Goal 1. I was going to edit all my files. Well. Nope. Hadn't happened. Still sitting in large bins cluttering up the study. In fact, I have to climb over them in order to close the blinds. You'd think that would be incentive to change. And it was for the first week. Now I'm just used to climbing over them...I'm counting that as cardio. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow.
Goal 2. Knitting. Well I was going to finish my knitting projects. Right. I was on a roll here; I really was. I finished the shawl I've been working on (on and off) for about oh - six years. Right, I know, you don't need to say anything about it. But I've been busy. Anyway - I'd finished it. I'd done the edging and weaved in all the ends. It was sassy, if a wee bit short. But, it was DONE. And then, in a fit of excitement to begin the NEXT project, I went through my yarn bin. Right. You've already guessed it, I'm sure. I FOUND THE LAST SKEIN. Right. One more skein. Remember I mentioned the shawl felt a wee bit short? Well, I didn't spend five-six years for 'a wee bit short'. So, I unraveled the edging and began with the last darn skein. I'm almost done. Seriously. I am.
Goal 3. 30,000 words. Ah. Here's the rub. Dashed on the rocky shoals of unemployment and the necessity for resume writing? It's a GREAT excuse. And I have been distracted - CONSIDERABLY so. But, in reality, I could manage one hour a day. I was all set for day 4. Perhaps I'll do that as a break from working through files tomorrow.
Sounds like a plan!
Friday, July 24, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Pot-bellied Pigs
Pig butt. Sometimes you just don't quite realize all the components in a photo when you're taking it quickly.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The biggest problem with linking merit pay to test scores..
In education, lately, there has been an accelerated call by the current administration to link student performance as evidenced by student test scores to teacher pay and teacher success. The motivation behind this is not a bad thing but there is an inherent flaw to the idea - standardized tests are just that, standards, norms, generalizations. These tests do not address the intricate changes that can be made in the classroom across a year's time, nor do they address the student's starting point as it relates to achievement throughout the year and the student's gains by the end of the year as relative to that starting point. Teachers get SO worked up and SO upset with this proposal (and I'm talking GOOD teachers, competent teachers - not lazy ones who aren't really teaching anyway) because the proposals are based on these standards - these general ideas.
A scenario:
A dentist fixes teeth - cavities, abscesses, chips, you name it.
The dentist works with whomever comes into his office. If he works with a more upscale clientele, the dentist (generally) will see better quality teeth, better quality home care, and teeth that have had more dental care overall.
If the dentist works in a clinic or in a less affluent area, the dentist will (again generally), see teeth that have had less care over the years (the teeth can't afford it), fewer visits to a dentist overall (again, that cost), and less overall upkeep - all of which means that the teeth will need more, and more serious, intervention, when they present. In other words, the problems are more serious, more costly, and require a more lengthy fix, with more visits to resolve. And, due to this added cost, it's more likely that the resolution won't happen because the person doesn't have the money to fix them - the person stops coming altogether.
The dentist is judged on the quality of the work, once that work is completed. If that work is completed. And the dentist may or may not receive payment, depending on circumstances and surroundings.
Now, let's apply this scenario to education. Public education. Students come to a teacher from all walks of life. They have diverse backgrounds and experiences. Like their teeth, they come in all grades of health and with all levels of well-being. Whereas a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist takes on one client an hour or sees one patient per fifteen minutes, a teacher works with 15-35 an hour.
Now, the teacher accepts the contract, accepts the pay, and accepts the conditions, including the number of students. The teacher is aware, fully aware, that students will present all levels and manners of challenges. It's just what happens. It's what education is. The teacher knows that some students will stick it out - and that some will try to quit, just like the dentist's patients. (And, for those who would, at this point, say "Ah ha! See. Teachers shouldn't be paid if they can't keep students," - I won't disagree but I will point out, again, the ratio of student/teacher to patient/dentist. If you want to pay a teacher per student per hour like the dentist is paid per patient per visit, you'll be paying out WAY more to each teacher than any system can afford, merit pay or not - and THAT most teachers would accept but most lawmakers would not.)
Like the dentist's choice of office location, the teacher's school location DOES affect the type and the way in which those challenges manifest in the classroom.
Like the dentist's success rate, the teacher is expected to show a success rate, improvement in both the students' body of knowledge and the students' test scores.
Like the dentist's display of skill, the teacher's quality of work is key in showing that improvement.
But, unlike the dentist, the teacher is expected to teach both those willing and those unwilling. By law, students, unlike patients, are required to be there. They are required to attend - which doesn't mean they are required to learn. It is the teacher's job to encourage that - but no one can force it. That in itself is a factor - and yes, a good teacher can do a great deal to entice learning and a bad teacher can destroy it - but it is only one factor of many and we are discussing the competent teacher here (I have no quibble with getting rid of bad teachers - but merit pay should be about reward and getting rid of bad teachers should be the responsibility of a competent principal - not about pricing them out).
Now, if you have bad teeth, the dentist can show improvement, can fix some of the issues. If a student isn't on grade-level, the teacher CAN show improvement, can help the student to improve.
But here's the real rub with merit pay as linked to student scores.
A student appears in the classroom, let's say a 9th grade classroom, and s/he is reading on a 4th grade level. The student can surely show gains across the course of a year. But will they reach a 10th grade reading level by the end of 9th grade year? With 30 other students in the class? When the teacher has one hour a day with that class and maybe a coach-class after school? Maybe.
But what if the teacher is able to help that student reach a 6th grade level? That is a FANTASTIC improvement. They've clearly demonstrated improvement...but not that improvement that would earn them merit pay as demonstrated by test scores because current testing isn't set up to acknowledge these kinds of gains. The teacher has done his or her job, and done it well, but...according to testing, the student still falls below grade-level. The student still isn't at, now, a 10th grade reading level - whether or not he or she is promoted to the 10th grade.
The concept of merit pay is not inherently a bad one.
The problem is that standardized testing doesn't reflect the varied situations that students present BECAUSE the tests are standardized. (There is absolutely value in standardized testing - this isn't an argument against it - just the current proposals to link it to merit pay when standardized tests don't reflect a range of skills and levels.)
The problem is student test scores are affected by SO many other factors that come into play when educating students, factors that the teacher cannot control - social, cultural, economic, environmental. And these things all affect how a student performs in the classroom. Not simply that one hour a day. And none of those things are scored and ranked as differentials when considering teacher success.
Most teachers are there because they love what they do. They certainly aren't in it for the money. Most teachers are, themselves, lifelong learners with a passion for their subject matter.
As for the issue of bad teachers and merit pay, let us not confuse the argument for merit pay with the argument against bad teachers. Certainly, there are bad teachers - or, at the very least, teachers who didn't synch with students personally as they grew up. I'm sure we can all easily recall both the best and the worst we've had, just as the business world includes all sorts of people at all kinds of levels. The issue of a bad or incompetent teacher should be addressed at the school level and that teacher should be let go - that is NOT the role of merit pay, or should not be anyway.
Simply put, evaluating student success is so much more complex than test scores.
Before getting everyone riled up by suggesting just a general "hey let's link these up even though we don't really know that it works", the administration and the Department of Education could present a model or two - based on ALL the factors that impact education - for how merit pay could work. Propose a series of graduated evaluations to be done at the school level, and implemented at the state level, which demonstrate the improvements made - and link those to 'have-you earned-your-pay' initiatives. Or, "The Department of Education should respect the requirements of federalism and look to states to offer their best ideas rather than mandating policies that the current administration likes,” Dr. Ravitch said in comments filed with the department."
And if merit pay as is currently proposed won't fly, the powers that be could always consider a proposal to pay teachers per student. That would be cool. Most tutors make $25-75 an hour, per student. Tally that one up.
A scenario:
A dentist fixes teeth - cavities, abscesses, chips, you name it.
The dentist works with whomever comes into his office. If he works with a more upscale clientele, the dentist (generally) will see better quality teeth, better quality home care, and teeth that have had more dental care overall.
If the dentist works in a clinic or in a less affluent area, the dentist will (again generally), see teeth that have had less care over the years (the teeth can't afford it), fewer visits to a dentist overall (again, that cost), and less overall upkeep - all of which means that the teeth will need more, and more serious, intervention, when they present. In other words, the problems are more serious, more costly, and require a more lengthy fix, with more visits to resolve. And, due to this added cost, it's more likely that the resolution won't happen because the person doesn't have the money to fix them - the person stops coming altogether.
The dentist is judged on the quality of the work, once that work is completed. If that work is completed. And the dentist may or may not receive payment, depending on circumstances and surroundings.
Now, let's apply this scenario to education. Public education. Students come to a teacher from all walks of life. They have diverse backgrounds and experiences. Like their teeth, they come in all grades of health and with all levels of well-being. Whereas a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist takes on one client an hour or sees one patient per fifteen minutes, a teacher works with 15-35 an hour.
Now, the teacher accepts the contract, accepts the pay, and accepts the conditions, including the number of students. The teacher is aware, fully aware, that students will present all levels and manners of challenges. It's just what happens. It's what education is. The teacher knows that some students will stick it out - and that some will try to quit, just like the dentist's patients. (And, for those who would, at this point, say "Ah ha! See. Teachers shouldn't be paid if they can't keep students," - I won't disagree but I will point out, again, the ratio of student/teacher to patient/dentist. If you want to pay a teacher per student per hour like the dentist is paid per patient per visit, you'll be paying out WAY more to each teacher than any system can afford, merit pay or not - and THAT most teachers would accept but most lawmakers would not.)
Like the dentist's choice of office location, the teacher's school location DOES affect the type and the way in which those challenges manifest in the classroom.
Like the dentist's success rate, the teacher is expected to show a success rate, improvement in both the students' body of knowledge and the students' test scores.
Like the dentist's display of skill, the teacher's quality of work is key in showing that improvement.
But, unlike the dentist, the teacher is expected to teach both those willing and those unwilling. By law, students, unlike patients, are required to be there. They are required to attend - which doesn't mean they are required to learn. It is the teacher's job to encourage that - but no one can force it. That in itself is a factor - and yes, a good teacher can do a great deal to entice learning and a bad teacher can destroy it - but it is only one factor of many and we are discussing the competent teacher here (I have no quibble with getting rid of bad teachers - but merit pay should be about reward and getting rid of bad teachers should be the responsibility of a competent principal - not about pricing them out).
Now, if you have bad teeth, the dentist can show improvement, can fix some of the issues. If a student isn't on grade-level, the teacher CAN show improvement, can help the student to improve.
But here's the real rub with merit pay as linked to student scores.
A student appears in the classroom, let's say a 9th grade classroom, and s/he is reading on a 4th grade level. The student can surely show gains across the course of a year. But will they reach a 10th grade reading level by the end of 9th grade year? With 30 other students in the class? When the teacher has one hour a day with that class and maybe a coach-class after school? Maybe.
But what if the teacher is able to help that student reach a 6th grade level? That is a FANTASTIC improvement. They've clearly demonstrated improvement...but not that improvement that would earn them merit pay as demonstrated by test scores because current testing isn't set up to acknowledge these kinds of gains. The teacher has done his or her job, and done it well, but...according to testing, the student still falls below grade-level. The student still isn't at, now, a 10th grade reading level - whether or not he or she is promoted to the 10th grade.
The concept of merit pay is not inherently a bad one.
The problem is that standardized testing doesn't reflect the varied situations that students present BECAUSE the tests are standardized. (There is absolutely value in standardized testing - this isn't an argument against it - just the current proposals to link it to merit pay when standardized tests don't reflect a range of skills and levels.)
The problem is student test scores are affected by SO many other factors that come into play when educating students, factors that the teacher cannot control - social, cultural, economic, environmental. And these things all affect how a student performs in the classroom. Not simply that one hour a day. And none of those things are scored and ranked as differentials when considering teacher success.
Most teachers are there because they love what they do. They certainly aren't in it for the money. Most teachers are, themselves, lifelong learners with a passion for their subject matter.
As for the issue of bad teachers and merit pay, let us not confuse the argument for merit pay with the argument against bad teachers. Certainly, there are bad teachers - or, at the very least, teachers who didn't synch with students personally as they grew up. I'm sure we can all easily recall both the best and the worst we've had, just as the business world includes all sorts of people at all kinds of levels. The issue of a bad or incompetent teacher should be addressed at the school level and that teacher should be let go - that is NOT the role of merit pay, or should not be anyway.
Simply put, evaluating student success is so much more complex than test scores.
Before getting everyone riled up by suggesting just a general "hey let's link these up even though we don't really know that it works", the administration and the Department of Education could present a model or two - based on ALL the factors that impact education - for how merit pay could work. Propose a series of graduated evaluations to be done at the school level, and implemented at the state level, which demonstrate the improvements made - and link those to 'have-you earned-your-pay' initiatives. Or, "The Department of Education should respect the requirements of federalism and look to states to offer their best ideas rather than mandating policies that the current administration likes,” Dr. Ravitch said in comments filed with the department."
And if merit pay as is currently proposed won't fly, the powers that be could always consider a proposal to pay teachers per student. That would be cool. Most tutors make $25-75 an hour, per student. Tally that one up.
I still can't believe it...
I cannot believe that the government will OWN 61% of the 'new' GM. I am appalled that it has come to this. I am even more appalled that the Obama administration even had to address the issue about whether or not he'd be involved in the day-to-day running of the company. WHAT? The leader of the US, involved in running the car company he just bought?
Here's the quote: GM "is expected to receive $50 billion in taxpayer funds. In exchange for those funds, the government will own about 61 percent of the 'new GM.' The Obama administration has said it does not plan to interfere with the day-to-day running of the company, though government has been involved in the selection of the new company's 13-member board of directors and change of control transactions."
There are SO many things wrong with this that I'm not even sure where to begin. But , at root, my complaint stems from the fact that the government should not OWN a car company. Nor should the government have PURCHASED the company using taxpayer money.
At this point, I want to know when I get my dividends as a shareholder. Hmmmm????
Here's the quote: GM "is expected to receive $50 billion in taxpayer funds. In exchange for those funds, the government will own about 61 percent of the 'new GM.' The Obama administration has said it does not plan to interfere with the day-to-day running of the company, though government has been involved in the selection of the new company's 13-member board of directors and change of control transactions."
There are SO many things wrong with this that I'm not even sure where to begin. But , at root, my complaint stems from the fact that the government should not OWN a car company. Nor should the government have PURCHASED the company using taxpayer money.
At this point, I want to know when I get my dividends as a shareholder. Hmmmm????
Thursday, July 02, 2009
This so makes me think about moving back South, back home...
I'm reading Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and I came across a line that makes me want to move back south. "Savannah, [Johnny Mercer] said, had been 'a sweet, indolent background for a boy to grow up in.' ...The back porch of his house looked out on a tidal creek that meandered through a broad expanse of marshland....These, then, were the images in my mental gazetteer of Savannah: rum-drinking pirates, strong-willed women, courtly manners, eccentric behavior, gentle words, and lovely music. That and the beauty of the name itself: Savannah."
Just makes you want to go sit on a porch somewhere, doesn't it? It does me.
Just makes you want to go sit on a porch somewhere, doesn't it? It does me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)