Ending Hunger

I have never been hungry a day in my life.  Never really, deeply, truly HUNGRY. Never hungry for hours on end or days on end.  My family has never suffered food insecurity–a term I had never heard of until a few years ago.

Food insecurity refers to the availability of food and one’s access to it.  A household is considered food-secure when its occupants do not live in hunger or fear of starvation.  Some families’ food insecurity may be steady and consistent; other families may experience varying levels of food insecurity across the year, especially at the end of each month.

I have, however, been quite aware that some students in my classes have been hungry–especially boys in middle school.  I can only imagine how hungry they may have been, or how long the hunger at that time–or at another particular time–may have lasted.  Or how many times a month they and their brothers/sisters and other family members may have suffered from hunger.  Because it is suffering.  Such hunger is unimaginable to the rest of us.

And, I am not even talking about food choice(s) and the kinds of foods that are needed for good and proper nutrition.

This past Monday, I participated on a panel during the Food Bank of Delaware’s Ending Hunger Conference.  Other panelists included a representative from FRAC (Food Resource Action Council), a representative from the Nemours Foundation, a spokesperson from the Delaware Department of Instruction, and the head of Student Nutrition from Colonial School District.  I was asked to speak about how hunger plays out in the classroom, at our schools, and what has been and can be done to help alleviate our children’s hunger.

The event was very well attended and was considered a big success by the organizers.  It was a very worthwhile cause.

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) was started in recognition of the levels and extent of hunger, as well as the nutritional needs of American children.  Identification of children eligible for free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) is the manner in which childhood poverty figures are calculated and tracked. FRPL figures are used to designate schools with high, medium, or low student poverty levels–to identify the haves and the have-nots.

Free lunch is provided for children from families whose income is 130% or less of federal poverty levels, which are established once each year.  For example, as of April 2012, the federal poverty level for a single parent and child was $15,130; for a family of four, it was $23,050.  So, 130% of each of those family income maximums is $19,669 and $29, 965, respectively.  Reduce priced lunch income maximums are 185% of the same base income levels.  With an income of $27,991 for an adult and one child, school lunch each day would cost my child no more than $.40.

[There are probably people out there who say that the federal school lunch program is yet another one of those unnecessary intrusions of the federal government into our daily lives. Another one of those objectionable government support systems and so-called safety nets that actually do more harm than good to American society. One more of those entitlement programs of which the poor are so enamored. I can guarantee that people who see the world that way have not themselves ever been hungry. Nor do they have much imagination or empathy.]

Support for school lunch has been extended to include free or reduced price breakfast eligibility, after school snacks, summer feeding programs, and provisions for children in daycare programs. Some schools and local food banks are also coming up with ways to provide evening meals and weekend meals for children by providing backpacks filled with non-perishable, nutritious food and drink.

Many have long known that the lunch in the school cafeteria or at the daycare facility may have been the only real meal of the day for kids of all ages.  Now we offer breakfast to all who need it.  However, some children may actually skip the free or reduced price breakfast because of the stigma they feel may be attached to heading for the cafeteria when other, more affluent students head for homeroom.

More about all this later.   I have the following quote, from one of my local heroes, on a plaque on my desk in Dover.  Patricia is the head of the Food Bank of Delaware organization.

“It isn’t enough to talk about a hunger-free world, one must believe in it.  And it isn’t enough to merely believe in it, one must do whatever is possible to achieve it.”    ~Patricia D. Beebe

So little time; so much to read

I am so behind.  So behind in my reading.  So behind in posting on my own blog.

My current job as president of Delaware State Education Association (a.k.a. the education union–NEA’s state affiliate here in Delaware) keeps me BUSY, but it is not a hard job. It is not nearly as challenging a job as my lifelong job–teaching. [39 years. Not my age, but the number of years I taught! This amazes even me.]

In truth, in this job, during most weeks, I have more discretionary time outside of the standard work day than I ever had as a teacher. Plus, for the last six years of teaching, I also served as VP and then president of my local teacher union. I ended up working that like a second full-time job. So, here I am with what should be time on my hands. Ha!

Anyhow,…   I do keep up with the local and national news.  I subscribe to and read our local newspaper every day, and indulge in the Sunday New York Times. Admittedly, I have yet to get last Sunday’s NYT out of its blue plastic protective wrapper, but I intend to peruse it this evening.  I did will myself this afternoon to glance through a growing stack of Education Week papers.  I am never disappointed; Ed Week’s articles never fail to grab my attention or engage my thinking and reflection.  If I had the energy and time, I would consider creating a “reading group” for this publication.  The topics are timely—well-integrated into current public education / edreform / school improvement debates, movements, and revelations (both good and bad).

Here in Delaware, as in most states, conversations related to public education include, but are not limited to: early childhood education, school safety & security, teacher preparation, teacher induction practices, teacher quality, teacher evaluation, school leadership, instructional practices, struggling schools, under-achieving students, English language learners, student engagement, parent engagement, community engagement, school funding, instructional technology, standardized testing, Common Core State Standards, etc., etc., etc.

In one month’s time—maybe even within a single edition—you can count on reading something relevant, revealing, illuminating, or inspirational in the pages of Ed Week.  And, I know that I am not alone in keeping up with it.  LOL

So, what stood out for me?  (BTW: This is a very productive question to ask kids or adults after reading or viewing or some other learning experience.  I learned this as part of Penn Literacy Network studies.]  I generally read what catches my attention—what seems to resonate with me or is based in my own experiences.

In the March 27, 2013 issue, I surveyed every article, but read “Resident Teachers Are Getting More Practice” because we have been talking about the induction of new teachers and residency has been one plan that we have debated.  I read Doug Lemov’s book (Teach Like a Champion) on which the residents’ practices seemed to be based, implemented some of his practices that were new to me and sounded worthwhile, recognized much of what he described as part of my own repertoire, but, I found that it ended up looking, feeling, and being “too much of a good thing.”  One quarter of the way through the Lemov book, I tired of the repetitious narratives about the fabulousness of the charter school teachers he referenced.  Just tell the story—enough with the hype already.

I read about how middle school Algebra instruction is not delivering increased NAEP test scores.  My younger son, an identified gifted student,  was pushed in middle school to do Pre-Algebra in 7^th grade and Algebra I in 8^th and always felt that he had been rushed and was going through the motions with inadequate understanding or time to grasp all of the content and connections.  So, he chose to take Algebra I again in high school.  Wise move, if you ask me.

I read about the return to ability grouping.  Really?  Tracking students all over again?  I was so strongly tracked in high school in the 1960’s—college prep level, which was the top tier at that time—that I was not permitted to take typing because “only business and general education students were permitted to take that class,” even though I had an open period that aligned with typing.  So, I went off to college with absolutely no typing skills.  I still type with 2-3 fingers and must constantly watch the keyboard.

I am an experienced science teacher.  It does take organization, a definite level of skill, a toolbox of accommodation and differentiation strategies, and a commitment to a certain world view to manage heterogeneously grouped classes successfully.  In my middle school, in 6^th grade, we were committed to mixed-ability groups in science and social studies, and with the right teachers in place, we made it work.  At the same time, I can understand the value of ability grouping in some circumstances.

I read a fascinating piece about the new superintendent of San Diego schools—an elementary principal, mind you—who seems to have unique and winning ways with parent engagement.  Moving an elementary school principal into a superintendency is rare.  Plus, San Diego is California’s second largest school district with 133,000 kids.  “By this selection, it seems to me that [the school board’s] theory of action for change is that it will be school-based, decentralized, collaborative—the opposite of the ‘top-down’ corporate reform model that so many other places are articulating,” said Carl Cohn, former San Diego super from 2005-2007.  The choice, he says, “grows out of their listening to the stakeholders in the community.”  Interesting—to say the least.

The feature “Partnership Combines Science Instruction and English Learning” on the use of elementary science instruction as a way to boost learning for English language learners is right up my alley and right on track.  K-5 students at El Verano Elementary in Sonoma, CA are captivated by the hands-on science program, materials, and experiences –> increased vocabulary development, improved reading, writing, and spelling skills –> increased scores on standard assessments.

Holy Cow!  Why can’t we do this here in Delaware schools?  Oh, that’s right.  We can.

We have a fabulous statewide K-5 science program, complete with the best science curriculum, materials, pedagogy, and teacher training imaginable.  Why is it lying fallow as we spend all day focused almost solely on reading and math in too many classrooms, in too many schools?  See many of my earlier posts for more details on this squandered resource and my ongoing frustrations about this issue.

Kudos to the teachers in our schools who recognize the outstanding value of elementary science instruction, who finds ways to work around school or district directives that limit the time and attention allowed for science and social studies, and who get similar results as those detailed and explained in the article.

Two other articles that got me to read on: “The Many Keys to Radical Classroom Change” and “Want Effective Teachers? Think About Your Value Proposition.”

In the first piece, Amanda Gardner, principal of UP Academy Charter School in Boston had me when she interjected that her school success story “is not a charter school story—it’s a turnaround story made possible through a handful of concrete and replicable best practices.  We’ve dramatically changed the learning environment here through structural change involving both students and teachers—changes I believe are worth sharing.”

Gardner shares three key practices from her school:

(1) Make the classroom a sacred learning environment.  Seems they standardized routines and classroom procedures and policies throughout the school so that no time is wasted.  Expectations are uniform and clear from class to class.  This makes sense to me, and I know that some Delaware teachers have talked about this over the years.  I would bet that there are few distractions and interruptions in their school day.

(2) Teaching is a joint enterprise.  At UP, teachers have two 50-minute planning periods with grade-level content teams guaranteed every day in order to plan lessons, share ideas and best practices; in addition, they have a 3-hour planning block once a week for grade-level teams to co-plan and mine data; finally, early dismissal every Friday afternoon allows 2 ½ hours for departmental or school wide professional development.  Additionally, every 4-5 classrooms has an identified, dedicated, and compensated teacher leader.  Gardner cites this form of distributed leadership as one of the most effective turnaround measures in her experience.

Please realize that UP has an eight-hour student day, with an optional 9^th hour for homework support or detention.  Sounds very interesting to me.  Not sure how they manage to schedule all of this, but this is very interesting.

(3) Accountability is not found in a test.  Gardner states: “Standardized tests, like the MCAS, are measures, but if we consistently evaluate our performance, these scores should largely serve to reaffirm what we already know.”  UP has a structure of managers and coaching, and frequent, on-going co-development of corrective action.  Students are frequently assessed and parents are kept in the loop with biweekly progress reports.

That’s all she wrote—three big ideas—three keys to changing school culture and turning around a school.  This is different—in lots of ways—but it sounds interesting to me.

“Want Effective Teachers?” is well worth
the read, and focuses on recommendations from two education consultants for attracting teachers by changing up districts’ and schools’ hiring messaging—a revised, upgraded, better-focused PR campaign of sorts.  They encourage districts to “formulate and communicate a clear and compelling “value proposition,” which they describe as “a complete set of offerings and experiences provided by the employer to the employee.”  They go on: “An effective value proposition reflects the needs of both employer and employee: the employer’s need to attract and retain employees with the right skills and knowledge, and the employee’s need for rewards and working conditions that motivate and engage them to do their best work.”

In other words, it seems to me that they recommend that the entity doing the hiring is completely responsible for creating employment opportunities and teaching environments that would be highly attractive to smart, capable, confident, highly qualified candidates.

Five suggestions: flip the value to clearly identify what the district needs and wants; expand and assess perspectives beyond salary & benefits—think supportive principals, collaborative working conditions, and professional empowerment as factors that appeal to top-performers; customize the offerings; prioritize unique district needs and funding requirements; and communicate in ways that are understandable, accessible, and updated.

One aside:  They included a quote from current performance guru Daniel Pink that really hit home with me: “ ‘Effective organizations compensate people in amounts and in ways that allow individuals to mostly forget about compensation and instead focus on the work itself.’ Not getting it right, he says, keeps compensation front and center and inhibits creativity, ultimately unraveling performance.”

Wow.  Sounds like a dream job.

Holy Survey, Batman!

I never imagined, and I could never have predicted, the kerfuffle that has arisen over a survey of working conditions for educators in public schools across Delaware that DSEA sponsored and helped arrange. I come from a district where annual surveys have been the norm for years–first by pencil and paper, and finally by computer. I remember annual surveys where the faculty was “invited” to a faculty meeting, and the surveys were handed out by a district administrator, and an attendee was not allowed to leave the room until the survey had been completed, placed in the accompanying envelope and then turned in to the same district admin. This led to massive complaints and concerns about confidentiality and anonymity, and that practice of holding people hostage was eventually changed.

With the advent of electronic surveys, there was still the concern that somehow “they would know who you were.” Which led to a lack of truth-telling.

At the same time, I am well aware of those few bully principals who were notorious for confronting their staffs after survey results were returned to each school, demanding to be informed as to “Who said this about me???” I know entire staffs who sat mutely, looking at the floor, unwilling to speak. Luckily, I never worked for any of those guys.

OK. Maybe I am different than most. I have rarely feared speaking my mind or being accountable for my opinions and observations. If I responded in a survey that “support for consistent, effective discipline was missing from my school,” then I was willing to stand by that, to provide examples and evidence, and to debate the concept with any comers. It was important, and it was important to me. I tried not to exaggerate. I tried to be truthful and to respond in a dispassionate and level manner. I did not use the survey to try to get back at someone.

In the year 2013, I do not understand why some folks are still worried by the fear of confidentiality or anonymity.

I suspect that some are the same folks who may share brazenly and carelessly on Facebook and Twitter. I suspect that some may regularly participate in auctions on e-bay.  I suspect that some may frequently make on-line purchases from Amazon or any number of other retail outlets. If any or all of these on-line connections can be “trusted”, then why can one not respond to twenty-some survey questions without overwhelming anxiety?

If the truth is that dangerous, then this may require an immediate intervention of some sort on behalf of the school.

As current president of DSEA, I have been intimately involved in the planning and undertaking of this survey since last August. The survey was recommended by DSEA in 2009 in part as a response to polling data from DSEA members who indicated that teacher working conditions were significantly important to teacher satisfaction, teacher retention and attraction (more than pay-for-performance bonuses), teaching success, and ultimately to student progress.

The same kind of survey had already been used in various states by their NEA affiliates: in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, to name a few. State presidents told me that the data was genuinely valuable to conversations and decision-making at the school, district, and state levels about planning and policy.

From the start, I have been impressed by the various efforts to ensure anonymity included in the administration of this survey: (1) letters containing access codes were mailed to and to be handed out by the Association Rep in each school; (2) the letters had no staff members’ names; (3) letters were to be handed out randomly and directly to each educator, not placed in mailboxes; (4) educators were instructed to trade the copy of the  letter they received with any other educator—at least once, but as many times as they desired; (5) the survey could be completed at any time of day and from any computer—at school, at home, at the public library; (6) survey results are to be aggregated and reported back by The New Teacher Center, not by the state or by the DEDOE; (7) a 50% participation goal rate at each school was also intended to provide anonymity—even in the smallest schools; and (8) the limited demographic questions at the beginning of the survey ask for district, school, position (with only four choices: teacher, AP, principal, or “other education professional”), # of years employed as an educator, and # of years in current school.

Additionally, if you lost your letter, or if there were not enough letters (we had trouble getting totally accurate numbers for totals of all licensed, certificated staff members in every one of the 200-some schools), or if the envelope with the letters never arrived—the Rep could contact the help line and get replacements that will be sent electronically to be printed and distributed. #672945 is not associated with any individual—it’s just different from #672944 and #672946.

I have also been informed that the access code is disassociated from the survey responses when the completed survey is submitted. In other words, a respondent with access code 672945 is no longer connected to a particular set of responses.

Demographic data is important as a way to both sort and disaggregate information. Teacher responses are aggregated with all other teacher responses from School A, and also with teacher responses from District A, and with all other teacher responses from Delaware. It would be interesting to know whether responses were from novice educators or long-time veterans; and whether opinions come from an educator new to a school or one who had been there for a decade.

But, but, but,… the value of these survey results is all about what we do with them. I have stated all along that “this survey will be a bust if participants do not see a direct connection between their reported responses and change that happens in their schools, their districts, or even at the state level.” I have stated a personal and organizational commitment to working together with members and locals to make this happen. I never had that expectation before in any survey that I took as a working teacher.

So, here is my answer to the latest question on a recent blog post from a guy who could have had some of these questions answered and concerns resolved by just talking to me at any time; a guy who has been stirring the proverbial pot; a guy who has felt compelled to condemn this survey and carp and nitpick about anything and everything related to the damned survey; a guy who seems to take delight in finding fault and shining the light on all things great and small:

TELL Delaware security question: If a teacher who wants to take it asked for and got numbers from other teachers who didn’t want to take it, how would anyone know?

No one will know, and more importantly—NO ONE WILL CARE!!!

The Way We’re Paid

Ever hopeful and naive, I looked at the title of this piece featured in a recent Ed Week on-line publication, Why Educators’ Wages Must Be Revamped Now, and imagined that this would speak engagingly and convincingly about the need to redesign educator salaries from the good old single salary pay scale to a more contemporary, leading-edge plan for compensation that would ultimately pave the way for a career ladder for teachers and specialists, as well as for para-educators.

In the inbox of my email, the message only included the title.  I actually saved this from February 7 to review it when I had time this weekend. I was instantly dismayed when I went to the link and found that the precis stated: “With budgets tight, states must link teacher pay to student achievement, Eric A. Hanushek writes.” (Mr. Hanushek is the Paul and Jean Hanna senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.)

Needless to say, Mr. Hanushek and I do not see eye-to-eye on plans for educator pay, public education salaries, cost-cutting measures, teacher tenure, accountability, or a valid rationale on which to base much needed changes to the way educators are paid.

I read it. Heck, it almost wrote itself. Really? This is best that Hanushek can do? In February of 2013, this is what he proposes as the new big idea? I don’t know this guy or know his curriculum vitae or background, but, if asked, I would say that this piece was done by an edreform hack. This piece fairly screams mediocre, trite, hackneyed.

The following paragraph from the piece jumps off the page and sticks to me like musilage to a sheet of fine rag paper–so to speak,…

“The big money still resides in instructional personnel, meaning mainly administrators and teachers. Salary and benefits funding for instructional employees represents the largest spending area in the typical district, bringing to mind the old Willie Sutton adage about robbing banks “because that’s where the money is.” The case for inspecting this spending, however, runs much deeper.”

Much deeper than words of wisdom from good old Willie Sutton. Gosh, I sure hope so!

What the hell does Hanushek mean? …,”bringing to mind the old Willie Sutton adage about robbing banks “because that’s where the money is.” I cannot be the only reader who is confounded by this association.

Does Hanushek mean that funding for education personnel is synonymous to robbing a bank? Or, does he mean that teacher pay is like bank (or highway) robbery? Or, that Willie Sutton, great thinker and orator that he was, has unknowingly and inadvertently created a model for educator salaries? Or, that Willie Sutton would make a good teacher?

Perhaps, in future writing endeavors, Mr. Hanushek could use the great Yogi Berra as his font of inspiration and analogy.

The beginning of this paragraph deserves one giant DUH! Of course, “the big money still resides in instructional personnel, meaning mainly administrators and teachers.” Of course, “salary and benefits funding for instructional employees represents the largest spending area in the typical district.” Jeez. Why didn’t the rest of us think of that?

Public education is a freakin’ labor-intensive service industry. We educators and administrators provide a service; it takes a lot of people to try to meet the needs of thousands of students with a myriad of needs. Students of all ages and cultures and ethnicities and religions and experiences and backgrounds and abilities and disabilities and strengths and weaknesses and talents and skills and support-systems and,…

Dare, I say it? Students are not widgets.

So, is Hanushek really saying that educators should be paid according to their students’ achievement because, as of right now, a greater proportion of money in education is spent on personnel? Does anyone else sense a disconnect here? I am looking for an appropriately misguided analogy for this.

Anyone?                         Anyone?                        Bueller?

Here is another “winning” concept from this piece: “The only way that efficiency will be significantly improved is by strengthening the relationship between salaries and performance. Currently, we dramatically underpay our best teachers while dramatically overpaying our worst.”

[BTW: The link above takes one to a 2011 piece by Eric Hanushek in Educationnext. I do not have the stamina to read this today. Something to savor for later.]

I would posit that we should be paying our worst teachers–his nomenclature, not mine–NOTHING. Zilch. Nada. Nicht. Rien.

Why on earth would we want to allow ineffective or incompetent or unsuitable or unproductive or unprofessional teachers to remain in the PROFESSION of teaching? My colleagues and I certainly do not want these folks to stay. Do not be satisfied with paying them LESS–identify them, document the problems, provide the evidence, and move them out of the profession.

This is the responsibility of school and district administrators.

Mr. Hanushek tosses in other edreformy objectives and minor achievements: doing away with LIFO (a.k.a. last in/first out), a catchy little reference to teacher tenure. I am exhausted by my own attempts to explain that tenure is not job security–in any sense of the concept–but is merely a contractual guarantee of the right to due process. It is my claim and my belief that all workers should enjoy the right to require their supervisors provide EVIDENCE of cause at the time of their dismissal.

And, of course, there is that standard reference to the ineffectiveness of basing any aspect of teacher pay on one’s college degree(s) or one’s experience in the profession: …, “numerous studies have shown that teacher pay based on degrees and experience is unrelated to teacher effectiveness.” Yep. That’s correct. My master’s degree in classroom instruction did very little to improve, enhance, or advance my classroom proficiency. Hardly worth my time and expense, let alone worth it to my paymasters at the district and state levels. Hanushek and company got the “research”–I got the experience. Which, of course, counts for very little. Oh, dear. I may have talked myself into a corner.

Hanushek continues: ”Efficient policies imply paying significantly more to the best teachers—not just giving small, temporary bonuses for student achievement—to keep them in the classroom longer. Additionally, it probably also means having them teach more students, because dealing with tighter budgets and paying significantly higher salaries will most likely require slightly larger class sizes.”

Thanks, but no thanks. He will offer me an additional $10,000-20,000 a year, while at the same time increasing my class size load from 150–I am a middle school science teacher–to, let’s say, 175-180. There is a limit. After that, quality begins to erode, teacher engagement begins to decline, and we have us a morale problem –> some pretty serious potential burn-out.

This does not sound like a viable teacher attraction and retention plan to me. But, heck, what do I know?

 

The Merits of Teachers and Teacher Pay

I keep a couple of files of blog post ideas. Whenever I come across a quote or an opinion, idea, or suggestion that interests me, I toss it into the file. If I had more time, I would post more regularly–I have a lot of my own opinions and the files are pretty full. I was just finishing up and filing an article for our union publication when I came across this response related to pay-for-performance or merit pay. It was written in response to a Diane Ravitch blog post about a CNN interview that did not do justice to Ravitch.

This is the second time that I have made use of this particular quote. I used it back in August when writing about career ladders for educators. This time my focus is on pay-for-performance proposals. The bolding is mine.

J.M. Tumbleson     August 27, 2012 at 12:24 pm |

“I work in a city with significant amounts of poverty. I see teachers who work hard, who think hard and who try to collaborate with others in order to constantly improve their practice. Never have I heard any teacher argue for merit pay. They will argue for more planning time, they might argue for more services for their students with various social, emotional or cognitive needs, they might argue for more money for special classroom projects, they might even argue for a longer lunch, but never once have I heard a teacher argue for merit pay. The hundreds of teachers I have known want to work collaboratively and see themselves as having a shared mission in which they play an essential role for the community and for the children. The interviewer has been fed disinformation on what most teachers want, most likely from sources that will monetarily profit from the destruction of the public schools.”

J.M. is right. I have spent 40 years working with and hanging out with teachers and other education professionals, and they have NEVER, EVER—not once—wished for or suggested merit pay.

I would add that there are a few other things for which they will argue:

• control of class size, with a sensible maximum
• a consistent, reliable, fair student discipline plan that works—that improves student conduct, reduces disruptive behaviors and keeps kids in class, where they belong
• a reliable working copier
• sufficient supplies of copier paper
• professional development that is relevant to what they teach and suited to their needs
• a charismatic, personable school leader who can make things happen                                supportive and engaged parents/guardians

The list could go on and on. These concepts, practices, and measures are what we in the ed biz call “WORKING CONDITIONS.” These are the situations and circumstances that educators feel can make or break their opportunities to do a good to better to best job for their students. I agree.

Teaching is challenging enough without having to work against these kinds of factors and forces. As a full-time science teacher, I know what a difference I can make if I have 25 kids, instead of 35; a fully supplied science program; adequate training on both the content and pedagogy of inquiry-based, hands-on science; plus time during the work day to prep for my five consecutive lab periods. [Science instruction involves a tremendous amount and variety of material prep; for example, measuring and stripping enough wires for 15 teams in each of five classes; measuring out liquid and powder materials; special preparation of 30 battery-powered cars; and counting out hundreds of marbles, straws, string, rulers, pulleys, etc.]

Teachers may have a great deal to say about merit pay, but I have never heard my colleagues speak in favor of establishing a program or system that offered teachers bonuses based on the merit of their work. The current use of student test scores as a substantive identifier of those teachers who will be deemed HIGHLY EFFECTIVE is troubling enough to teachers. Using these same metrics to award bonuses is, in the eyes of teachers and many building and district administrators, fraught with problems and goes against the common school culture of collegiality, cooperation, collaboration, and the sense that “we’re all in this together.” There is a great deal of messaging around the need for all members of a school community to recognize his/her role and to take responsibility for progress in reading and math, and for overall student improvement.

Merit pay seems to fly in the face of those values. Can you really have it both ways?

Some reward programs have been expanded to become teacher attraction and retention initiatives. This is intended to keep very effective teachers in schools that appear to need them the most and to lure other really successful teachers to come to those schools that are struggling to improve student learning and progress. I know what those teachers who may be eligible for a program like this will immediately consider :                                               >Who’s the principal?                                                                                                                       >What is the school’s reputation: is it clean, well-kept, well-disciplined, well-supplied?   >What are working conditions like at this school?                                                                      >Who do I trust to give me the lowdown on this place?

So, what do teachers really want? What do they deserve? What will it take to continue to attract qualified, committed people to teaching? How can the prospects of a lifelong career in TEACHING–not in school or district administration, and not just peripherally involved in education like so many TFA grads–be enhanced to bring people to and keep people in this grand profession?

Here is what the Christian Science Monitor had to say in a recent article titled How to keep talented teachers from leaving . If you choose to view the entire article–I guarantee that it is well-worth the time–be sure to also click on the two blog posts integrated into the article: The beatings will continue until teacher morale improves and  Teachers who excel: A lesson from Miss Smoot .

“Imagine a profession whose influence on individual lives is more significant than that of nearly any other occupation, whose role in society is universally acknowledged to be among the most critical to the future, and whose practitioners are often described as “heroic,” “beloved,” and “admired.” Now imagine that this profession cannot recruit and retain the best people because it is seen by many as a dead end, neither financially remunerative nor socially and creatively fulfilling.

This destructive paradox describes the profession of teaching in the United States.
Soon the education priorities for President Obama’s second administration will begin to take shape. They will no doubt include, as they did during his first term, recruiting and retaining strong teachers who can prepare young people for the contemporary workforce. They should also include renewing our national commitment to teaching as a profession of status and a life of consequence.“

Getting from NO to YES

Opposition from the NRA and some of their members to any and all forms of reasonable gun and gun safety legislation may never change, may never ever diminish or lose volume and intensity, but, I imagine that if they choose to continue their barrage of criticism, blame-casting, and rhetoric, eventually the voices, desires, and dedication of the rest of the nation may  overcome the agenda of the NRA. It may look now like an impossible and never-ending task, but there is plenty of evidence of incredible and fantastic change that has occurred in my own lifetime. I was born in 1950.

“No, no, no” and “never, never, never” eventually failed–after decades of difficult and dangerous commitment–falling on deaf ears as a response to calls for the genuine  integration of African-Americans into society and the recognition of everyone’s civil rights. There is still progress to be made. However, today’s 2nd  inauguration of a Black president continues to amaze, and fills me with pride and satisfaction.

And, certainly, the unsteady, and as yet incomplete, progress that has been made in the last few years for gay rights, same-sex marriage, and the public recognition of the damaging effects of the bullying and assaults on LGBT citizens has been amazing to all of us. Really. Who would have thought?

Oh, the naysayers still exist, and there are thousands of them out there, but, Baby, look how far civil rights and gay rights have come. I feel confident that eventually the NRA’s version of gun rights will be overcome by the need for and wishes for gun rights for the rest of us.

[I am a gun owner. I feel the need to say this every time I write or talk about this subject. I am not a member of the NRA. Locked in my gun safe are weapons for hunting--shotguns, a muzzle-loading rifle, and a crossbow. In general, guns do not terrify me. I have a lot of friends who own guns.]

Let me make it clear that I am committed to reasonable gun legislation, commonsense gun safety measures, and the regulation of battlefield weapons and ammunition. I am especially concerned about the safety and security of children both at school and in their neighborhoods. I am as concerned when children are murdered one-by-one in the streets of our cities as I am about the murders of groups of children in schools, at malls, movie theatres, and churches. Guns are the weapons of choice in these killings.

I have been impressed by the administration’s rapid, forthright, and comprehensive efforts to begin and carry on necessary and much-deserved conversations about what should be done to better manage assault and assault-style weapons, large-volume gun magazines, and access to extreme ammunition.

Of course, the NRA has immediately responded to each and every message conveyed and initiative suggested by an elected official. Governor Jack Markell (Delaware) had barely completed a press conference a week ago when the NRA issued its own press release opposing every measure the governor highlighted. According to an article in today’s Wilmington News Journal, NRA president David Keene “lashed out at recent gun control proposals by President Barack Obama and Gov. Jack Markell in the wake of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., before an estimated 1,500 people on Sunday.” The event was held at the Modern Maturity Center in Dover.

[I just returned from the annual MLK prayer breakfast at the same location. Trust me when I tell you that the message this morning was vastly different and delivered in an entirely different tone: peace, justice, caring, legacy, citizenship, and equality.]

Here’s the list of proposals recently released by the White House regarding commonsense responses to gun safety and the enhancement of and increased access to mental health care. Obviously, this does not detail the legislation that will most likely follow.

This is the kind of stuff that drives the NRA crazy. They cannot even bring themselves to talk about it. They can only rail against it.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.                                                                                                          .
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

No to Gun Control

Now that I have your attention–let me explain.

I abhor violence. I believe that gun ownership must be re-organized, effectively regulated, and properly monitored. I am completely in favor of a ban on the manufacture and distribution of assault and assault-style weapons to anyone outside of the military or police. I see no reason why civilians need access to battlefield weaponry. These are guns designed purely to kill—to kill many, to kill rapidly, and to kill without fail. It is hard to miss with a semi- or fully automatic weapon.

Most of all, I continue to be amazed by the hard-hearted, sociopathic responses of the NRA to the spate of mass murders committed by gun-wielding crazies.

They are correct about one thing, though. Now is not the time to talk about the issue of guns and gun control. Now is the time to ACT.

As I have noted in several previous posts—language matters. The words one uses and the ways in which one speaks about a topic is important. It can make the difference between successful and effective communication and debate. It can encourage some people to enter the conversation. It can help smooth the way to remediation and resolution.

Gun control seems to be a banner word for the NRA and their political supporters. Taking a stand against gun control is the rallying point and battle cry. So, what is there to be gained by switching up to different language that is actually more accurate, and surely more prudent?

I am not alone in recognizing that the term gun control (1) is the sole term used by the NRA and its proponents in any message about managing guns, (2) is not an exact, clear or comprehensive definition of what the rest of us desire, (3) becomes a giant red flag in what little conversation the NRA is willing to engage, and (4) throws any discussion back onto their “home turf” in that they have dominated and hope to continue to rule any dispute titled GUN CONTROL.

I did not dream up the following phrases, but I immediately understand the value of carefully- chosen language and well-crafted messages. Instead of the well-worn and NRA-owned phrase “gun control,” let’s end the use of that term on our side and use any or all of the following phrases:

COMMON SENSE GUN SAFETY

REASONABLE GUN LEGISLATION

GUN LEGISLATION REFORM

Yes, I want better mental health treatment, including enhancements in funding, access, identification, treatment, and follow-up. Yes, I agree that there are films (I have only seen a few) and video games (none of which I have ever seen for myself) in which the level of gratuitous violence is extreme and possibly provocative. Yes, I understand the age-old NRA-invoked slogan “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

However, with the more than 30,000 gun-related deaths in America in just the past year (2012) and the projection that gun deaths in this country may exceed auto fatalities, by as early as 2015, as the leading cause of nonmedical deaths, it seems clear to me that we need to do something real, significant and impactful to stem this menace.

Check out It’s time for common-sense gun controls , a guest op-ed piece from yesterday’s Seattle Times, for the well-written, sincere views of a young man who has already been moved to action. Now, if we could just get him to stop using that phrase gun control.

If you have the time and the inclination, follow up on the link to the NYT article  Alex Algard cites in which the writer claims that even public health scientists have been persuaded to cut back on gun violence research. Now that is something scary, IMHO. The article was written in January 2011, but is timely and important.