We Have Met the Enemy

Anybody out there remember Pogo in the Sunday funnies?  It was always a little too sophisticated for me; much of the humor went right over my head.  But, when I saw this movie trailer on   YouTube.com today, I immediately thought about Walt Kelley’s famous comic strip.  What a sage he was.

CLICK THE PLAY ARROW ONCE TO ACTIVATE.  THE CONTROLS FOR THE VIEWER WILL THEN FUNCTION NORMALLY.

  

  

pogo.jpgI did not know until today that Kelley had a book of his best and brightest work published.  I discovered it when goggling the title I chose for this posting.  It was called The Pogo Papers, Copyright 1952-53.  So, if any of my family is reading this, you might want to remember it next time you’re wondering what you can get me for a birthday, Fathers’ Day, or Christmas, that is, if you can find a copy.  It’s a collectable now.

  

The following is from the book’s foreword:

“The publishers of this book, phrenologists of note, have laid hands upon the author’s head and report the following vibrations:

Herein can be found that rare native tree, the Presidential Timber, struck down in mid-sprout by the jawbone of a politician. Pogo returns to the swamp from a couple of political conventions to find his unfinished business being rapidly finished, once and for all, by rough and ready hands.

With that much information you are about as well equipped as anybody to plunge into the still waters of the Okefenokee Swamp, home of the Pogo people. The activities in this present book were spread shamelessly over the past drought-ridden year. Looking back across the fertilizer, small shafts of green can be seen here and there, while off in the distance wisps of smoke denote the harvesters at work.

Some nature lovers may inquire as to the identity of a few creatures here portrayed. On this point field workers are in some dispute.

Specializations and markings of individuals everywhere abound in such profusion that major idiosyncrasies can be properly ascribed to the mass*. Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.

There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.

Forward!

*Quimby’s Law. (Passed by the Town of Quimby after the Trouble with Harold Porch in 1897)”

Published in: on August 1, 2006 at 9:01 pm  Leave a Comment  

Focus on America’s Dropout Crisis

The next generation of Americans won’t be better off than their parents, not if we don’t wake up soon to what’s really going on with education.

Wow!  I watched the Oprah Show yesterday afternoon, Monday the 31st of July.  The show’s subject was our nation’s growing crisis in education.  From my own experience as a teacher in a suburban school district of Northern Texas, limited as it may be, I knew that things were bad and getting worse.  But this show was a real eye-opener for me.  I hope Governor Perry and key members of our state’s legislature were paying attention.

On the show yesterday were Bill and Melinda Gates, whose foundation is making big contributions to local school districts to update campus facilities and equipment, as well as a dedicated effort to raise our nation’s level of awareness (click here to read more about this foundation).  According to Mr. Gates, more than a third of young people in high school today will not graduate.  And most of those who do will not be prepared for the riggers of college academics.  His most alarming prediction, for me at least, was that students who drop-out, and even many of those who do graduate from high school, will be doomed to a lifetime of poverty, unable to compete with workers of other nations who will be much better prepared for the high tech jobs of the future in our flattening world of a global economy.

African-American and Latino students in this country are the hardest hit by this shocking trend.  Not because they lack the intelligence to succeed, but more because they lack the expectation of success.  “Students rise to expectations,” said a guest on Oprah’s show. “Likewise, they descend to expectations, their own, those of their parents, and those of society.”  And high-stakes, punitive testing is not making things better.  It’s making things worse.  I’m sorry, Mr. President, but you are wrong about this too.

This quote is from Gary Orfield’s book, Dropouts in America, which was highlighted yesterday on the Oprah Show:  “There is a dropout crisis far beyond the imagination of most Americans, concentrated in urban schools and relegating many thousands of minority children to a life of failure. We urgently need to address this problem as a nation. Our goal in this book is to make the public aware of this issue and make improving high school graduation rates a central part of national education reform. We believe the first step must entail highlighting the severe racial disparities in high school graduation rates that exist at the school and district levels.”

Many politicians, looking for someone or something to blame for this situation, think it’s the fault of teachers or the fault of the public education system itself.  Privatize it, the say, introduce economic incentives to attract and award the good teachers and weed out the bad teachers, and things’ll get better.  But, according to a new study done by the U.S. Education Department and reported in an “All Things Considered” broadcast on National Public Radio the 26th of July, public schools perform favorably with private schools when students’ income and socio-economic status are taken into account (click here to read about this report).  The findings of the study counter a popularly held notion, that private schools outperform public schools.

Much like all the disinformation about global warming that has kept our country immobile and unresponsive to the alarms being sounded by serious scientists over the world, we have allowed our elected representatives to argue over theoretical remedies and half-hearted commitments to improve education too long.  Private and charter schools may be part of the solution because they are unencumbered by many of the legal obligations imposed on public schools.  But we owe our kids better, all of our kids, not just those from wealthy families.

I was thinking of calling this posting “Chicken Little and the Drop- out Crisis,” because I really do believe the sky is falling.  But then I remembered that, in the children’s classic story, the sky wasn’t really falling; it was acorns.  Hmmm… maybe the Chicken Little title was better, ’cause those little acorns falling now are soon going to turn into great big oak trees!  Our prisons in Texas are over- crowded as it is.  Just wait until the frustration level of a whole new wave of dropout minorities hits our streets.  So, folks, it’s a simple case of “pay me now or pay me later.”

Because of socio-economic factors beyond educators’ control, an equal education for all is simply not possible.  We’re fooling our- selves if we think it is.  And “equal” in this sense does not mean “the same”.  A quality education, however, appropriate for each student’s different gifts, abilities and interests, is well within our capabilities to provide.  Other, less prosperous countries are doing it, so can we.  To this end, we simply need legislators to help schools find the needed resources, then get out of the way and let teachers teach. 

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below. 

Published in: on August 1, 2006 at 12:59 am  Comments (2)  

It Takes a Lot of Money

Here’s a little tid-bit about ethics, or the lack thereof, and politics in Texas that may not make some of my more conservative friends too happy. 

It takes a lot of money to run a successful political campaign.  Friends like Sherrie Matula, democratic candidate for the Texas House of Representatives from District 129 down Houston-way, know this all too well.  She’s been reading my stuff on education and endorsing it (see her comment in response to my Teachers’ Social Security? posting).  How candidates in Texas acquire the funds they need is the subject of this posting.

I found a reference to another blogger’s article this morning in my daily delivery from the Texas Freedom Network.  It was written in the Pink Dome, an electronic news website that is said to be written with tongues planted firmly in cheeks.  The article was about a Political Action Committee (PAC) called The Future of Texas, one of the front groups that James Leininger used to funnel money into Texas House races back during the primary.  The PAC originally focused on aiding loyal Craddick representatives like Berman, Reyna, Swinford, Campbell, Howard, Krusee, Hill, Grusendorf, Crabb, Hegar, Betty Brown, Eissler, Flynn, and Phillips. Of late, according to the article, it has also been used to secure three solid votes come the 80th session, with money still going to likely future Reps Dale Hopkins, Brandon Creighton and Tan Parker.  Anyway, the PAC is no more, yay!  They filed their final report a little over a week ago.

Oh well, as I think about it, this just means that Leininger will find some other way to funnel money to the political right.  That’s what he does.  One must wonder, however, why a successful organi- zation like The Future of Texas has closed-up shop.  Could it possibly mean that that the Texas Ethics Commission was running out of excuses not to deal with it following the criticism that the commission received in a two-page report published by a Travis County grand jury last week?  Read all about it in this American-Statesman article

Here’s a snippet from the fore-mentioned article just to wet yer whistles a bit: Texas public officials are hiding sources of income and potential conflicts of interest by calling themselves consultants on state financial disclosure forms, and an investigation into “obvious misconduct” by one official was thwarted by the practice, a Travis County grand jury has complained in a two-page report. 

Those of you who have called yourselves Texans longer than I have will remember that Texas used to be in the BLUE column.  It produced some mighty powerful democratic statesmen… and women, Lydon B. Johnson, Jim Hightower, Jim Wright, and Ann Richards for example.  Today, many districts are hard-pressed to even find somebody willing to run on the democratic ticket and many democrats have switched parties.  How come?  Well, redistricting and all that aside, I think money, and how candidates find what they need of it to conduct successful campaigns has a lot to do with it.  Republicans appeal to businesses, business interests, the wealthy and those who hope to be so someday.  Democrats have traditionally appealed to individuals, the little men and middle men like most of us.  So, their money-making machines haven’t been so big and so powerful.  There’s lots of them, but they’ve always been smaller and less well-organized. 

Now, it’s not like democrats have never been implicated in scandals of various kinds.  But lately, just from what I’ve been reading in the papers, this seems to be pretty much Republican turf.  And like Will Rogers said, “All I know is what I read in the newspapers.”

Today, the Internet has dramatically changed the way democrats raise money in this country, and there’s absolutely nothing shady about the way it’s being done.  Money raised for one purpose is not laundered for other uses, and computers keep track of individual contribution limits.  Consider the great success in fund-raising by using the Internet that was pioneered by Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont and later adopted by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts in the last presidential race.  The same kind of thing is being done here at the state level for local elections this year. 

When the lawmakers of one party hold all the power, a party that primarily represents the interest of the wealthy, the government is no longer a democracy.  It’s a plutocracy (check out the definition of plutocracy on Wikipedia), and that’s pretty much what we’ve got here in Texas right now.  So, if you’re not quite ready yet to give up entirely on the ideal form of government, a multiparty democracy, visit http://actblue.com and pledge your financial support for the democratic candidate(s) of your choice.  I have.  You can only vote for candidates in your own voting district, but you can help others financially from other districts who may have better chances of being elected.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 28, 2006 at 9:27 pm  Comments (1)  

Teachers’ Social Security?

Teaching does have its rewards, but in Texas they sure aren’t economic.  

   Folks who have chosen teaching in Texas as a follow-on career, as I have done, must be nuts.  Either this or they just love kids and teaching, as I do, more than they love the prospect of a comfort- able retirement.  This is because of two Federal laws, the Govern- ment Pension Offset (GPO) and the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).  It is also because:  Federal tax code restrictions disallow Individual Retirement Account (IRA) contribution tax credits for individuals contributing to a pension plan other than Social Secur- ity; many school districts in Texas do not participate in Social Security, and; teachers in Texas are not given a choice on whether to participate in the state’s Teacher Retirement System (TRS).

   The details associated with this conundrum are complicated and confusing.  Conundrum?  Webster defines it as a question or an intricate and difficult problem having only a conjectural answer, or a riddle whose answer either involves a pun or is a pun.  So, some- body please correct me on all this if my understanding of the situation is flawed, but with so many in the Congress these days hell-bent to screw with it, I think the term, “social security,” is itself a pun.

   The Association of Texas Professional Educators (ATPE), of which I am a proud member, has it essentially right.  The TRS in Texas is a better program than Social Security.  Its monthly benefits paid out to retired participants are substantially greater than those distributed to Social Security retirees.  But this is only true for those who have had a substantial number of creditable years of service as teachers here in Texas.  Those who teach fewer than ten years or are younger than fifty-five and have taught fewer than five years will have wasted their time and money by contributing.  And, did you know that the average male going directly into teaching after graduating from college in Texas only teaches for two years?  It’s true.  The pay and the working conditions in many districts are that bad.  Also on the plus side for TRS are retirees’ health insurance, return-to-work benefits, and life insurance.  But again, these benefits are only available to retirees who complete minimum service eligibility requirements.

   Some believe that making Social Security coverage mandatory would solve the problems that educators experience due to the GPO and WEP.  But I don’t.  Neither does ATPE.  We recognize that this would only serve to damage TRS and other state pension funds.  An alternative not often talked about by ATPE, our other state teacher unions, or our Texas legislators, would be to allow teachers to choose whether or not to participate in TRS.

   At age sixty-two, I’ve been a TRS participant in Texas for three years now.  So, at age sixty-five, as I understand the current rules, I will be eligible for some level of TRS annuity.  Fortunately, I had more than thirty years of substantial income with Social Security contributions being made before becoming a teacher, so my pension from Social Security should not be greatly affected.  Neither will my military retirement.  Thank God for that.  But I’m in an enviable situation; the numbers just happen to work in my favor.  By my rough calculations, however, and I do mean rough because the WEP offset and retirement calculation formulas of both TRS and Social Security aren’t easy for social science majors like myself to follow (they’re also subject to change and no one expects them to become more liberal), I’ll have to work full time as a teacher until after my seventieth birthday to just break even.  This is true even though the Texas 79th Legislature passed a revision to TRS eligibility requirements that obviate the notorious Rule of Eighty for retirees who are sixty-five or older and have at least five years of service.  It’s still true because of income tax disadvantages and the reduction I will incur to my social security income for the years that I do not contribute.  The other advant- ages of TRS, however, the medical and life insurance offered to retirees, plus to return-to-work benefits, I anticipate will help to compensate for this lost income.

   The Government Pension Offset (GPO) doesn’t really concern me or my wife.  It’s an offset provision in Social Security law that reduces spousal Social Security benefits for public employees who are eligible for government pensions such as those provided by TRS.  When I am gone, if I live long enough, my wife will have her own retirement income plus a portion of my military retirement owing to the years we have paid into the military retirement Survivor’s Benefit Plan.  The spouses of others employed by the state here in Texas are not so fortunate.

   The tax code that precludes Individual Retirement Account (IRA) contribution tax credits does impact us, my wife and me.  As a hedge against the prospect of my not being able to finish a full five years worth of teaching for some reason, I have been contrib- uting monthly to a traditional IRA.  But, even though we are buying our own home, claimed no personal exemptions, had extra money deducted from both our salaries, had substantial profes- sional expenses, and contributed generously to our church and other qualified charities last year, we did little better than break even on our income taxes.  Tax cuts?  Apparently not for those of us in the middle class, thank you very much Mr. Bush.  Given our joint income tax bracket, the IRA tax credit, for which we would have been eligible the past three years had I not been contributing to TRS, would have helped a lot.

   Before I conclude this little crying session, on behalf of all state public servants in this country, I want to publicly thank The Honorable Howard (Buck) McKeon, United States Congressman from California, one of the primary sponsors of the Social Security Fairness Act (a resolution for the full repeal of the GPO and WEP), the 321 other members of the House of Representatives who support this bill, and 28 bipartisan senators who support a similar resolution in the Senate.  For more information on this and to find out what you can personally do to help Congress get this bill out of committee and onto the floor for a vote, CLICK HERE to visit the National Education Association’s website.

   Again I say, if I’ve not stated things as they really are for teachers here in Texas, or if someone has a different take on this reality, I will gratefully accept correction.  Otherwise, please go to the polls in November with your public servants in-mind and give no heed to politicians’ rhetoric claiming to have done teachers a great service anytime in recent history.

   Now, if I can just live long enough and stay well…  hmmmm, school starts again in just little more than a week.  Then I won’t have so much time on my hands for all these blog postings. Do I hear a HOOAH out there!

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 27, 2006 at 4:25 pm  Comments (13)  

Infamous Politics

Things in Texas are pretty bad, infamous in fact.  This is because politics have deviated from traditional, democratic principles of fairness and equal representation for all citizens, generating news outside of the state, news that’s being reported by big, national newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune.  Yes, folks, we are infamous.

Writing from her office in Washington, D.C., Marini Goldbergs’ article begins:  “When the Texas Republican Party adopted its platform recently, party leaders left no question as to the impor- tance it placed on religion.  Another portion of the platform has stirred additional concerns.  ‘We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the 1st Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation between church and state,’ the document reads.”

Myth?!?!  When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

Click Here for more information concerning the Constitutional basis for the Separation of Church and State.

“In Texas and elsewhere,” Ms. Goldburg’s article continues, “debates on social and cultural issues have blurred the line between faith and politics.  Fights over gay marriage, abortion and school prayer reflect and exacerbate the rift between religious conserv- atives, other believers, and the more secular-minded.  The platform calls America a ‘Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles,’ and that has drawn a frustrated reaction from Jewish groups that consider the language exclusionary.”

READ GOLDBERG’s FULL ARTICLE

If you haven’t already read my blog posting, A Christian Nation?, please do so, because the line is crossed when politicians use religion as a prop in their campaigns, when partisanship is made a prerequisite of faith.  That’s when the separation of church and state ceases to be a fundamental principle of true democracy helping to ensure the freedom and liberty of all citizens, whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, or whatever.

In the words of William Bendix playing Chester A. Riley in the 1950s TV show, The Life of Riley, “What a revoltin’ development this is!”

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 11, 2006 at 1:50 pm  Leave a Comment  

What if Diplomacy Fails?

Don’t you just love what-If questions?  I do — they make me think.  They make me have to… speculate.  And when I speculate, based on an infinite number of variables, I can think up all manner of possible futures.  Let me give you an example.  First, some background…

My wife and I started surprising our friends and relatives a couple of months ago with the announcement, “We’re going to be parents again.”  We loved to watch their jaws drop open when we said this.  In response to this, one of the daughters of some couple-friends of ours said, “Naaaa… that’s impossible!”  At that, everyone had a good laugh.  Then we completed our announcement, “We’re going to host a foreign exchange student for the following school year.” 

Jeong Hae Yun (she wants to be called Betsy), a sixteen year-old girl from South Korea, will be part of our family beginning this August through at least the end of May next year, and we’re really excited about it.  We’ve been empty-nesters for over fifteen years now, and we have missed the sense of purpose that comes from having a young person living with us.  She may even become one of my World Geography students because she will be attending classes on the same campus were I teach in Waxahachie, Texas.  But what if something terrible happens on the Korean peninsula and surrounding area while she is here?

(more…)

Published in: on July 9, 2006 at 3:27 am  Leave a Comment  

By Dawn’s Early Light

This posting, as the title suggests, is about patriotism and how it seems to be waning in the United States these days, even though we’re in the midst of a war for our very survival as a nation.  This isn’t the first time, however, that these words from Francis Scott Key’s famous poem have been used for a title.  They were used also for the title of a made-for-TV movie back in the 1990s.  The movie wasn’t so much about patriotism though.  It was a low-budget remake of two earlier movies about the same thing, Failsafe and Dr. Strangelove (or how I Learned to stop worrying and love the bomb). 

I believe that, as an art-form, American-made movies tend to chronicle shifts in our national attitude, the evolution of our collective culture, and they say a lot about us to people overseas too.  For example, some sex interest was included in the By Dawn’s Early Light version of the Cold War’s worst nightmare scenario:  the pilot of a bomber zeroing-in on Moscow had a female co-pilot, a situation that clouded his judgment and resolve in carrying out his mission.  Ughhh… Only in America!

(more…)

Published in: on July 7, 2006 at 7:32 pm  Leave a Comment  

If Only Politicians Could Connect the Dots

If only politicians could connect the dots, they would be able to see where their actions and inactions are headed.  Too bad they’re so myopic.  Too bad they’re so worried about getting re-elected that they cannot agree to act beyond their own and their own consti- tuents’ near-term self-interests.  Too bad because our kids and grandkids will be left with both the consequences and the bills.

Scientists can connect the dots.  They are experts at seeing cause-and-effect relationships, like Darwin was.  Darwin saw two obviously related species of birds on separate but proximate islands in the Galapagos archipelago, each looking very much alike except for very different-looking beaks.  Darwin observed that the food the birds had to eat differed on the two islands.  On one island, there were a plethora of insects.  On the other, where there were far fewer insects, there was an abundance of hard seeds produced by drought-resistant plants.  The relationship was self-evident to Darwin:  One species had evolved into two subspecies through a process that is known today as the theory of evolution.  Random genetic variations in beak size and shape, passed on from parent birds to their young, had favored the survival and subsequent procreation of some, while discouraging others.  Darwin connected the dots, then he wrote his famous book, The Origin of Species.

(more…)

Published in: on July 6, 2006 at 9:23 pm  Comments (1)  

A Christian Nation?

A Christian nation we might want to be, but we’re not, not by a long shot.  I don’t say this because, as teachers, we may not lead prayer in public schools.  Neither do I say this because in some states it’s still legal for persons of the same sex to marry, or that Roe vs. Wade has yet to be overturned.  I say this because all protestant denominations in this country are steadily loosing members, and the Catholics are just barely hanging on, mostly because of the steady growth of Hispanic immigrants, legal and otherwise   (STATISTICS).  The fastest growing religion in the United States, according to a Department of Defense publication is… brace yourself… Islam. 

According to a Harper’s Magazine article, the Christian Paradox, dated August 2005, 85 percent of Americans claim to be Christian, while only 75 percent say they ever pray.  Only 50 percent ever darken the door of a church, and only 33 percent can claim regular (more than once-in-awhile) church attendance.  Only 40 percent can identify more than four of the Ten Commandments, and twelve percent actually believe that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.  Christian nation?  Give me a break!

I say that we are not a Christian nation also because too many of my brothers and sisters in this country think that discrimination is okay and that the Constitution should be ammended accordingly.  Christian behavior?  Not in my book.

If the current majority party in Congress becomes any more successful, the minority in this country, the so-called Moral Majority, will be dictating morality for all the rest of us, and it seems these days like we’re creeping up fast on that reality.  Evangelical Christians are cranking up the “political” rhetoric as the November congressional elections draw near, and the Democratic Party is attempting to fight fire with fire.  I can’t say as I blame them, but so much for the separation of church and state.

One often hears our more fundamental kin claim that the Founding Fathers were Christian.  Well, “I hope both they and the people who say the Founders were all atheists or agnostics will do more reading,” says David Holmes, a church historian at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va., and author of The Faiths of the Founding Fathers.  Neither side of this argument, so it seems, has history on their side.  Read the full story in the Christian Science Monitor

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 5, 2006 at 7:32 pm  Leave a Comment  

A 260-Million Dollar Experiment

We are about to begin an expensive experiment here in Texas, an experiment that will eventually prove that business-style economic incentives for teachers, which are tied to students’ performance on TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) tests, create more problems than they solve.  Governor Rick Perry, a politician who, as far I can determine, has never spent a day in a classroom as a teacher, has long advocated merit pay for teachers.  Now it’s a done-deal.  He is convinced, according to a Dallas Morning News article dated June 12, 2006, that this merit-pay program will push Texas to the forefront of national educational standards.  But, if only teachers in Texas could vote in the upcoming gubernatorial election, I personally doubt that he could be reelected.

On June 29th, according to a posting in Chron.com, Governor Perry poured praises on Texas educators in front of a statewide teachers’ group, The Texas Classroom Teachers’ Association, reminding them that it was he who signed into law their upcoming $2,000 across-the-board pay raise.

Thank you very much, Mr. Perry, but I’m quite sure that we teachers in Texas are still being paid less than the national average (The Cost of Underpaying Texas Teachers).  Despite this fact, Governor Perry said during the news conference, “When it comes to teacher compensation, I am of the belief that you can never pay a good teacher enough because of a lifelong impact that he or she has upon children.  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do more,” Perry said, drawing applause from the Texas Classroom Teachers Association.  But he was treated with complete silence from the group when he defended the state’s standardized student testing program and took a swipe at Democratic opponent Chris Bell for advocating reducing the role for testing in public schools.

Bell has said that he wants to end high-stakes testing in Texas and “teaching to the test” in schools.  He has said that he wants the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test to be used, but for diagnostic purposes.  I have been hearing most of my fellow teachers saying that they agree with candidate Bell.

“The high-stakes nature of the TAKS test is corrupting our curriculum and driving teachers from the profession.  Teachers don’t like being treated like glorified test monitors and then being paid accordingly,” said Bell’s spokesman, Jason Stanford. “And that’s why Rick Perry heard crickets today at the teacher conference.”

In my humble opinion, merit pay in Texas will be even less popular with teachers than has been No Child Left Behind (NCLB).  I don’t doubt that merit pay will improve test scores in some instances, but I fail to see how it will do much to improve learning.  The two are not the same thing.  Josef Albers, a famous German immigrant teacher and artist once said, “Good teaching is more a giving of right questions than a giving of right answers.”  More time spent drilling students on likely TAKS test questions means less time spent asking the right questions and helping students learn how to think.
                                                       
Still to be determined on a district-by-district basis, is just how the merit-pay money will be rewarded.  Teachers and educational administrators all know that coming up with equitable formulas for this will be difficult if not impossible.  That’s why Austin is leaving this part of the program for districts to figure out.  Disgruntled, past-over educators will have no recourse beyond local school boards for complaints.

To illustrate why merit-pay award schemes will all fail the fairness test, consider my situation.  I teach World Geography to high-school freshmen, a social studies subject that is quite comprehensive.  It includes some earth science, some biology, some climatology, some history, some government, some economics, some language, some art, etc., etc.  But the social studies TAKS is not administered until students’ junior year.  It covers all social studies subjects, each taught at different grade levels, but with an emphasis on U.S. history.

Now, let’s say student Johnny Q’s social studies TAKS results turn out to be stellar.  Great!  But to whom to we give the credit?  To whom do we give the reward, his 11th grade history teacher, me, or his 3d grade teacher who made the greatest, albeit unmeasurable contribution by working above and beyond the call inspiring Johnny to enjoy reading?  We teachers all know that the TAKS is primarily a reading test.  So, in theory at least, how well Johnny did was the cumulative effect of a variable string of teachers and classroom environments, to say nothing of home and community environments, that none of Johnny’s teachers involved had the least bit of control over. 

All plans for distribution of merit-pay dollars devised by districts must comply with guidelines developed by state Education Commissioner, Shirley Neeley, who also will approve each application for an incentive pay grant.  Districts are not required to participate, but few are expected not to.  It’s big money.

Merit pay for teachers will have another effect too, an effect that our legislators don’t seem to care about.  Surely it has been brought to their attention; teachers’ groups have been providing Austin with every argument at their disposal for the past eleven years or more to combat the growing support for this idea.  When teachers begin to compete with one another for merit-pay awards to supplement their meager wages, cooperation between teachers will wane, especially between the seasoned, more experienced teachers and the younger ones.  How tragic!

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 4, 2006 at 10:15 pm  Comments (2)  

The End of Democracy

“Looks like Kennedy (in another plurality opinion) by a nose invalidating the wacky Congressional District 23,” reports Daliah Withwick, senior editor for Slate in her Breakfast Table, A Supreme Court Conversation, speaking of the Court’s recent concurrence with a lower court’s decision on redistricting in Texas. “All else,” she goes on to say, “remains foggy, although a fast look suggests yet another insane mess of opinions in which various justices pop in and out of various portions of the opinion like a big game of constitutional whack-a-mole.”

No doubt we will hear more about this as more knowledgeable judicial analysts digest the Court’s decision in the coming days and weeks.  But, no matter what We The People think, the decision stands, our consternation notwithstanding.  This much is for sure, it’s going to go down in the history books as being right up there in significance with Marbury vs. Madison. Why?  Because it means that there is nothing unconstitutionally (legally) wrong with gerrymandering.  From now on, the ruling party can legally stack the deck, hence, the beginning of the end of true democracy in the United States.

Now, I’m no lawyer, but I can read, and I think the justices were wrong.  They were right in their reading, the Constitution doesn’t specifically forbid redistricting more often than every ten years, but they were wrong in their interpretation/understanding of the Framers’ intent.

To determine the number of representatives a state shall have, the Constitution prescribes that an enumeration (census) shall be made every ten years, but no more.  So it is evident to me that the Framers’ intent was that this census should be used as a guide to the process of selecting representatives.

The Constitution addresses the subject in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:  Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was superseded by Amendment XIV, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chusethree, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

So, what’s to become of us?  Unless we stop thinking of ourselves as Democrats or Republicans and start casting our votes for the candidate(s) of our choice rather than the party of our choice, we will soon have an oligarchy (government in which all power belongs to a limited number of persons) in the United States.  Hmmmm… that’s pretty much what we’ve already got, is it not?  But if some balance is not restored in the Congress between conservatives and liberals in the upcoming November elections, I will have to agree with everything James Bovard says in his book, Attention Deficit Democracy.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMETS word below.

Published in: on June 29, 2006 at 7:51 pm  Leave a Comment  

We’re Taking It Back

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”  These words, from Emma Lazarus’ famous poem, “The New Colossus,” were written in 1883 and engraved on a plaque that was placed at the base of the Statue of Liberty.  To this day, her poem influences the way we think about freedom and exile, about our nation and about the people in it.  We are indeed a nation of immigrants, increasingly and problematically so.

As a teacher of World Geography in Texas, I generally have a cross-section of races and ethnicities in my classroom.  About a third of my students are typically white-Anglo, a third are African American, and a third are Hispanic — mostly first- and second-generation immigrants from Mexico.  Many of this last third of students have poor English skills, while a few have none, speaking and reading no English whatsoever.  Providing for their special needs in education is increasingly a challenge for school districts in Texas.  But, we do the best we can.  Generally, I pair a bi-lingual student of the same ethnicity with students who can neither understand a word I say nor read a word from our textbook.  They act as interpreters.

Quite surprisingly to me, most of my students are tolerant and respectful of one another’s cultural inheritance.  And that’s a good thing.

One of my young Hispanic men last year was something of a militant.  He was very active and involved in organizing other students to boycott classes and join in on the public demon- strations that were held in our area against immigration reform.  But he was an engaging young man too, contributing an intelligent, informed perspective to our classroom discussions on matters that he cared deeply about.  He was also the class clown.  Every class has one.

One day, when we were talking about Manifest Destiny – how the United States grew to span the entire continent “from sea to shining sea,” this young man raised his hand.  “Mr. Garry,” he asked, “Do you know that Texas was once part of Mexico, and that the United States took it from us?”

“Actually,” I said, “history books, even those written and printed in Mexico, acknowledge that ‘Tejas’ was lost, not to the United States, but to ‘The Republic of Texas’ following the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836.  Mexico’s president at that time, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, signed it over to the people of Texas as part of the terms of surrender offered to him.  Texas became an independent republic, even though the people wanted to be part of the United States.  Texas did not join the union until 1845 because of the slave issue.”

“Yeah,” he said, “well… we’re taking it back.”

At this, the classroom burst into laughter.  I too had to smile because, even though what this student said wasn’t terribly funny, he spoke a very obvious truth, one that hasn’t occurred to most American citizens, and we seem powerless to do anything about it.  Our nation is indeed rapidly becoming part of Mexico.  Remember all the Mexican flags carried during the first couple of demon- stration marches.  It wasn’t until demonstration organizers started telling people to leave their flags at home that we started seeing American flags carried, ostensibly to suggest immigrants’ allegiance to this country.

On another occasion, we were studying Mexico.  One of the key concepts for students to understand in this lesson was the process of urbanization, the growth of cities.  With the economy of Mexico rapidly shifting away from agriculture to mining, manufacturing, and services, the people of Mexico are migrating en-mass from rural areas to the urban areas.  In fact, according to our textbook, most Mexicans today live in the largest city in the world (in terms of population), Mexico City.  Reviewing my students on what they should have learned from their viewing of an education video and reading, I asked the class, “Where do most Mexicans live, students?”

Without bothering to raise his hand, my class clown blurted out, “Los Angeles!”

Some Americans are very angry about the problems that so many illegal immigrants are causing, I’ve heard that there are as many as 15 million, but does anybody really know?  Crime rates are up, insurance rates are up, healthcare costs are up, and more and more young Hispanics are dropping out of school to swell the ranks of citizens who can’t find decent jobs.  Some, like many of my students, feel like the immigration issue is “much ado about nothing,” that illegals are actually good for the economy, so we should leave them alone.  Most, I suspect, are like me, in a quandary.  But I agree with our President on this one, we do very badly need meaningful, comprehensive, and enforceable immigration reform.  And it’s the responsibility of Congress to act on this great need.  This is much more important, in my mind, than debating issues like the constitutional amendment on marriage or flag-burning.  These issues just pander to special-interest constituents for reelection purposes, and tabling the debate on immigration until after the November election just proves how spineless and self-centered our lawmakers in Washington are.

If you’re in agreement with me on this, I invite you to checkout one or more of the following websites: Americans for Limited Government, Clean Up Washington, or Citizen.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on June 28, 2006 at 3:39 pm  Leave a Comment  

What’s Good for America

In the news yesterday, June 26, 2006, was a story about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear arguments on whether the federal government must (or even has the authority to) regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.  This case could have broad implications for utilities, auto manufacturers and other industries nationwide.   So it’s important, folks.  But I don’t anticipate the Court ruling in favor of the 12 states, 13 environmental groups, two cities and American Samoa that are bringing suit against the nation’s government. Why? Well, it wouldn’t be good for business.  That’s why.  See the FULL STORY in the Seattle Times.

Charles E. Wilson, who eventually became Secretary of Defense during the Eisenhower years, is often misquoted as having said during Senate confirmation hearings, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”  What he really said, when asked if as secretary of defense he could make a decision adverse to the interests of General Motors, was, “Yes.”  But he added words to the effect that he could not conceive of such a situation, “… because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa.”  You see, Wilson had been CEO of General Motors and, at the time of his nomination, he still owned 2.5 million dollars in General Motors stock – a tidy sum back then.  Notwithstanding, he was eventually approved for the post.  You can read more about Wilson, if you’re interested, in this Department of Defense biography.   Hmmm… I wonder how much Mr. Cheney still owns of Halliburton?… another posting another time perhaps.

You may or may not think that this little tidbit of U.S. history is interesting.  But whether you do or not, you might well ask, why should we care?  Why should you bring it up in a posting about the Supreme Court and the environment?  Well, because the myth about what Wilson said seems to be more true about our country than what he really said.  People actually do believe what they think he said is true… if that makes any sense.  Personally, I think it’s even more true today, under the Bush/Cheney administration and a Republican-controlled Congress, than it ever has been.  But, hey… that’s just me talking.  Substitute the word, “business,” for the words, “General Motors” (back then, circa 1953, the two were virtually synonymous) and you’ve pretty much defined the motivation behind everything that Washington does, everything except getting reelected that is.  Didn’t Will Rogers say, “A fool and his money are soon elected?”

Smart man that Will Rogers, but he wasn’t the only American that could sort the wheat from the chaff.  President Eisenhower could too, and he was a Republican!  In fact, most of us can clearly see that what is good for America is not always what is best for America.  Let’s all hope the Supreme Court still can too.  But, hey!  They at least agreed to hear the case.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on June 27, 2006 at 4:01 pm  Leave a Comment  

Wouldn’t It Be Wonderful?

“I’m not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth, particularly when 6 billion others have much poorer hands than we do in life.”  This was reportedly said by Mr. Warren Buffett today at the New York Public Library, where he was appearing with Bill and Melinda Gates, the only Americans richer than he is. You can read the whole story in the Business section of the New York Times FULL STORY.

At a time when many in Congress are trying to do away with the Estate, AKA “death” Tax permanently, some of the wealthiest among us are demonstrating a much better model of behavior.   At least I think so.   But wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to give most of your wealth away and still have more than you could ever possibly need?  See this FactCheck article on distortions put out by the Free Enterprise Foundation, a lobby group spending 4.1 million dollars this year in an attempt to do away with the Estate Tax for good FULL STORY.

In truth, the Estate Tax affects fewer than one percent of Americans.  So, surely a government that represents ALL the people won’t succumb to the will of so few.  Hmmm… or would it?  What’s in your wallet?

Post your comment by clicking on the COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on June 27, 2006 at 3:01 am  Comments (2)  

Please Don’t Call Me a Liberal, But…

“Sadly, it’s become the divine distraction. Here we are bogged down in a colonial war, spending beyond our means, leaving our children a colossal debt, paving over our farmland, allowing health care to be both expensive and inefficient, facing a shortage of affordable housing, and addicted to oil that is making us more and more dependent on Islamic countries. And the party in power is obsessed with gay marriage?”–Journalist Bill Moyers, in an interview with The Dallas Morning News, commenting on the relevancy of faith and reason to contemporary American politics.
FULL STORY

Post your comment by clicking on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on June 26, 2006 at 5:28 pm  Leave a Comment