Teachers and their unions accuse anyone criticizing public education, public schools, public school teachers, or teachers’ unions of playing the “blame game.” That rhyming phrase is supposed to protect them from any criticism by dismissing it as nothing more serious than a game. The proper response to their responses is short but not sweet: if you presume to be professionals, you should at least pretend to act like them—which means taking criticism seriously and addressing it responsibly.
The dreadful condition of public education in Las Cruces and New Mexico reflects many factors; dominant among them are squalid politics, and self-serving teachers and their unions. For months, the LCPS School Board and the local unit of the National Education Association (NEA-LC) negotiated an increase in teacher compensation. By negotiating behind closed doors before the election, they prevented the issues, even in general terms, from being part of any election contests, especially those involving incumbents who are current or former teachers. For example, my district candidate, Ray Jaramillo faced a credible challenger but did not have to disclose his position. (The LCPS website hides the School Board, called “Board of Education,” under LCPS “Departments.”)
Yet a few days after the election, the NEA-LC declared that it wanted a sizable salary increase, and, a few weeks after the election, the School Board announced a 3.5% salary increase and an $1800 so-called “planning stipend.” Both appear to be the Board’s payback to teachers for supporting the (re-)election of current or former teachers.
Of course, teachers need a living wage and cost adjustments because of inflation. But the district has needs as well. These were not addressed. They never are because the School Board serves teachers, not students. Accordingly, no campaigning incumbents, despite touting their experience, addressed any problems, including the two paramount ones: student academic performance and teacher effectiveness. Consider:
- A fact about student academic performance: A majority of the student body cannot achieve 50% proficiency in reading and mathematics in grades 4 and 8.
- A fair inference about teacher effectiveness: In a state ranked nearly last or last in public education in the nation, LCPS teachers, many home-grown and NMSU-educated, surely rank among the worst.
As a union leader, Ms. Denise Sheehan, NEA-LC president, had to say something, and she did: “We have extraordinary educators in Las Cruces who have gone the extra mile for the last 21 months.” Her blatant boosterism or dubious English proficiency is embarrassing. By definition, “extraordinary” means a few (the “extra”) of many; it does not mean most or all (the ordinary). By definition, “educators” (unmerited honorific) they are not, not with over half of their students not making the grade, so to speak. Either way, she overcompensates for her lack of confidence that the public thinks highly of teachers and her lack of trust that it would have voted “right” if honestly informed.
The problems which the School Board avoids raise doubts about the competency of elementary school teachers, who are responsible for foundation instruction in the four basic academic subjects: English (reading, writing), mathematics (adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing), history, and science. At NMSU, about 90 percent of prospective elementary school teachers concentrate in English. What they know about mathematics, history, and science is what they learned in K-12 grades—that is, not much.
What they do not know about English hints ominously at how much less they know about the other three subjects. When I interviewed former superintendents Stan Rounds and Karen Trujillo, I asked whether elementary school teachers can teach the state-stipulated curriculum in English, particularly grammar. Both said that none of them knows grammar. Neither my questions nor their answers caused them discomfort. The reason: no one on the School Board or in the LCPS leadership expects elementary school teachers to know what they are supposed to teach. And no one is going to ensure that they learn what they are supposed to teach. This indifference at the highest levels of the LCPS District to its teachers’ subject-matter ignorance and instructional incompetence is a prominent feature of public education in Las Cruces.
Who cares? Parents do not; they want winning sports teams and students babysat during working hours. Teachers do not; they want good compensation and job security. Administrators do not; they want to avoid or minimize problems. School Boards do not; they want administrators to conceal or contain them. The LCPS does not get what no one cares to get: effective teachers and educated students.
One consequence of this pervasive and perpetual indifference is the certain failure of Early Childhood Education (ECE) made possible by ignorant and incompetent elementary school teachers. It is an add-on to, not a fix of, a broken system; it leaves elementary school teachers as they always have been and students no better off. Even if it imparted anything of educational value to pre-K students, little or nothing would survive years of mediocrity of elementary school teachers. Proof is the failure of Headstart since it began over 55 years ago: no statistically significant academic difference between Headstart and non-Headstart high-school graduates.
But ECE benefits teachers and their unions because it increases their numbers and political power in the Democratic Party; this constituency is its “base.” Democrats risk losing its support by advocating better curriculums and higher standards. Case in point: Bill Soules, the union’s man in Santa Fe, relies on its support to sustain his political career; he cannot advocate these improvements because teachers would resent and rebel against changes to enhance their professional performance.
Those who care about students and their future, whether in Las Cruces or elsewhere, want them to have a better than mediocre education not only for careers, but also for citizenship, families, and personal, life-time growth. But they do not want to have to support a political party to get necessary changes. They know that, if they first have to get involved in party politics to advance student interests, they will not get past opposition from elementary school teachers, fellow teachers, and their union.
No comments:
Post a Comment