Let’s Put Rhetoric Aside. What’s Best for the Children?

I love reading comments like these:

Frank Wells, spokesman for the California Teachers Association, said he hopes legislators find a solutions to the current problem that doesn’t cut schools more than they already have.

“Schools have taken more of their proportional share in cuts, and it’s already impacting this coming year – the question is how much more?” he said.

“…When you get into these type of situations, you’re at the point where you’re making cuts that are going to affect kids.”

 

It warms the soul to know that some organizations are singlemindedly pursuing the good of the poor, the defenseless, and specifically, the young. While many would exploit  the institution of public education for their own ends, some choose to forego personal or collective benefit, and forge ahead as a vanguard protectorate of children.

The intricacies of politics of education notwithstanding, the CTA and its representatives set an example to us all in their fortitude, advocacy, and altruism.

Pink Friday

Today was “Pink Friday.” In order to show “solidarity” and “support” of teachers who received layoff notices (pink slips) we were supposed to wear pink to work today. Also, according to the CTA flier, wearing pink would be a way to “stand up” for schools, teachers, and children.

I didn’t participate. This made for a bit of an uncomfortable day, since I was one of two people on the entire staff who did not wear pink. And it’s well known that I have an abundance of pink paraphernalia piled up in my wardrobe.

Kids and  and teachers on the bubble are being exploited as pawns in what ultimately is a political battle. Wear pink if you support teachers and kids. Says the union. Says CTA. I didn’t, and I had kids asking me if I supported teachers. I find that to be tyrannical, AND disingenuous. CTA and our local union won’t go near the sacred cow of seniority, and in order to screen this god-like entity, unions sacrifice children and teachers.  Seniority never quite makes it to dinner table for the family discussion. So the system works according to plan. The last hired (regardless of ability, effort, experience, or anything else that might have bearing on the effectiveness of a teacher) are first to get axed. We defend a system that ensures these teachers will be on the verge of unemployment, but we’re going to make them feel better by wearing pink!!?? PLEASE! The union made sure this would happen, and now that we’re out of money, they throw the newbies to the wolves. So lets stick up for the sheep while the wolves are tearing them to pieces. Solidarity.

And what’s best for kids? How’s this for “what’s best for kids”: Expert teacher brings years of expertise and training in English language instruction to the district. She’s only been at this particular district one year, so she’s first on the chopping block. Or this: 8th grade English teacher gets bumped by an elementary school teacher who has more years of experience in the district, and a dusty English credential that hasn’t been used in years. The 8th grade teacher happens to have more seniority than the fresh-faced, indefatigable, and knowledgeable 10th grade English teacher at the high school. The 8th grade teacher has never taught 10th grade, but he has “seniority,” so he bumps the rookie at the high school.

It’s what’s best for kids.

So  screw wearing pink today. I’m sticking up for the dignity of all teachers who work hard, demonstrate competence, and try their damnedest to inspire kids to enjoy, appreciate, and learn the subjects they teach. We can have a debate about funding, budgets, and  how to avoid cuts to education (when education spending makes up about half of our state budget and we’re billions in the hole). But there is no way I’m going to whore out students and teachers to a feed a beast that has not demonstrated the slightest inkling to even discuss alternatives to the institution that treats all teachers like time-stamped carbon copies.

Twin Lips via 7/19/08

In an Education Week article regarding McCain and Obama’s likely different approaches to education funding, I came across these quotes regarding federal spending on education, which induced a moderate degree of mental constipation. I believe the quoted individuals are referring to the same federal government, and the same educational system, so I’m having a bit of trouble reconciling the two. I’ll bold the source of my confusion.

“Dan Lips, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, based in Washington, said that federal education spending has risen by more than 40 percent since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind law more than six years ago, and that the boost hasn’t led to a significant increase in student achievement.”
“Mr. Kealy of the Committee for Education Funding said, though, that Sen. Obama’s proposal could represent a ‘turning point for education funding, which has seen only modest increases in recent years.’ “

Isn’t there a philosophical law of non-contradiction that states something along the lines that a statement cannot be both true and false? So, either “modest” is one of those words I always thought I knew, but turned out to have an entirely different definition, or one of these fools is lying (or shamelessly, shamelessly manipulating, and when someone can’t talk straight, I just so happen to get a little nervous, and a little offended. I’m nervously offended). I always thought modest meant, you know, modest. Apparently, I need to recontextualize.

• Bodybuilder increases lean mass by 40%. (a modest gain).
• Patient loses 40% of blood (a modest flesh wound).
• Diet increases risk of heart attack by 40% (modest risk).
• School suffers from 40% dropout rate (a modest lack of success).
• Man spends 40% of salary on gambling (a modest lapse in judgment. Wife should not be upset).

Now maybe I should go back and give it a second read.