat, I'm going to Mizuna.  If Mizuna offered blue cheese crumbles with their salads I'm pretty sure the wait staff would sprinkle them on for me.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Nannying and Politics:

Two words that normally don't inhabit the same space

I spent about three hours yesterday working on QUAD, my latest attempt at writing a novel, when I wrote myself into yet another gaping hole and decided to quit for awhile and reread some postings in Starkeyland.  I was particularly struck by some of the political rants posted a few years ago in response to all the partisan name calling and down right dishonesty.  The thing I noticed about them was that they sounded well informed.  I had done my homework.  I had read all the crap on THE DAILY BEAST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, HUFFINGTON POST, THE DRUDGE REPORT, POLITIFACT, FACTCHECK, and on and on.  If there is anyone out there who actually keeps up with this blog, you will undoubtedly have noticed two things:  first, the postings are coming fewer and farther between, and second, there is precious little politics..

I have explanations for that.  We don't blog so much anymore because we are being the nannies for Willa and Jaydee now that both Ken and Franny have jobs that take them out of the home.  Kathie and I wake up around 5 in the morning.  Instead of going to the Y like we have normally done for the past twenty years or so, we stay home, have coffee, read the paper, watch the football network.  I normally go down to the computer around half past 6 to work on my book.  Then I leave around 8:15 to pick up the girls at their home.  I get back to my home about 9:30.  We usually do something worthwhile with the girls in the morning.  We go to the zoo, or to one of the museums, or to the Botanic Gardens, things like that.  One day a week we hang out at home and have the girls' grandmother, who is currently suffering from Alzheimer's and in an assisted living facility, over for lunch.  Another day we are apt to take them to a park or on a little hike along the South Platte.  On Thursday, the last day of our four day week of nannying, we take them to the Columbine Library to nose around and take Willa to a toddler class.  It's good practice learning to play with others for when she starts real school.

We feed the kids lunch somewhere around noon and if we're lucky put them down for naps at 1:30.  If the naps take, and they usually do, Kathie and I spend a blissful hour hanging out, talking, having a drink or two.  The kids are normally back at it around 3 or 3:30 and we spend the rest of the  day watching a movie (BRAVE, FROZEN, THE LORAX, we've bought them all).  At 4:30 we hook up with Franny at DU and the kids go back home.

There just isn't much time to blog given all that,  but my life does feel richer than it has the past few years and not just because we are getting paid.

I also have an explanation for the lack of political commentary lately.  I figure what's the point?  Ken is still mightily involved in the upcoming midterms, targeting key races around the country for CREDO and coordinating all their activities by focusing on uninformed Democratic voters, the voters, usually young people, who are too lazy or stupid to vote during the midterms, thus guaranteeing that gridlock in Washington will be here to stay.  Franny, on the other hand, is no longer part of the political fray.  Instead, she's working at DU as the Director of Alumni Something Or Other.  She likes it.  She doesn't have to read Mike Allen every morning and watch MORNING JOE. I've followed suit.  I simply don't read about it with the same scrutiny I used to and I'm a happier man for it and, as Ken has pointed out to me on more than one occasion, the country so far is surviving my lack of attention.

With all that in mind, what I'm about to say, instead of being based on my reading, is simply a couple of uninformed knee jerk reactions to the current political season as manifested in political ads.

I don't understand why Mark Udall, who I think is a terrific and truly bipartisan senator, is running such a stupid race.  When the ads from Americans For Prosperity (read: Koch brothers) lambaste Udall for casting the deciding vote for Obamacare, I always get first amazed and then furious and then sad.  Are there really people out there who believe that there was a single deciding vote for Obamacare?  Is the electorate really that stupid?  The answer is an unqualified yes!  When other versions of those attack ads appear talking about how health care cost are still rising (OF COURSE THEY'RE STILL RISING YOU IDIOTS.  NO ONE SAID THEY WOULDN'T.  BUT THEY ARE RISING MORE SLOWLY THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE 1965!),  or that 300,000 folks have lost their insurance (THAT MANY PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR COVERAGE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.  IT HAS BEEN EVER THUS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMACARE!), or that tons of poor people have seen their premiums increase (OF COURSE THE KOCH BROTHERS ARE NOT MENTIONING THAT PREMIUMS INCREASE AS COVERAGE BECOMES MORE COMPREHENSIVE.  THEY ALSO DON'T MENTION HOW SUBSIDIES WILL EASE THAT PAIN FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE).  In other words, those ads are complete and unvarnished bullshit and yet Udall doesn't fight back.

Of course, Udall is at a huge disadvantage.  The attacks on Obamacare lend themselves to soundbites; the explanations for what's really happening with health care are complicated.  People have to be smart and open minded and patient, three qualities in short supply, to understand them.  And even if they did understand, they would still refuse to believe.  So I go back to my previous comment.  What's the point?

Do us all a favor and vote for Udall.  Do us all a favor and base your vote on truth rather than demonization.