Teacher Pay

Teacher pay was addressed in two entertaining editorials in the Denver Post recently. First, libertarian talk show host Mike Rosen offered this piece comparing teacher pay to that of professional athletes. No fan of teachers, Rosen called out teachers for complaining they should be paid as well as professional athletes (a dubious charge that I have never heard a teacher utter). Rosen's piece was followed by this one from a former teacher and guest columnist Mark Moe, challenging Rosen's accusations and breaking down the flaws in Rosen's criticism of teachers.

Moe's response is an effective and thorough deconstruction of a standard Rosen commentary. Of course, it's worth noting the unique twist on Rosen's two subjects - professional sports and teaching. Rosen's piece, like the sports world, is meant to entertain, not to educate. Mark Moe provides the insightful anti-thesis.

In twenty years of teaching, I have never encountered teachers who argue they should be paid like professional athletes. However, I regularly hear that suggestion from others outside teaching. When people discuss education with me, they will inevitably lament the fact that pro athletes and movie stars are paid so much, while teachers aren't. I'm not so outraged, as I know it is basic economics.

Pro athletes are paid as they are for one simple reason - the money is there. Advertising for popular sporting events generates huge revenue. And I do not fault athletes for earning the money they do. By contrast, teaching generates no advertising revenue. Though, I am intrigued by the idea.

Perhaps, teachers could wear corporate logos on their shirts, as well as post ads around the room. Teachers could hand out tests and quizzes "sponsored by Subway or Nike." I envision coupons at the back of the textbook, encouraging students to do well and support the companies. Incentives for achievement could be provided by corporations. The highest test score could receive $50 off their next purchase of Reeboks. And the best teachers who hosted the most popular classes and produced the greatest results could generate even more endorsement deals. This could radically restructure school funding, and might even solve many of our budget issues.

Hmmmm. Rosen might be on to something.

Health Care Mandates and the Constitution

Upon the passage of the health care reform bill, the opponents are already planning to file lawsuits or seek repeal based on the idea that the American people don't want the bill and the mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional. Certainly, I don't claim to speak for the American people, as it is a varied voice. It's the last part that has me a bit baffled.

While the government has passed reform based on the ability to regulate inter-state commerce - certainly a reasonable idea considering the GOP always offers "buying across state lines" as the panacea for reform - critics argue that citizens can't be forced to buy insurance. They claim it as a "tax just for living." They argue that is unconstitutional, and that it will not stand up in court?

Just how do they explain FICA? What about Medicare and Social Security? Citizens are already taxed to participate in an insurance program - one is medical, the other retirement. Citizens are already automatically enrolled in federal programs as a matter of birth. Clearly, the requirement that citizens participate in these insurance programs has been upheld as constitutional for thirty-five and seventy-five years.

Am I missing something here?

Kids Caring about Kids

So, here's some good news about the world for a change:

This week Cherry Creek High School had our spring Spirit Week - normally a kick off to spring sports. This year, Student Senate teamed up with the Make a Wish Foundation and changed Spirit Week to Wish Week. CCHS students accepted the task of raising money to grant the wish of a seven-year-old boy battling cancer, whose wish is to go on a Disney Cruise.

The Senate set a goal of $5000 to grant this young boy's wish, and they organized various events all week. I was co-host of our first talent show at Creek in nearly twenty years - and that night brought in almost $2600. The Senate also coordinated fundraising at our musical, choir concert, and various school activities. Today, we held a pep rally to present the money to him.

At the rally, Student Senate announced that in this week, CCHS students raised a whopping $17,500 for the Make a Wish Foundation. From what I understand, that amount set a new national record for a single week of fundraising by a high school group. The amount has allowed Creek to grant the wishes of two other Make a Wish children who are also battling cancer.

Let me tell you - it was pretty wonderful to watch a very happy seven year old boy run through a tunnel of arms from our cheer squad into our gym where he received a huge standing ovation from a couple thousand high school students. He also took great joy in throwing t-shirts to the crowd and joining in some of the activities such as spraying Silly String in the faces of more than a few teachers and students.

There is a lot of negativity out there these days, and a lot of criticism of young people. And, so, it's important to acknowledge that we are raising some pretty amazing kids - kids who look out for each other, kids who, quite simply, care.

I am so impressed with our young people these days. They are hopeful, optimistic, caring, tolerant, and more. Feel free to spread the news of this really neat and hopeful moment.

No One Supports Bad Teachers

Several news stories of education gone terribly wrong are circulating lately, and once again the perception of what went wrong is far too narrow. One story is the failure of Kansas City Public Schools failed attempts at reform, despite massive funding. The other story is Newsweek Magazine's call to "fire all bad teachers." While no one can dispute the facts in these articles, the interpretation of cause and effect needs to be clarified.

The Kansas City story is simply what happens when money is mis-spent and mis-managed. The issue is always administration - with the ability to impose high expectations. However, more funds can make a huge difference when well managed - witness Geoffery Canada's Harlem Children's Zone. When extra funds are used to feed and clothe the kids, provide basic health care, after-school programs, Saturday school, extensive tutoring, longer school days, and greater attention, student achievement among the poorest improves.

Of course, it also only happens if the expectations of kids and families have consequences - a key component of public charter schools - with the demand accountability of the student with the possibility of dismissal. It's not about the funds - it's about the management. And public schools can manage the money well. My school district does. Canada's schools do.

The "money helps" versus "money doesn't help" is oversimplified. Clearly, the KC program was a mess - but it doesn't prove anything other than that the program was incredibly poorly managed. Put Joe Clark or Geoffery Canada or Jaime Escalante or even Michelle Rhee in charge of those public schools, and the result is different.

Newsweek is far more egregious in the errors of their subjective evaluation of education's problems and the necessary reforms. The crux of the article was "poor teaching." And we all know that it is out there. Yet the focus of Newsweek's criticism was on teachers, with only passing nods to the idea that 99% of teachers receive satisfactory evaluations.

Thus, the emphasis on the responsibility of school administration was seriously understated in the article. And then its praise of KIPP charter schools quickly glossed over the key to their success - contracts that the students must sign and expectations they must meet. The article emphasizes that the schools don't "cherry pick" their students - the take "all comers." Yet, the point is they do "cherry pick" which students they keep, and they don't keep "all students." They show non-performers the door.

The article implies that the charter schools succeed because they are non-union. That is absolutely wrong. If the public schools could also require a contract and show non-performers the door, then the traditional schools could be as effective. But they can't. When the charter school kicks the kid out for not meeting his contract, where does he go? The public school without such measures.

Thus, I completely agree with getting rid of bad teachers. And I've endlessly cited schools with tenured union faculty that do that. So, the emphasis should be on higher expectations for administration. And the addition of performance contracts for students as well as teachers. Then, we're getting somewhere.

So, while I concede the premise, the article was rather ridiculously disingenuous in the way in which it "cherry picked" its data.

Limbaugh Prefers Costa Rica's National Health Insurance

Rush Limbaugh has offered this juicy tidbit: if the US Congress passes its health reform bill, he will leave the country. Really? Where will he go?

It's unclear if he'll leave for good, or just to get health care.

Incidentally, he says he'll go to Costa Rica. That's a country with a well respected blend of public and private care that is held together and fueled by national health insurance and national health care mandates.

Interesting.

National Reading Day

I did it.

I celebrated National Reading Day in my classroom today by giving over the class period to reading. I don't know that I have ever done that before - and I had to sacrifice a Julius Caesar quiz to do it - but it was truly wonderful, time well spent. Class began with me reading a story to my classes - it was Little Bo Peep Can't Get to Sleep, which was recommended by my four-year-old when I told her it was "reading day." The class really enjoyed the book, and I enjoyed sharing it with them.

There are times when the un-interrupted opportunity to read is just so special. We brought in some comfy chairs, and some kids sat on the ground. It is the only time I've ever let students put their feet on the desk or chairs. And we listened to some wonderful contemporary classical piano music by Colorado musician Alex Grant.

All in all, it was a day well spent.

Team USA Hockey Players are Brats

Having finished watching one of the most exciting hockey games in recent memory - and acknowledging that the better team clearly won the game - I was profoundly disappointed in the glum, sour, pathetic faces of the American team as the received their silver medals. That's SILVER MEDALS!! For representing the country IN THE OLYMPICS!! After playing in THE GOLD MEDAL GAME!! That no one expected them to be playing in.

I understand disappointment ... and I also understand being a man. And I would have expected the players to honor their country and honor some of their professional teammates who clearly beat them. They could have smiled. They could have nodded. They could have shrugged. But they pouted. In post game interviews, when asked what he "will take away from the whole experience," Ryan Miller glumly and pathetically mumbled something like, "Oh, I don't know. I guess it was cool to play in a big game."

That's what he got? From the whole Olympic experience. A professional athlete who has had twenty years to get used to losing big games and learn to deal with it like a man. What a shame.

I say bring back the college players and let them play their hearts out and be honored by the opportunity and have enough class to acknowledge when they were beat by a better team.

"Guvmint" and the Bogeyman

A quick thought:

As I've noted before, the big problem for voters these days is manipulation by metonymy - that is substituting a term for that which it is closely associated. For example, "Bush invaded Iraq" or "The White House said .."

The biggest metonymic bogey-man is "the government." That is an abstraction. People can't or shouldn't complain about or be mad at or blame "the government." They can criticize a law or a congressman or a president or even a ruling and action by an agency. "The guvmint" can't and doesn't do anything. People do.

But, as I've noted with the budget initiatives in Colorado, interest groups have manipulated voters into enigmatic criticism of "the government." That is integral to the problems we have in American society. Voters in Colorado vote to restrict taxes and spending based on some "ambiguous" ideal that "government is too big" and government spends too much" when the voters are unaware of congressman granting the very expectations of their constituents.

"Government" didn't do it. Voters and their elected representatives did. Don't criticize "too much spending" - pick a specific expenditure. Don't criticize the "government" - pick a specific agency or act or bill or congressman.

Just saying.

Youth Sports and the Dark Side of Man

Well, I'd heard about it, and read about it, and now I've experienced it - insanely pathetic parents. My seven-year-old son is playing youth basketball, and at the last game of the season, I listened to a referee warn a coach who was cursing at his players, and I watched, open-mouthed, as a mother stormed on to the court to yell at the ref during the game after her son fouled out and was sent to the bench for unsportsmanlike conduct after he shoved a player to the ground while pushing through a screen.

And, I realized, if we are going to be in youth sports, then we are on the right team with the right group of kids because our coach and parents were shocked and would never do that.

A colleague who coaches, and whose girls have been through youth and club sports, told me, as I signed up for the team after years of decrying this kind of behavior for years, "You've entered the machine. Be careful."

Yes, exactly.

My State of the Union

My Fellow Americans,

January 27th, 2010 is an incredibly exciting time to be alive, and days like today represent all that American has been, all that America is, and all that American can become. Today American's first African-American president will deliver his first State of the Union speech. And, today Steve Jobs and Apple premiered, the iPad.



The nation which John Winthrop, and later Ronald Reagan, described as "a shining city upon a hill" was founded on hope. President Obama was elected on that idea of hope and change. Hopefully, he will offer a vision today of how he is going to change, and how that change will create a better future for all Americans. Steve Jobs has already done that.

Jobs and Apple have changed the game again, creating a niche where there was none. The innovation that is constantly percolating in the mind of Jobs and in the rooms at Apple represents all that is good and distinct about America. America is the land of innovation, and it's where the future happens. And people like Steve Jobs, and companies like Apple, have always done it. They don't need any incentive to create and innovate. They don't need the encouragement or a grant or a handout or a hand-up. They just need the freedom and the opportunity. They don't ask. They just do.

Granted, there is conflict and concern in America. Many would claim our government is a mess and the two factions just can't get along. But think of how awful it's been in the past, and think of how horrible it is in many places around the world and across time. We are in conflict. But we're working it out. We're talking it out. And it's messy. And it takes a long, long time. And it often seems like we're not getting anywhere. But we're still here. The republic survives, and democracy thrives. And the roads are firm and the buildings are sound and the water is safe and the electricity works and men and women stand at post all night long defending our country and our cities and our communities and our homes from threats both near and far, real and imagined, man-made and natural. And they do it for all Americans. And they do it well. And when tragedy strikes in some corner of the world, the world looks to America to help. And we do. We do because we can, and we can like no other country in the history of mankind. And we will continue to do so. Always.

Granted, it is not easy for many of us on a daily basis. People are struggling and disagreeing and blaming and wondering and worrying and complaining. And they have good reason. But in the morning, they are going to get up and get back to it. It might be a job or a job search, but they are going to get after it. Because that's what we do. In the face of adversity, Carl Sandburg reminds us, the people will live on. In the night ... they march: Where to? What Next?

"Next" is what America is all about. It's why the colonists settled here. It's why the people moved west. It's why we went to the moon. It's why we're talking about going to Mars. It's what's next.

And, so, my fellow Americans. The State of the Union is what it has always been. It's a state of potential. And I have great hope for the future. I have great hope because I have great faith in the hearts and minds and strong backs of the American people.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Good night.

Deficit Dithering

The cold, hard reality is that the United States government has accrued $12 trillion in debt. Most of that came in six years when the Bush Administration proposed and passed two unfunded tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and a huge unfunded expansion of the entitlement system with a prescription drug plan for Medicare - one that is now being asked to expand to close the "doughnut hole." While the debt went from $3 trillion to $10 trillion during that time, government spending did not increase by $7 trillion. Thus, any competent middle school math student can conclude that the budget deficit has ballooned the debt primarily through a cut in revenue. However, spending most certainly played a role. It played a huge role. In no way should this post be construed as absolving the Democrats of responsibility, especially for wasteful spending.

Thus, as David M. Walker and the Concord Coalition have argued since 2003, the debt and deficit will not be addressed without spending cuts AND tax increases, and significant entitlement reform. It is that simple. It's so simple. It's astoundingly obvious. Cut spending AND raise taxes while reforming entitlements. That is what the proposed Fiscal Responsibility Committee would have done. That's what a new bill in Congress to re-institute "Pay-as-you-go" would have done.

Yet, the GOP has vowed and voted to defeat these attempts because it will raise taxes. Of course, it will. It has to. And, then, Senator McCain responded to ABC news today by claiming the spending freeze might be OK, but he would "cut taxes" so that revenue would increase. Even though cutting revenue is the majority of the problem. Ugh! Does everyone in the GOP misunderstand the lessons of the 1980s and 2000s, and the inherent flaws in supply-side economics. Or are they just that pathetic in their fear of PACs and "think tanks" that threaten to derail the career of any Republican voting for tax increases.

It's $12 trillion.

I want to see taxes at the 1992 and 1983 levels. That's where the economy can be strongest. That is absolutely the goal. And, to do so, spending will have to be cut and entitlements reformed. I know that. I get it. I want the spending to go down, so the taxes can go down. But the debt and the deficit have to go, too. And taxes will have to go up, for some time, in order for that to happen.

This is our problem. There are no, or few, fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party. No one is willing to be pragmatic about this. Fiscal conservatives are not conservative if they think the deficit and debt can be handled without tax increases. Just crunch the numbers. Really. Do the math. Lower taxes are preferable. Less wasteful spending is the goal. But do the math. Be honest with yourself.

It's $12 trillion.

Legalized Bribery

I have never given a dime to a candidate running for political office. And I never will.

When I ran for city government I didn't take a dime in donations. I, of course, lost. However, in the race I was in, no amount of money would have made a difference, and I didn't run to win, just to raise awareness of the issues.

The reality is that money corrupts nearly everything, but it holds a special place in its heart for politics. And we can be clear on one thing: from a Constitutional point of view, there is absolutely no doubt that the Framers of the Constitution never intended money to be protected as "speech." Jefferson and Washington would have vehemently - if not violently - opposed such nonsense. Adams and Madison are a little tougher to gauge. Franklin never would have taken a donation, but he certainly wouldn't have opposed someone buying him a drink over which to "discuss" legislation.

From a purely practical point of view, here's a good question: if I can give a candidate $10K and you can give him $10K, and then we can form a "corporation" and give him a million, then how is that not double-dipping and circumventing restrictions in the first place? How can the "corporation" fully represent the views of its employees and its stockholders when there is certain to be disagreements? If you can't give a politician $90K in cash to vote on a bill, but you can give him an equal amount "for his re-election campaign," how have we not completely abandoned rational thought.

Judicial activism or not, money has become "free speech" - irony of ironies - and nothing is going to change that or control that. Thus, it simply becomes more of an imperative for voters to be well informed in the area of policy, as well as argumentative strategies used to manipulate them.

Never gave a dime. Never accepted a dime. Never will. And now I will just continue to vote my conscience.