For a high school math teacher, few times of the year are as fraught with tension as the end of April. As the rest of the nation is recovering from tax day, the public schools are gearing up for the annual standardized tests. What’s sad is that the scores on these tests actually depend less on where the students go to school or what they learn there, and more on who the students are.
Let’s look at the ten comprehensive high schools in San Francisco. In particular, let’s look at the three high schools that scored highest last year (Let’s call them the “Big Three”), and the three that scored lowest (We’ll call them the “Bottom Three”). I won’t say their names, but chances are that if you live in San Francisco you know which schools they are.
What’s interesting is that if you look to see which schools have the highest percentage of white and Asian students as compared to black or Latino students, it just so happens that it’s the Big Three! And would you believe that the schools with the highest percentage of black and Latino students as compared to white and Asian students are the Bottom Three? How can we make sense of this remarkable coincidence?
As I see it, there are three possible explanations. The first is that the Big Three actually are the best schools in the district and that the Bottom Three are the worst. If that’s true, that means that we are sending our white and Asian students to the best schools and sending our black and Latino students to the worst schools, and we’re right back where we were before the civil rights movement, in a city that prides itself on being the capital of American progressive action.
The second possible explanation is that the Big Three score highly because of the inherent superiority of the high percentage of white and Asian students there, and that the Bottom Three score poorly because of the inherent inferiority of the high percentage of black and Latino students there. If you want to believe in some sort of inherent superiority or inferiority of the races, there are plenty of indicted war criminals in the Hague that would probably love to have you as a pen pal. Hopefully, however, we are able to reject that option out of hand.
That leaves me with my third option: that there is some sort of inherent bias against certain groups of students in society which the test scores reflect; and that bias ought to invalidate the tests as measurement tools for comparing student performance, especially since the scores are used as a basis for decisions about funding, staffing and student placement which only serve to increase the disparity between groups of students in public schools. This is the view held by most of the teachers with whom I’m acquainted. That doesn’t stop us, however, from hyping up the tests to our students as if their entire future depended on their results, putting enormous pressure on minds too young to comprehend how useless the test scores actually are.
So, this year, I have decided to abandon the grueling ritual of test prep. Rather than leaving behind my actual curriculum for several weeks in order to train students in test-taking strategies, I will continue teaching math as usual, up until the first day of testing. If the tests actually measured how much students have learned, my regular teaching ought to be all the test prep they need. I have neither the training nor the inclination, however, to prepare them for a test that seems to measure their ethnicity more than anything else.
- "But... you're bleck!"
Friday, April 22, 2005
Monday, April 18, 2005
legal + profitable = moral?
On my way to work today, I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR and I heard a story about an oil boom in the Russian island of Sakhalin. Apparently, foreign oil companies (primarily American) have come in and made a fortune... but the locals are not profiting a bit, and they're starting to get a little bit upset.
One of the guys they interviewed for the story was a veteran of the Alaskan oil boom and had represented his company there. In Alaska, the people who live there were paid for the right to drill on the land, and received rather substantial royalty checks every month. Needless to say, they thought that the oil company being there was a good thing. This guy is contrasting that to the situation in Russia, where the system is corrupt and the government contacts, mafia enforcers and local "bosses" are reaping all of the profit, while the locals are getting nothing.
What really caught my attention was that the American guy said something like "that's just the way it is in Russia, and if you want to do business here, you have to go along with it."
If that's the way it is, and you know it's not right, why in the world would you want to do business there?
Do I really have to answer that?
The American religion of consumerism/capitalism has made it a "sin" to pass up an opportunity to make a profit. Heck, it's even illegal. Time and time again, I've heard CEO's, financial analysts, stockbrokers, and news commentators state that a company has a "legal responsibility to its stockholders" to make as much profit as they possibly can. That refrain is constantly used as justification for pursuing the most predatory and morally questionable practices... as long as they're not specifically illegal.
So, under this system, a company would be acting unethically if it passed up an opportunity to make scads of cash by partnering with a corrupt, oppressive system if their only qualms were moral. As long as there's no law preventing them, they HAVE to pursue the opportunity.
I first started thinking about this a couple of years ago, when I heard another NPR story about the impact that the "war on tobacco" is having on tobacco farmers in the US. One tobacco farmer who was interviewed said that in his view, the state (I don't remember which one he was from) should use some of the money they got from the tobacco companies as a legal settlement to subsidize his TOBACCO FARMING, since the settlement has made it harder for the big tobacco companies to pay him as much for his product. This guy was totally serious. He saw no problem with claiming that some of the money the states were awarded BECAUSE TOBACCO HARMS AND KILLS PEOPLE should rightfully go to him so that he can afford to continue GROWING TOBACCO.
I thought that this guy actually exemplified the sort of new moral compass that defines American economics and business. The reason this guy started growing tobacco was because it was profitable. The question of whether he SHOULD grow a crop that didn't contribute nutritionally to anyone, but rather served only to sicken and kill them was not part of the equation. The closest this guy came to considering this choice from a moral standpoint was to ask himself "is it against the law for me to grow tobacco?" The choice was not whether he should use his resources as a farmer to produce a product that contributed to people's health and well-being or to their illness and death; the choice was which crop that he is legally allowed to grow will net him the most profit.
In American business circles, to say "I haven't done anything wrong," actually means "I haven't done anything illegal." Partly to blame is our mania to use legislation as our exclusive weapon against predatory or oppressive practices. Remember the old saying, "you can't legislate morality"? Well, it's right. All the laws in the world won't make people moral. The most we can hope for from laws is that they limit the amount of harm the powerful can inflict on the vulnerable.
So what can we do about it? Pass even more laws? I would caution us against continuing down that road. By no means should we abandon legislation which is designed to protect the vulnerable, but neither should we assume that passing those laws is all that is necessary to establish justice. A person or group of business-people must want to pursue practices that put the considerations of the needy above those of themselves and their (mostly wealthy) stockholders. A power and authority higher than human laws is needed to accomplish that. An authority that considers the vulnerable before the powerful, who raises the valleys and lowers the hills, who brings calamity upon the wealthy and hope to the poor.
Don't worry, it's coming. Until then, all we can do is decide to accept or reject the morality of profit for ourselves, and to live accordingly. To join ourselves to a people who live by a different hope and under a Truth so large that it obliterates the lies that define our broken world.
Sounds simple, huh? It is. It's also so difficult that it's impossible to do ourselves, and impossible to do alone.
So don't do it yourself. And don't do it alone.
- "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
One of the guys they interviewed for the story was a veteran of the Alaskan oil boom and had represented his company there. In Alaska, the people who live there were paid for the right to drill on the land, and received rather substantial royalty checks every month. Needless to say, they thought that the oil company being there was a good thing. This guy is contrasting that to the situation in Russia, where the system is corrupt and the government contacts, mafia enforcers and local "bosses" are reaping all of the profit, while the locals are getting nothing.
What really caught my attention was that the American guy said something like "that's just the way it is in Russia, and if you want to do business here, you have to go along with it."
If that's the way it is, and you know it's not right, why in the world would you want to do business there?
Do I really have to answer that?
The American religion of consumerism/capitalism has made it a "sin" to pass up an opportunity to make a profit. Heck, it's even illegal. Time and time again, I've heard CEO's, financial analysts, stockbrokers, and news commentators state that a company has a "legal responsibility to its stockholders" to make as much profit as they possibly can. That refrain is constantly used as justification for pursuing the most predatory and morally questionable practices... as long as they're not specifically illegal.
So, under this system, a company would be acting unethically if it passed up an opportunity to make scads of cash by partnering with a corrupt, oppressive system if their only qualms were moral. As long as there's no law preventing them, they HAVE to pursue the opportunity.
I first started thinking about this a couple of years ago, when I heard another NPR story about the impact that the "war on tobacco" is having on tobacco farmers in the US. One tobacco farmer who was interviewed said that in his view, the state (I don't remember which one he was from) should use some of the money they got from the tobacco companies as a legal settlement to subsidize his TOBACCO FARMING, since the settlement has made it harder for the big tobacco companies to pay him as much for his product. This guy was totally serious. He saw no problem with claiming that some of the money the states were awarded BECAUSE TOBACCO HARMS AND KILLS PEOPLE should rightfully go to him so that he can afford to continue GROWING TOBACCO.
I thought that this guy actually exemplified the sort of new moral compass that defines American economics and business. The reason this guy started growing tobacco was because it was profitable. The question of whether he SHOULD grow a crop that didn't contribute nutritionally to anyone, but rather served only to sicken and kill them was not part of the equation. The closest this guy came to considering this choice from a moral standpoint was to ask himself "is it against the law for me to grow tobacco?" The choice was not whether he should use his resources as a farmer to produce a product that contributed to people's health and well-being or to their illness and death; the choice was which crop that he is legally allowed to grow will net him the most profit.
In American business circles, to say "I haven't done anything wrong," actually means "I haven't done anything illegal." Partly to blame is our mania to use legislation as our exclusive weapon against predatory or oppressive practices. Remember the old saying, "you can't legislate morality"? Well, it's right. All the laws in the world won't make people moral. The most we can hope for from laws is that they limit the amount of harm the powerful can inflict on the vulnerable.
So what can we do about it? Pass even more laws? I would caution us against continuing down that road. By no means should we abandon legislation which is designed to protect the vulnerable, but neither should we assume that passing those laws is all that is necessary to establish justice. A person or group of business-people must want to pursue practices that put the considerations of the needy above those of themselves and their (mostly wealthy) stockholders. A power and authority higher than human laws is needed to accomplish that. An authority that considers the vulnerable before the powerful, who raises the valleys and lowers the hills, who brings calamity upon the wealthy and hope to the poor.
Don't worry, it's coming. Until then, all we can do is decide to accept or reject the morality of profit for ourselves, and to live accordingly. To join ourselves to a people who live by a different hope and under a Truth so large that it obliterates the lies that define our broken world.
Sounds simple, huh? It is. It's also so difficult that it's impossible to do ourselves, and impossible to do alone.
So don't do it yourself. And don't do it alone.
- "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
Monday, April 11, 2005
What standardized test scores really tell us
The API numbers are out, and guess what? They tell you (once again) which students go to which schools.
What's that? You thought that they were supposed to tell you how well the students were being educated by their schools? You mean you bought that line? Let me tell you how the system really works:
Performance on standardized tests (including the CAT-6 and SAT) can be predicted very reliably by a few factors... none of which is the school the student attends.
Regardless of which schools students attend, the most reliable factor is the parents' level of education. More highly educated parents have kids who get better test scores. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the average student spends less than 1,500 hours a year under a teacher's supervision in a classroom, and more than 3, 500 hours a year under their parent's supervision outside of school. Who do you think has a greater impact on how they spend their time, especially in middle school and high school where those 1,500 hours are split up between 5-7 different teachers?
Another factor that affects test scores more than which school a student attends is socio-economic status. Poor students do worse than rich students, no matter where they go to school. Not suprisingly, there's a lot of overlap between parents socio-economic status and level of education. An interesting exception which proves the rule is the fact that children of teachers tend to do better than other students whose parents are in the same income bracket. If anything, this might be used as evidence that teachers are under-paid...
Another unsurprising trend is that minority students do worse than white students. What might be surprising is that this trend has more to do with socio-economic factors than race. It just so happens that more minorities are poor. Rich minority students with highly educated parents do nearly as well as their white counterparts, and the same trend can be seen in the poor performance of poor white children of poorly educated parents and their minority counterparts.
So, what do API scores tell us? They tell us the level of education of the parents of the students at that school, they tell us about the socio-economic status of the students at that school, and to a limited extent, they can give us an idea of the likelihood of minorities being over- or under-represented at the school. What they can't tell us is how well that school is educating students.
What to do? How about de-segregating schools? We've been trying to do it for 40 years, but schools are still segregated. It's less a question of race, however, than of socio-economics. We need to integrate the schools with rich kids and poor kids together. We need highly educated parents' kids in school with less educated parents' kids. That's the only way that test scores will be useful in the ways we try to use them.
I expect this will happen soon... as soon as the Devil ice-skates to work and farmers need airplanes to herd their swine. Until then, by all means let's punish schools for being willing to educate the poor and needy. I mean, what's the use of being rich and well-educated if your kids don't get preferential treatment?
- "Wait a minute. Are you telling me that we're so far behind the other students that we're going to catch up with them by going SLOWER than them?" (I'm kind of cheating, this is from a TV show and I couldn't find the exact quote...)
What's that? You thought that they were supposed to tell you how well the students were being educated by their schools? You mean you bought that line? Let me tell you how the system really works:
Performance on standardized tests (including the CAT-6 and SAT) can be predicted very reliably by a few factors... none of which is the school the student attends.
Regardless of which schools students attend, the most reliable factor is the parents' level of education. More highly educated parents have kids who get better test scores. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the average student spends less than 1,500 hours a year under a teacher's supervision in a classroom, and more than 3, 500 hours a year under their parent's supervision outside of school. Who do you think has a greater impact on how they spend their time, especially in middle school and high school where those 1,500 hours are split up between 5-7 different teachers?
Another factor that affects test scores more than which school a student attends is socio-economic status. Poor students do worse than rich students, no matter where they go to school. Not suprisingly, there's a lot of overlap between parents socio-economic status and level of education. An interesting exception which proves the rule is the fact that children of teachers tend to do better than other students whose parents are in the same income bracket. If anything, this might be used as evidence that teachers are under-paid...
Another unsurprising trend is that minority students do worse than white students. What might be surprising is that this trend has more to do with socio-economic factors than race. It just so happens that more minorities are poor. Rich minority students with highly educated parents do nearly as well as their white counterparts, and the same trend can be seen in the poor performance of poor white children of poorly educated parents and their minority counterparts.
So, what do API scores tell us? They tell us the level of education of the parents of the students at that school, they tell us about the socio-economic status of the students at that school, and to a limited extent, they can give us an idea of the likelihood of minorities being over- or under-represented at the school. What they can't tell us is how well that school is educating students.
What to do? How about de-segregating schools? We've been trying to do it for 40 years, but schools are still segregated. It's less a question of race, however, than of socio-economics. We need to integrate the schools with rich kids and poor kids together. We need highly educated parents' kids in school with less educated parents' kids. That's the only way that test scores will be useful in the ways we try to use them.
I expect this will happen soon... as soon as the Devil ice-skates to work and farmers need airplanes to herd their swine. Until then, by all means let's punish schools for being willing to educate the poor and needy. I mean, what's the use of being rich and well-educated if your kids don't get preferential treatment?
- "Wait a minute. Are you telling me that we're so far behind the other students that we're going to catch up with them by going SLOWER than them?" (I'm kind of cheating, this is from a TV show and I couldn't find the exact quote...)
Monday, March 21, 2005
Why not raise taxes?
I think that there's no reason that the government can't raise a whole bunch of money by raising taxes. The trick is to know what to raise taxes on. Here's my list of proposals for things that I would raise taxes on and feel no qualms of regret whatsoever for doing so.
1. Cigarettes/Tobacco products. Slap another $1/pack onto these things. They're a luxury item, i.e. nobody NEEDS cigarettes, so this tax only affects those who choose to include themselves. They're bad for you, so not being able to afford them anymore would actually improve someone's health. Why not? It's more controversial, but I'd entertain arguments about a similar tax on alcohol...
2. Gasoline. My dad made a good point when I brought this up, which was that a raise in gas prices affects everyone, because all of the products that you buy are moved around in planes, trains, and automobiles (and boats!) which use petroleum based fuel, so the increase will eventually get tacked onto the consumer products at the end of the line.
That said, I still say raise taxes on gas. The proof that gas is still "affordable" is that people keep buying gas guzzling SUV's. It's simple economics, really. It needs to get to the point where people are rioting in the streets and actually taking public transportation or buying fuel efficient vehicles for change to happen... and change needs to happen. Maybe pressure would come from big businesses, too, if it's hurting their bottom line. What if we used the money raised by these taxes to fund alternative energy research? Or we could wait until we're out of oil... which leads me to...
3. Vehicles. The Licensing Fees for vehicles could be restructured to reward fuel efficient vehicles. We could limit this to passenger vehicles to alleviate the added cost to consumer products (we'd have to work carefully on the definition of a "passenger vehicle" to avoid "company car" loopholes...). This money could go toward alternative fuel research, too... or to public transportation. I don't mind if Amtrak doesn't pay for itself, if taxes on fuel and gas-guzzling vehicles pays for it instead.
4. Jewelry. Again, a luxury item. The only place where I start to feel a little bit bad for people is when I think of a poor guy saving up to buy an engagement ring for his fiancee... (although the whole notion of a diamond engagement ring was artificially invented by the diamond market headed by deBeers, and the price of diamonds is artificially controlled by deBeers, which has a monopoly in the trade that is illegal under US law, which is why no executives of the company ever travel to the US... they could be arrested). Other than that questionable "necessary" use for diamonds, jewelry is a non-necessity. So how about imposing an additional 2% tax on individual jewelry items which cost more than $1,000? We could even use this money for foreign aid, in particular for countries devastated by civil war and oppressive tyranny fueled and financed by the diamond trade. We could even give a tax break on non-conflict gems... how's that for incentive?
5. Restructure payroll taxes. Right now, you pay payroll taxes into the Social Security fund on the first $88,000 you make in a year. Anything above that is payroll tax free (well, kind of. There's no upper limit on Medicare tax). So, what if we get rid of the upper limit and instead institute a lower limit? What if the FIRST $12,000 you make was payroll tax free, and there was no upper limit? The only people who would end up paying more under this system would be those who make more than $100,000/year. Doesn't it make more sense to give a tax break to people who make less than $100,000/year than to those who make more? And doesn't it stand to reason that if it's a "burden" for people to pay taxes on income over $100,000, it's an unbearable burden for people who make less than $15,000? I mean, really, they can hardly afford to pay any taxes at all. It just makes sense.
6. No new taxes! The government loses billions of dollars each year in uncollected taxes. What if we invested 10% of that lost money in giving the IRS more resources to collect from tax cheats (many of which are large corporations or wealthy individuals who misuse loop-holes and/or create complicated paper-trails to hide taxable income and assetts) and we get 50%, or 25%, or even 15% of it back... isn't that worth the investment? If we just work harder on collecting the "old" taxes, we won't need new taxes! I mean, we could totally forget my first five suggestions and get almost the same amount of income by focusing on the taxes already owed.
So, what do you think? Who could disagree with these modest proposals? To start with, the tobacco industry, oil industry, auto-makers, ummm... I guess people into jewelry and the fugitive executives who run deBeers, people who make over $100,000/year, and any individuals or corporations who are currently saving money by not paying the taxes they actually owe. That would probably turn out to be a small number of people with a whole lot of money and political clout. No wonder nobody's willing to take them on.
-"It's not the money... it's all the stuff..."
1. Cigarettes/Tobacco products. Slap another $1/pack onto these things. They're a luxury item, i.e. nobody NEEDS cigarettes, so this tax only affects those who choose to include themselves. They're bad for you, so not being able to afford them anymore would actually improve someone's health. Why not? It's more controversial, but I'd entertain arguments about a similar tax on alcohol...
2. Gasoline. My dad made a good point when I brought this up, which was that a raise in gas prices affects everyone, because all of the products that you buy are moved around in planes, trains, and automobiles (and boats!) which use petroleum based fuel, so the increase will eventually get tacked onto the consumer products at the end of the line.
That said, I still say raise taxes on gas. The proof that gas is still "affordable" is that people keep buying gas guzzling SUV's. It's simple economics, really. It needs to get to the point where people are rioting in the streets and actually taking public transportation or buying fuel efficient vehicles for change to happen... and change needs to happen. Maybe pressure would come from big businesses, too, if it's hurting their bottom line. What if we used the money raised by these taxes to fund alternative energy research? Or we could wait until we're out of oil... which leads me to...
3. Vehicles. The Licensing Fees for vehicles could be restructured to reward fuel efficient vehicles. We could limit this to passenger vehicles to alleviate the added cost to consumer products (we'd have to work carefully on the definition of a "passenger vehicle" to avoid "company car" loopholes...). This money could go toward alternative fuel research, too... or to public transportation. I don't mind if Amtrak doesn't pay for itself, if taxes on fuel and gas-guzzling vehicles pays for it instead.
4. Jewelry. Again, a luxury item. The only place where I start to feel a little bit bad for people is when I think of a poor guy saving up to buy an engagement ring for his fiancee... (although the whole notion of a diamond engagement ring was artificially invented by the diamond market headed by deBeers, and the price of diamonds is artificially controlled by deBeers, which has a monopoly in the trade that is illegal under US law, which is why no executives of the company ever travel to the US... they could be arrested). Other than that questionable "necessary" use for diamonds, jewelry is a non-necessity. So how about imposing an additional 2% tax on individual jewelry items which cost more than $1,000? We could even use this money for foreign aid, in particular for countries devastated by civil war and oppressive tyranny fueled and financed by the diamond trade. We could even give a tax break on non-conflict gems... how's that for incentive?
5. Restructure payroll taxes. Right now, you pay payroll taxes into the Social Security fund on the first $88,000 you make in a year. Anything above that is payroll tax free (well, kind of. There's no upper limit on Medicare tax). So, what if we get rid of the upper limit and instead institute a lower limit? What if the FIRST $12,000 you make was payroll tax free, and there was no upper limit? The only people who would end up paying more under this system would be those who make more than $100,000/year. Doesn't it make more sense to give a tax break to people who make less than $100,000/year than to those who make more? And doesn't it stand to reason that if it's a "burden" for people to pay taxes on income over $100,000, it's an unbearable burden for people who make less than $15,000? I mean, really, they can hardly afford to pay any taxes at all. It just makes sense.
6. No new taxes! The government loses billions of dollars each year in uncollected taxes. What if we invested 10% of that lost money in giving the IRS more resources to collect from tax cheats (many of which are large corporations or wealthy individuals who misuse loop-holes and/or create complicated paper-trails to hide taxable income and assetts) and we get 50%, or 25%, or even 15% of it back... isn't that worth the investment? If we just work harder on collecting the "old" taxes, we won't need new taxes! I mean, we could totally forget my first five suggestions and get almost the same amount of income by focusing on the taxes already owed.
So, what do you think? Who could disagree with these modest proposals? To start with, the tobacco industry, oil industry, auto-makers, ummm... I guess people into jewelry and the fugitive executives who run deBeers, people who make over $100,000/year, and any individuals or corporations who are currently saving money by not paying the taxes they actually owe. That would probably turn out to be a small number of people with a whole lot of money and political clout. No wonder nobody's willing to take them on.
-"It's not the money... it's all the stuff..."
WWJB?
Craig Wong is the Executive Director of GUM, Inc. It's a non-profit started by our church, and it runs the tutoring program I volunteer for as well as the summer youth internship program which sets neighborhood youth up with paid internships in local businesses. I was a job coach for that program last summer.
Anyway, Craig went to a conference somewhere sometime last year (I know, I know, I can't remember the specifics) and came back with a pin that read "WWJB?" Being who he is, he waited until somebody asked him what it meant. "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" was his reply, and I can tell you that many an interesting conversation was sparked by this twist on what's become a tired cliche (I don't know how to do accents in this program. If you do, please let me know! Then I can write in Spanish!).
So, the next time you're sitting around and discussing politics with a group of Christians, try throwing that question out. You're sure to get some kind of response!
-"Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret!"
Anyway, Craig went to a conference somewhere sometime last year (I know, I know, I can't remember the specifics) and came back with a pin that read "WWJB?" Being who he is, he waited until somebody asked him what it meant. "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" was his reply, and I can tell you that many an interesting conversation was sparked by this twist on what's become a tired cliche (I don't know how to do accents in this program. If you do, please let me know! Then I can write in Spanish!).
So, the next time you're sitting around and discussing politics with a group of Christians, try throwing that question out. You're sure to get some kind of response!
-"Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret!"
Accountability for All!
Hey, everyone,
This is a short essay I did for KQED, which is the local NPR affiliate up here in SF. It is a succinct version of my rant on merit based pay, even though it was recorded over a year ago. Some things just don't change...
- "50 million dollars! Who you think you got, Chelsea Clinton?"
This is a short essay I did for KQED, which is the local NPR affiliate up here in SF. It is a succinct version of my rant on merit based pay, even though it was recorded over a year ago. Some things just don't change...
- "50 million dollars! Who you think you got, Chelsea Clinton?"
Friday, March 11, 2005
Poor down, middle class to go
Remember when John Edwards talked about "Two Americas," and the Republicans (notably the Bush-ies) accused him of engaging in "class warfare"?
Well, we all knew that class warfare pitted rich against poor, but it was unclear where the middle class fit in.
Now we know.
The new bankruptcy legislation passed by the Senate and applauded by the President is a direct shot at the middle class. Under this new legislation, it is harder for people to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which would erase many of their debts. Many of these people will be forced into Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which requires them to continue repaying their debts under a strutctured payment plan.
So what? If they owe, shouldn't they pay? The Republican patrons of this bill focused on the small number of filers (less than 5% by one account) who use bankruptcy as a shield to avoid obligations that they are able to meet or brought upon themselves by reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions (e.g. gambling debt). They failed to mention that more than 60% of people who file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy are people (most WITH health insurance) who have a debt primarily made up of medical bills for unexpected illnesses or injury which their insurance only covered partly. Many of them have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and, thanks to our marvelous economy, have been unable to get new jobs... and new health care.
But, what difference does it make? If they really can't pay, then they won't pay, even if their debt isn't wiped out. What's in it for the businesses trying to collect? What's in it for them is houses and cars. Under the old system, people could shield their homes from being "liquidated" into assets to pay off their unpayable debt. Now, it's easier for banks or other lenders to seize property if debts aren't repaid. So, if you fall unexpectedly ill after you lose your job through no fault of your own (by the way, don't worry about this if you are the CEO of a large company... when they lose their jobs because of their own poor performance, they get multi-million dollar severance packages) and have to pay your medical bills out of pocket, you'd better hope that you don't get a new job. Because if you do get a new job, your health insurance won't cover your previously incurred bills, and if a judge decides that you can afford to pay $1,000 per month, you can't file for Chapter 7 and it's more likely that you'll lose your house.
Who owns a house and is going to be filing for bankruptcy? The poor? No, it's the middle classes! "Wait," you say, "Don't the rich go bankrupt, too? We hear about it all the time! They have houses." Yes, they do. They also, however, tend to have what's referred to as "business debt" as opposed to personal debt (like to a credit card company), and "suprise!", business debt isn't covered under the new law. So they can go ahead and get all of their bazillions of dollars of debt wiped out and keep their mansions and Mercedes, while the middle classes are signing over their 2 bedroom single-family-dwellings and Hyundais to the lending institutions... owned by the mansion dwellers.
As Yoda might say, "begun, the class wars have." What nobody expected was that the middle class would be so flagrantly targeted. Two Americas? How about Three?
- "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."
Well, we all knew that class warfare pitted rich against poor, but it was unclear where the middle class fit in.
Now we know.
The new bankruptcy legislation passed by the Senate and applauded by the President is a direct shot at the middle class. Under this new legislation, it is harder for people to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which would erase many of their debts. Many of these people will be forced into Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which requires them to continue repaying their debts under a strutctured payment plan.
So what? If they owe, shouldn't they pay? The Republican patrons of this bill focused on the small number of filers (less than 5% by one account) who use bankruptcy as a shield to avoid obligations that they are able to meet or brought upon themselves by reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions (e.g. gambling debt). They failed to mention that more than 60% of people who file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy are people (most WITH health insurance) who have a debt primarily made up of medical bills for unexpected illnesses or injury which their insurance only covered partly. Many of them have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and, thanks to our marvelous economy, have been unable to get new jobs... and new health care.
But, what difference does it make? If they really can't pay, then they won't pay, even if their debt isn't wiped out. What's in it for the businesses trying to collect? What's in it for them is houses and cars. Under the old system, people could shield their homes from being "liquidated" into assets to pay off their unpayable debt. Now, it's easier for banks or other lenders to seize property if debts aren't repaid. So, if you fall unexpectedly ill after you lose your job through no fault of your own (by the way, don't worry about this if you are the CEO of a large company... when they lose their jobs because of their own poor performance, they get multi-million dollar severance packages) and have to pay your medical bills out of pocket, you'd better hope that you don't get a new job. Because if you do get a new job, your health insurance won't cover your previously incurred bills, and if a judge decides that you can afford to pay $1,000 per month, you can't file for Chapter 7 and it's more likely that you'll lose your house.
Who owns a house and is going to be filing for bankruptcy? The poor? No, it's the middle classes! "Wait," you say, "Don't the rich go bankrupt, too? We hear about it all the time! They have houses." Yes, they do. They also, however, tend to have what's referred to as "business debt" as opposed to personal debt (like to a credit card company), and "suprise!", business debt isn't covered under the new law. So they can go ahead and get all of their bazillions of dollars of debt wiped out and keep their mansions and Mercedes, while the middle classes are signing over their 2 bedroom single-family-dwellings and Hyundais to the lending institutions... owned by the mansion dwellers.
As Yoda might say, "begun, the class wars have." What nobody expected was that the middle class would be so flagrantly targeted. Two Americas? How about Three?
- "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."
Monday, March 07, 2005
Nobody cares what you do.
I teach at an inner city high school. Truancy is a huge problem, and is probably the number one reason for students failure to succeed.
Why? Well, that's a loaded question, and I know that there are myriad societal, familial, cultural, and other reasons that interact together in a complex web. One reason, however, is the one that really bothers me. It's that students are convinced that nobody cares what they do all day long. Well, not nobody: their parents (hopefully) and their teachers. And that's it. If they can avoid those two groups, nobody else is going to give them any hassle about not being in school.
"Shouldn't you be in school?" How often do kids hear that? Hardly ever in this city.
I would love to live in a society where a convenience store clerk used his posted right to refuse service to anyone to refuse to sell a soda to a 13 year old at 10:30 on Wednesday morning.
Where a kid gets hassled about not being in school at the movie theater box office, at the mall by the security guards or the clerk at the GAP, by the bus driver who drops them off at Jamba Juice, by the police officers driving by looking for more serious crime to prosecute, by average citizens who see them hanging out on the street corner.
But of course, it's the school's responsibility. Some charitable souls might even go so far as to acknowledge that parent's share some of that responsibility with the teachers. I guess that teachers can use their lunch break and prep periods to drive around town in ever-expanding spirals around the school, looking for truant kids. I mean, isn't that what we're (under) paid for?
Oh, well, someday they'll turn 18, and when some of them end up on welfare or in jail, then it will be your problem, if you pay taxes, that is. Until then, don't worry about it. Teachers are used to being underpaid to do impossible jobs with no support and then being blamed for society's ills. What's one more impossible task?
- "'One B: B-A-B-A-R.' 'That's 2.' 'Yeah, but not right next to each other, I thought that's what you meant.'"
Why? Well, that's a loaded question, and I know that there are myriad societal, familial, cultural, and other reasons that interact together in a complex web. One reason, however, is the one that really bothers me. It's that students are convinced that nobody cares what they do all day long. Well, not nobody: their parents (hopefully) and their teachers. And that's it. If they can avoid those two groups, nobody else is going to give them any hassle about not being in school.
"Shouldn't you be in school?" How often do kids hear that? Hardly ever in this city.
I would love to live in a society where a convenience store clerk used his posted right to refuse service to anyone to refuse to sell a soda to a 13 year old at 10:30 on Wednesday morning.
Where a kid gets hassled about not being in school at the movie theater box office, at the mall by the security guards or the clerk at the GAP, by the bus driver who drops them off at Jamba Juice, by the police officers driving by looking for more serious crime to prosecute, by average citizens who see them hanging out on the street corner.
But of course, it's the school's responsibility. Some charitable souls might even go so far as to acknowledge that parent's share some of that responsibility with the teachers. I guess that teachers can use their lunch break and prep periods to drive around town in ever-expanding spirals around the school, looking for truant kids. I mean, isn't that what we're (under) paid for?
Oh, well, someday they'll turn 18, and when some of them end up on welfare or in jail, then it will be your problem, if you pay taxes, that is. Until then, don't worry about it. Teachers are used to being underpaid to do impossible jobs with no support and then being blamed for society's ills. What's one more impossible task?
- "'One B: B-A-B-A-R.' 'That's 2.' 'Yeah, but not right next to each other, I thought that's what you meant.'"
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
I mean, how much do teachers DESERVE to get paid, anyway?
Arnold is backing a plan to link teacher's pay to "merit." I think this is an excellent idea. I mean, as a teacher myself, I would love to actually be paid a salary commensurate to the importance of the work that I do, as well as the time, training, and effort that I put into it.
As I said, this is an excellent idea. Far too excellent to be limited to teachers. I think that everyone should be paid an amount that their performance merits. I think that CEO's of major corporations in particular should be paid according to some sort of merit based rubric.
I mean, did you know that Carly Fiorina (outgoing CEO of Hewlett Packard) stands to make 42 MILLION DOLLARS... for being fired? This is not salary money, by which I mean money she receives as compensation for work performed. This is money she's getting for STOPPING working for HP! This woman is making more money than the entire faculty of my school will make in 15 years... for NOT working! And why is she being asked to stop working for HP? Do you think that it's because her performance has generated more money for the company than expected? Is this outrageous compensation merited on the basis of the amount of money her performance generated for the stockholders from whose pockets this money will come (not to mention the employees whose employment and salaries actually are directly affected by the performance of the company, and for whom those 42 million could have contributed to benefits or bonuses)? If it were, do you think she'd be fired?
Anyway, that whole paragraph was an extended aside. What I really want to write about is "merit pay" for teachers. There are two reasons I can think of to institute such a system. First of all, it could be intended as an incentive. If we link pay to merit, teachers will be encouraged to get off of their backsides and actually start doing their jobs. I don't think I need to explain to you why teachers find this attitude to be insulting, demeaning, unfair, inaccurate, misinformed, ignorant, and several other adjectives, too. I think, however, that this view is fundamentally flawed for another reason. Please bear with me as I set this up.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2003 (the numbers for 2004 aren't out yet), the average hourly wage for educators in non-supervisory positions was $15.64. Only two other categories were lower: Leisure/Hospitatlity (i.e. the people who put those mints on your pillow in hotels and clean rock-star excretions off the curtains) and Retail sales (i.e. the high school students at the GAP who are apparently in the middle of growth spurts rendering their shirts too short to cover their navels, and the elderly people who shoudn't have to work anymore but since Social Security isn't enough to pay the bills they've been fortunate enough to have their otherwise miserable lives filled with joy due to their job at Walmart, at lease according to the commercials). Who makes more than teachers? Well, manufacturing is slightly higher, with financial services, natural resources and mining, professional and business services and wholesale marketing making more than $17/hour on average. Construction is at almost $19/hour on average: that's over 20% more than educators. At the top of the list, Information services and Transportation and Utilities workers average over $20/hour.
So, what's the point of all these statistics? I just want to make the case that whatever motivates people to become teachers, it's probably not the money. Most people who come to education from other professions are not former hotel workers or Old Navy lifers. The level of education required to be a teacher (Bachelor's degree plus 1.5-3 years of postgraduate education) is a lot higher than most entry level positions. Your rank-and-file teacher does not see salary as a financial incentive to do their job and do it well. Rather, their salary allows them to pursue teaching by giving them enough money to live on so they don't have to get another job. The reasons they want to teach are not financial, but the salary is necessary for teaching to be a viable option.
That attitude has allowed market forces to keep the salary of a teacher low, below that of a construction worker or electrician. As long as the salary offered a teacher is enough to support themselves and their families in a modest fashion, the kinds of people who become teachers will continue to work. Labor disputes in education are the polar opposite of labor disputes in professional sports. Teachers protest when the amount of money they are paid are insufficient to support their families and will drive them into other lines of work just to make ends meet, or when starting salaries are insufficient to allow prospective teachers to pay off debts (remember, they need to take a year or more off of work to get their teaching credential (which costs money), take a lot of tests (all of which also cost money) and do their unpaid student teaching!) and survive the first few years at the bottom of the pay scale. How many pro athletes are going to leave sports for another profession that will pay them better? How many athletes worry that there aren't enough youngsters out there who want to join their ranks, and that the quality of the games will be hurt because prospective athletes are opting for a more lucrative jobs like driving a bus?
So, treating a teacher's salary as an incentive misses the mark, because the forces that motivate teachers are not financial. Rather than an incentive, it becomes a threat to their livelihood. It is not threatening their lavish lifestyle, it is threatening their ability to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their children. It becomes an incentive not to do a better job, but to do a different job -- preferably one where you aren't required to spend your days with your head on a wooden block under a masked man holding a big axe.
Remember that I said there were two reasons I could think of to institue a merit based pay system for teachers? The second reason (and, in my opinion, more likely) is that it's a way to save money. I really doubt that the proposals that come out will entail adding a bunch of money to the state budget for teacher's salaries. What will happen is that the same amount of money (or less, when adjusted for inflation) will be allocated, and redistributed to teachers on the basis of merit. Therefore, some teachers will get a pay cut, and a few might actually get a little more money. Of course, it will cost money to pay for the new bureaucracy that such a program would entail, and that money will probably come out of the pool, too, leaving less for teacher salaries. The beauty is, if an individual teacher's salary doesn't keep up with inflation, it's easy to say that it has to do with their merit, not with a lack of funding for teacher's salary in the budget. With an arbitrary scale to base salary on, it's hard to keep track of the big picture.
For all the talk in political circles of children being our greatest natural resource and leaving no child behind, the numbers tell a different story. CEOs like Carly and other super-wealthy Americans are getting huge chunks of the budget in the form of tax cuts (did I mention that half of Carly's 42 million is in the form of stock options, the dividends of which are taxed at a much lower rate as per W's tax plan? Convenient, no?), while children and their schools get less and less. I wonder if teacher's asked to resign because of low "merit" are going to get tax breaks, stock options, or any sort of severance package at all. I doubt it.
Later, I'll write about what the heck they mean by "merit" when it comes to teacher performance. It ain't pretty, I'll tell you that right now.
- "Yep, that'll do it."
As I said, this is an excellent idea. Far too excellent to be limited to teachers. I think that everyone should be paid an amount that their performance merits. I think that CEO's of major corporations in particular should be paid according to some sort of merit based rubric.
I mean, did you know that Carly Fiorina (outgoing CEO of Hewlett Packard) stands to make 42 MILLION DOLLARS... for being fired? This is not salary money, by which I mean money she receives as compensation for work performed. This is money she's getting for STOPPING working for HP! This woman is making more money than the entire faculty of my school will make in 15 years... for NOT working! And why is she being asked to stop working for HP? Do you think that it's because her performance has generated more money for the company than expected? Is this outrageous compensation merited on the basis of the amount of money her performance generated for the stockholders from whose pockets this money will come (not to mention the employees whose employment and salaries actually are directly affected by the performance of the company, and for whom those 42 million could have contributed to benefits or bonuses)? If it were, do you think she'd be fired?
Anyway, that whole paragraph was an extended aside. What I really want to write about is "merit pay" for teachers. There are two reasons I can think of to institute such a system. First of all, it could be intended as an incentive. If we link pay to merit, teachers will be encouraged to get off of their backsides and actually start doing their jobs. I don't think I need to explain to you why teachers find this attitude to be insulting, demeaning, unfair, inaccurate, misinformed, ignorant, and several other adjectives, too. I think, however, that this view is fundamentally flawed for another reason. Please bear with me as I set this up.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2003 (the numbers for 2004 aren't out yet), the average hourly wage for educators in non-supervisory positions was $15.64. Only two other categories were lower: Leisure/Hospitatlity (i.e. the people who put those mints on your pillow in hotels and clean rock-star excretions off the curtains) and Retail sales (i.e. the high school students at the GAP who are apparently in the middle of growth spurts rendering their shirts too short to cover their navels, and the elderly people who shoudn't have to work anymore but since Social Security isn't enough to pay the bills they've been fortunate enough to have their otherwise miserable lives filled with joy due to their job at Walmart, at lease according to the commercials). Who makes more than teachers? Well, manufacturing is slightly higher, with financial services, natural resources and mining, professional and business services and wholesale marketing making more than $17/hour on average. Construction is at almost $19/hour on average: that's over 20% more than educators. At the top of the list, Information services and Transportation and Utilities workers average over $20/hour.
So, what's the point of all these statistics? I just want to make the case that whatever motivates people to become teachers, it's probably not the money. Most people who come to education from other professions are not former hotel workers or Old Navy lifers. The level of education required to be a teacher (Bachelor's degree plus 1.5-3 years of postgraduate education) is a lot higher than most entry level positions. Your rank-and-file teacher does not see salary as a financial incentive to do their job and do it well. Rather, their salary allows them to pursue teaching by giving them enough money to live on so they don't have to get another job. The reasons they want to teach are not financial, but the salary is necessary for teaching to be a viable option.
That attitude has allowed market forces to keep the salary of a teacher low, below that of a construction worker or electrician. As long as the salary offered a teacher is enough to support themselves and their families in a modest fashion, the kinds of people who become teachers will continue to work. Labor disputes in education are the polar opposite of labor disputes in professional sports. Teachers protest when the amount of money they are paid are insufficient to support their families and will drive them into other lines of work just to make ends meet, or when starting salaries are insufficient to allow prospective teachers to pay off debts (remember, they need to take a year or more off of work to get their teaching credential (which costs money), take a lot of tests (all of which also cost money) and do their unpaid student teaching!) and survive the first few years at the bottom of the pay scale. How many pro athletes are going to leave sports for another profession that will pay them better? How many athletes worry that there aren't enough youngsters out there who want to join their ranks, and that the quality of the games will be hurt because prospective athletes are opting for a more lucrative jobs like driving a bus?
So, treating a teacher's salary as an incentive misses the mark, because the forces that motivate teachers are not financial. Rather than an incentive, it becomes a threat to their livelihood. It is not threatening their lavish lifestyle, it is threatening their ability to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their children. It becomes an incentive not to do a better job, but to do a different job -- preferably one where you aren't required to spend your days with your head on a wooden block under a masked man holding a big axe.
Remember that I said there were two reasons I could think of to institue a merit based pay system for teachers? The second reason (and, in my opinion, more likely) is that it's a way to save money. I really doubt that the proposals that come out will entail adding a bunch of money to the state budget for teacher's salaries. What will happen is that the same amount of money (or less, when adjusted for inflation) will be allocated, and redistributed to teachers on the basis of merit. Therefore, some teachers will get a pay cut, and a few might actually get a little more money. Of course, it will cost money to pay for the new bureaucracy that such a program would entail, and that money will probably come out of the pool, too, leaving less for teacher salaries. The beauty is, if an individual teacher's salary doesn't keep up with inflation, it's easy to say that it has to do with their merit, not with a lack of funding for teacher's salary in the budget. With an arbitrary scale to base salary on, it's hard to keep track of the big picture.
For all the talk in political circles of children being our greatest natural resource and leaving no child behind, the numbers tell a different story. CEOs like Carly and other super-wealthy Americans are getting huge chunks of the budget in the form of tax cuts (did I mention that half of Carly's 42 million is in the form of stock options, the dividends of which are taxed at a much lower rate as per W's tax plan? Convenient, no?), while children and their schools get less and less. I wonder if teacher's asked to resign because of low "merit" are going to get tax breaks, stock options, or any sort of severance package at all. I doubt it.
Later, I'll write about what the heck they mean by "merit" when it comes to teacher performance. It ain't pretty, I'll tell you that right now.
- "Yep, that'll do it."
This is really cool... or really scary.
In case you don't know, I was on Jeopardy in February of '04 (I lost). Anyway, I Google-d my own name, and I came up with this. I can't believe that anyone has the time or inclination to actually maintain this site (not affiliated with Sony Pictures Entertainment, the producers of Jeopardy!). I'm kind of glad this person exists, but curious as to why...
"I run for President... I didn't win, though..."
"I run for President... I didn't win, though..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)