There is something almost sweetly innocent about The Denver Post's enthusiasm for Senate Bill 191. Their editorial of May 14 is headlined "Teacher bill will be key to reform." Where have we heard that before? I remember No Child Left Behind being similarly praised. But now the reform that never came about will be reinvigorated by good old 191. Democrats who went against the "powerful" CEA are being touted as courageous. Republicans and democrats alike are being praised for their bi-partisanship. The Post seems pretty convinced that FINALLY things are looking up for education in Colorado, especially when this new legislation cinches up the Race to the Top dollars that we are depending on to fund the measure.
For instance, the editorial claims that this bill "will, for the first time, hold Colorado teachers accountable in a fair and objective way for the learning that happens in their classrooms."
Excuse me? I taught for thirty-five terrific years and I was constantly made to feel accountable for the happenings in my classroom. My students' growth was the first thing I thought about in the morning and the last thing I thought about at night. Every teacher I've ever known would agree with me. The job is simply too compelling to feel any other way.
And I didn't feel that way because I was afraid an administrative evaluator would expose me as some kind of pedagogical fraud. Nor did I feel that way because I was after some financial reward, or word of praise. That is just how teachers feel about their job. I even felt that way when I was playing school with the neighborhood kids. I never could get Ricky Carmack to work well in group situations.
(Some of you might be saying, "But I had this horrible teacher in third grade who made me feel stupid!" Get over it! Everybody had one or two jerks. They happen in every profession and walk of life. If your third grade teacher's thoughtless comment permanently scarred you, maybe you were and continue to be stupid.)
The editorial goes on to say that "It is an effort to recalibrate their [teachers] mission in a very specific way. The foundation of this measure is the firm belief that even students who come from troubled circumstances can learn."
Well, yeah! I've never known of anyone in the profession who disagrees with this obvious point. But then it goes on to say "They need more educators in their corner who believe in them, and who, quite frankly, have a vested interest in their success."
Vested interest? Does that mean I had to be coerced by the threat of dismissal or the promise of increased compensation to care about the success of my disadvantaged students? Am I the only one who is insulted by the insinuation. (I was going to say "implication", but that is too nice a word for what the Post is doing.)
It is interesting to note here that on the front page of the Post on the same day this editorial appeared was an article about three tax cut initiatives on the ballot this November. Proposition 101 and amendments 60 and 61 would "cut at least $1 billion annually in state taxes, slash funding for local governments and SCHOOL DISTRICTS (emphasis added)." What do you want to bet that the same people who are championing Colorado's insulting tenure bill and the need to get "more educators in their corner who believe in them" are also chomping at the bit to vote for these tax cutting, classroom decimating initiatives? When the mid-terms are in full swing I'll be interested to read the Post's position on these three measurues.
Finally, I think 191 is misguided, not because it will threaten teachers, but because it won't make any difference. We will discover as a state yet another educational fix that accomplishes nothing more than securing a few votes for legislators up for reelection. I am also against it because it is basically unfunded, just like No Child Left Behind, and will only add to the burden already facing cash-strapped school districts.
One more comment. The state has said that in the event Colorado doesn't win the Race to the Top bucks, we will be able to fund 191 with money from cash reserves. These are the same cash reserves the state denied having when negotiating with school districts who didn't have enough money to balance their budgets. And people wonder why we have unions?
Do you really think that anything is going to change?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As the ranchor around 191 reached its highest pitch, I wished I had the technical ability to produce a youtube video of the final moments of James Whale's Frankenstein. I would have recast the the Monster as the Colorado Education Association and the toothless, pitchfork-wielding villagers as the Denver Post and a business community out to get working men and women everywhere by sticking it to the CEA.
There's nothing sweetly innocent about the Denver Post's enthusisam for SB 191. It is the result of anger. The rhetoric in the Post editorial is indeed insulting but let's not lose sight of the fact that the opinion piece unfortunately uses teachers as proxies for the NEA. In this light, it is hardly suprising that the editorial board has argued that "the foundation of this measure is the firm belief that even students who come from troubled circumstances can learn," and that "they need more educators in their corner who believe in them, and who, quite frankly, have a vested interest in their success."
It was after all the CEA and its legislative allies who in testimony and other commentary often suggested the bill is unfair because, well, some kids are like maggots and no teacher baker can turn bug-infested flour into bread that anyone is going to eat. While that was the most extreme comment, the NEA and AFT have fought standards, assessments and pay reforms with the same argument, continually throwing their bodies across the path of progress, and undercutting what the vast majority of teachers believe, that being that all kids can learn and that teachers have a profound impact on learning.
The NEA has become the "Party of No," failing to make the standards and assessment movement work for teachers and even missing its chance to propose that students be held accountable for their CSAP scores as well.
When you are the Party of No, sometimes you get a "Yes" that isn't as good as it could be and make monsters of your constituents.
I will direct some of my outrage to the Post for confusing teachers with the union. But I will reserve most of it for teachers who have allowed the NEA to put them in this position. It is the chickens come home to roost. And until teachers take responsibility for moving their union into the 21st century, those pitchfork-wielding villagers will have a greater impact on policy than those in the trenches.
All Mary Shelley's creation really wants is a hug. But he's got to get his castle in order before he gets one.
This is part one of the comment:
I love the above comment's comparison to Frankenstein. Heh! That gave me a more vivid idea of what is going on.
I'm not really up on SB191 nor the circumstances surrounding it, except for what you have written here. I do understand that this is absolutely true:
"My students' growth was the first thing I thought about in the morning and the last thing I thought about at night. Every teacher I've ever known would agree with me. The job is simply too compelling to feel any other way.
And I didn't feel that way because I was afraid an administrative evaluator would expose me as some kind of pedagogical fraud. Nor did I feel that way because I was after some financial reward, or word of praise. That is just how teachers feel about their job."
True, true, true.
According to your analysis, it does not seem that the Bill is really out to change much of anything.
As a former (and probably someday again) teacher, the things that have always motivated me to be a better teacher are pretty simple:
Consideration that I am a professional, doing a professional job, and with corresponding respect and acknowledgement.
Opportunities to learn more about how to help learners who struggle with learning.
Decent wages and benefits.
Assistance with having the materials I need to do an adequate job.
Smaller student-to-teacher ratios -- none of this 35-students-per-class crap. Smaller really is better, and it would really behoove schools to take a good long look at how this PROVEN method of improving schools could and should work!
For me, those things did and could (in the future) help me to be a better teacher. I'm not sure about how my success as a teacher ought to have been evaluated and what ought to have been done if I was not meeting the mark, but I know that conscientious schools and NCLB really made moves to have this happen, based on all the accountability meetings and inservices and paperwork we created around accreditation goals back when I was teaching. Yes, the internal conscientiousness that seems to come along with being a teacher in the first place led me into self-reflective teaching practices, something I was also taught in my teacher ed program. I was helping myself be a better teacher and by my own standards. No one had to coerce me into it. All of the accountability stuff I mentioned up there was also happening in an itty-bitty school district that was in cash-strapped Sterling, Colorado. A good 90% of the teachers at that school were really very concerned about student progress and their own abilities about how to help their students. Like you wrote: it's just how teachers ARE.
Yeah, there was the one old coot who was getting ready to retire and was grumpy as heck, and not really concerned so much about her struggling students, but she was clearly in the minority. For sure. No one was going to convince her about much of anything, much less how to be a better teacher at her stage in the game. It also did not seem to kill the kids. I'm sure some of them were for the worse for it, but I am also sure that most of the kids survived and went on to better things. People really underestimate the power of resiliency of human beings, no?
Part Two of comment
(what can I say -- I was wordy today)
While I am here, I wanted to comment on the previous Philip Roth post, too, which I did read, but then I realized the comment was going to be something like, "We have two Roth books here in the house -- maybe three -- and I have been meaning to read him for years. Have I done so yet? No. But I still want to." Thing is, with this internet contraption, I wind up reading things like this, which I really do love, but not things like the latest Philip Roth. reading is reserved for just before sleeping, and those early morning wake ups that I now experience in middle age. Like, the 4 or 5 am kind where I read to try to go back to sleep. Heh.
I also keep thinking how if *I* feel old (I turn 42 on Wednesday) how it must feel to be my high school teacher who can actually say his former student is 42. Gaaaack. Sorry, lol.
If it helps you, I can remember you when you were my age (probably younger, in fact) and in my mind's eye, you have not aged a bit. ;-)
Keep posting. I am most definitely reading.
And can we get some more comments here? I know you are all out there reading. Just poke in to say hi to Mr. S so I don't feel so alone. :) Thank you Anonymous for doing your part. :)
(And now I am re-reading and cringing at some of the bad grammar and incoherent things I have written. It's gonna have to do, though! No take-backs on these comments, huh. *sigh*)
Post a Comment