Odd Day, Merit Pay, Chocolate HEY

Odd day. Not bad, but not "usual" either.

~ Dear Daughter's school was evacuated today after a bomb threat was received and a suspicious backpack was discovered. Interesting that we've been here less than a year and her school has had three big "situations," compared to last year when she was attending a junior high in Texas that five years prior had been *the* drug and gang school to fear... which didn't have a single issue for us to complain about other than 1) rude audience behavior at band concerts and 2) the TAKS.

Her school will be back in session tomorrow with "heightened security measures" in place.

~ Class photos were sent home today with students, and I'm not in them. The picture was taken the day my truck was stolen, so I'll have to set up a date and time that I can have someone play photographer/paparazzi during recess to get a photo of us all together. They won't be my students for much longer- only forty days left in this school year. Thankfully they'll always be my Super Stars.

~ The pre-schooler said "stop it" today for the first time. Up until now, it's been "top it." He *loves* his new class and his teacher's pet iguana, Lizzy.

~ I have "merit pay" whirling around in my head thanks to other teachers' recent blog posts. I've read and thought about many of the details and just can't find a good balance between the "feel-good reward goals" of the proposition and the reality of all of the abuses that will happen if and when a slipshod evaluation "system" is put into place that frankly, won't evaluate *teachers* at all. Test scores will be evaluated. Contrary to popular belief, test scores aren't students. Popularity is an issue in every workplace: will who-you-know translate into how you're evaluated?

Education isn't the great equalizer. It's a business, pure and simple. Thanks a lot, NCLB, the propaganda worked. Some states now require that kindergarten students be assessed with fill-in-the-bubble tests. It's inappropriate and appalling, not "necessary" as many politicians and curriculum publishers would have you believe. Still far too many parents passively allow this abuse to happen, probably buying the hype that the tests hold their child's teacher accountable...the tests guarantee that a child has a quality teacher, and that children will somehow be "better prepared" for school. The Merit Pay Plan tries to appeal to teachers by dangling money under our noses (it's a tempting carrot after all, we have bills to pay too) and to parents by offering an emotional sense of security by implying teachers are now being evaluated by someone capable and inclined to critique us on the actual skills required of us to do our jobs- which can't be the case if test scores end up being the only proof-positive that learning has or hasn't taken place.

As good teachers continue to argue against the abuses of NCLB and its mediocre, in some cases, horrific results, spin doctors immediately go on the offensive, insinuating that if teachers can't "prove" their teaching prowess via documented student gains, then my, my, my, perhaps those teachers really shouldn't continue to be employed by their districts. And do parents do the number crunching when it comes to evaluating all of the numbers, scores, rubrics, gains, and areas of need? No. Do they question the data reported in newspapers, magazines, in blogs or news broadcasts? No. They take it as fact, usually oblivious that while "figures don't lie, liars certainly can figure." Data can be manipulated, tweaked, fabricated. Good data can be misrepresented, under-represented, or even buried in order to further the goals of the Education-as-Business Machine.

It's the opinions of psychologists, sociologists, and behaviorists that interest me...why we as members of society always insist on wheeling and dealing, undercutting, depriving, lying, misrepresenting, damaging so much and so many in our paths on the way to rake in the almighty dollar, all the while claiming to be doing it all for the common good.

I need some chocolate.

Merit Hiring

I was reading Science Goddess' "More Isn't Always Better" post this morning and her thoughts took me down the road of introspection regarding my lack of employment this year. Her assertion that merit pay for teachers wouldn't guarantee better teaching made my head nod vigorously in agreement, and made me wonder exactly what equation used for hiring here in "Mexico-North" is applied to new teacher applicants such as myself.

My info? College graduate, twelve years teaching experience, licensed/certified to teach in Alaska, New Mexico, Kansas, and even here, Texas. I have glowing letters of recommendation, an excellent résumé, and wonderfully gracious references. Resources? My own extensive childrens' library, professional library, math/science/literacy/art/music manipulatives, classroom decor, puppets, puzzles, blocks, audio/visual teaching aids, computers (yes, I provide my own computers for my students) and even sleeping mats. Like most teachers, money for play dough, paint, glitter, glue, dress up clothes, and every small yet necessary detail for kindergarten explorations (sunflower seeds, cotton balls, snacks) comes out of my own pocket. I'm also not burnt out on teaching and I actually *like* children, both very valuable commodities.

After submitting résumé after résumé to school districts and having several interviews for kindergarten and other primary grade classes, I've not been offered a job. My observations as the parent of a student have had me cringing, shaking my head, venting, and vowing to move away from here as soon as Uncle Sam lets us. At this point I'm a fan of "merit hiring," hiring someone who is the most qualified, who offers the most resources, and who has the most desirable background as vouched for by other education experts. I was, in fact, under the impression that hiring highly qualified teachers was a requirement mandated to school districts nationwide in our latest educational reform. But like everything else, "highly qualified" is interpreted very differently here.

Budget constraints rule the day, and the logic used in the Bordertown when trying to address the needs and requirements of NCLB (not that I agree with them) just doesn't fit. The community is at least eighty-percent Hispanic, which makes not hiring me because I don't speak Spanish an understandable decision. The need to communicate effectively with all students, build those bridges, and give the gift of multiple languages to students are all goals I respect and believe in. In not speaking Spanish, I am not the most highly qualified. Hiring a Spanish-speaking aide with whom I could team-teach isn't an option here like it is in New Mexico however, perhaps because you really can't get two for the price of one.

During one of my interviews, a principal asked if I had any questions for her, to which I replied "yes, how does your school utilize technology, and what resources are available to kindergarten students?" The response of the other teachers in the room was polite laughter, while the principal explained that none of the kindergarten classrooms in her school had computers yet, though they were waiting for some old ones to be donated by a military Academy class here on post (which my husband attends) this year. I then asked her if sharing learning centers amongst kindergarten classrooms would be possible since I had computers for student use that I'd be happy to share. "Oh no, that would be unfair, one teacher having computers and the others not. We don't even have computer standards for our pre-k or kindergarten classes yet, just guidelines." Totally missed my point and offer, but apparently the bottom line was that NO students would have computer time if all classrooms weren't equipped. It's all or nothing.

Several weeks after my last interview, I ran into one of the teachers who had been part of the interview committee at a fast-food restaurant. She remembered me and we did some chatting while waiting in line to order. She said she was sorry I hadn't been hired though I was qualified and I had "done so well" during my interview, and said her principal had hired another applicant because she "wouldn't cost as much." She also divulged that the person hired was certified through an alternate licensure program that required she only complete a year-and-a-half's worth of education courses and practicum experiences before being employable by any district here. Budget again. I'm wondering how much classroom money, if any, she was given to set up all of the learning centers necessary to provide appropriate educational experiences for her students. With her limited knowledge and experience with public education, would she even know to ask for funding? Perhaps "clueless" is desirable.

Hiring Spanish-speaking applicants with the least amount of experience (and possibly skill) and least amount of classroom resources doesn't seem to be the best plan of attack when it comes to addressing this town's interpretation of NCLB's biggest rules:

1) All students must pass.
and
2) All students must pass in English.

Students are hit with monthly barrages of TAKS "practice" tests which take away from learning anything OTHER than how to take the TAKS. They are allowed to take the test in their "native language" until high school, when TAKS must be passed in English by all students, regardless of ethnicity or language experience.

Huh?

Okay, so maybe it's *just me.* Either I'm grossly underqualified because I just don't see (nor understand) the big picture, or I'm grossly OVERqualified because I've noticed that there isn't one.

Still, it would be nice to have a paycheck.