The Crazy Eighty-Eights

Okay, I must first confess that I am looking for content. The summer is mercifully bereft of SPTA news, but bloggers gotta blog, so I've gone on a content search. It was either that or write about my tribulations at the customer service desk at Cabela's, and I don't kid myself that anybody wants to read about that. I am neither Barbara Ehrenreich nor David Sedaris, nor was meant to be.

I was shocked to read on EducationNews.org that a House appropriations subcommittee has proposed $7.1 billion in funding for the Head Start program, even though the program has made over $400 million in improper payments since 2005. Seven point one billion? That's $93 million MORE than President Bush requested! [Okay, I didn't really know that it was in the article.] But it still seemed surprising that the House would reward an agency with more money after it paid out millions -- hundreds of millions -- in improper payments.

Then I thought a little more (I like to think before I write). If we said that was $1.3 million per fiscal year (it was actually $88 million last year, but let's take the average), that's about 1.8% of this year's expenditure. Not good, to be sure, but working retail has made me aware that asset losses are much higher in (at least some parts of) the private sector.

Then I wondered what an improper payment is. Remember Ollie North's leotard charged to the NSA? Yeah, this ain't even that, let alone a bagful of cash paid to Head Start Plumbers to hush up the latest literacy reports. It turns out that an improper payment is defined as:

"payment for an enrolled child from a family whose income exceeds the allowable limit -- meaning in excess of the 10 percent program allowance for families above the income limit.Auditors deemed children ineligible if their files did not contain a signed statement that the child was eligible to participate or if the file contained documentation that the child was not Head Start eligible." [See full article.]

Okay, that's the wind-up; here's the pitch. Education takes a beating in the public arena. There's a lot of lip service about how noble teachers are, how valuable they are, and how much we all want schools to succeed. There's also a lot of ill-informed browbeating of teachers as overpaid, underworked, bloodsuckers. I even heard this from a lobbyist last February, if you can imagine that pot calling this kettle black. Neither stereotype serves the interests of schools, students, or teachers, but the pigs-at-public-trough reputation can be especially damaging, so the lead-in to a story like this is really inflammatory. Yet improper payments in this case means helping more kids than may have qualified, or maybe just not keeping meticulous records about the kids receiving help. It is, to use the term I learned in the Muskie School, suboptimal, but it is a long way from the implication of the headlines. In fact, it is the sort of impropriety we could afford to live with on a much wider scale.

Statewide Screening & Endorsement

The Statewide Screening and Endorsement team met in Augusta on June 20 and 21. Because Rep. Mike Michaud earned a friendly incumbent endorsement from NEA, neither he nor his opponent were interviewed. Because the Secretary of State has not yet issued a final ruling on whether Herbert J. Hoffman has qualified and Laurie Dobson's appeal has yet to be heard, no independent or third party candidates were interviewed.

That meant that we only heard from First District US House candidates Charlie Summers and Chellie Pingree and US Senate candidates Susan Collins and Tom Allen. The results will be released by MEA -- all I can offer right now are the following thoughts about the process.

1. Participation should be higher. The composition of the team includes all members of the MEA-RA, all local presidents, all MEA Government Relations Committee members, all MEA Directors, and all officers of the MEA. Local presidents who are not able to attend or who are attending in another capacity can even appoint proxies.

In theory, that's a couple hundred people. In the event, we had thirty-two voting members in the room.

2. Participants had long memories and open minds. The collective memory in the room was impressive. As a history teacher, I was pleased at how many times previous statements, decisions, and actions of candidates and the Association were referenced. History rules. As an MEA member, I am gratified at the openmindedness and respect with which candidates were received.

3. The event was very well run. Organizations, like individuals, have to learn lessons, sometimes painfully. MEA has learned how to run a statewide screening and endorsement meeting very well. I congratulate Chris Galgay and the MEA staff (Mark Gray, Steve Crouse, Cindy Fabbricatore) -- the smooth, efficient management of the event was among the factors contributing to such a positive series of interviews.

4. Complaints are unwelcome but future participants are warmly invited. Whatever the results will be, they resulted from thirty-two members giving up a Friday and Saturday in June to listen carefully to four sincere, well-intentioned candidates. If you don't agree with the results, mark your calendar now. In 2010, we will gather again to consider the gubernatorial race. Speak to your local president if you think your interests were not represented. Or post a question if you want more info.

Teach for America

The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece Saturday that may point us in the direction of education's future. The short of it (in case the link above doesn't work) is that Teach for America will be sending 3,700 successful applicants (from a pool of 25,000) to teach in some of the USA's lowest-performing schools. Stats are quoted suggesting that many stay in education beyond their two year hitch and that students perform as well or better in classes taught by these folks than by fossils like (you and) me.

The article also noted the derision of the program by the AFT, making me glad that NEA hadn't commented, or if we had, that we dodged The WSJ's bullet. Even if the AFT is right that 3,700 new teachers is a Band-aid, we don't need to be on record saying so. Opposition to help -- even if it implies that we are overpaid and ineffective -- should be met with an assumption of best intentions and a statement of gratitude. 'We're glad that the federal government recognizes the desperate need for help in the schools, and we're sure that the 90,000 kids they will teach will benefit. For the other 47.8 million students, we'd recommend the following..."

We might also congratulate the federal government for circumventing the teacher certification requirements with the program, perhaps politely questioning why the feds have such stringent "Highly Qualified Teacher" requirements in No Child Left Behind if they have such confidence in the Teach for America staff. Gail Ryder, Certification Tsarina of South Portland, tells me that "SPSD has hired several teachers from this program, and they have worked successfully within the State Rules and Regs. They work with Support Teams, take Praxis Exams and courses as needed in the same time frame as any other candidate." That said, the WSJ piece seems pretty clear that not all folks working for the program are expected to meet certification standards -- they just go to summer training for the program.

The WSJ piece concludes "Don't tell the teachers unions." I suppose we deserve no better; we can maintain a surprisingly reactionary attachment to the way things have been. As with charter schools, merit pay, and many many other reforms, we can fight this one (teacher recruitment and certification) and lose or we can get out in front and guide the policy.

Alternative Teacher Pay Models

The Maine Heritage Policy Center has released a study of teacher compensation in Maine. The study makes the case that a large number of retiring teachers and school district consolidation make this a good time to experiment with some alternative methods. A detailed report with an impressive bibliography, Reforming Teacher Pay in Maine offers several possible models. Among these are pay for skills and knowledge, pay for need, pay for leadership, and pay for performance. A review of Denver's ProComp system is offered at the end.

As with the peer review idea described in a previous post, I am not taking point of the charge, but neither does my knee jerk when I hear it mentioned.

I do think that those of us who are planning to be teaching for a while need to give serious thought to the shape of the changes to come. Remember Bob Dylan's admonition to the obstructionists:

Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled

Teacher Peer Review - NPR story

Claudio Sanchez had an interesting portrait of Toledo's peer review teacher evaluation on All Things Considered. I'm not recommending that we embrace it here, even if NEA has dropped its opposition to the concept. I do think it is worth knowing about.

Peer Review System for Teachers Spreads

Beverage Tax - Another Perspective

A couple of friends are heading up the opposition to the new tax that's referenced below. Newell Augur, who regularly demolished me in high school debate tournaments, is chairing the effort and taking a leading role in the media. I recently talked to Newell in the lobby of the state house, where I was pushing for LD 1693 and he was working a bill on behalf of a dog breeders' group. Newell kindly introduced me to a couple of legislators I would not have otherwise spoken with.

Tony Payne, a political mentor whose Congressional campaign I supported, is leading a new group called the Alliance for Maine's Future. You can find them at allianceformaine.org

Tony's accusing the MEA of suppressing voter participation by discouraging people from signing the petition to overturn the tax. I like Tony and I agree with him on many things, but not in this case. The decision to reject a bad idea is not anti-democratic. It is merely common sense. The act of not signing a petition is in fact a democratic decision; it is participating in the process by making the first cut on what will appear on the ballot. I daresay that Tony and other folks in the Alliance have declined to sign petitions for ideas and candidates that they considered unworthy and did not think of themselves as enemies of democracy. Empty rhetoric about suppressing voter participation may help Tony's Alliance get media coverage and build its base, but it is not a persuasive argument. Maybe my case against it is clumsy and weak, but if Newell Augur were not lobbying for the other side, he could rip it to shreds. But then, Deering debaters could always win, no matter which side they were assigned.

TeLL Survey Results

I was recently reminded that I have the codes to access the TeLL survey data. Buildings that attained 40% have individual codes and a separate code is available for district-wide data. Anyone interested in accessing these data should contact me by email.