Florida: 48th in Public Edyoocashion.

As of now, Florida Public schools are the 48th best in the United States. The 2 that are behind us are Arizona and Nevada (respectively). Recently, our Governor Rick Scott passed a bill that gives teachers bonuses based on merit.

What this essentially means is that teachers will receive their regular paychecks, and an additional bonus based on how well their students did that year in class. I personally believe that this is Rick Scott's second attempt at running this state like a business. Being a business man himself, I'm sure he believes that all success is derived from business-like actions.

The first example of this is him recently passing a bill that was deemed unconstitutional back in 2004 when Crist was in office. The bill makes it mandatory for all state employees to get drug tested. Ironically, a company called Solantic, a widely known privatized clinic that specializes in drug screenings, is owned by (drumroll please) Rick Scott! Seems like a real Dick (Cheney) move if you ask me.

But back to education and merit pay. Some friends of my family are actually teachers at the local elementary school. When I talked about the subject to them, they laughed and pretty much told them that they're going to teach to the test that determines their pay, and nothing else. This is furthered by Vivian Troen and Katherine C. Boles. In the article "How ‘Merit Pay’ Squelches Teaching" in the Boston Globe on September 28, 2005, it says that "The idea of merit pay, sometimes called pay for performance, was born in England around 1710. Teachers' salaries were based on their students' test scores on examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result was that teachers and administrators became obsessed with financial rewards and punishments, and curriculums were narrowed to include only the testable basics. ... So drawing, science, and music disappeared. Teaching became more mechanical as teachers found that drill and rote repetition produced the 'best' results. Both teachers and administrators were tempted to falsify results, and many did. The plan was ultimately dropped, signaling the fate of every merit plan initiative ever since."

Secondly, it's going to completely undercut essential cooperation between educators. The United Teachers of Los Angeles wrote on November 9th, 2007 that "Teacher unions have historically resisted merit pay proposals because they undermine one of the core principles of teaching and learning: collaboration. Whether it is the informal discussion that takes place in the lunchroom or the more formal exchanges based on grade level, department, or small learning communities, these are only successful because as teachers we understand teaching is about working together to help our students, not competition for better pay."

Thirdly, according to Education-Portal, "Some Teachers are Punished ... Should a teacher who chooses to teach at a large school, an inner city school, or a special needs school where tests scores are generally lower be punished? Definitely not, but that is exactly what some merit pay programs threaten to do." Merit pay really does punish hard working teachers that have bad students, which leads me to another point, that student performance does not represent teacher performance.

My personal favorite is this one: Merit pay creates an incentive for teachers to cheat, by improving student test scores so that they can appear to be doing better as a result of the teacher's work, resulting in bonuses and higher pay. Obviously, the resulting differences in pay would not be fair. In actuality, as a student, this doesn't completely stink. My teachers are going to help me Ace all of my tests, standardized or not. My grades are going to go up, and I'm not going to learn a thing!

But, if that isn't good enough for you, we can turn to past examples and see how it worked out for them. The Boston Globe on September 28th, 2005 wrote an article called "How Merit Pay Squelches Teaching." In it, they wrote "Merit pay comes in many forms and flavors -- including extra bonuses for student achievement gains, satisfactory evaluations by principals or committees, acquiring additional duties, gaining new skills and knowledge, and serving in hard-to-staff schools. We've looked at dozens of plans in North America, South America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Guess what? None of them, past and present, has ever had a successful track record. None has ever produced its intended results. Any gains have been minimal, short-lived, and expensive to achieve."

Sources, mentioned and additional:
Jay Mathews. "Merit Pay Could Ruin Teacher Teamwork". Washington Post. October 6, 2008
Vivian Troen and Katherine C. Boles. "How ‘Merit Pay’ Squelches Teaching". Boston Globe. September 28, 2005
"Report Highlights Risks of Teacher Merit Pay". Education Week. May 20, 2009
"The myth of private-sector performance pay". Economic Policy Institute. May 13, 2009
"Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007
Joseph Legueri. "Iron Range view: Merit pay proponents fail to understand facts of teaching". Duluth News Tribune. May 19, 2009
"No merit to merit pay". United Teachers Los Angeles. November 9, 2007
"Merit pay ain't the way". No Fish No Nuts. March 11, 2009
"Say no to merit pay". Letter to the Editor of the New York Teacher. Apr 2, 2009
"the final word on why merit pay is bullshit". Journeys of Jack Tripper. April 29, 2009
"Merit Pay for Teachers". Creating Lifelong Learners.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/21/study-merit-pay-teachers-doesnt-improve-student-test-scores/ <---This one is by Fox News, so I usually wouldn't promote using this as a reliable source. They quote a Vanderbilt Study though, so it has to be somewhat legitimate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/22/earlyshow/main6129624.shtml
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/the-uncertain-impact-of-merit-pay-for-teachers/

In actuality though, this isn't going to happen. Florida's Education System can't even afford to give Florida Teachers a 1% raise, let alone pay some of them more than 1% their salary for a "good" performance. In 2012 when this bill is supposed to take effect, Florida will realize that we don't have the money for it (or anything else), and repeal it immediately. Then, they (hardworking teachers) will keep having their crappy paychecks which are less than that of a "grass cutter" or a "stock clerk."
Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/education/fl-school-jobs-20110326,0,3562023.story
Or, if you don't want to click on that and read the whole thing, read the first three paragraphs (the important stuff) below:
The Broward County School District last year paid about 34 of its painters and 24 of its roofers at least $59,000 – more per day than it paid teachers with 16 years of experience.

Seventeen stock clerks earned $52,000 or more, while 18 grass cutters and three pest-sprayers were paid about $50,000 – each making more per day than most 10-year teachers.

Taxpayers also paid two mail clerks about $49,000, more per day than many 7-year teachers.

For years, the district refused calls from school activists to reconsider what it pays for services.

A Conversation I had with a Classic Zombie

The following is a transcript of a discussin I had via text message about President Obama's handling of the situation in Libya with a friend of mine who will remain unnamed for provacy purposes. Though intelligent, this friend's wisdom has much to be desired. Before we begin, some background info: Unfortunately, I was unable to watch President Obama's speech last night, and was given false information pertaining to the concept of troop withdrawal from Iraq and insertion into Libya. I apologized at the immediate start of the convesation. Read on, and be sure to leave your opinions below: Friend: "What were you talking about?Obama never said he's sending troops into Libya. Conservative propaganda" Me: "Lol @ conservative propaganda. A girl in my Spanish class, a liberal I might add. told me he said that in his address. Sorry about the misinformation. Nevertheless, we've had CIA and special forces on the ground since airstrikes started. There's a clip from the O'Reilly Factor that I was just watching which discusses it in length. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq4Bh-hlUWA&amp Friend: "They're brainwashing you." Me: "Did you actually watch the clip, becasue you couln't have in that time period..." Friend: "I watched at 2x speed." Me: "Lol if you say so. You ought to actually listen though, because there are troops on the ground. No matter whether or not Obama was trying to protect them, he blatantly lied to us." Friend:"Technically the CIA are not troops. They are civilian intelligence officers." Me: "'You're talking about military' 'yes and they [combat air controllers] have the mission of making sure the missiles reach terminal targets' start at 2:48" Friend:"@4:21 'the primary mission is intel.' No soldiers besides airforce and navy ones are in active combat in Libya." Me: "That doesn't matter. There are 'boots' (as opposed to the CIA's 'shoes') on the ground. Do air force and navy soldiers not count as troops if they aren't in a plane or on a boat? He lied." Friend:"A plane is in the air and a boat is on water. Neither are on land. (p.s. if you want to start labeling you might as well call Newt Gingrich and half the republicans in congress hypocrites)" Me: "That's not the point I was making. What I meant was, these soldiers are on the ground, and you were trying to insinuate that the navy and air force didn't count, becasue they weren't normally ground troops, even though it was explicitly stated in the videothat we have both CIA and military secial forces on the ground. Now, you're trying to put up some straw man wwith the labeling issue. I never once claimed to support Newt Gingrich or the Republicans. I agree with some odf his positions, but I also agree that he is a hypocrite. That has nothing to do with Obama lying to us..." Friend: "The air force, navy, and CIA do not count. That's established. As to the special forces, when a person talks about ground forces, special forcesusually are not included. While they are technically soldiers in Libya, you cannot take every word one says absolutely literally. When he says that its absolutely out of the question for U.S. ground forces to be used in libya, he means on a scale that would basically constitute an invasion a la Iraq, which he directly refers to after he says that." Me: "Why should I not take his words literally when any troops on the ground would constitute military action that necessarily must go through congress to be constitutional. So are you, like Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, suggesting that President Obamahas violated the U.S. constitution, an impeachable offense? Either way that's true. But, I digress. Special forces or not, its troops. Call me a stickler if you must. And thanks for dropping the labeling argument. Let me ask you something. Do you support this attack?" Friend: "Special forces as well as the CIA are in scores of countriesthis very moment and not a single one of their missions has gone through congress. That's how its been for the history of the country. Obama has done nothing different. If you claim that he circumvented the constitution, then basically so has every president." Me: "The CIA is a different story. Military spec ops troops of the type specified here are not in scores of countries. They are in allied countries, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. You agree with me that the CIA iss a civilian group. They operate independently of constitutional authority. The military should not. This is the first time that a president has not even approached congress but has acted merely off of a UN mandate, which, though you may or may not want it to be, is not the law of the land here. Additionally, at this point you concede that troops are on the ground, and that he lied. If you want me to say that Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush are all at fault for similar offenses, then the are." Friend: "and JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, as well as others. All have had special forces in other countries without us being at war with them." Me: "Give me specific examples please. As far as I know, JFK, Bush Sr., Reagan, Clinton, and LBJ all went to congress before starting military action. They had the CIA in the countries before consulting congress, but that's a different story. Even Bush Jr. did this to an extent. Do not confuse this with a formal declaration of war, which has not been done since WWII. Obama is the only one to have not even addressed congress, or us, until long after the events started in Libya. And so he did lie to us as well, going back to the original discussion. And, aside from that, Barack Obama still lied, because in his campaign he promised no mare wars. JFK promised things like, we will defeat the communists, etc." Friend: "JFK: In the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, congress had no part. Special forces in Cuba and the CIA in Florida set the stage for the 'invasion.' 8 U.S. bombers bombed cuban airfields w/o congressional assent a la Libya. LBJ: The U.S. had special forces in Vietnam since 1950, well before the start of the war. They had been supporting the French and other rebels without congressional assent. Bush Sr.: Operation Desert Shield never had congressional approval.It was a wholly defensive operation just like Libya. Clinton: The battle of Mogadishu was a special forces mission with absolutely no approval from congress.Reagan: The U,S. invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) was ordered directly by the president without congressional assent. I guess they should have all been impeached." Me: "I guess so. Unless, of course... Bush Sr: Announced to congress that he would put troops in before commencing. He did not wait for approval, but he told them, and thus had 90 days before the congressionally approved Desert Strom. Sketchy. Possibly an impeachable offense. LBJ: "Wasn't president, until '63. Eisenhower had US troops in Vietnam as part of Operation Passage to Freedom, however this was a navy endeavour - no troops on theground. JFK: The cuban militia was trained exclusively by the CIA, and fell under Cold War doctrines of covert ops, as did all of the previously mentioned. ops.This is in contrast to the overt op of operation Odyssey Dawn. Clinton: Congresse was approached before action was taken, did not approve, but allwoed the90 day window. Reagan: The threats at the airport in Grenada near a facility with American medical studentswas described to congress in '83 by Ron Dellums. Reagan told congress he would invade immediately preceding. The difference between these and Obama's invasion of Libya is that Obama doesn't get 90 days because he told congress after it happened. Even if there is no approval, the president has 90 days if he tells congress. Obama didn't." Friend: "In regards to JFK, the cold war is not an excuse just as the War on Terror is not an excuse. Clinto addressed congress in septemberwhen his op began in August. Ron Dellums actually described the opposite. He thought the operation was unwaranted absurd, and patronizing. LBJ greatly increased the # of military 'consultants'. They were in no way only navy and there were definitely grounfd troops there." Me: "Lol. Eisenhower put in only navy, which was a response to you saying LBJ did stuff in the 50s. I'll responfd to this when I get out of the shower." Me: "Okay, so, Johnson did increase the number of 'consultants,' mostly CIA immediately before and after the declared military action in Vietnam.Many viewed this as an impeachable offense. One of the reasons Nixon was elected in a sweep was becasue of ublic opinion towards LBJ's treatment of the war.I would understand why he could be impeached, just as I understand why Obama could be impeached, though I lead towards Obama's offense being of a greater magnitude. Don't assume that I wuld defend any of our other presidents as I attack Obama. Wilson, for example, I view as a dirtbag." friend: "The United States is not at war though. You said yourself we have not formally declarewd a war on another sovereign state since WWII.The constitution talks about declarations of war." Me: "... Okay, lets start over. The constitution does talk about declarations of war. We have not formally declared war since WWII.Yes. But, the War Powers Declaration, signed into law by congress, states that the president has 48 hours to consult congress, and then has 60 days, with a 30 day withdrawal period, if congress says no. Obama has yet to formally ask congress because he is still operating under the pretext that this is a political and not a military action thanks to the UN mandate specifying a no-fly zone. Nevertheless, we have gone beyond the bounds of the resolution, and this is obviously military, and congress was not asked within 48 hours." Friend: "The operation has not gone outside the bounds of the UN resolution. THe resolution said countries could do anything necessary to protect civilian casualties. I just saw a guy on last night's Daily Show from Benghaziwho's fmily was 2 miles away from Qaddafi's soldiers. If the US and NATO had not intervened, there would be over 25,000 casualties by many estimates." Me: "1. That us beside the point of Obama lying to us. 2. We should still have not intervened. This is not a slaughter of civilians by the military, but a provoked civil war by a militant groupof rebels. The rumors that Qaddafi strafing civilians were proved false. It is hypocritical that we intervene here and not the many otehr places whuch have far worse enocide, and the idea that we would automatically back an unknown grouop of rebelsis ridiculous. Furthermore, Obama's declaration that we will always back rebels is foolish.Should we have backed rebels in Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, and many African nations? The same idea stands here. As al Qaeda publicly supprts the rebels on and off the battlefield. Additionally, Qaddafi tried to bargain for a ceasefire, but rebels continued to attack his bases. I don't like him, but the portrait being painted of him by the media is false." Friend: "I completely agree that we should never have intervened. My point was that Obama's actions had not violated the UN resolution." Me: "Nevertheless, the UN resolution should not dictate American policy. And Obama lied about troops on the gorund. I'm tired though. THis was fun. We should do it again sometime. Seeya tomorrow." So, towards the middle and end my views really weren't wholly what I was expressing, and just started debating for an intellectual exercise. Regardless, this discussion, raises many interesting points. I find myself conflicted over US military action throughout the 20th century for example. I'll refrain from providing initial opinions, but would love to hear yours.

Moammar Gaddafi...

...is crazy...