Yeah. RootOfGood's kids' principal seems pretty convinced that each free/reduced lunch student in his school causes his budget to go up by about $800, and that he is able to use this additional money to hire more teachers and reduce class sizes. This money may come with strings attached, but he and/or the school board consider it to be a worthwhile trade. Until proven otherwise, I'll assume the principal knows a thing or two about where the budget he manages comes from.
As I said, I've worked in a Title 1 school, and I've worked with the budget personally. Our county is fairly affluent (we have a few industries, but much of our county is a "bedroom community" for a neighboring city with lots of professional jobs), but a couple years ago my school became the first Title 1 high school in the county -- funny thing is, we're not the "poor" end of the county. Wanting to do this right, our principal put together a task force with two members from each of the core departments plus special ed. We were tasked with creating a proposal about how to use the small amount of money we were to receive to help the kids in need. We talked at tremendous length over multiple days about the number of things that could help -- remedial programs, expanded vocational classes, more books for the library, eReaders or other technology -- thinking we had lots of options available to us, we did not reach an agreement easily . . . finally we settled on two goals: 1) Most students who fail EOCs (End of Course tests) are freshmen. Most of those students did fine in middle school, but they failed to make the transition to high school. We would create a later summer "transition camp" to help them ease the gap between middle school and high school and provide them with the skills to start high school strong. This would be available to all incoming freshmen, but the students identified as at-risk by the middle school would be personally invited and encouraged to attend. Teachers would help with the camp in exchange for comp time, so this was going to be a fairly low-cost event. 2) The students who fail EOCs tend to fail multiple EOCs, they are likely to become discipline problems, and they are more likely to drop out. We decided we would add 1/2 a teacher to each of the core departments and would create a "Second chance" class, which would house all these troubled students together (so as not to diminish the other sections), which would be taught at a slower pace, and would be small in number. Where possible, new materials would be used rather than simply repeating what they'd just failed (i.e., all freshman English classes read Romeo & Juliet, so a different title would be on the agenda for the "Second Chance" class). These students would also receive extra help with skills such as note-taking and time management, things that would stand them in good stead for future classes. The principals would visit these classes frequently, even teaching some small lessons here and there, so that these at-risk students would see them as people rather than just administrators who had down punishments. All of us (plus the principal and the county office) were thrilled with these two ideas, thinking they'd really make a difference.
Both proposals, though clearly sound and definitely helpful to the issues at hand,
were soundly rejected. After editing the proposals over the course of 4-5 months (the reasons for rejection began to seem random -- can't spend this money before the first day of school, can't identify those who've failed in such a way that other students will know, must be sustainable, cannot hire personnel -- it felt like a game of "gotcha" -- oh, you want this, well, we only allow that to schools whose colors are green and white, sorry -- okay, I exaggerate, but it felt like that), we finally hit up on a concept that none of us liked, but which was acceptable to the Title 1 folks: We have a special computer lab in the school, which is only used by students who have failed classes. They work on "credit recovery software" at their own pace, and they are supervised by a clerical staff member. It is not particularly a helpful addition to the school, and it has had a particularly negative effect on a few of our students: They
prefer sitting in this computer lab clicking away at multiple choice questions 'til they find the right answers . . . over writing papers and discussing things in class. So some of them actually just sit through the class, intending all along to fail, knowing that they'll get the chance to knock the class out on the computer software.
Every one of us on the first task force resigned from the process in protest. Like it did any good.
Actually, the younger teachers have benefited financially from being a Title 1 school more than the students, but that's another topic altogether.
I'm probably biased because I think government pensions tend to retain the worst employees because the best employees leave for greener pastures. The worst employees are unemployable in the private sector due to poor performance, outdated skills, lack of work ethic or creativity, or some combination of those factors. This is an ugly, broad generalization
Why would we want a system that encouraged "the best employees" to leave for greener pastures? If we want government to run well, shouldn't we keep the government pastures green so that those employees will not be tempted to stray? The pension is one way of keeping pastures green.
Why would the worst employees be retained? If indeed their performance is poor, their skills are outdated, and so forth, why wouldn't they be fired?
I agree that this is an ugly, broad generalization, and it does not represent the workplace in which I've served for years. I can think of a handful of bad employees with whom I've worked over the years, and they didn't stay. A few have been fired, but most just leave because they're bad at their jobs, because they know the rest of us don't like them, or because they're pressured by admin and choose to leave before they can be fired.
There used to be something called pride in this country, people felt it when they worked hard and met their duties as parents and neighbors. Pride is earned, it isn't given. There's more important things in life than never missing a meal or scoring a handout, it's the pride I feel knowing I can fend for myself, feed my family and not be dependent on others. My path is hardwork, family, and morals, and I'd rather starve than take a handout. I want to meet people who share my values, that's why I'm typing here, and my path is clear, I hope everyone else can find their path.
Couldn't agree more.
Poll
