A Canned Performance?

I have a passion for learning which, I hope, extends to my teaching.  It has been painful for me to watch what has happened to education over the past 40+ years.  The past couple of weeks have reinforced my distress over the state of education.

At Michael's open house last week, I am pretty sure we could have had a canned talk from at least four, maybe five of his classroom teachers.  The presentations were much the same.  Oh, the voices were different, but the messages were not.  And I'm not necessarily being critical of the teachers--no.  (People who know me I am critical enough of many teachers, but not in this instance.  They were merely telling us what is.)

In these 4 or 5 courses, 40% of students' final grades comes from the final exams, that is, "the state assessment."  And that's what each of the teachers called it and what showed up on their syllabi or on their smart boards.  I guess I could have a problem with 40% of a high school student's final grade coming from a single final exam, but that's not my point here.

This was confirmed/corroborated by a talk with another high school teacher from a different school in a different district--"40%" to which he added, "...and we can't change it."  So, as I thought through several days and asked this other teacher, "We have some guy who's never set foot in your school, let alone your classroom, has never talked to or even seen a single one of your students, who probably isn't even in Michigan, and the test he writes will determine 40% of some student's grade?"  "Yep," I was told yet again, "and the test comes with the textbooks that teach to the test."  Ah, here we go again--MONEY!

This is pathetic or worse.  And we let it happen.  Yes, it's our fault, to cite the old Shakespeare line.  For too many years teachers didn't do their jobs of scrutinizing student learning and grading accordingly.  Parents have let the bureaucrats, politicians, and corporate-types take over, using wide and sweeping criticism of teachers as their rationale.  (And, as I noted, many teachers deserve the criticism, but not all.)

Democrats think the solution to the faltering education system is to throw more money at it, more and more money all the time.  Now, I firmly believe the best teachers are vastly underpaid, particularly when compared with what others (even Bozos) in other occupations are paid.  But some teachers are vastly overpaid, too.  The problem is identifying the best from the run-of-the-mill or worse--and, as I've noted in the past, that's not easy due to emotions.  (I ran into this just last spring when I asked Michael who his best teacher was.  He replied with something like "I like her.  She's nice."  But I said, "No, I didn't say your favorite teacher, but your best.  There's a difference."  He thought only for a moment and said the same teacher.  I asked him why.  He replied, "Because she taught me the most."  (OK, I don't remember the exact words in our conversation, but this is the gist of it.)  But the constant more money, more money (often wasted, just flushed down the toilet) refrain of the Democrats and many in the education establishment is not what's needed.

But Republicans don't have a clue, either.  Just because someone has "run a business" or "met a payroll" has nothing to do with understanding what goes into quality education/teaching.  Look at our current governor of Michigan.  He's taken a bad situation and made it worse because, of course, he (and his appointees) went to school and knows how to run one, at least the institution.  Heck, with the emergency manager snafus, with the Flint water crisis, with "right-to-work-for-less," and lots more, he's shown he can't really even run a state.  But, boy, he "ran a business" and "met a payroll."  I wonder if he thinks he could manage the Tigers better than Brad Ausmus--probably thinks he can.

There are solutions and despite what some Bozos have claimed, I do have answers some times.  You can go back through my archives to find some.  (I don't want to go through them again right now; I must mow the back yard before I need a baler!)  They aren't easy and surely won't be popular with a lot of people, but sometimes things worth undertaking require hard choices and work.

I saw an online op-ed this AM that reflecting my thinking of the past few weeks.  I think I may have posted something about it last week or before.  (That's just to show I don't just copy what others have written.)  I noted that the Presidential polls are getting closer.  Oh, Trump isn't getting more popular; Clinton is getting less popular.  Trump is not surging; Clinton is sagging.  So, now this op-ed author, who has lamented the choices in November, realizes that, "Hey, Trump could win!"  Or, more to the point, he could be within a point or two of winning.  All those who say they can't vote for Trump, if they did, could insure Clinton's defeat.

So that's me.  If I could bring myself to vote for Trump, with all the others who think likewise of him, could Clinton be defeated?  This author is now weaseling, not so sure of his November vote.  I'm not like him.  I'm sticking with Clinton is the worst possible choice for President--except for Trump and Trump is the worst possible choice for President--except for Clinton.  Let's go back to last spring; my mantra remains, "When given the choice between two evils, choose neither."