Chewing Gum Words

Conservatives and weasels of every kind rely on the unfortunate fact that is almost always unpopular to deal with substantial issues. Most people prefer to La-De-Da their way through life, ignoring stumbling blocks, traps and catastrophes (until one of those things ends the joyride). I think this is a result of poor education, which leaves people unable to think about causes and effects beyond the near future, and an undisciplined desire for immediate gratification. Those training and character defects are maliciously used to get people to support ideas and programs against the their own interests. It's easier to believe the smooth-talking salesman instead of reading all those books, magazines and newspapers every day which leaves little time for eating, drinking and screwing.
 

One glaring example of low pandering is the Governator's war against teachers, which he says will spare Californians some $2 billion in taxes annually. Of course, he doesn't call it a war against teachers. Instead, it's a program to improve the schools based on the idea that good teachers deserve better pay. As matters stand, teachers are not well paid. But, in order to introduce "merit pay," teachers' salaries based on seniority would have to be thrown out. In other words, some teachers will get more pay as now and then bonuses, while most teachers will get less and less pay as inflation eats up their paycheck year after year. Since Schwarzenegger claims this process will save the State $2 billion a year, it should be obvious that most teachers are going to get a pay cut.
 

So, after chewing on the Governator's words for a while, we come to their core: teachers aren't worth what we are paying them! Of course, the Governator cannot say that in public.

Putting aside the "pay" part of "merit pay" for the moment, let us ask what is "merit?" The way merit pay is put forward suggests a factory, an assembly line. The same sort of analogy is implicit in "No Child Left Behind" and other conservative-sponsored education programs. The child is raw material to be worked upon by teachers. Competent teachers will take this raw material and perform specified operations upon it, which will produce a standardized "adult" person in so many years. It is assumed that almost all the "raw material" is homogenous. It is assumed every child is capable of learning the same fare at the same rate. So, if children don't learn, it must be the fault of incompetent teachers.
 

This simplistic view of education ignores facts, such as children having widely different abilities and interests. No one knows in advance just how a child will turn out at age 18. No one knows why children get along with some teachers, but not others. But, the simplistic view appeals to proud, child-centered parents who cannot conceive or accept that their children might be stupid, or lazy, or even criminals. (In Peoria, every boy is strong, every girl is beautiful.) Yet, we know that a certain fraction of each generation will have an IQ below 100, that many people are disinclined to be good students (especially teenagers distracted by sex hormones), and that there are always criminals. In many of those undesired cases, we have no idea why the children turned out as they did. Was it the genes? Was it something Aunt Nellie or Uncle Jack did? Perhaps we parents were (Horrors!) defective?

I think it patently clear that people have a wide range of skills and interests, and that is the result of nature and nurture. I also think it clear that no one has invented a formula by which "good citizens" are routinely and expectedly turned out. Education is an ART, not a science. "Good" teachers can influence the outcome, but probably no teacher determines it. This last sentence dooms all the conservative proposals to failure. Who is or isn't a good teacher is circumstantial; it's a matter of fitting the teacher with the class. That sort of determination is entirely individual, and not subject to some "merit" test.
 

Hundreds of possible abuses of "merit pay" come to my mind when thinking about teachers - and not just the ones the Teachers' unions suggest. How about teachers getting bonuses for teaching conservative (or whatever) approved curricula? In the thoroughly politicized State conservatives are creating, the very "political correctness" they despise and rail against could become sine qua non for teaching success. (Aside: "thoroughly politicized" is a feature of totalitarian political philosophies. "Political correctness" is, of course, a conservative code phrase meaning "liberal" anything, and avoids the real issues: censorship and academic freedom.) In a democratic society, do we not value individuality, and reject brainwashing? Is that not the result of varied nature and nurture?

If there is any way of determining teacher "merit," it is highly individual and specific. One teacher might be a wonder with bright students, while another drives young people to distraction. The same could be said of all the other teaching situations, such as dealing with the retarded, the bigotted, gang members, teenage Romeos and Juliets, the plain, the dull, and on and on. A teacher assigned to an inappropriate class won't do well, or might do less well than a better match. Who decides on the assignments? Isn't our whole educational system something built from the ground up by its bootstraps?
 

It seems to me only self-defined "good" teachers are in any position to supervise the system, because no other definition can be given. It is a matter of experience. If children turn out the way we want, and society advances, the teachers did a good job. If not, we should look into what went wrong. That could be the fault of some bad eggs in the parents, in the schoolroom or in the principals' offices, or a lot of other things. What's right or wrong about the school system - from Kindergarten to Graduate School - cannot be decided by a Simpleton.

Finally, when I arrived in California 43 years ago, it had one of the best school systems in America. California had progressive schools, based on John Dewey's educational philosophy; a philosophy that worked. Then Ronald Reagan got elected Governor. He attacked and undermined the University of California and the "liberal" public school system. Neither the public schools nor the University managed to retain their excellence since that time. So, the record seems to show that what is wrong with California's schools is the excessive conservative political tutelage they have been under.
 

It is long past time to get the politics out of the schools and Universities. It is overdue to tell parents that their children are what they are. What's needed is to put the teachers back in charge of the schools. This seems to me a surer solution to our problems than hiding chewing gum under desks.