Flypaper

In his latest riposte, Liam argues that I've ignored the ethical dimension of the student-pay debate. When one considers the difficult moral questions that paying students for performance invariably poses, he says, it becomes clear that principals should not be given free reign to try it out in their schools.

He goes on:

Parents have a right to a public-school education for their children that is unencumbered by controversial incursions unrelated to teaching and learning.... They can reasonably object to having their children exposed to a culture of cash payment for achievement... which is not indubitably part of learning and completely restructures the culture of achievement to which we so desperately cling as the hope for inner-city schools.

A potential flaw in Liam's reasoning, as I see it, is that the education that today's public school pupils receive is necessarily encumbered by "controversial incursions unrelated to teaching and learning." In today's politically-correct public sphere, nearly everything that goes on in the classroom can be and is made into a controversy.

Let's take Liam's claim but leave it open-ended: "[Parents] can reasonably object to having their children exposed to a culture of X." Now think of all the things we could plug in for X and ask yourself what we'd have left over if we simply banished them all from the classroom, as Liam would like.

Liam might respond that the term "reasonably" precludes a whole host of possible values for X, but "reasonableness" is a...

No, not Reverend Wright, but our favorite ed school professor, Bill Ayers.

* Friend of Barack Obama

Liam Julian

The New York Times offers a piece today about the progress of providing good??public??education in New Orleans.

And this bill , backed by Gov. Bobby Jindal and fighting its way through the state legislature, is promising.

Liam Julian

When a school experiments with paying students for their good grades or attendance, as Coby suggests a school should if its leadership so chooses, it makes not simply a pedagogical or policy decision but an ethical one, too. Part of the trouble with handing out cash to 11-year-olds is that it puts parents uncomfortable with the action in the even more uncomfortable??arrangement of either a) allowing it or b) disallowing it and conspicuously rendering their children among the several who don't receive payment for??time served.

Parents have a right to a public-school education for their children that is unencumbered by controversial incursions unrelated to teaching and learning. Parents do not have a right, for example, to dictate that evolution, which may offend them, be forbidden from science class because evolution is an indubitable part of science and should therefore be taught. They can reasonably object to having their children exposed to a culture of cash payment for achievement, though, which is not indubitably part of learning and completely restructures the culture of achievement??to which??we so desperately cling??as the hope for inner-city schools. ??

We can debate whether or not paying kids to show up to class works, is a good idea, sets up good incentives, etc. We cannot debate that it has ethical reverberations that may not jibe with those parents wish to inculcate in their progeny. As such, it's a policy/pedagogy/ethical decision best left??alone....

So why did Miami-Dade superintendent Rudy Crew turn down a principal's offer to work for a $1 salary? As paraphrased by the Miami Herald, he said it was because "a position budgeted at $1 a year plus benefits could not be filled if [the principal] left before year's end." To which the principal, replied, "New life has been thrust into this old body. With one more year, I could take these kids to the next level."

It sounds like new life needs to be thrust into the Miami-Dade school district, which has a habit of tangling itself in bureaucratic knots.

Liam Julian

Ben Stein is really doing himself a disfavor by promoting his new documentary thusly. He's in cahoots with the Discovery Institute, the not-so-hidden agenda of which is to lend scientific credibility to intelligent design and push it into schools. Woefully, the strategy seems to be working in Florida and Louisiana. That's bad enough. But the Hitler angle is just too much, and someone needs to tell Stein and his buddies that they're leaving the realm of the respectable.

Liam Julian

The New York Times thinks the Big Apple's unemployable teachers should be fired.

Liam Julian

Coby will no doubt disagree with this interpretation. But his conclusion reminds one of that advanced by "post-partisans," those who think we should move beyond our (in Coby's words) "heated, theory-driven arguments" and find that hallowed, middle ground.

I recall National Review's Jonah Goldberg pointing out recently that post-partisan people are no such thing. In fact, they're actually very partisan folks who couch their ideas in post-partisan language and pressure others to accept a "compromise" that is, in reality, a surrender. Coby writes that we've reached a stalemate about the appropriateness of paying students for test scores and attendance, and that therefore we should simply allow districts to experiment with paying students for test scores and attendance and see if it works. Such experimentation is precisely what I'm arguing against, for lots of reasons, so I don't see myself accepting his solution.

I have no problem with the Baltimore program, though, which, if I understand it correctly, gives kids a certain amount of money to invest in the stock market and lets them keep the??dollars they earn from their investments.

This is different??from paying kids to attend class. In the stock market, making money is the return, so when we allow students to keep the dollars they earn through their investment savvy, we educate by replicating reality. When we inject cash incentives into areas where they do not belong, however, we pervert the incentives that already exist and students learn nothing for it. If they...

Starting today, I'll do a weekly roundup of New York City union boss Randi Weingarten's most ridiculous statements from the week past. An occasional spot in the Gadfly (see here and here, for example) just doesn't do justice to the incredible dexterity with which she warps logic and reason.

This week's selection comes from this article in yesterday's New York Times about a New Teacher Project report showing that "New York City is paying $81 million over two years in salaries and benefits for teachers without permanent teaching jobs":

The report drew praise from city officials. But Randi Weingarten, the president of the United Federation of Teachers, dismissed it, calling the New Teacher Project a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the Education Department.... "The most repulsive part of this report is that the D.O.E. is abdicating its responsibility to help the teachers who, through no fault of their own, have lost their positions," Ms. Weingarten added. "It's the quintessential blame-the-victim strategy."

Yes, that's right Randi, it's not these teachers' fault that they can't find open positions in the biggest system in the country. I'm sure these teachers are all America's best and brightest....

Pages