If You Can't Beat 'em, Cheat.

James Watson is the principal of Washington Irving Middle School in Roslindale who allegedly distributed the MCAS to his school staff a day early. Why isn't this getting more media coverage?

This is the same principal who was told in 2005 by then state education commissioner David P. Driscoll to improve test results in his school. At that point, Washington Irving Middle School had suffered three consecutive years of poor MCAS scores. And this is the second incident involving the questioning of MCAS testing.

Unfortunately, but necessarily, Mr. Watson had to be the sacrificial lamb.

Apparently, his school isn't the only one that cheats. According to the Department of Education, in
2007: 20 teachers were involved in MCAS cheating, while 43 students shared answers or
used cheat-sheets
2006: 15 teachers and 19 students were caught cheating
2005: three teachers were involved.

Is the pattern not obvious enough?

Is no one disheartened by the fact that Gov. Deval Patrick is disappointed because the integrity of the MCAS is being questioned? Why isn't he concerned about the integrity of the teachers, and in this case, the principal? Isn't it understood that their actions make lasting impressions on their students? What values, or lack thereof, are being taught if cheating is condoned?

Boston school superintendent Carol Johnson said that "it isn't clear that they violated anything." Actually, it's quite clear. The school violated the students' potential at excelling. Simple. And isn't that a clear indication that they weren't all too confident in their teaching to test the students without cheating? Or did they honestly not feel their students to be competent enough? Either way, there are no excuses.

I can understand that the principal and the teachers just want the best for their students, that's not something I ever question. But this is not a case in which the ends justify the means. Whose best interest was Mr. Watson really serving? Whose face was he really saving? Would he really be able to place value on the scores?

And yet there's still questioning as to where to place blame.

tsk. tsk.

Peace.

Rejecting Accountability

57-year-old Gene Morrill previously pleaded guilty to 20 charges of molestation- related activities, after his attempt to solicit 13-year-old boys over the internet. In seeking leniency in sentencing, Morrill claims that his actions stem from being molested as a child by this guy:

No lie.

This is also coming from the man identified last year as one of several out-of-state online predators. Despite his claim of abuse from Bigfoot, he was determined to be mentally competent to stand trial and was ordered to serve 20 years in prison.

More disturbing that the crimes he committed is his brazen attempt at justifying them. In addition to being convicted of five counts of "attempting to take indecent liberties with a child, five counts of using electronic equipment to solicit a juvenile..." he was also convicted of "ten counts of reproducing child pornography."

His audacity only parallels the audacity of Arelia Margarita Taveras. Who, you ask? And how? This former attorney dipped into her clients' escrow accounts to finance her gambling habit. In addition to being disbarred, she has lost her apartment her parents' home and owes the IRS $58,000.

In an effort to justify her losses, which she says totals $1 million, Taveras filed a $20-million racketeering lawsuit in Federal Court against six Atlantic City casinos and one in Las Vegas. Her reasoning:

They knew I was going for days without eating or sleeping. I would pass out at the tables. They had a duty of care to me. Nobody in their right mind would gamble for four or five days straight without sleeping.

Open the window and throw out all sense of accountability. What do you get? A clean room full of false promises of second chances. And what happens when people don't claim responsibility for their actions? No one can be held liable for their own failures, and as such, their own lives. Everyone is innocent. At least it would appear that way. There's a disillusionment that runs rampant when such events occur -- an epidemic of failure wildly searching for reason.

In case you didn't know, Ms. Taveras, it is no one's responsibility to take care of you besides yourself. And for someone of your intellect to make such statements makes the situation even more disturbing. Just own up and admit fault, and maybe you won't come off completely incompetent. And with regard to Mr. Morrill, well, I just have no words for you.

On a Much Lighter Note

I’m afraid that my blog has started to become an angry rant about the belief of a particular teacher. So I’m taking a step back and trying to regain my composure and catch my breath. And in doing so, I discovered brilliance:

15 pianos were scattered around Birmingham, England with the words “Play Me, I’m Yours” spray painted on them. The installation, or experiment, was organized by an art collective whose coordinators wanted to “create a sense of unity and wonder in a place where both are in short supply.” Amen to that.

The actual creator of the installation, Luke Jerram, worked with the Fierce arts organization, which is “renowned for getting odd things into odder places.” Jerram’s past experiments included this:

Sky orchestra is an installation consisting of “seven hot air balloons, each with speakers attached, take off at dawn to fly across a city. Each balloon plays a different element of the musical score creating a massive audio landscape.”

More than just waking up a sleepy city at an inappropriate hour, it wakes up the imagination and spirit of those who are fortunate enough to experience it. Of the random piano experiment, Kevin Isaacs, executive producer of Fierce, said:

So many people spend their lives now surrounded by horrible noises, working on screens, watching television, this was a way of having something nice just steal up on them where they would least expect it.

And who can complain about that type of noise being made?

'Til next time.
Peace.

... after anger subsided

After a few days, I've had a chance to reconsider, or at least re-evaluate, my initial reaction to Christina Varghese's comment on teacher merit pay.

In How to Make Better Teachers, Claudia Wallis asks of great teachers, which she admits are rare in numbers:

How do they come by their craft? What qualities and capacities do they possess? Can these abilities be measured? Can they be taught? Perhaps above all: How should excellent teaching be rewarded so that the best teachers -- the most competent, caring and compelling -- remain in a profession known for low pay, low status and soul-crushing bureaucracy?

A few prerequisites were mentioned in the article. Now let's attempt to apply those guidelines to Varghese (based only upon her quote, but I think that's alright).

• A deep knowledge of one's subject: the higher the grade, the more closely student achievement correlates to a teachers expertise in her field. As seen in Ms. Varghese's website, she clearly fits that criteria.
  
  
• On the job practice: two years to master the basics of classroom management and six to seven years to become a fully proficient teacher. As a 10 year veteran, Varghese's got this one in the bag.
  
  
• But probably the most important: an unshakable belief in children's capacity to learn. Margaret Gayle, an expert on gifted education at Duke University, says "anyone without this has no business in the classroom." Despite Varghese's credentials, it may be possible that her passion for her subject doesn't translate into her teaching methods.
  

Professional Compensation, or ProComp, is the merit pay equivalent in Denver. Taylor Betz is similar to Christina Varghese in that htey are both veteran math teachers in struggling schools. Betz, however, "didn't expect performance pay to change anything about how she does her job, but says it has made her more driven." She refuses to let kids fail and promised to bulldoze whatever the problem is and solve it. She says, "I'm not a money grubber. Most teachers aren't. But people in other professions get raises, why shouldn't we?"

I think it's completely understandable that teachers should want more money, because quite frankly, they deserve it. However, teaching is a profession understood to have low pay so it's frustrating to see teachers place greater value on monetary profit than student achievement.
Betz takes an appropriate stance in calling merit pay a "just reward." But that's exactly what it should. Especially considering:

Research suggests that a good teacher is the single most important factor in boosting achievement, more important than class size, the dollars spent per student or the quality of textbooks and materials.

While the money is definitely attractive, it shouldn't govern the teaching methods or taint the understanding that student achievement comes first and foremost.

Failure in its Basic Form

According to the New York Times:

Fewer than half of American teenagers who were asked basic history and literature questions in a phone survey knew when the Civil War was fought, and one in four said Columbus sailed to the New World some time after 1750, not in 1492.

The survey, commissioned by Common Core, asked 33 multiple-choice questions to 1,200 17-year-olds about history and literature drawn from a test administered by the Federal Government in 1986.

Common Core describes itself as a new research organization advocating for more teaching of the liberal arts in public schools, and criticizing President Bush’s No Child Left Behind as having

Impoverished public school curriculums by holding schools accountable for student scores on annual tests in reading and mathematics, but in no other subjects.

While the results are disheartening, it may not be all that surprising – which leads to the Next Question: Can Students be Paid to Excel? If the students surveyed were given the incentive of cash prizes for knowing the right answers, I wonder if there would have been a difference.

This article states:

School districts nationwide have seized on the idea that a key to improving schools is to pay for performance, whether through bonuses for teachers and principals, or rewards like cash prizes for students. New York City, with the largest public school system in the country, is in the forefront of this movement, with more than 200 schools experimenting with one incentive or another. In more than a dozen schools, students, teachers and principals are all eligible for extra money, based on students’ performance on standardized tests.

$500,000 have already been handed out to 5,327 students in 58 schools. Harvard Economist, Roland G. Fryer, who designed the student incentive program, said: “I’m not saying I know this is going to fix everything, but I am saying it’s worth trying. What we need to try to do is start that spark.”

And I believe that that spark is first ignited by teachers. We didn’t expect the teachers to be forgotten, did we? Each teacher can receive a bonus of as much as $3,000 if students show marked improvement on state tests.

Right attitude: “It’s better than a slap in the face. But honestly, I don’t think about it. We’re here every day working and pushing; that’s what we’ve been doing for years. We don’t come into this for the money, and most of us don’t leave it because of the money,” said Ruth Lopez, pictured above.

Wrong attitude: “I tell my students all the time that I can sit in the back and hand them worksheets and get the same amount of money as I do if I stand in front of the class working with high energy the entire time. What’s the motivation there? At least this gives us something to work toward,” said Christina Varghese, the lead math teacher at J.H.S. 123.

Let’s face it: Money makes the world go ‘round. There will be people who become teachers because it’s a noble profession and because they have a firm belief in the endless potential of children -- so thank you, Ms. Lopez. But there will also be people who become teachers for no reason, like Ms. Varghese. Concurrently, however, it is understood that teachers don't make ridiculous amounts of money, so the prospect of becoming a millionaire because of it is unwarranted.

This may come off a little harsh and mean, but I’ll stand by it:

While the success of students reflects the success of teachers, the corollary holds true: The failure of students is contingent upon the failure of the teachers. And quite frankly, Ms. Varghese, if your heart’s not in it, do us all a favor and find something else to do. And with regard to your question about where the motivation lies, riddle me this: You’ve been a math teacher at your school for the last 10 years. Is it safe to assume that before this incentive program, you actually were just sitting in the back of the classroom handing out worksheets? I think it’s a fair assumption that makes a great ass out of just you.

If Common Core continues to advocate more teaching on the liberal arts, and therefore lessening the amount of time dedicated to your subject in an effort to balance the curriculum, who is more in danger of failing?

And something to work toward? What about working toward encouraging your students to excel, or to yearn for something greater than they expect? What about attempting to spark initiative? What about taking pride in knowing that you are a main factor in shaping the minds of your students, thereby determining their path in the future?

How about this: for every question you answer correctly, I'll pay you an apology. But in the meantime, I won't hold my breath.

Peace.

Take it to the Streets

Complex magazine, a publication that focuses on all aspects of men’s lifestyle, blogged on the possibility of Eliot Spitzer remaining in office if he just learned some tips from the streets:

Considering he was the Attorney General of New York and busted up a few hooker and drug rings in his day – giving him intimate knowledge of evidence gathering and building a case – makes him even stupider for getting busted with any cell phone records whatsoever.

The blog goes even further to say that he could have prevented exposure had he watched HBO’s The Wire, in which he would have learned to utilize disposable phones.

Client-9 should have applied some covert common sense and bought himself a bunch of pre-paid throwaways like most responsible drug retailers do … Plus he could have went a step further and only texted, further reducing any identifying trace, since his voice wouldn’t have been captured like a fingerprint.

With that, a list of the “sleek” cell phones were recommended from different carriers that offered pre-paid options, with text-messaging capabilities, of course.

So to any aspiring political agent, or to anyone who is already a member, make sure to consult Complex for tips on getting away with nearly everything.

Or to any aspiring poptart trying to make it into the limelight by any means necessary, at least you'll know the reason for discretion, and the means to bring others into the limelight with you -- whether they like it, or not.

Peace.

edit: I decided to remove the poptitute's (you like?) picture because I didn't want to give her anymore exposure than she is already getting. A link would suffice.

I'm a Vegetarian

On a lighter note, I'm jumping on the Spitzer bandwagon:

But think about it, 1000 Spitzer sandwiches from Eisenberg's Sandwich Shop in New York will equal the amount Spitzer actually spent on hookers.

More than just being exposed, Spitzer has undoubtedly shaken whatever little faith we have left in politicians. And more than just damaging his family, Spitzer will more than likely never serve as a public official again.

According to the New York Times:

Mr. Spitzer becomes the first New York governor to resign since 1973, when Nelson A. Rockefeller stepped down to devote himself to a policy group, and the first to be forced out since William Sulzer was impeached in 1913 over a campaign contribution fraud.

What I love most about my fellow New Yorkers isn't their attitude, rudeness and propensity for intensity in all aspects of life, but their uncanny sense of humor:

Because if there's one thing I've learned as a New Yorker and a college student, it's that when in doubt, drink.

Cheers, Spitzer.

Cultivating Criminals?

Or instead, you could do what 45-year-old Richard Lee is doing: Lee founded Oaksterdam University in a downtown Oakland storefront last fall. He is a marijuana activist and pot-dispensary owner who prepares his students for jobs in California's thriving medical marijuana industry.

In the Globe article, Lee said:

My basic idea is to try to professionalize the industry and have it taken seriously as a real industry, just like beer and distilling hard alcohol.

But there's no comparison between alcohol and marijuana, Mr. Lee. While California was the first of a dozen states to have legalized marijuana use for patients with a doctor's recommendation, all alcohol requires is to be purchased by someone of legal age. Moreover, the disparity in the laws regarding either of the substances indicate the difference in the potential harm. I'm not advocating alcohol, but there's a reason why marijuana is deemed as the gateway drug.

The course costs $200 plus two required textbooks. Students learn how to cultivate and cook cannabis, study different strains and are instructed in the legalities.

While I find the objective of job training as valid, I'm concerned that as students are cultivating weed, Lee himself is cultivating criminals; but the type of criminals who are familiarized with the technicalities of the law, and use it to their advantage.

I don't think there's a filter for any of the negative outcomes that will surely arise from Oaksterdam University. Yes, many of the students will be certified, and have a higher chance of getting a job (a decent one at that considering "bud tenders" make an average annual salary of $50,000), but ALL of the students would be equipped with the knowledge to produce marijuana plants, which is still illegal in many parts of the country, and will have the knowledge to evade the law because of technicalities that they'd learn at Oaksterdam. Furthermore, are there any prerequisites for registering, such as background checks for criminal records?

I don't mean to sound like the uptight do-gooder, but this institution just seems to validate the ways in which the law can be manipulated.