Category: education

SB10-191 (“Ensuring Quality Instruction Through Educator Effectiveness”) has passed the Colorado state senate and moved on to the House education committee.

This is another bill in the tradition of “blame the teachers if students fail.” I realize that mediocre and downright bad teachers exist. We’ve all had them in the past and can remember them well, no doubt. However, I think it’s pretty unfair to teachers in general to pretend that outside factors don’t have a profound effect on a kid’s ability to make it to school and learn. Does the kid have supportive parents? Are they from an abusive family? Did they go to pre-school? Do they have a learning disability that no one has the funding to address? And so on.

Admittedly, I didn’t think of a lot of these things myself until my best friend started teaching at a high poverty school, and I visited her class to meet some of the kids. There were a lot of great, wonderful little human beings, and I think most of them were really doing their best to learn – they sure asked a lot of questions when I talked a little bit about rocks in Colorado. But looking back at my own childhood, I can also see that no matter how bright and attentive a child might be at school, they may not be able to provide the test scores you think they should if, for example, they don’t get meals outside of school lunches and breakfasts because their family is that desperately poor. Or if they go home and get beaten half to death by their father, or mother, or older sibling. Or. Or.

The proposed law would impose yet another round of standardized tests on children that already spend a shocking amount of time practicing for and doing tests as mandated by No Child Left Behind. And then the results would make up half of a teacher’s “effectiveness” rating, which could potentially cause the teacher to lose their non-probationary status, which is Colorado-speak for losing tenure. Oh yes, and there’s no funding in it for developing the new assessment tests either, which seems like a bad idea since the state funding for schools has already taken a big hit this year.

I see a lot of unintended consequences coming from linking a teacher’s career so tightly to standardized tests in the name of accountability. I can foresee some teachers being worried enough about the testing that emphasis will shift even more toward teaching to the test, which doesn’t do the students a whole lot of good in the long run. And I see this as a means to “scare” teachers away from wanting to work in high-poverty schools, because classically children in those environments test fairly poorly. High poverty schools have enough problems¹ without adding “destroyer of careers” to their repertoires. Unfortunately, I think this bill was largely created without considering those implications, because the plight of students at high poverty schools – and the extra disadvantages many of the kids have – is largely invisible to those not directly involved.

I certainly understand the desire to hold teachers accountable; no one likes the thought that an awful teacher is soaking up public money while not doing their job. But I really, really, really don’t think this is the solution, and frankly, I think the “awful teacher” has become a boogeyman that’s distracting policymakers from attempting to address the very real problems in public education. When the state budget for education has been slashed, it’s a lot easier to concentrate on “awful teachers” ruining students than address the effect that drop in funding will have on necessary programs, or admit that just maybe, we need to pitch in a little more on taxes so we don’t shortchange the intellectual future of our state. When low wages and an ailing economy a preventing parents from being involved in the education of their children because they’re trying to make ends meet on multiple low-wage part-time jobs, it’s a lot easier to blame “awful teachers” than to try to figure out how to enable the parents so that they can help their children excel.

I’m proud to say that my state senator, Evie Hudak was one of the 14 “no” votes on the bill in the senate. I’ve e-mailed my representative to let her know what I think. Ms. Hudak had a lot to say about why she voted no, and if you don’t buy my less-than-expert arguments, hers are much more worthwhile:
Senate Bill 191, Principal and Teacher Effectiveness
Why I Voted NO on SB 191

1 – Like not being able to afford, I don’t know, paper.

I think that this is a fine example of why I think the proposed “religious bill of rights” for students in Colorado would be a stupid, stupid idea.

Because if nothing else, a lot of the language in that so-called “bill of rights” sure makes it sound like this kind of shit would be acceptable:

Parents said the situation escalated after a student put a postcard of Jesus on Hussain’s desk that the teacher threw in the trash. Parents also said Hussain sent to the office students who, during a lesson about evolution, asked about the role of God in creation.

On her Facebook page, Hussain wrote about students spreading rumors that she was a Jesus hater. She complained about her students wearing Jesus T-shirts and singing “Jesus Loves Me.” She objected to students reading the Bible instead of doing class work.

But Annette Balint, whose daughter is in Hussain’s class, said the students have the right to wear those shirts and sing “Jesus Loves Me,” a long-time Sunday School staple. She said the students were reading the Bible during free time in class.

“She doesn’t have to be a professing Christian to be in the classroom,” Balint said. “But she can’t go the other way and not allow God to be mentioned.”

Sounds like an awesome learning environment to me. More commentary at Pharyngula.

In good news, as of yesterday – I’m thinking some time after I wrote the long, bitchy post about it¹ – the Judiciary Committee:

After consideration on the merits, the Committee recommends the following:
SB10-089 be postponed indefinitely.

I take that to be state senate speak for “We think this is such a phenomenally stupid idea that we’re just going to sit on it until everyone forgets this bill even existed.” Or I can hope.

EDIT: Phil Plait pointed out to me that the judiciary committee went straight along party lines. That is completely unsurprising in this state. When I checked out the actual votes, I noticed that Evie Hudak is one of the members of the committee, and she’s my state senator². I think I shall send her a nice note, since she voted to kill the thing.

1 – I am totally not proposing a causal link between these two things (or involving the post that Phil Plait wrote that prompted me to be cranky) but wouldn’t it be awesome if there was?

2 – Not only did I vote for her, I also donated $200 to her campaign when she ran; I received an attack ad from her opponent featuring a hysterical warning about how Mrs. Hudak wants pedophiles to rape your children in the bathroom because she supported a bill that lets transgendered individuals use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. It made me just a little angry.

Saw on Phil Plait’s blog this morning that the Colorado state Legislature is considering a “religious bill of rights” for students. Phil’s got a lot of good commentary about it already, but I thought I’d take a look through it myself and see what I thought; local issues are pretty darn important.

What caught my eye first are a couple bits out of the very beginning, which are justifications for why we’d need something like this:

(b) MANY INDIVIDUALS ARE UNAWARE OF THEIR EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. BECAUSE THESE RIGHTS ARE COMING UNDER INCREASING ATTACK IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, A METHOD TO RECOGNIZE, PROMOTE, AND ENFORCE THESE RIGHTS IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO STUDENTS, PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND EMPLOYEES.

And:

(e) THERE IS A GROWING PERCEPTION AMONG CITIZENS THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HOSTILE TO INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION AND EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND PARENTS OR GUARDIANS WHOSE CHILDREN FEEL THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ARE BEING SUPPRESSED OR THREATENED ARE REMOVING THEIR CHILDREN FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THUS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S PUPIL COUNT AND THEREFORE ITS REVENUE

Frankly, kids DON’T have free speech in public school¹. I don’t think they ever have. In some schools, there are uniforms are strict dress codes, often times out of concern regarding kids wearing gang colors to school and making the environment less safe. That’s how it was when I went to school here, and in some places it’s become a lot more restrictive in the time since I graduated. There are a lot of rules in place for schools in regards to speech in general that are supposed to be there to guarantee a safe learning environment. Fred Phelps may be allowed to run around in the outside world with a sign that screams “God Hates Fags” because it’s his Constitutional right to be a hate-filled douchebag, but that sort of thing is not currently allowed in schools because it creates an extremely hostile environment for students who are, for example, perceived to be gay.

So that’s the first question – do kids in public schools have a right to free speech as strong as that of adults outside of schools? Does that right mean they have the unfettered right to make life hell for other students? School – and upper level schools in particular – are already a flaming cesspit of kids trying to find an other to demonize. So does a kid get a right to free speech that extends to creating an extremely hostile – possibly deadly – environment for other students?

You may think I’m going a little far here, but consider that there has been some conservative Christian shrieking about how the Matthew Shepard Act is totally going to restrict their religious freedom. Because apparently, hate crimes against gays are essential to religious freedom in this country.

Which sort of leads in to this idea that people have a perception their religious freedom is being impinged upon. As mentioned above, because it’s now a hate crime with a harsher sentence to beat someone else to death because they’re gay. We’ve also seen some sneaky attempts to get mandatory prayer back in to schools, disguised as a moment of silence. Some outright believe that America is going to hell in a handbasket because mandatory prayer has been struck down; they don’t seem to realize that prayer is just fine and dandy and protected as long as it’s not mandated by the school. So frankly, I’m not that impressed by the “PERCEPTION AMONG CITIZENS THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HOSTILE TO INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION AND EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS” because it sure smells like the ol’ Christian persecution complex to me. I’m sure it’s not pleasant to be in a privileged group that is slowly losing its privilege and being treated like everyone else. But this particular bill is just going to be more mental justification for the persecution complex, I think – “See? Our religion is under attack! We need a religious bill of rights!”

Scanning through the student’s rights section, there are some things I really take exception to on principle:

(IV) SING RELIGIOUS SONGS ALONG WITH SECULAR SONGS AS PART OF A SCHOOL-SPONSORED OR CURRICULUM-RELATED PROGRAM;

Should there be religious songs as part of a school sponsored program to begin with? Is this the school promoting religion?

(VI) WEAR RELIGIOUS GARB ON A PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLOTHING WITH A RELIGIOUS MESSAGE;

See “God hates fags,” above.

(VII) EXPRESS HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR SELECT RELIGIOUS MATERIALS WHEN RESPONDING TO A SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT IF HIS OR HER RESPONSE REASONABLY MEETS THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT;

See Phil Plait on this one.

And for the teachers:

(V) ANSWER A STUDENT’S QUESTION ON A RELIGIOUS TOPIC;

Honestly, if I were a parent, I would take SERIOUS exception to this.

(VI) NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;

Again, see Phil Plait. But I would also add that this one really pisses me off, just like pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. If you disagree with something, that’s fine. How about being a responsible adult and not putting yourself in a position where you’ll have to do something you find morally repugnant, instead of an arrogant fuckwad that does it on purpose in order to push your personal beliefs on others?

Also:

(a) A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TO OPT OUT OF ANY CLASS OR THE USE OF SPECIFIC COURSE MATERIAL THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OR

Have fun in regular college, kid. That shit don’t fly there.

Though really, I have another issue with the above. Though we all do it to some extent, it’s pretty stupid to isolate yourself completely from viewpoints that disagree with your own. If nothing else, disagreement is how we learn to flex our intellectual muscles. Of course the most obvious application of this is creationism versus evolution, in allowing a kid to completely hide from any material relating to evolution. But technically, this also applies to world history that covers the ancient world, since there were civilizations that existed long before the creationist god created the world. Or if we want to get super ridiculous, the definition of pi in the Bible is actually 3, not 3.14. Oops.

Personally, I don’t think public school should be a place where you get to be sheltered entirely from anything and everything that disagrees with your worldview. You’re certainly not being sheltered from other kids that may disagree. I’m sure there are parents who disagree with me, though I hope they realize that their kids are in for a serious shock if they go on to higher education at anywhere that isn’t Liberty University.

Honestly, I think it probably wouldn’t hurt if a school wanted to cover its butt on religious grounds by having a pamphlet available about all the relevant Supreme Court rulings; that would actually be quite educational. Citizens of all ages really ought to be aware of what their Constitutional rights are and what they mean. But this thing isn’t framed in relation to the Constitution of the United States. Instead, the framing of this bill feeds the ridiculous Christian persecution complex, and really pushes the bounds on several things. It’s one thing to let a curious kid know that yes, their ability to go have a prayer group each morning at the flagpole before school is Constitutionally protected. It’s another entirely to give a teacher tacit approval to deviate from the curriculum because they have a religious disagreement with it.

I’m really hoping this one dies of neglect in committee.

1 – Thinking back to high school, I think you could make a good argument that schools aren’t even on the same PLANET as the rest of us.