A former student recently told me about a job he’s held for several years. It involves writing news and speaking in public — two things I used to teach.
I was about to compliment him when he said something that made me wince: “I owe it all to you.”
But waaaiiiitt a second. As much as we old codgers who’ve hung up our tweed jackets and retired our dry-erase markers like to be stroked, I feel uncomfortable hearing I’m largely or totally responsible for ex-students’ success.
I generally say, in all sincerity, “You brought a lot of skills with you even before you became my student.” While it’s true that various good teachers often help a student clear various hurdles, I think it would be presumptuous to say, as a close relative of mine used to, “I taught him/her everything he/she knows.” Yet, it’s reassuring to believe I played a small part in helping some students become who they are.
I’ve been keenly aware of the influence teachers have on students, especially in light of the muck stirred up by the No Child Left Behind bit of legislation whose premises are all wrong.
The act, better named “No Child’s Behind Left,” makes a lot of assumptions, including:
– Every child learns at the same pace;
– The only way to make teachers accountable is to impose impossible demands;
– If you don’t like your school, you can transfer to the one across the street;
– Students learn more by being tested more;
– Teachers, if you’ve entertained the notion of individuality, can it; we demand uniformity.
I’m in about same position as many members of Congress to comment on NCLB. Many of our lawmakers skimmed the bulky document and said, “It looks okay to me.” Yet, why have I never met a teacher who likes NCLB, who says, “I really dig all that testing”?
Did any Washington bureaucrat ever realize that one doesn’t increase the weight of an elephant by constantly placing it on a scale? Do students, grades 3 through 8, learn by constant testing?
In the five years since NCLB was enacted, there have been apparent increases in test scores simply because students have grown accustomed to the format of the instrument. At the same time there’s been pressure to reward teachers whose students’ scores go up. That’s an invitation to “teach to the test.” Students may indeed score higher on those particular tests, but do they acquire more knowledge?
In northern New Mexico this week, there was a case of a missing test booklet which could have profound implications for the school district, all the way from invalidating the results of other students’ test-taking to requiring that all students re-take the test. And as for consequences for the teacher who either lost, stole or misplaced the manual, that should prove interesting.
Notice how often teachers cop out by claiming they believed the new test components were the ones used last year. “I must have mixed them up. Really, honest.”
I’d like to think all teachers are honest, but should some of them actually try to protect their jobs by giving students that extra little push, it’s almost understandable, though neither ethical nor honest. But how does one quantify knowledge? Sure, by rote, a group of students can be taught to score high, provided the test doesn’t go beyond their bailiwick. But to get them to think analogically or to demonstrate abstract thought? Not likely, when the rewards come simply in choosing A, B, C or D on an answer sheet.
Teachers, some of whom have excelled for decades, now need to cut their teeth on a new ranking system designed to earn them “professional teacher” status. In essence, teachers aspire to span levels I, II and III, each step qualifying that teacher for higher salaries. A young teacher who jumps the hoops and submits an acceptable “professional development dossier” qualifies for the second level and earns at least $40,000. The top level, “master teacher,” pays no less than $50,000. That top level salary may seem like a lot, but note too that it generally takes up to 20 years to reach that goal.
Teachers and schools that fail to reach that mythical, nebulous Adequate Yearly Progress suffer the consequences. Parents of students in schools that don’t reach AYP may consider other options, such as transferring their children to other schools.
Now imagine parts of northeastern New Mexico, in the Harding, Union and Colfax county areas where the sheep outnumber people. Little Johnny, a part of a probationary school, gets to transfer. But what are the choices? Go from Maxwell to Des Moines? From Roy to Mosquero? From Wagon Mound to Springer?
In the city, where public schools often go by “P.S.” plus a number, it’s easy for Jasmine to go from P.S. 17 to P.S. 36. But in rural New Mexico?
Anyone who’s ever argued that “teachers are overpaid” and “teachers work only from 8:30 to 3″ and “they get summers off” ought to step into a classroom to try to teach those 30 hormonally crazed teens who haven’t done their homework and are already hopped up on that Big Gulp Mountain Dew that was their breakfast.
It’s self-defeating, not to mention inane, for the President to push a one-size-fits-all program whose thrust is getting students to mark down either A, B, C or D.
——
Meanwhile, an investigative report by Channel 13’s Larry Barker identified hosts of government employees placed on the state payroll merely on Gov. Richardson’s whim. To be sure, a number of them are personal friends, some are strong Richardson backers, some otherwise politically connected, like spouses, siblings or offspring of legislators. The 50-plus employees, in “exempt” positions, cost us taxpayers $3 million a year.
The top 25 individual contributors to Richardson who were appointed to jobs earn an average of just under $76,000 a year. Even with Highlands University’s low tuition rate, a generous contribution to the governor’s re-election campaign may be a better investment — if money is all that matters.
One particular exempt employee was described as a “special projects director” when his job seemed to be matriculating into a post-graduate program in which he learned one skill very well: determining which buttons to press on a copying machine. Taxpayers need to appreciate the fact that this employee who some would think of as a crony of the governor in reality has a crucial job. Imagine the cost to the public if this highly trained employee were to hit the “2″ button instead of the “1″ when running off copies.
Ah, yes, the joys of learning one’s career job in a few minutes’ orientation. Sad that many, many New Mexico teachers have gone to the retirement board or their grave with no expectations of drawing highly remunerative wages.
But as bleak as the situation may appear for members of the teaching corps, there’s hope for others. Some of them are already enjoying the fruits of a gubernatorial windfall that qualified them for instant salaries of up to $80,000 a year. Many of these positions, unbudgeted, with fuzzy job descriptions, weren’t even advertised.
Now how’s that for a career move?