Friday, October 14, 2011

Responding to Charles Krauthammer's cheap and insulting op-ed

Read the op-ed piece here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scapegoat-strategy/2011/10/13/gIQArNWViL_story.html

Relevant excerpt:

“Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

“These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.”

Krauthammer implies that people who protest corporations are hypocritical if they use these corporations’ products. It is possible, however, to be against corporate influence in politics and still appreciate the value of the corporations’ products. To criticize a corporation’s practices is not to consider the entity inherently evil. The problem is not that big corporations exist but that they exercise so much power with so little accountability, while ordinary people without so much money struggle to have their voices heard.

As for “indignant indolents,” Krauthammer is surely correct that the protestors are quite angry. To call them indolent is a cheap insult, though. It is not as though good employment opportunities are plentiful. It is not a sign of indolence to join a protest against those who have contributed to the prolonged economic crisis (which is a major cause of the unemployment Krauthammer seems to attribute rather to personal vice).

Nor does Krauthammer acknowledge any of the reasons people are angry at Wall Street. Some powerful corporate officers behaved very recklessly and irresponsibly and have not been duly punished for it, nor has enough regulatory tightening been implemented. Big business still enjoys great political power and privilege even after its irresponsible practices helped create a profound recession and massive unemployment. People have a reason to be indignant about that.

It is not clear what Krauthammer means by referring to $50,000 student loans and English degrees, except that he clearly does not think much of those who have those things and are protesting Wall Street. It is true that many people borrow a lot of money to obtain a degree that most well-paying jobs require. Presumably, some of these people do indeed major in English, not in itself a contemptible action. I suppose Krauthammer thinks they would be better off if they had majored in something more like business, but even that is not clear in this economy.

Krauthammer is probably correct that Democrats envy the success of the Tea Party movement. The Democrats might be thinking, “The other side is proving effective in promoting their agenda; we had better do the same.” If Krauthammer means to disparage them for this, he should explain why instead of dismissing protestors inaccurately as “big government anarchists.” People calling for government to tighten financial regulations can hardly be called anarchists. These are people who indeed believe in strong government, but a government that uses its strength to serve and protect ordinary people rather than an elite few. 

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Defending Teachers

Preface
I'm a paraeducator. I support teachers by assisting needy students in achieving learning goals. I am not defending myself (not that there's anything wrong with that). I am defending the teachers.

Literature putting the number of teacher duty hours at or around 6 hours, 57 minutes contributes to a body of misinformation about the teaching profession. Portrayals of teachers on probation collecting full pay while awaiting years-long disciplinary review also do not help. These stories contribute to a perception that teaching is a relatively undemanding but surprisingly lucrative career. Teachers do more -- and spend more time doing it, and do it better -- than their critics acknowledge.  
            Some criticisms are matters of interpretation, but others are simply inaccurate. The 6 hours, 57 minutes only counts the time the teacher is required to be present in school, teaching and planning. It is impossible for a teacher to finish all planning, grading, conferencing, and other work in the fifty minutes or hour of planning time provided within that schedule. Inevitably, the teacher must arrive early, stay late, and probably take work home after that. Most teachers are quite willing, if not happy, to do so. But it is only natural and right for them to be offended when critics suggest they are generously paid and unfairly granted job security. Indeed, good pay, benefits and job security are not very much for a teacher to expect considering what is expected of a teacher.
            The job security part especially gets a bum rap. Tenure is easy to get if easy means getting through four years of college, a semester of student teaching, two successful years of regular teaching and career-long continuing education courses during your personal time. Now, it is true that some of the people who make it through this process are not great at what they do. But so what? Who is? If you think there are too many lousy teachers getting automatically re-hired every year, I would invite you to try to become a teacher. Go through the experience that makes half of new teachers leave after five years, suggesting that teaching is not actually so easy a career to stay in.
            So what makes teaching not a relatively undemanding job? 
            Lessons don’t just have to be taught; they also have to be planned. Since good planning takes about as much time as good teaching, a good teacher will spend about an hour planning for every hour teaching. A teacher who teaches several sections of the same course may be able to use one general lesson plan to cover several classes, but a teacher is also expected to differentiate instruction to accommodate students’ individual needs. You will be teaching students with ADHD who can’t concentrate long enough to name and date their papers, right along with students who finish whatever work you give them seemingly before you’ve finished handing the papers out. You will have students who can’t along with those who just won’t in addition to those who only very grudgingly will. All at the same time. If you get too many can’ts and won’ts, you may soon be subject to pay cuts or firing. You see, it’s your problem if the kids are improperly rested, nourished, parented, what-have-you, and their work suffers. If you insist that these ingredients are crucial to a student’s success, you will be accused of making excuses.
            But isn’t the planning period plenty of time to prepare lessons? The teacher has no students in her classroom!
            If you’re lucky you may get one lesson mapped out during your planning period if you are not too busy calling parents about missing homework (and missing kids) and such. Copying all the papers takes more time than you would think.
            So what? School ends at like three o’clock. Most people get off at five or six.
            When 3 p.m. or whenever rolls around, you have a stack of papers to correct, recommendation letters to write, perhaps after-school clubs to moderate – and lessons to plan for the next day, of course. It isn’t hard for after-hours work to become half of the time you devote to teaching.
            It is not only for the teaching profession that outsiders know only half the work required to do the job well. I didn’t appreciate how much work went into retail until I worked in a store, and now I have more tolerance for the underpaid and hardworking staff at such places when their omnipotence fails them and I have to wait longer than I’d like. I even suspect some teachers who aren’t parents themselves can be unfair on parents. I catch myself doing this: I forget that a parent’s workday never ends and it is entirely excusable if their performance is less than excellent.
            But the same forgiveness must apply to teachers as well. Of course, the people who believe teachers should be miracle workers will not admit that this is essentially what they are demanding. They say they are demanding only accountability and adequate yearly progress on student test scores. But the fact remains that only a part of the learning a student needs in order to become proficient in a subject – especially a subject area that is difficult for that student – can be achieved during school hours, the only time during which a teacher can be expected to make a difference. Teachers cannot follow students out the door and make sure they do their homework and spend some time reading instead of doing other things that may undermine what is being taught in school. This is especially true during summer vacation, when many students regress horribly. Perhaps evidence that teachers aren’t so ineffective after all: if students forget things when they’re not in school, they must have learned something in school. Yet the teachers may soon be punished if the students don’t meet arbitrary standards set based on ideals rather than realities.
            It is too easy to dismiss these points as lame excuses for poor performance. This is a common mistake people make when criticizing others: confusing explanation with resignation, as though to acknowledge the many variables that affect student performance is to give up on finding better teaching methods. We can make a deal here. Teachers listen to parents, but parents listen to teachers, and quit questioning their judgments about matters of classroom discipline.
            A parent who discusses the difficulties of home life should be listened to with compassion. When she tells you she had to work until 8 last night and that kept her learning-disabled child from getting as much homework done as an average student, she is not making some lame excuse. Of course individual ability along with many other circumstances affects a person’s performance. It is too easy to say they “should” overcome all disadvantages and measure up to some standard set by people in better circumstances. I don’t like shoulding all over myself and I don’t like shoulding all over other people either.
            At the same time, it is frustrating for a teacher to see students being chronically absent. Good explanations for poor performance cannot always be found. Sometimes it appears that education really is not a high priority for some people, and anyone who teaches knows this. It is sad when you see a student return to school saying she was sick but having no note to support her excuse (and not seeming in the least bit troubled about this). It is sad when you see a student who says his parents don’t have the cash for a field trip but you can’t help noticing the child’s expensive new shoes and overhearing his bragging about his new video-game system and watching the parent drop the child off with a cigarette in the adult’s mouth. Some people really don’t appear to be doing the best they can. Or, if it really is the best they can do, it at least must do its part to account for a child’s low performance.
            It is one thing for a parent to explain difficult home life as part of the reason for a child’s low performance in school. It is one thing for a parent juggling two jobs to miss a scheduled conference or be late refilling a child’s ADHD medication. These kinds of things I have more-than-average patience for. But some things parents can do make you want to scream. Having a hard time managing the demands of work and family is no reason to question a teacher’s judgment about a disciplinary matter in the classroom, to write unpleasant notes or make indignant phone calls to teachers based on students’ accounts of events, or appear at the classroom at the beginning of the school day expecting a conference when the teacher has 25 students to teach.
            There is no reason to believe your child’s teacher is being unfair to Johnny just because Johnny’s having a hard time following rules and completing assigned work and the teacher stubbornly challenges him (and implicitly you) to do better. That is what the teacher is supposed to do. If your child is irritated with a teacher because the teacher is demanding more or better work from the student, the default position should be to say, “Good for Mrs. So-and-so.” Frankly, do so even if you think the teacher is demanding too much or is being unreasonable. It might not be the best lesson to teach kids that life should always be fair and reasonable. That’s more unnecessary shoulding – this time over teachers. Don’t do that.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Government Isn't the (Only) Problem

People are protesting against Wall Street. About time.

You’re supposed to hate government. You’re supposed to think government is the problem not the solution. You’re encouraged to look at government’s many faults and failings to support this dim view. But this philosophy’s proponents have an agenda. It is not about making government better. It is about getting government out of the way so that the richest people and corporations can control the economy and the people’s representatives have no say except to say “yes” to whatever the big money people want.

Remember this anti-democratic strain of politican thinking when you watch people at Tea Party rallies protesting government. Some of them presumably only mean to protest government excess and waste. Others, including their very-well-to-do backers, have a more extreme agenda. Some, at last, are loudly not buying it.

Significant protests have broken out against Wall Street. This marks a nice contrast to protests that focus on the evils of big government. The legislators are flawed too, but unlike those on Wall Street who privatize profit while socializing loss, the legislators are charged with the service of the whole country, even those who can’t afford to own shares.

Naturally, the legislators can do a poor job discharging that service. Yet we the people at least get to vote them in and out, something we can’t do with the corporate executives who, even after doing a lousy job, often get to leave with their personal finances in excellent shape, to put it mildly. They do so after helping put more workers out in the cold and, if the Republicans have their way, will get to keep their Bush-era tax cuts too.

Government at its best acts as a check against this kind of ridiculous inequity. At its worst it exacerbates the problem by cutting taxes for the richest people while helping big business crush labor, slashing budgets for programs that poorer Americans need, and doing virtually nothing about this prolonged economic malaise that its malign neglect of its regulatory responsibility helped bring about.

The government can’t do as much as those protesting from the left may wish. But it can at least limit the effects of growing economic inequality and insecurity. Some adhere to a view of government so negative and cynical that they would allow the big money interests to have free rein, whether that is their intention or not. That would be a mistake. Criticize government, to be sure, but also believe in government. The big money people will not regulate themselves any more than they will provide secure employment at decent wages or good pensions. Government can help in these areas, and should. That goes whether it's called socialism or - as I would prefer - common sense.