So, let me react to the topics of seniority and teacher salary. Let me get into a few of the issues surrounding what is known in the teaching biz as single salary schedule. And, let me respond to criticism leveled by one of Wilmington’s local champions of edreform: Skip Schoenhals, a fellow renowned for his leadership in transforming a local bank, that he has described as #7 in a list of the top six banks in the region, into a banking powerhouse. As a matter of fact, there are new WSFS branches popping up everywhere!

Last month, Mr. Schoenhals stated in a speech before an audience of 1000 at the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce annual dinner that “DSEA (the Delaware State Education Association) insists on personnel practices that are more appropriate for the factory floor than in a profession like teaching. It is a philosophy where seniority drives assignments, transfers, and layoffs; and where salaries are based upon years of service and educational level, not on achievements in the classroom. This philosophy is written into state law, so practically speaking, a district has no choice but to follow this system. I ask DSEA to continue to be a forward thinking union by working with the legislature to change this law. One size or system does not fit all. Let the districts and the local union determine what would work best for them. With a system that is more reflective of the profession that teaching is, we can then work to get teacher pay to a level worthy of the task teachers perform…educating the next generation.”

Please see two of my earlier posts: Goodnight Moon , for my reactions to being taken to task so publicly and unexpectedly, and Keynote Speaking, Redux for my attempts to demonstrate why seniority is not the boogeyman that Mr. Schoenhals would like everyone to believe it is.

In Delaware schools, about 2/3 of an educator’s salary is paid by the state and the other third is paid by the individual district. So, I will agree that DSEA does have some influence on the system by which all public school employees are paid–on the state side. On the other hand, DSEA does not have much sway over the manner in which individual districts choose to negotiate with our members over salary schedules or compensation plans. I will need to investigate the Legislation to which Mr. Schoenhals refers.

So, let’s talk about pay. You get a job–you get paid for that job. One might assume that one’s pay would be commensurate with one’s work. However, any clear thinking individual recognizes that this is far from the truth. And, it cuts both ways. Certainly there are folks who are not paid nearly enough for the jobs that they do and the work that they produce. On the other end, there are people who are notorious for the immense salaries they garner for the positions they hold. Like CEO’s–top dogs in major corporations. Not only are some of the salaries astronomical, but the perks can be mind-boggling to the rest of us.

Remember three martini lunches of the 70′s and 80′s. As a third grade teacher, I used to joke that my perk was all of the crayons I ever wanted. Actually, I was spending hundreds of dollars of my own money every year on my kids and my classroom.

Teacher salaries are tightly controlled. They are spelled out years in advance. As a first year teacher, one can look up one’s potential salary for year twenty. It will be altered only slightly when and if a new contract includes salary increases, which are modest at best. It may seem strange to others, but this is the way it has been done for decades in all fifty states.  Most of us never thought anything about it. It is the general practice of most private schools and charter schools.

I started teaching in September of 1972 at the old North Star School in the Alexis I. du Pont School District for the princely sum of $8,000 for the first year. Seems paltry by today’s standards, but at the time, it was a $1000 raise from the job I had just lost in mid-summer from the Baltimore City Schools. (“Dear Grederilea Stevens: We regret to inform you that due to a city-wide budget crisis we will no longer be able to offer you employment at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Elementary School for the 1972-73 school year.” Apparently, they could not discern that my first name was Frederika. Would you want a woman named Grederilea teaching your child?)

From that moment on, I could always look up what my future salary would be. I knew that if I stayed in teaching for ten years, I would make $___ during my tenth year. If I took additional coursework, I could incrementally improve my salary. If I completed a Master’s degree program, as I did in 1981, then my annual salary would increase by a little more than $1000. No mystery; no anxiety about asking the boss for a raise. It seemed easy to understand and clear cut.

I have just finished a successful teaching career (by all accounts) with an annual salary of about $80,000. Now, $80,000 is nothing to sneeze at. However, that amount was at the end of a 39 year career with a Master’s degree (Master of Instruction from the University of Delaware) and an additional 50+ additional hours of college course work and specialized training, including some pretty high-level professional development with the Penn Literacy Network from the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania.

All this begs several questions: (1) How do teacher salaries compare to those of comparably trained “professionals”? (2) How have teachers traditionally been able to attain a higher salary? (3)  To whose advantage is the single salary schedule? Hmm,…

The following information about Single Salary Schedule for teachers is taken from CPRE: The Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Wisconsin- Madison, copyrighted 2007. I recommend that you follow the link to read their entire summary. Simple and to the point. You can Google the topic to see what else is out there.

“In general, most teachers in the United States are paid according to a single salary schedule that provides salary increments according to a teacher’s years of experience and number of college/university units and degrees. This teacher salary schedule was first implemented in several big city districts in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The basic concept has not changed much over the course of the twentieth century.”

“Equitable pay: the underlying principle of the single salary schedule The single salary schedule does not mean that all teachers earn the same salary. Individual teacher salaries vary according to specific attributes of individual teachers. Teachers with more years of experience have larger salaries, as do teachers with more education attainment. Teachers also are paid more for additional jobs; e.g., coaches earn a salary supplement, as do advisors of clubs and other co-curricular activities often earn a salary increment. But critical to the success of the single salary schedule is that the basis for paying teachers different amounts, i.e., years of experience, education units and different jobs, are objective, measurable, and not subject to administrative discretion.”

*************************************************************

Major motivations for the move to single salary schedules in the early to mid-20^th century included the desire to guard against discrimination in pay among certain groups like Black and white teachers, male and female teachers, as well as elementary and high school teachers.

Until recently, most folks  assumed and would have agreed that more coursework and additional college degrees would have been a worthwhile pursuit for their child’s teachers. They would have commended those teachers who chose to seek out ways to improve their practice, to deepen their understanding of content, to hone their craft. For years, the states surrounding Delaware have required that all teachers complete Master’s degree programs within a five to ten-year window after initial employment. My education degree was from Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland. I was dumb-founded way back in 1972 to discover that no such requirement existed in Delaware. There is still no requirement in this state for additional course or degree work. (You might wonder why..)

However, recent pronouncements by such education experts as Bill Gates, and others, have caused some to question the value of further education, and to espouse the cynical commentary that teachers only did it for the money.

Teachers: Y’all just can’t win. The Army tells everyone: “Be all that you can be.” But Mr. Gates, as well as other edreform gurus, have apparently  uncovered data that seems to demonstrate that additional education for teachers, that Master’s degrees, and that even earning that coveted certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Practice does not pay off in increased student test scores, and are therefore not worth the salary increases that accompany them.

Give me a break! What task, which occupation, which profession, which trade can any one of you imagine that could not or would not be improved by additional relevant and focused training? Since when do we want a teacher to step out of a four-year training program only to forego additional high-level course work? Talk about mixed messages. Teachers must become more and more effective, BUT, do not look for additional college coursework as a reliable method to get you there!  [Perhaps we should rely instead on the offerings of district-designed professional development instead. Stop laughing.]

I spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on my Master’s degree work. Do you believe that I did it just so I could increase my annual salary by a few hundred dollars for every fifteen credit hours I accumulated, with that final reward of a $1200 increase? Not much of an immediate payoff. I did it so that I could become a better teacher, and I can guarantee you that the knowledge gained in just a few of the courses was worth all of the time and effort. The course and field work on Educational Assessment and the implementation of strategies from the course on Classroom Management made it all worthwhile and served me and my students well for the next twenty-nine years.

It took my participation on a DSEA Task Force exploring Alternative Compensation (2006-2008) and my subsequent participation on a DSEA Task Force on Teacher Career Continuums (2009-2011) to open my eyes. Prior to this experience, I would have argued to the death the value of the single salary schedule. It seemed so fair, so protective, so predictable, so simple to administer, so,…

What the hell had we been thinking? We had be lulled into complacency.

I now see it for what it is—a way to manage and actually stunt the growth of teacher salaries, to dribble out small increases over time—just enough to keep you coming back for more. Hardly the rationale for unions to hold fast to this out-dated system of compensation.

But, be careful what you wish for. Pay for performance looks so sweet, so alluring, so reasonable—you pay the most for the best. However, it has a long, long history of failure and disincentive. It can be costly (hint: you may end up spending more and more on teacher pay—more than you intended—more than you budgeted), difficult to manage, fraught with challenges, and it may end up causing dissension and competition among teachers and schools instead of the collaborative spirit and action that is so highly regarded in education. Plus, merit pay systems are often forced to cut back, to start to limit access to the pay incentives, to restrict amounts or who can and cannot be eligible for the payouts.

How you gonna keep ‘em down on the farm, after they’ve seen Paree?

But first, I want to make a few points: (1) This is my blog. (I get to say what I want on my blog.) (2) The opinions are mine. (The opinions expressed are my own–not those of the organization I represent as President of the Delaware State Education Association.) (3) Lastly, I tend to be kind of smart-alecky here. (Refer to Point #1.)

In my 39 years as a teacher, I frequently explained to students that I liked them; however, I did not like the ways in which they chose to behave. That would be my message to Mr. Schoenhals regarding his public chastisement of the organization I hold near and dear, as well as his denigration of the values we uphold.  [Mr. S. and I will need to work together in the future. And, I am not one to hold a grudge.]

Here is the place in the speech on January 10 where my minor annoyance was roused to a fit of pique. Mr. S. posited the following:

“Finally,…teaching is a true profession, much like doctors, lawyers and engineers.  These are professions where people are expected to achieve specific outcomes: cure the patient, win the trial, build the bridge or educate the child, but the practitioner must achieve success in ever changing circumstances and conditions.  Yet the teacher’s union, DSEA, insists on personnel practices that are more appropriate for a factory floor than in a profession like teaching.  It is a philosophy where seniority drives assignments, transfers and layoffs; and where salaries are based upon years of service and educational level, not on achievements in the classroom. This philosophy is written into state law, so practically speaking a district has no choice but to follow this system.  I ask DSEA to continue be a forward thinking union by working with the legislature to change this law.

One size or system of pay does not fit all.  Let the districts and the local union determine what would work best for them.  With a system that is more reflective of the profession that teaching is, we can then work to get teacher pay to a level worthy of the task teachers perform….educating the next generation.”

And, so back on January 10th, I wrote : [More in my next blog about in what ways Mr. Schoenhals's assertions are incorrect. More in my next blog about his misrepresentations, misconceptions, and just plain old mean-spiritedness. ‘Cause, Skip has never spoken to me about this topic before, and he has had lots of opportunities, including one just a few weeks ago before, during, or after a meeting at Rodel on December 12 where I was asked to give a report about school improvement goals and accomplishments. I do believe that I conducted myself very nicely on behalf of our organization, as well as for the children and educators in our schools. Plus, he surely knows where to find me.]

So,… here goes–Part II:

I am just a humble science teacher, but I know a poorly constructed sentence when I see one. “,…teaching is a true profession, much like doctors, lawyers and engineers.” Teaching is the profession; doctors, lawyers, and engineers are people. In good writing, concepts are reciprocal–they match. (I know, I am just being picky.) One could say that teaching is a true profession, much like medicine, law, and engineering/design. Anyway,…

This seems like a rather confused paragraph. It has several lines of thought and some of them provide “mixed messages.” With one hand we are positioned for recognition and status–y’all are PROFESSIONALS; and with the other, we get smacked down. You may be professionals, but you are not as good as those other professionals because you apparently are unable “to achieve success in ever-changing circumstances and conditions.” Bullsh**. Teachers are MASTERS at achieving success in ever-changing circumstances and conditions. Really. Teachers learn immediately that the need for flexibility, improvisation, and creativity is paramount. Teaching requires one to be in touch with the hearts and minds of twenty or thirty children all at the same time; being ready and able to adapt instructional strategies based on nuanced responses from both individuals and groups of children. Heck. Can you even imagine what the consequences would be if the one working copier in the entire school is down? Any teacher can. Vividly.

One other point: patients die; lawsuits are lost; bridges and buildings collapse unexpectedly. Does this make those practitioners any less professional in the eyes of the public?

The other messages are not lost on me. The real point of the swipe at professionalism was the move to bring in the topic of teacher seniority. Is teaching really the only job where special value is afforded to  experience, length of service, or seniority? Webster’s defines the term seniority as “a privileged status attained by length of continuous service (as in a company).” Hmm. So why has this concept become such a lightning rod for edreform?

In many cultures, advanced age and experience is associated with knowledge, expertise, and wisdom. In teaching, it has become taboo. Veteran teachers feel the sting, as well as the pressure brought to bear by those who presume that younger guarantees freshness, energy, innovation, and competence, while more senior staff denotes stale, tired, worn, and less effective. Less willing to go along.

Mr. Schoenhals misrepresents the function of seniority. He attributes power to seniority that it just does not have. He states “it is a practice that drives assignments, transfers and layoffs.”

Let’s start with layoff–or RIF–reduction of force. This is part of one of the favorite arguments of edreform: LIFO or last in, first out. You can see my earlier post that specifically tackles this topic. Anyway, teacher layoff is tricky. Districts do not and cannot just lay off the last ten teachers hired–as if their area of certification did not matter. In Delaware, layoffs are usually arranged to prevent the district from being over-staffed in any one teaching category–from being stuck with more teachers than the actual unit count would allow. So, in the spring, district HR departments very carefully calculate how many elementary teachers; how many middle school social studies, math, science, English, or reading teachers; how many high school physics, chemistry, or biology teachers; how many secondary guidance counselors–you get the picture–that they will most likely need in the upcoming school year. They examine every category of teachers and compare the current staffing to the projected staffing needs based on numbers that they get from the Department of Education. (BTW: I have been told that Department projections have not always matched district projections–they have sometimes differed significantly.)

A few years ago, a local district laid off two elementary guidance counselors, one middle school social studies teacher, one art teacher, one P.E. teacher, and six elementary teachers in the spring. They were all rehired by July, when the numbers became more solid, plus an additional 35 teachers were hired. The social studies teacher had seven years of experience. One of the guidance counselors had eleven years in.

Luckily, thanks to careful planning and financial support from the General Assembly, Delaware schools have been able to stave off teacher layoffs for the past few years.

The implication is that layoff time would be a fine time to clean house, to rid the district of dead wood, to sweep the less competent and the less effective from the classroom. Jeez Louise–what kind of a management plan is that? If Principal Jones had evidence in November that Mr. Smith was incompetent, why would he wait around until layoffs in May?

O.K. So, how about seniority and transfers? I have been teaching for only 39 years, but in all of that time I know of no transfer that was accomplished based solely upon seniority. In local contracts, transfer language lists seniority as one of five or six factors, including certification, qualification, experience, prior training, and recommendations. There is a limited time for application to transfer for a limited number of positions. Available positions are posted, applications are passed along to the appropriate administrators, and interviews are conducted. I am confident that each principal weighs many factors before ever considering seniority. I do believe that seniority would be used as a tie-breaker if there were two teachers equally matched and qualified for the job–a principal would resort to seniority as the deciding factor.

Now, tell me that a similar process does not take place in the world of business!

[However, unfortunately, due to the pressures placed on school principals these days, there have been several recent reports of discrimination against female teachers who "may become pregnant" and against older teachers seeking to transfer who may be "nearer to retirement age." One can never be too careful--right?]

Senority and teaching assignments? Let’s see. Elementary teachers get assigned and reassigned year after year. Too many principals use a change of assignment as a management tool–a control mechanism. It is amazing. It is confounding. It’s a pain in the ass. However, I have never heard anyone complain that it was done on the basis of seniority or the lack thereof. They take someone who has done a fabulous job as a fourth grade teacher and move her to first grade–a grade in which she has NO experience, and does not want to experience. Why? To break up a powerful team of teachers–because, Lord knows, we do not want teacher leaders. To try to force a less effective teacher to leave. To show the staff who’s boss. To keep everybody on their toes. Hint: You could be next.

In middle school? Not much movement from year to year–you could be a 7th grade science teacher for years and years–for your entire career. Or, you train as a secondary math teacher. You land a job in a middle school. You get assigned to teach math. There you are. Not much seniority in that decision.

Now, when you get to high schools, things change a bit. When you and I were actually back in high school, we were probably unaware of the politics of teacher assignment. In high schools across this great nation, the more senior members of the staff get the more senior assignments. [BTW: I have been told that this never happens in the business or world. Or in law, or medicine, or engineering. Or, banking.]

The newbies get the 9th graders. Ninth grade is tough–on everyone. It is a huge transition year–a make-or-break situation, and very demanding. In the world of high school, 9th grade assignments are to be avoided at all costs. The veterans get the seminars, the AP classes, the classes for juniors and seniors. They also get the plummier extra duties, clubs, and sponsorships.

Is this fair? Maybe not. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with the local union. There is no contract langauage that I know of that governs this practice. No regulation–no policy. It is tradition, and is almost universally practiced. And certainly DSEA–the state affiliate of NEA–has nothing to do with who gets or doesn’t get the senior English classes at Wahoo High.

Now, I know all about the need to equitably distribute assignments and to get the most effective teachers assigned to the most needy sets of students. I understand, and I even agree. However, Mr. Schoenhals is out and out wrong about the power of seniority in Delaware schools. His simplistic rhetoric just does not hold up. DSEA does not insist on personnel practices that are more appropriate for the factory floor. We insist on very little other than the best for our children and our schools.

BTW: The contracts that our local units bargain are NEGOTIATED AGREEMENTS. They are agreements between two parties. Both sides must reach consensus. Both sides must decide what they are willing to give up, to get, and to see eye-to-eye on. DSEA does not sit down in Dover scheming and plotting, pulling strings and manipulating. Well, not anymore we don’t. Now it’s all done by computer!  LOL

As for that factory floor reference. If only we could manage teaching and classrooms like factories and assembly lines. Gee whiz. If a guy who has been trained to install steering wheels is laid off, it is pretty easy to imagine another worker who assembles door panels being trained to take his place. However, if one of the 7th grade social studies teachers is laid off, we cannot just retrain a stray math teacher to do the same job. We have never been nor will we ever be like facory workers–God bless them. Neither the teachers nor the students can ever be seen as the widgets or the fungible units.

Finally–and I am just as glad as you, Dear Reader–Mr. Schoenhals references yet another third rail of public education–”where (teacher) salaries are based upon years of service and educational level, not on achievements in the classroom.” The single scale salary schedule that has been in use during my entire 39 year career STINKS. At one time, it seemed a good idea. But that time has long come and gone. So, Mr. Schoenhals, here is something upon which we can maybe agree.

Nah. I am all for changing the ways in which teachers and other educators get paid.  As a matter of fact, DSEA has had a Task Force that has been studying this very issue, and we have a number of fine ideas. I regret to say that these ideas do not involve merit pay or what some call “pay for performance.”  But that, my friends, is fodder for another cannon at another time.

If you go to the Neiman Watchdog link you can also read the comments on the original post. They are both interesting and informative. 

I like the format of asking critical questions. If the questions are well done (if they are thoughtful, informed, well-constructed, and conceived to create genuine dialogue, leading to possible resolution) then their provocative nature is worthwhile. I greatly admire Diane Ravitch and think that she is on the right track. I would love to work with others to get her here to speak in Delaware.  Any takers? Anyone?

Do politicians know anything at all about schools and education? Anything?

By Diane Ravitch        gardendr@gmail.com

Acronymia

Ours is the age of substitutes. Instead of language, we have jargon; instead of principles, slogans; and instead of genuine ideas, bright ideas.   ~Eric Bentley

One of the few things I dislike in education is the abundance of acronyms. MCAT, CSAP, ETRs, and SAT-9 are just four of hundreds. Most education acronyms are not real words, and when people use them in conversations they sound stuffy, bureaucratic, and insular. Acronyms can also fuel insecurity among teachers. Because if you don’t know what an ETR or the SAT-9 is, you’re definitely deficient in your professional knowledge, right? I avoid education acronyms in my writing and speaking whenever possible, never assuming that readers and listeners know what those strange words signify. If I had to come up with an acronym to express my feelings, it would be ACRONYM: Annoying, Convoluted, and Ridiculously Odd Nonwords Yahoos Memorize.

Because of my aversion to most acronyms, I was surprised and delighted at a recent writing retreat to learn three new ones over the course of the weekend that I find myself using regularly now. Each of these acronyms is a real word, and a quick way to monitor my behavior in ways that help me grow.

WAIT represents Why Am I Talking? I have a goal of talking less and listening more in conversations. WAIT helps me figure out if I am rambling on because I am nervous or afraid of silence. Mostly the word encourages me to close my mouth and think, if only for a moment.

HALT is a good one if you are on a quest for a healthier lifestyle. Never allow yourself to get too Hungry, Angry, Lonely, or Tired — all of which lead to overeating.

My favorite new acronym for teachers and literacy leaders is SHAME, which represents Should Have Already Mastered Everything. Isn’t this exactly the trap so many of us find ourselves in, embarrassed that we haven’t mastered everything there is to know about teaching and learning, including that massive number of acronyms so many folks sling around in conversations?

Many thanks to Ellie Gilbert for sharing WAIT, HALT, and SHAME with me. Ellie would be the first to tell you she didn’t create these acronyms — they were passed along through others, who probably learned them from others too. I am just grateful all three finally found their way to me.    ~  Brenda Power             Founder, Choice Literacy

I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Power. There is nothing more “exclusive” and excluding than a raft of acronyms. I rarely hesitate any more to ask the speaker to identify what the acronym stands for. There are some speakers with occasional and forgivable lapses. There are others whose use of acronyms borders on compulsive. It seems they take some perverse satisfaction in establishing who in the room is in the know and who else may be out of the loop, out of favor, or just “out of it.” 

Did that get your attention?

That’s exactly what two conservative think tanks are hoping to do via a recently released “study” asserting that teachers are overpaid when compared with other professionals with similar education and experience.

Of course, the report from the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute misrepresents the facts in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion, according to a review released by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice. Review author Jeffrey H. Keefe, a professor at Rutgers University’s School of Labor and Industrial Relations, found that the Heritage/AEI report is based on a series of biased assumptions and sloppy statistical analyses.

Central to the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute’s report is the claim that teachers are less intelligent than other workers of comparable education and experience, based on their scores from the Armed Forces Qualifications Test. Yet that improperly employs the AFQT as an intelligence test – which it’s not, according to Keefe. (And, according to common sense—I might add!)

Evaluating teachers’ credentials based on a military exam is like picking a doctor based on his barbecuing skills—it just doesn’t make sense. These wild claims that teachers are somehow less intelligent than other college graduates are based not on facts, but on vitriol and malice.

Other statistical missteps include Heritage and AEI’s erroneous calculations for benefits costs, both during employment and after retirement, which leads the authors to contend that benefit costs for teachers amount to more than 100 percent of their salary costs. The actual figure is no greater than 31.7 percent, and less for those who don’t receive retiree health care benefits, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

In reality, according to Keefe, “the salary and benefits for teachers show they are undercompensated by 19 percent compared to similarly credentialed professionals,” even after adjusting for a few weeks off in the summer.

Reality might be of no concern to the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute—but it should be important to policymakers and the public.

All highlighted comments are my own.

It is certainly of great concern to our education professionals.

I borrowed this blog post from the good folks at Great Lakes–we regularly receive reports and analyses from them–they are a terrific resource. This post was too good to pass up. Why reinvent the wheel? 

What is it with these people?  Will it never end?  What on earth is the advantage of constant teacher bashing?  It’s just another version of the BIG LIE: if something is said over and over again, then common folks–and even some more than common folk–some VIP’s maybe–will begin to believe that it must be true.  YIKES! 

I know a hell of a lot of teachers and there seems to me to be the general distribution of those with extreme intelligence, above-average intelligence, normal intelligence, and some ditziness. Just like most other folks with college degrees and professional status.  Oh, that’s right–teachers in today’s world–at least in the Good Old U.S. of A.–seem to lack professional status.  Just saying.  Not deserved, but that’s how it seems to be on the fringes of edreform.   

Listen, I am not naive. I’m aware that there are a number of people who say or write fairly outrageous stuff who would counter with messages like: (a) I don’t care. (b) I can say whatever I want to say. (c) My rights to free speech are guaranteed by the Constitution. (d) My message is very important. (e) It’s my blog, and I’ll write what I want to.

And then, there are always those who suggest that this is not what they said, not what they meant, or else, that ever-useful stand-by: “My words were taken out of context.” 

Another over-used response would be to chide the offended party for being too politically correct–too PC–as if having a conscience or an awareness of bias, prejudice, or social justice is so childish; so wearying; so lame; so ineffecutal. Heave sigh. Roll eyes.

In my opinion, we have certainly heard enough offensive commentary in the past few months, and especially in the past week or two, from the current cast of Republican candidates. OMG. Living in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina must be unreal. Living in here in Delaware provides me with a certain level of protection. I can read what I choose; I am only subjected to reports of their latest pronouncments and faux-pas; I am not forced to hear them ad nauseum directly on the radio or robo-calls; and their ads are not on our local TV stations–yet.

How many months are left until November 6th?

As one of my friends would say, “They need to engage a gate keeper (for their thoughts and words).” In other words, they need to think before they speak; and then, stop, and think again. “Rude, crude, and socially unacceptable,” as one of my favorite high school social studies teacher used to say.

I find them all quite objectionable: loud, redundant, bombastic, and hyper-critical; full of bluster, slurs, abuse, and cheap shots; close-minded, lacking empathy, failing to connect with the real world of too many the real people of America. When Rick Santorum and/or Ron Paul start to look even the tiniest bit O.K., then we have a serious problem here!

I am not Black. I am not poor. I am not gay. I am not Latino. I am a well-educated, upper-middle-class, middle-aged white woman.* BUT, I AM OFFENDED.    

*For the sake of full disclosure, y’all need to realize that I am a long-time, died-in-the-wool, liberal East Coast Democrat. I am somewhat active in local Democratic politics. However, I come from a hard-core Republican background. My grandfather was a regular delegate from Western Maryland to the Republican National Convention. Papa would not understand my point of view. And, until the late 1960′s, my parents were ardent Republicans–my mother had a pair of rhinestone earrings that spelled out I LIKE IKE. [Two thoughts: (1) Those long-gone earrings would have some real $$ value these days. (2) Who doesn't like Ike? Compared to the current bevy of candidates, Ike looks like a champ.]

But, I digress. My intention here was not to comment upon the dysfunctional dynasty of the Republican party. My concern falls closer to home. I had the chance this morning to finally read the piece in yesterday’s Wilmington News Journal by Dr. John Stapleford, Director of the Center for Economic Policy and Analysis for the Caesar Rodney Institute. The opinion piece is titled Having unmarried parents can adversely affect kids.

O.K.  I’ve been married for 39.5 glorious years. I have kids. I am a teacher, so I am interested in kids and what might affect them. 

This piece appears to be about potential consequences for children due to out-of-wedlock births, unwed mothers, and co-habiting adults. I found the piece to be confusing. (Please read it, and judge for yourself.) Is it about kids who have two cohabiting parents in the same household who just never got around to marriage? Or is it about kids whose mothers weren’t married at the time of their births and/or may never marry? Two different situations, if you ask me, and ones that may or may not be troublesome. Or, is it something else?

Is it a condemnation of cohabitation? “Although the divorce rate is coming down, cohabitation is soaring and accounts for more than half of the births to unmarried mothers.” This does not seem like a surprising correlation. More folks hooking up, to use the vernacular, outside of marriage = more babies born outside of marriage.

Apparently Delaware has tied for 4th place in percentage of out-of-wedlock births to all births–with a 48% high in 2009–the national percentage that same year was 41%. This is most unfortunate–lots of unwed mothers is not a good thing. Lord knows that it is hard enough to raise a child with two committed, involved, high-functioning adults in the household. I would imagine that many of these births might have been to teen-age or young adult mothers with few resources. Not a good way for anyone to start a family. I won’t recount all the other data he shared regarding racial and ethnic statistics. All in all, 4th place is not a place where we want our new mothers–and their children–to be. 

Stapleford writes: “When it comes to child well-being, however, research suggests that family structure is a better predictor of children’s psychological and social welfare, whereas poverty is a better predictor of educational attainment. Being raised by unmarried parents in a poverty household is, obviously, problematic.” I agree–a stable, harmonious ”two-parent” household is probably the best way to go. Poverty combined with a dysfunctional family structure of any sort would present all kinds of challenges. Marriage seems to mean a lot to Stapleford’s argument.

However, the piece smacks a bit of sanctimonious scolding and piety. Naughty, naughty. Shame and guilt. Thou shalt not,… The terms un-wed mother, born out-of-wedlock, and even cohabitation all sound more than a tad lowly, regrettable, and indecent. I know, I know. So PC. But, it does seem that way to me.

[There is this little nagging thought that has occurred to me. "Having unmarried parents can adversely affect kids." Unmarried parents--hmm,... let's see. Who is it that cannot get married here in Delaware? Who might share the responsibility for raising children but may not marry according to the laws of the land? Oh, yeah. That would be my gay and lesbian friends who may finally be united in a civil ceremony but may not actually MARRY.]

Married = good. Unmarried = bad. 

However, it is the last four paragraphs of the piece that really put me on edge. The good doctor is not just informing us about the sad and sorry consequences for those poor children foundering in a cohabitaiton situation. Oh, no. Dr. Stapleford’s mantra: Never miss an opportunity to get in a few digs.

Paragraph #9:  “More abortions are not the answer since the abortion rate and out-of-wedlock birth rate among the states are not correlated — that is, more abortions does not reduce the proportion of births out-of-wedlock. And Delaware already has a high abortion rate.”

Phew. Good to know that he is not recommending more abortions as a remedy to this problem. But that comment about correlation–or the lack thereof–seems a bit wobbly. Does he really mean that if there were a correlation, then we should be in favor of more abortions? Huh? 

Paragraph #10:  “Perhaps it would be helpful if schools were allowed to reinforce the values of sex after and within marriage, rather than the Hollywood philosophy of sleep together anywhere, anytime. [Italics mine.] Perhaps it would help if young people were made aware of the standard outcomes of cohabitation relative to marriage.”

Did he say what I think he said? Oh, my.

I was totally unaware that in schools in Dear Old Delaware the national and state standards for health education included instructional objectives modeled upon west coast practices of screwing around. Californication? I never imagined that we were–oh, no–BICOASTAL.

What on earth does this guy think we are doing in sex education classes in 5th and 6th grades across the state? Does he really believe that good old Mrs. McGillicuddy is instructing 11 and 12 year olds to “Just do it,” or that the boys’ P.E. teacher at the local middle school is giving his students the message “If it feels good, do it?” Holy cow. I have two sons. This is certainly not the kind of training they received at school. They must have been absent that week.

And, BTW, I do believe that our children’s parents have a role to play in reinforcing the values of sex after and within marriage. And, the family. And, the church. And the community. Glad that the opportunity presented itself to Dr. Stapleford to create the idea in the readers’ minds that our schools may be wholly accountable for the kinds of wild sexual abandon that could actually lead to out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation. Good to know.

Then there is last line of the paragraph: “Perhaps it would help if young people were made aware of the standard outcomes of cohabitation relative to marriage.” I foresee a new version of Scared Straight in our future. We could arrange for some loser cohabiters come to our schools to share the downside of failing to wed.

Paragraph #11:  “Data and research may lead to other important causal relationships. A major driver of out-of-wedlock birth in the black community is the limited pool of marriageable young black males; that is, young men who are employed full time. And a major obstacle to the employment of many young black males is a felony record.”

“And a major obstacle to the employment of many young black males is a felony record.” What the hell?

Let me see if I can follow this line of thinking. Too many felonious young Black guys leads to too many unemployable young Black guys which creates and maintains too small a pool of eligible candidates for marriage which in turn leads to a rising number of out-of-wedlock births. Wow. I had no idea that it was that simple.

Finally, Paragraph #12:  “Certainly there are other steps that might be taken or tried. But to do nothing to address this disturbing trend is not an option.”

Other steps? Yes, there certainly must be other steps to try to curb the rise of out-of-wedlock births in the year 2012.

Steps other than the ones that seem to be implied in the Stapleford piece:

(1) considering abortion as a way to reduce the number of babies born out-of-wedlock so that they will not grow up in a household with two cohabiting unmarried adults; or

(2) addressing our schools’ failure to reinforce the sanctity of sex in marriage rather than turning young men and women into sex-crazies a la La-la Land; or

(3) job counseling programs for young Black felons to be combined with dating services intended to bring together young Black women and men of the marrying type. [An interesting idea for a new combined reality show / Dating Game concept.] 

Has anyone heard of this new idea called BIRTH CONTROL?

Personally, I am more than a little concerned about the incidence of HIV and AIDS and other STDs.

Look–I share others’ concerns about teenage pregnancy and young unwed mothers with limited resources of every imaginable kind. But I disagree with the premises put forth in this piece and Dr. Stapleford’s perspectives on the situation. I say that to do nothing to address this disturbing op-ed piece is not an option.

Perseverance. Resolve. Determination. Stick-to-itiveness. Doggedness. Tenacity. Mettle. Backbone. Fortitude. Resilience. 

Maybe moxie–but not the liquid version–at one time the carbonated beverage favorite of Mainers. Moxie is “medicinal” in flavor, low in carbonation, and unpalatable, IMHO.

And then, there’s pluck. What a great word! I want to be remembered for my pluck.

It turns out that grit is great. As a matter of fact, there is a professor of social psychology at the University of Pennsylvania who is renowned for her work in grit. [On grit? About grit? With grit?] Angela Duckworth, Ph.D. is the go-to girl on grit.

I would have looked her up on Wikipedia, but they are down for the day in protest of anti-piracy legislation. [If you know me well, you may know that I have been a life-long fan of pirates and all things piratical, and that I take "Talk Like a Pirate Day", celebrated annually on September 19, very seriously. I have my own parrot and eye patch. So there.]

So I had to go with what I could find.

Here’s what she says about her own research: “I study competencies other than general intelligence that predict academic and professional achievement. My research centers on self-control (the ability to regulate emotions, thoughts, and feelings in the service of valued goals) and grit (perseverance and sustained interest in long-term goals).  I am particularly interested in the subjective experience of exerting self-control and grit – and conscious strategies which facilitate adaptive behavior in the face of temptation, frustration, and distraction.”

Here she is speaking about GRIT on a Tedx video from October 2009 of Ms. Duckworth herself describing some of the research she has conducted. She explains her premise, shares some examples of grit and gritty people, and tells why she believes that grit is so important, and that it can be and should be TAUGHT.

Why does this suddenly interest me? Well, I caught a piece on NPR this evening about grit and Angela Duckworth’s work–on the way home from Dover today. After arranging to have the guys from AAA come rescue me. After locking my keys, as well as everything else (purse, phone, AAA membership card, for example) in my car at the Royal Farms gas station. Oy, vey. Thank you very much to Harry for allowing me to use the phone, tying it up for an entire ten minutes. And, thank you to Danny from AAA who arrived a mere ten minutes after I called the main dispatch service. I was damned impressed.

Back to Ms. Duckworth. I had no idea that she was so young. She describes herself as formerly “gritless.” She wandered around from vocation to vocation during her twenties–plenty of talent–plenty of smarts–but according to her criteria–low on the grit scale. She says that she would have made an excellent dinner table companion with lots to talk about. However, I believe that Angela has truly found her calling, and it is grit. 

This is not my first encounter with the concept of grit, nor with AD’s work. Her name has come up before in conversations with some DSEA staff folks who share my interest in teacher effectiveness. And I had already looked into her writings. She is connected with several schools, most notably a KIPP charter school in NYC that has taken her work and her objectives to heart. 

So what does grit have to do with kids, teachers, and teaching?

AD is big in the world of character-building and character education. I am not so sure how I feel about all this, but,…  Here is a piece where she makes some connections between learning, student success, high achievement, and GRIT. “The Nitty-Gritty: Self-Esteem vs. Self-Control.”   One interesting pull quote from the piece: “I find that parents today, at least those in a high socioeconomic bracket, never want to say anything critical of their children. Everybody has to be a winner. You take your children to a soccer game, and they don’t keep score anymore. They don’t want anybody to lose. Well, it’s a good thing for kids to lose sometimes. They see what it’s like to get up again. They realize it’s not the end of the world. The scholar Roy Baumeister began believing in self-esteem as a predictor of success, but he did studies and it isn’t. Self-control is.”

I disagree with the interviewer’s comments used as a set-up for the fourth question: “Educators for some time now have put a premium on self-esteem. Schools strive to help kids develop self-esteem on the theory that other good things such as achievement will flow from increased self-esteem. Which is more important, self-discipline or self-esteem, for being successful as a student?”

Do not hang that one on me or my colleagues! OMG. Some of us have fought for years against the tides of self-esteem. That concept, and the impassivity that it spawned, did not come from the teachers I know and love. It was universally mocked and reviled as a guiding force in public education. That damned movement set us back by decades.

I come from the generation who lived (well, back in the day we did) by the motto “If it feels good, do it.” The self-esteemers were satisfied with the idea “Johnny and Susie can’t do it unless they feel good (about themselves).”

EXAMPLE: I used to co-manage a Science Olympiad program for 4th, 5th, and 6th graders. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners of each event got lovely medals on a colored ribbon to wear around their necks–attractive medals about the size of a 50-cent piece. The coaches from one district, which shall remain nameless, insisted on getting cutesy ten-inch trophies for every single one of their kids who particpated. The medals were high-quality and really quite nice, but the trophies outshined them. Most unfortunate and most unnecessary. The winners should get the prizes; the losers–those who do not win–should get a smile, a handshake, and a certificate of participation at best. Maybe ice cream on the way home.

AD is right. The feel gooders have done a disservice to our children. So, what is the value of grit?

Backstory: There was a strike in a small town in northern Ohio in the 1990′s–a  small group of school workers–custodians, maintenance workers, school bus drivers, and food service workers in the school cafeterias. They were asking for small increases in their pay. Remember: These are adults providing valuable services everyday to children. Adults employed to take kids to school and get them safely home; to prepare breakfasts and lunches–two meals a day–meals that may mean a great deal to some kids in the community; and people who keep the schools clean and safe. People who our children and their schools could not do without. Many of them make very little money for working what may be a full-time job. Others fit jobs together like pieces of a puzzle–ending up having to work two or even three jobs to keep food on the table. I don’t know the details, but I can guarantee that the raises that they were asking for were not much.

I can recall food service workers in one local district back in 2006 asking for a 25 cents/hour raise. 10 cents was the best counter offer from the district. Folks in school cafeterias typically work shifts from between three and six hours in length. We are talking here about the difference between a 30-cent a day raise and a 75 cents a day increase for some–and as much as a whopping $3.75 a week increase for those few who work the longer shifts. Holy Cow! Plus, I do believe that school cafeterias are self-funding and self-sustaining.  

The song will offend the offendable, especially the last verse. Unions and victories are not two ideas that some folks like to think about, let alone see memorialized in song. But, this is a great new union song–one in a pantheon of union anthems. 

BTW: Delaware public school employees are not permitted to strike–unlike those in the neighboring states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A strike is a very serious job action, with very serious consequences. Trust me, it is not like we are all hankering to strike. So, not to worry.

Here’s the YouTube link to a great rendition of the song by its creator, the singer/songwriter Joe Jencks and a few friends.

Rise as One

I dedicate this recording of ‘Rise As One’ to my new niece Annika Jencks. “We will build a brand new future for our daughters and our sons…” …and our nieces & nephews! Thanks to Mike Tadsen and John & Judy Gallo for inviting me to meet some of the workers and for sharing the story with me. The workers of OAPSIE Local 419 are heroes in my book.    (from I Hear Your Voice)

It is we who serve the lunches, we who sweep the floors,
We who drive the busses with your children off to school,
We keep the buildings warm in winter, and cool when it’s hot,
And we will not let you play us for the fool.
When we ask for better healthcare, or an increase in our wage
You tell us that the township can’t afford to pay the bill.
But you found half a million dollars from within those very coffers
To try and break the union’s back and break our will.

We will never give up, we will never give in,
And we’ll never, ever go away.
We will build a brand new future for our daughters and our sons;
We will work ’til all workers rise as one.

We believe in education and the future of our town
And the children that we serve from day to day.
Whenever there’s a need, we always go the extra mile–
God knows we do it for the love, not for the pay.
We have worked as hard as any for every inch of ground
That we’ve gained in the struggle for our rights.
And we will not stand by idly as you try to tear us down.
If we have to we will organize a strike. 

We will never give up, we will never give in,
And we’ll never, ever go away.
We will build a brand new future for our daughters and our sons;
We will work ’til all workers rise as one. 

Well, we didn’t have a penny in our strike fund, sad but true;
That made us all a little bit afraid.
But the call went out to every other union in the state
And somehow all the workers’ bills were paid.
See this isn’t just our struggle, and it isn’t just our  jobs,                                                                                                                                            And it isn’t just the schools within our town.
When we dare to raise our voices in solidarity we stand
With every other worker all the world around. 

We will never give up, we will never give in,
And we’ll never, ever go away.
We will build a brand new future for our daughters and our sons;
We will work ’til all workers rise as one.

We held a rally at the fairgrounds, to show them our resolve
And to drum up some support for our campaign.
A thousand people hit the street, and that’s more than half our town,
After that, you know things couldn’t be the same.
Now whoever would’ve guessed it, when this whole thing began
We’d have the strength to hold out for so long
But three months have now gone by, and the school board just gave in
On their demands, now we can sing our victory song.

We will never give up, we will never give in,
And we’ll never, ever go away.
We will build a brand new future for our daughters and our sons;
We will work ’til all workers rise as one.

© 2002 Joe Jencks, Turtle Bear Music

Then there was Emily Litella–the Gilda Radnor character from the early days of SNL. Emily, a beleaguered older woman with a stretched-out sweater and a creaky little voice. She would complain that she didn’t understand one thing or another, like why there was such a fuss about violins on television. She would go on and on about the virtues of violin music until Jane Curtain, the SNL News anchor woman, would cut her off to explain that the complaint was really about VIOLENCE on television. Emily would meekly respond, “Oh, I understand now. Thank you, Jane.” Then, she would pause, and follow up with her trademark retort, “Bitch.”

And, there was Andy Rooney. He was OK. Sometimes insightful. Sometimes provocative. I found him amusing at first–that is for the first 50 appearances. He did the same feature on 60 Minutes for years and years. However, his schtik was a bit too repetitive for my tastes. 

I may be channeling Andy Rooney, but, I have to get something off of my chest. I had to drive down to Washington, D.C. for meetings in December and then again this week. I do not mind driving, and I don’t mind driving my car to the nation’s capitol. However, both times I have had to leave late into the evening, after dark, and drive down in pouring rain. The December trip was particularly awful–terrible visibility, tons of traffic, and too many roads that were covered with standing water. This time, the weather was not so bad and the rain pretty much let up south of Baltimore. But, that is not the nature of my complaint.

It’s red lights. I am usually a patient driver. I try to leave my house in a timely manner so that I don’t fret about being late or feel the kinds of pressures that lead one to road rage or one-finger salutes–something I gave up years ago. Had a lot to do with maturity and a little bit to do with guns–especially the gun that the other guy might be carrying. Heck. I’m not stupid; I do not have a death wish. 

Anyway. I was FRUSTRATED. Here it was late, and getting later, and I was forced to stop at red light after red light as I made my way to and through Newark, and on down the road to the I-95 ramp. Traffic control is important. Traffic lights are a necessary part of this. I get that. But, I had to stop time after time at lights where there was no cross traffic. There was no car that triggered the change from green to red in my direction. No car approaching. NO CAR.

On my trip back home this afternoon, I counted the lights. There are about twenty lights between my house and the big road. On Wedneday evening, between 8:20 and 9:00 p.m., I encountered seven red lights where there were no other cars around. That’s 35% of the lights. Over one third of the lights I approached turned red and stayed red for an inordinate amount of time. I kid you not.

What a waste. Of time, of energy (my car sitting there idling in the rain), and of patience. This doesn’t usually happen. Most lights are triggered by traffic or are timed to quickly switch back if no traffic rolls over the sensors buried under the asphalt.

The route I took is really the easiest and most direct way to get from my house to I-95. However, if I had to drive those same roads more frequently, I would come up with another route.

My next trip to D.C. is in February. I am keeping my fingers crossed!