Yesterday my blog on Public Policy attempted to describe the way our current tax system works by using a narrative. Today I will address some of the more popular reforms people have suggested for our tax code.
Flat Tax. The flat tax would be a tax rate that everyone regardless of income level would have to pay. Everyone in the country would pay the same percentage regardless if you earned $10,000 or $100,000,000 a year. This would simply the tax code and make filing each year simple. A set percentage would be take out of your check each week. Any other earnings could also possibly be taxed and recorded through statements, like the ones I get from my bank at the end of the year with the amount of interest I receive in savings or checking accounts. You could file your taxes on a single sheet of paper. If you paid more taxes this year than was required than the government would send you a check. If you paid too little you would send a check. Simple and easy
Fair Tax. This tax has several different names. I have heard one person call it a transaction tax. It could be called also a consumption tax. In essence, it is a sales tax. The government would set a certain rate to tax items that a person buys. One key item I would try to add to this would be to tax exemptions for specific things: like food, housing, utilities, and clothes. These are essentials to life that no one can live without. Just as the lords of old could not tax the serfs before they were clothed, fed and housed so the tax would apply to us. You also choose when you are taxed in this system. If you don't like what the government is doing then you do without some wants for a while to send them a message: a boycott. It makes sense that the founding fathers restricted direct taxes on individuals when they wrote the Constitution. You cannot boycott an income tax without breaking the law.
State Collection. This is the original method used by the federal government to collect taxes. If you look at the Constitution in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. It shows that taxes from the federal government would be apportioned to the states based on their population. So a less populace state like Alaska would pay less taxes than California. The state would then use whatever methods they saw fit to raise said taxes to pay to the federal government.
No matter what system we use it needs to be applied equally to all people in the United States. Also, the government needs to know how to stay within its limits. No tax system will work effectively if the government continually spends more money than it brings in through taxes. We could take a lesson from the Bible and the story of Joseph and the famine in Egypt. When the government runs a surplus we must put that money aside for the future, so that when we run into rough times we can draw upon that surplus.
That's all I have for today. I welcome all comments, suggestions and questions.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Public Policy: Our Current Tax System
This posting it would seem to be most appropriate on April 15, the day our tax returns are due, but a discussion on facebook prompts it to be written now. This public policy posting will deal with how the U.S. distributes the tax burden and the possible ways to improve the complex system. First a story. I found this online last summer and its the perfect way of understanding out current progressive tax system.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
This story show in simplistic detail how our tax system work. Each person pays depending on how much money they earn pays a proportional amount of money so that they poorest pay little or nothing into the system and the richest pay the highest proportion of their income out of all of us. But there are other things to consider when figuring taxes too like tax credits, refunds, exemptions, and deductions. People get a deduction for charitable contributions, home mortgage interest, and children. We all get a standard deduction; I don't even know what that means. Some people this year got and $8,000 tax credit for buying a new home. Others got tax credit for buying a more fuel efficient car. The tax breaks and loopholes are almost impossible to document unless you have studied the 80,000 pages that make up the U.S. Tax Code.
All of these make the tax code horribly complex that even the man who runs the IRS does not do his own taxes. Its time to simplify the tax code. The next post will focus on the most popular solutions. See you tomorrow.
The Way Our Tax System Works
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
This story show in simplistic detail how our tax system work. Each person pays depending on how much money they earn pays a proportional amount of money so that they poorest pay little or nothing into the system and the richest pay the highest proportion of their income out of all of us. But there are other things to consider when figuring taxes too like tax credits, refunds, exemptions, and deductions. People get a deduction for charitable contributions, home mortgage interest, and children. We all get a standard deduction; I don't even know what that means. Some people this year got and $8,000 tax credit for buying a new home. Others got tax credit for buying a more fuel efficient car. The tax breaks and loopholes are almost impossible to document unless you have studied the 80,000 pages that make up the U.S. Tax Code.
All of these make the tax code horribly complex that even the man who runs the IRS does not do his own taxes. Its time to simplify the tax code. The next post will focus on the most popular solutions. See you tomorrow.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #4: The U.S. House of Representatives
This lesson of our Constitution focuses on Article I, Section 2, the powers of the U.S. House of Representatives. I will deal with this section, clause by clause.
Some people see this also and say it advocates slavery and cannonizes it within our Constitution. It does not no such thing if you read the language. There is no mention of slavery by in this clause. The counting of three-fifths of all other persons refers to slavery, but does not advocate it or support it in the language of the constitution, it only states how they will be counted in determining representation.
This came about because of the three-fifth Compromise at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. If it had not been for the three-fifths compromise the slaves state could have easily over powered the free states in every and all elections for president and within the House of Representatives. Also, if they had not reached this agreement it is quite possible the slave state would have started their own confederation or nation and we would have been at odd with them for decades if not years to come over this same issue. The founders did not fight the battle of slavery at this point in history because they though slavery would ultimately die out on its own. Little did they know that it would take a Civil War and 620,000 American lives to free our black brothers and sisters from bondage, but hindsight is 20/20.
Also, this part of the U.S. Constitution was made null and void by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Also in this last clause we see the power of impeachment given to the House of Representatives. To impeach an elected official means to accuse them of some wrong doing, whether it be criminal or civil. The House may only go so far as making the accusation of the civil officer. Most textbooks has been shown the impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and the near impeachment of Richard Nixon as their examples of this process, but any civil officer under the authority of the U.S. Constitution is subject to impeachment. Most impeachments in history have been of federal judges. One U.S. senator has been impeached but the House and the Senate typically deal with these problems on their own since they have that power written into that Constitution.
That does it for today class. Next time we will look at Article I, Section 4 on the structure and power of the U.S. Senate. Any questions? Comments Concerns? In that case... class dismissed.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.This part establishes the time and qualifications for elections for the members of the "People's House." The house was designed to be the house that represented the will of the people; that is why their term is so short. It makes them more accountable to the electorate that voted for them. This also sets up the first qualifications for the right to vote (suffrage) in our government. The states would determine the qualifications for the voters for the House of Representatives by the qualifications needed to vote for the largest part of the state's legislature. At the time that was primarily, white land owning men. While I agree with the idea and practice universal suffrage, I sometimes wonder if there ought to not be some property or tax qualification for our electorate.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.This clause clearly lays out the qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. One topic absent from the Constitution (prior to the 22nd Amendment) is the that of term limits. Our founding father did fear a permanent class of career politicians running the government. If they could see us now they would be shocked to see men like Ted Kennedy and John McCain who have made a career in the Congress. But term limits do exist, in the spirit of the Constitution; they are called elections.
This clause establishes two things. The first is that representatives will be determined by the population of the states. The second is that taxes will be apportioned only directly to the states based on their population; its the first taxing power of the Congress. The government would tax the states and the states would tax the individuals to send that revenue to the federal government.Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.
Some people see this also and say it advocates slavery and cannonizes it within our Constitution. It does not no such thing if you read the language. There is no mention of slavery by in this clause. The counting of three-fifths of all other persons refers to slavery, but does not advocate it or support it in the language of the constitution, it only states how they will be counted in determining representation.
This came about because of the three-fifth Compromise at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. If it had not been for the three-fifths compromise the slaves state could have easily over powered the free states in every and all elections for president and within the House of Representatives. Also, if they had not reached this agreement it is quite possible the slave state would have started their own confederation or nation and we would have been at odd with them for decades if not years to come over this same issue. The founders did not fight the battle of slavery at this point in history because they though slavery would ultimately die out on its own. Little did they know that it would take a Civil War and 620,000 American lives to free our black brothers and sisters from bondage, but hindsight is 20/20.
Also, this part of the U.S. Constitution was made null and void by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.This clause sets up the practice and power of the decennial census. Here we see one of the first expressed powers of Congress. They are to direct by law the enumeration of the people in the states. Congress has practiced this expressed power by creating the U.S. Census Bureau. The creation of that agency is the implied action of the expressed power, which I talked about in the my last lesson.
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.This last part of clause three sets up the proportion by which the population shall be allotted representatives in the House. The one for every thirty thousand is not practical by today's standards. If this was followed, our House of Representatives would have over ten thousand elected members to that house. While the practice of setting representation by law is strictly unconstitutional it was a change for the better. To make it more practical an amendment should have been offered saying that Congress has the power add or subtract from its membership as long as the representatives are still apportioned according to population and that each state is guarantee at least one representative. The one representative rule could even possibly be expanded as well.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.Since the House of Representatives is the "People's House." It only makes sense that they should decide on any and all vacancies that occur. Though the people are dependent upon governors of their states to ensure the elections occur.
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.This lays out the leadership positions within the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House is the be their leader and oversee the legislative proceedings. Today the speaker is a much more powerful position than it was at the writing of the Constitution. I wonder how the Founding Fathers would view the position of Speaker today.
Also in this last clause we see the power of impeachment given to the House of Representatives. To impeach an elected official means to accuse them of some wrong doing, whether it be criminal or civil. The House may only go so far as making the accusation of the civil officer. Most textbooks has been shown the impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and the near impeachment of Richard Nixon as their examples of this process, but any civil officer under the authority of the U.S. Constitution is subject to impeachment. Most impeachments in history have been of federal judges. One U.S. senator has been impeached but the House and the Senate typically deal with these problems on their own since they have that power written into that Constitution.
That does it for today class. Next time we will look at Article I, Section 4 on the structure and power of the U.S. Senate. Any questions? Comments Concerns? In that case... class dismissed.
Friday, January 29, 2010
News of the Day - 1/29/2010: Obama & Church Attendance
There were several possible stories today I could have commented on from Mother Teressa being put on a U.S. postal stamp (and the objective of an atheist organization), to the moving of KSM's trial from NYC to another location. Or I could have commented about how the university at the Climategate scandal broke the law. Another option was the Obama Administration trying to take on the BCS and change college football. Instead I decided to focused on the following article : Holy BlackBerry! Obama Finds Ways to Keep the Faith During First Year in Office: Has the First Family's D.C. Church Search Come to a Close
Also I am trying to keep this short since I seem to be coming down with a cold or something like that.
This article makes several points over the span of it. It goes into great detail on the President's personal spiritual life and his faith. The main issue seems to be that the President has yet to find and attend regularly any church in the Washington, D.C. area. It also breaks down and goes into this history of the modern presidents practice of going to church.
The easy way of looking at this is, who cares? So the President does not go to church, as a Christian that does concern me a little, but its not that big of a deal. As stated in the article many modern PResidents have not gone regularly to a church in DC. What most people will have issue with is that the president holds himself to be a Christian but he obviously is not practicing, at least in the more traditional way.
If I were in his shoes I would attempt to find a church to worship at while I was President. The main issue you deal with is security. Obviously there is some danger of the President being out in the open without any real security. Regan had this problem when he tried to worship. The Secret Service wanted to search everyone who came into the church and that is just not practical in any sensible way. If I could get away with a detactment that just hung back during the service and not bothering the other parisoners I would do so. I don't think that would be likely though.
Instead I would more than likely find a church my family could attend with a minimal security escort so our children could be brought up in the fear and respect of the Lord; not just the church service but Sunday School as well. I would then try and see if the minister would come in at least once a week to be my confessor and serve to me the sacraments.
The other main issues I have taken with this article is the implication that most priests, pastors or ministers have a political agenda. I have never been to a single Lutheran church that has push politics instead of preaching the Gospel. I would walk out of the church if they did so. Church is about preaching the gospel not pushing a political agenda. Also if the media and other make the president's lack of church attendance a political issue they are stupid and should focus on real issues at hand.
That's my take today. Have a great night everyone and a good weekend. Remember my third lesson on the U.S. Constitution will be posted tomorrow probably in the afternoon, since I have some training at my school in the morning. This week's topic is the structure and power of the House of Representatives, Article I, Section 2.
Enjoy and as always, leave comments.
Also I am trying to keep this short since I seem to be coming down with a cold or something like that.
This article makes several points over the span of it. It goes into great detail on the President's personal spiritual life and his faith. The main issue seems to be that the President has yet to find and attend regularly any church in the Washington, D.C. area. It also breaks down and goes into this history of the modern presidents practice of going to church.
The easy way of looking at this is, who cares? So the President does not go to church, as a Christian that does concern me a little, but its not that big of a deal. As stated in the article many modern PResidents have not gone regularly to a church in DC. What most people will have issue with is that the president holds himself to be a Christian but he obviously is not practicing, at least in the more traditional way.
If I were in his shoes I would attempt to find a church to worship at while I was President. The main issue you deal with is security. Obviously there is some danger of the President being out in the open without any real security. Regan had this problem when he tried to worship. The Secret Service wanted to search everyone who came into the church and that is just not practical in any sensible way. If I could get away with a detactment that just hung back during the service and not bothering the other parisoners I would do so. I don't think that would be likely though.
Instead I would more than likely find a church my family could attend with a minimal security escort so our children could be brought up in the fear and respect of the Lord; not just the church service but Sunday School as well. I would then try and see if the minister would come in at least once a week to be my confessor and serve to me the sacraments.
The other main issues I have taken with this article is the implication that most priests, pastors or ministers have a political agenda. I have never been to a single Lutheran church that has push politics instead of preaching the Gospel. I would walk out of the church if they did so. Church is about preaching the gospel not pushing a political agenda. Also if the media and other make the president's lack of church attendance a political issue they are stupid and should focus on real issues at hand.
That's my take today. Have a great night everyone and a good weekend. Remember my third lesson on the U.S. Constitution will be posted tomorrow probably in the afternoon, since I have some training at my school in the morning. This week's topic is the structure and power of the House of Representatives, Article I, Section 2.
Enjoy and as always, leave comments.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
News of the Day - 1/28/2010: Ford Makes a Profit
Still not a lot of good news to comment on. The state of the Union address is an easy target but is being talked to death. I know I can't really add much to the conversation so I won't. I did find this article tucked away in the Drudge Report this morning and it seemed interesting enough to comment on. Here's the link to the story: Ford earns 2.7 Billion in 2009
The basic summary is that for the first time in four years the Ford Motor Company made a profit. The seem to be three major reasons for the profit this year. First, sales of popular cars made by Ford. Two, money that was brought in through their credit line to buyers. Three, using various cost cutting measures not specifically mentioned in the article, though probably related to union pensions.
Ford's actions at this time last year at the reason why, if I have to buy a new car in the future I am buying a Ford. They knew they were in trouble and went the opposite course of everyone else at the time. Everyone else ran to the government for a bailout. Ford said no and went the harder more difficult route and are now prospering as best as they can. I don't see any news about GM or Chrysler making profits and now they are owned by the government and their unions
Ford still has problems, as do all automotive manufacturers, with unions and many underfunded liabilities because of them that but there are solutions out there for those issues. Ford should live up to its part of the deals its made with the UAW, but the UAW should also contribute to make sure the programs are solvent. There are millions of dollars in the UAW given in dues. They need to step to help the company because if they don't the company can go under and then all those jobs they provide to union members will be gone. (Side note: A post on the current state of unions seems like a good topic to address in the near future).
Not sure what else there is to say in this article. Please leave me your comment and questions. Have a nice day.
The basic summary is that for the first time in four years the Ford Motor Company made a profit. The seem to be three major reasons for the profit this year. First, sales of popular cars made by Ford. Two, money that was brought in through their credit line to buyers. Three, using various cost cutting measures not specifically mentioned in the article, though probably related to union pensions.
Ford's actions at this time last year at the reason why, if I have to buy a new car in the future I am buying a Ford. They knew they were in trouble and went the opposite course of everyone else at the time. Everyone else ran to the government for a bailout. Ford said no and went the harder more difficult route and are now prospering as best as they can. I don't see any news about GM or Chrysler making profits and now they are owned by the government and their unions
Ford still has problems, as do all automotive manufacturers, with unions and many underfunded liabilities because of them that but there are solutions out there for those issues. Ford should live up to its part of the deals its made with the UAW, but the UAW should also contribute to make sure the programs are solvent. There are millions of dollars in the UAW given in dues. They need to step to help the company because if they don't the company can go under and then all those jobs they provide to union members will be gone. (Side note: A post on the current state of unions seems like a good topic to address in the near future).
Not sure what else there is to say in this article. Please leave me your comment and questions. Have a nice day.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
My Perfect School - Student / Teacher Dress Codes
There have been no really good news stories that I have felt like commenting on recently. I think I might need to find some additional government and/or education topics I can write about to fill in these dry news periods. If anyone has any ideas of what I should write about send me a email or a comment.
Today's post deals with a school dress code. Personally I think that they are a great idea, for both teachers and students several reasons. First is the issue of security. With standardized attire, as its called in the Clark County School District, you can instantly tell a student from an outsider. Secondly, it does take away the need of students to dress up for each other. It can can help eliminate the status symbols that clothes have become to our kids and society. Thirdly, they just look nice.
As I look at most websites of schools I see that their dress codes are extremely long and detailed. As I have stated before any regulations from a government body need to be simple, concise and easy to understand. The longer you make the law and the more details and exceptions you build into the law the harder you make it to enforce. Here is the regulations for the student dress code of my perfect school:
I believe it is also important for teachers to have a clear and reasonable dress code as well. As a professional job and career it is time teacher look like them. I have seen teachers wear jean on a daily basis. I have see teachers wear sports jerseys and other things that are completely inappropriate in our professional lives. I am not suggesting teachers should wear shirts, ties, dress pants and shoes every day,but there needs to be a higher standard for our standard dress as teachers. Listed below is my idea of a goo general dress code regulation for teacher in my perfect school
One more thing. I am trying to get a feel of how many people read my blogs. If you read this blog could you "Like it" for me on facebook. If you read it at the Blogspot website, just send a quick comment at the bottom of the post. Thanks for listening and have a nice day.
Today's post deals with a school dress code. Personally I think that they are a great idea, for both teachers and students several reasons. First is the issue of security. With standardized attire, as its called in the Clark County School District, you can instantly tell a student from an outsider. Secondly, it does take away the need of students to dress up for each other. It can can help eliminate the status symbols that clothes have become to our kids and society. Thirdly, they just look nice.
As I look at most websites of schools I see that their dress codes are extremely long and detailed. As I have stated before any regulations from a government body need to be simple, concise and easy to understand. The longer you make the law and the more details and exceptions you build into the law the harder you make it to enforce. Here is the regulations for the student dress code of my perfect school:
Students are required to adhere to following clothing guidelines during the scheduled school day.Simple and easy to enforce.
1. Students are required to wear properly fitting khaki pants, school polo shirts and close toed shoes, that are clean and in good repair.
2. Students are allowed to wear jeans and/or non-polo school pride shirts on Fridays.
3. All shirts must be tucked into their pants, which must be worn at the top of the hips.
4. Student wearing excessive, distracting and/or dangerous jewelry, accessories and/or hair styles may be asked to remove or change them.
Students out of dress code will be fined by the school for each individual infraction of the dress code. These fines will be added to the student’s record and must be paid by the end of each grading period. Students may be asked to change clothes and/or leave after school events if the faculty or staff feel the clothes are inappropriate.
I believe it is also important for teachers to have a clear and reasonable dress code as well. As a professional job and career it is time teacher look like them. I have seen teachers wear jean on a daily basis. I have see teachers wear sports jerseys and other things that are completely inappropriate in our professional lives. I am not suggesting teachers should wear shirts, ties, dress pants and shoes every day,but there needs to be a higher standard for our standard dress as teachers. Listed below is my idea of a goo general dress code regulation for teacher in my perfect school
All faculty and staff must be dressed in professional attire during the contracted school day. They are required to wear professional pants/skirts of an appropriate and modest length. They must wear collared shirts or blouses. All clothes must be clean and in good repair. Faculty and staff are allowed to wear jeans and school spirit shirts, as they choose, on Fridays during the school year. TeachersThis regulation is very vague and probably needs to be appropriately fleshed out to a few standardized rules of dress, but its the best I have right now. I welcome any suggestions and comments from my readers.
One more thing. I am trying to get a feel of how many people read my blogs. If you read this blog could you "Like it" for me on facebook. If you read it at the Blogspot website, just send a quick comment at the bottom of the post. Thanks for listening and have a nice day.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
My State of the Union Address 2010
Its time once again for the annual state of the union address to be made by the President to a joint session of Congress and televised to the nation and the world. In celebration of this annual occasion of the our nation I will present my State of the Union address, that is if I was President today.
Before I begin this evening, I would ask all members sitting in the House chambers to hold their applause until the end of the speech.
My fellow Americans, I come to you today to report on the state of our union and our union is weakened by many crisis but remains strong and vigilant. But the financial stability of this government and our country calls for drastic and clear cut action. This is my goal this year and into the future of my term as President.
In the next few weeks, I will send to Congress for their approval, the budget for our national government. This budget will include drastic cuts to many federal bureaucracies and programs. I instructed the heads of every major executive department and/or agency, within my power, to cut their annual budgets by ten to twenty percent. What this means in the big picture is many programs will be cut. It is time that this government learn to get by with less. The time for billion and trillion dollar deficits is over; the time for fiscal responsibility starts right here and right now tonight.
Along with this cut in federal spending I will ask the members of this esteemed body of legislators to stop using the federal government to fund pet projects with in their state. I will not sign any bill out of this Congress with ANY earmarked appropriations. I also encourage this esteemed body of legislators to pass reforms on the pay, benefits and privileges of all federal employees, including themselves. And to stop more spending tax payer dollars so that you can go to summit half way across the world.
On top of the savings we will have from cuts in the budget and getting rid of earmarked appropriations, I will save even more money. I have removed all direct foreign aid in this years up coming budget. It is time the money entrusted to us by the tax payers be used to help themselves not a third world dictator or another country half way around the world. This in and off itself will save us hundreds of billions of dollars each year.
Also, on the way to Congress is a legislative plan, created by myself and the greatest political minds of this country, to cut the size and scope of the executive branch of our government. I would ask Congress to their immediate attention. This plan seeks to eliminate, from our government, any agency, program and/or bureaucracy that does not stand up to Constitutional muster and the original intent of the men who wrote our Constitution. Among these reforms will be the combining of several executive departments and the complete elimination of others.
Any and all savings produced by these reforms will be spent in several ways. First, to shore up our over burdened entitlement programs of social security, medicare and medicaid. This is to bring them back into financial solvency, until such time as they can be eliminated from the the government entirely. Over the course of the next year I will work with members of Congress, and some of the brightest financial minds in the world to create a plan to limit and/or eliminate the aforementioned entitlement programs. They have cost us too much money for too long of a time. It's time for the waste stop.
Second, to pay off our mounting national debt. Right now the United States owes different nations of the world more than twelve trillion dollars. Does anyone know how much a trillion dollars is? Well here's an example if you were to spend one hundred million dollars every day for two thousand years, you would still not come even close to one trillion dollars. It is time for America to make good on it debt and pay off it note. We are selling our future down the drain with this massive debt.
Three, to give back to the American people the money that they earned by the sweat of their brow. I will make it a priority to give all Americans a tax cut so that they have more money to spend on what they need and what they want. Along with this I will be working with the brightest minds of our IRS to create a real tax reform plan, to send to Congress, that not only simplifies the tax code, but ensure all Americans pay into the system which protects them on a daily basis.
My fellow Americans we in the government have work to do for you. Its time for us to get busy. God bless you all and may god bless theses United States.
Before I begin this evening, I would ask all members sitting in the House chambers to hold their applause until the end of the speech.
My fellow Americans, I come to you today to report on the state of our union and our union is weakened by many crisis but remains strong and vigilant. But the financial stability of this government and our country calls for drastic and clear cut action. This is my goal this year and into the future of my term as President.
In the next few weeks, I will send to Congress for their approval, the budget for our national government. This budget will include drastic cuts to many federal bureaucracies and programs. I instructed the heads of every major executive department and/or agency, within my power, to cut their annual budgets by ten to twenty percent. What this means in the big picture is many programs will be cut. It is time that this government learn to get by with less. The time for billion and trillion dollar deficits is over; the time for fiscal responsibility starts right here and right now tonight.
Along with this cut in federal spending I will ask the members of this esteemed body of legislators to stop using the federal government to fund pet projects with in their state. I will not sign any bill out of this Congress with ANY earmarked appropriations. I also encourage this esteemed body of legislators to pass reforms on the pay, benefits and privileges of all federal employees, including themselves. And to stop more spending tax payer dollars so that you can go to summit half way across the world.
On top of the savings we will have from cuts in the budget and getting rid of earmarked appropriations, I will save even more money. I have removed all direct foreign aid in this years up coming budget. It is time the money entrusted to us by the tax payers be used to help themselves not a third world dictator or another country half way around the world. This in and off itself will save us hundreds of billions of dollars each year.
Also, on the way to Congress is a legislative plan, created by myself and the greatest political minds of this country, to cut the size and scope of the executive branch of our government. I would ask Congress to their immediate attention. This plan seeks to eliminate, from our government, any agency, program and/or bureaucracy that does not stand up to Constitutional muster and the original intent of the men who wrote our Constitution. Among these reforms will be the combining of several executive departments and the complete elimination of others.
Any and all savings produced by these reforms will be spent in several ways. First, to shore up our over burdened entitlement programs of social security, medicare and medicaid. This is to bring them back into financial solvency, until such time as they can be eliminated from the the government entirely. Over the course of the next year I will work with members of Congress, and some of the brightest financial minds in the world to create a plan to limit and/or eliminate the aforementioned entitlement programs. They have cost us too much money for too long of a time. It's time for the waste stop.
Second, to pay off our mounting national debt. Right now the United States owes different nations of the world more than twelve trillion dollars. Does anyone know how much a trillion dollars is? Well here's an example if you were to spend one hundred million dollars every day for two thousand years, you would still not come even close to one trillion dollars. It is time for America to make good on it debt and pay off it note. We are selling our future down the drain with this massive debt.
Three, to give back to the American people the money that they earned by the sweat of their brow. I will make it a priority to give all Americans a tax cut so that they have more money to spend on what they need and what they want. Along with this I will be working with the brightest minds of our IRS to create a real tax reform plan, to send to Congress, that not only simplifies the tax code, but ensure all Americans pay into the system which protects them on a daily basis.
My fellow Americans we in the government have work to do for you. Its time for us to get busy. God bless you all and may god bless theses United States.
Monday, January 25, 2010
My Perfect School - Merit Pay
I believe I have done a post prior to this one on Merit Pay for teachers. It is an idea whose time has come in education and school. A teacher should be paid based on their ability and merit not based on their longevity and education. The main reason being is that I hear about too many teachers with advanced degrees and so many years of service but are horrible teachers, don't teach anything, hand out worksheets, etc. I hear these things from the most reliable source of information about teacher classroom behavior: the students. With that introduction, here is my plan for merit pay in education.
Merit pay will not be based upon test scores. Test scores are an unreliable source of information of student learning. I know of plenty of students who have pass the Nevada High School Proficiency Test for Math but never passes a math class in their life. There are too many factors that play into high stakes testing for it to be a reliable source of information about the worth or merit of a teacher. It will also not be based upon student grades. This would be open to way to much corruption. The merit pay system of my school would be based on several factors.
First, it would be based on teacher evaluations. A few days ago I addressed this in a similar My Perfect School post. Go back and read it so you might understand how I would effectively evaluate teachers. There would be some sort of scale that determined how much of a raise the teacher got for the next school year based on the information provided by all of their evaluations. I would probably rationalize that a teacher's pay would go up by a maximum of ten percent a year based on their evaluations.
Secondly, it would be based upon a teacher's continuing education. This is not just courses taken for an advanced degree but also for seminars and conferences the teacher attends. There would be a set percentage point the teacher would earn for every credit or contact hour they had during the previous school year. The education must related expressly to their teaching though. A class on using Microsoft Excel would not qualify for the pay raise unless they were able to show how it would have been used in the classroom. Also, the continuing education they received would only benefit them in their pay raise for the next year. Education would also be used to help determine the pay rate of a new experienced teacher hired for the school. The school would take the beginning base pay and add in a certain amount of percentage points based on their continued education.
The third factor of a teacher's merit pay raise would be based on their involvement in the school that previous year. There are several ways this could be done. One way would be to offer a stipend to special positions at the school, like coach, department chair, and/or committee membership (remember my posting on the school having no central administration). The other option would be to give the teacher's an hourly rate for the work that they do in those positions. I am not sure which exactly is the best option, but both have merits.
One factor I have considered is experience or longevity, but feel that the other three factors would be more beneficial in the long run. The only way I would ever consider using experience as a determiner for teacher pay would be during initial hiring of an experienced teacher. Each year of experience would grant them a certain percentage point above the school's base pay.
One issue a school would run into with this system is good teachers will be able to climb the salary ladder very quickly. I would imagine the school would need to implement some sort of cap on the teacher salary to help control costs that could quickly spiral out of control by hiring good teachers. I am not sure how high salary cap would go. Once a teacher has reached that cap maybe to reward them for doing a good job would be a one time loyalty bonus based directly on the merit pay percentages that they have earned. I do not have too many worries over a salary capped teaching going bad since the evaluation system is very in depth. And without tenure they can be released from the contract if they don't measure up to the standards of the school.
There is a lot room for comments in this posting. Feel free to give me a piece of your mind.
Merit pay will not be based upon test scores. Test scores are an unreliable source of information of student learning. I know of plenty of students who have pass the Nevada High School Proficiency Test for Math but never passes a math class in their life. There are too many factors that play into high stakes testing for it to be a reliable source of information about the worth or merit of a teacher. It will also not be based upon student grades. This would be open to way to much corruption. The merit pay system of my school would be based on several factors.
First, it would be based on teacher evaluations. A few days ago I addressed this in a similar My Perfect School post. Go back and read it so you might understand how I would effectively evaluate teachers. There would be some sort of scale that determined how much of a raise the teacher got for the next school year based on the information provided by all of their evaluations. I would probably rationalize that a teacher's pay would go up by a maximum of ten percent a year based on their evaluations.
Secondly, it would be based upon a teacher's continuing education. This is not just courses taken for an advanced degree but also for seminars and conferences the teacher attends. There would be a set percentage point the teacher would earn for every credit or contact hour they had during the previous school year. The education must related expressly to their teaching though. A class on using Microsoft Excel would not qualify for the pay raise unless they were able to show how it would have been used in the classroom. Also, the continuing education they received would only benefit them in their pay raise for the next year. Education would also be used to help determine the pay rate of a new experienced teacher hired for the school. The school would take the beginning base pay and add in a certain amount of percentage points based on their continued education.
The third factor of a teacher's merit pay raise would be based on their involvement in the school that previous year. There are several ways this could be done. One way would be to offer a stipend to special positions at the school, like coach, department chair, and/or committee membership (remember my posting on the school having no central administration). The other option would be to give the teacher's an hourly rate for the work that they do in those positions. I am not sure which exactly is the best option, but both have merits.
One factor I have considered is experience or longevity, but feel that the other three factors would be more beneficial in the long run. The only way I would ever consider using experience as a determiner for teacher pay would be during initial hiring of an experienced teacher. Each year of experience would grant them a certain percentage point above the school's base pay.
One issue a school would run into with this system is good teachers will be able to climb the salary ladder very quickly. I would imagine the school would need to implement some sort of cap on the teacher salary to help control costs that could quickly spiral out of control by hiring good teachers. I am not sure how high salary cap would go. Once a teacher has reached that cap maybe to reward them for doing a good job would be a one time loyalty bonus based directly on the merit pay percentages that they have earned. I do not have too many worries over a salary capped teaching going bad since the evaluation system is very in depth. And without tenure they can be released from the contract if they don't measure up to the standards of the school.
There is a lot room for comments in this posting. Feel free to give me a piece of your mind.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #3: Implied v. Expressed Powers
Before we go any further into the Constitution it is important that we draw a clear distinction between two different types of powers in the Constitution: Expressed powers and implied powers. I will be drawing upon these two terms a lot in the future of this blog so its best they be defined and appropriate examples given.
Expressed powers, sometimes called enumerated, are the powers expressly given to a government. The job of our Constitution is to enumerate those powers and also list out the powers denied to the government. The power to tax and spend is one of the most obvious and well known enumerated power of any government on the face of the earth.
The vast majority of the expressed powers of Congress can be found in Article I, Section 8. But there are more powers granted to Congress that you can find within the body of the Constitution and its amendments. Often times when an amendment is added there is a clause that states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article (Amendment 14)." This is just simply stating that Congress can write the laws to make sure this happens. It adds to their expressed powers. I will not go into detail right now all the expressed powers of Congress, the President or the Supreme Court now, but that will be a huge aspect of future lessons on our Constitution.
Implied powers related specifically to the Legislative Branch (law making, i.e Congress), though all branches of have some form of implied powers. The authorization for implied powers of Congress can be found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. It states:
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution is the main part of the Constitution that deals with the legislative process of Congress. If you read it none of the detail of how a law is passed are outlined in the clauses. Only that both houses of Congress must concur with each other on any bill and that the President must sign said bill. There is nothing in there about committees, subcommittees, conference committees, limits on debate, how a law will be introduced, or any other details. Well those procedures were created out of the implied power of Congress. To carry out the power of passing bills into laws the Congress need to pass rules explaining how to pass a law with which both houses concur. This is also part of their procedural rules (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2) that they pass every two years.
Another big example I use most often with my students, is the postal powers given to Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). The text reads as follows: To establish Post Offices and Post Roads." Congress and the government does over see the United States Postal Service, but its mostly left alone as a government corporation. Technically under the implied powers of Congress this also means that Congress has the authority to regulate companies like FedEx, UPS, DHL, and other similar companies. The reason being is that they carry post, or mail. One could also reasonable imply that since almost roads in the United States carry post they also have the power to regulate these as well. I will strech this example just a little bit further. Since mail is often times also carried on airplanes then they have the authority, granted by this the implied power clause, to regulate air traffic as well.
This is also where the power of the military draft comes from; its an implied power of Congress to raise and maintain an Army and Navy.
I hope those examples are enough for you to understand the differences between the expressed and implied powers in our U.S. Constitution. These will be referenced a lot as we dive into the powers of the Constitution next week. If you have any questions do not hesitate to email or comment on this blog or on Facebook (it gets posted there as well).
One last thing before I dismiss class. I mentioned yesterday that I was thinking of moving my blog entirely to Facebook. Please send me any thoughts you may have on the subject.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Well then... class dismissed.
Expressed powers, sometimes called enumerated, are the powers expressly given to a government. The job of our Constitution is to enumerate those powers and also list out the powers denied to the government. The power to tax and spend is one of the most obvious and well known enumerated power of any government on the face of the earth.
The vast majority of the expressed powers of Congress can be found in Article I, Section 8. But there are more powers granted to Congress that you can find within the body of the Constitution and its amendments. Often times when an amendment is added there is a clause that states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article (Amendment 14)." This is just simply stating that Congress can write the laws to make sure this happens. It adds to their expressed powers. I will not go into detail right now all the expressed powers of Congress, the President or the Supreme Court now, but that will be a huge aspect of future lessons on our Constitution.
Implied powers related specifically to the Legislative Branch (law making, i.e Congress), though all branches of have some form of implied powers. The authorization for implied powers of Congress can be found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. It states:
To make all law which shall be necessary and proper to carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested in this Constitution in the government of the United State, or in any department or officer thereof.Notice the language of this clause, it is very specific in how these implied power are to be enacted. The laws passed by Congress under this clause must have their authority from the Constitution itself. This is not the power to expand the power of Congress beyond what is in the Constitution. This is the power to create laws to help them carry out the powers in this Constitution. Here are a few examples.
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution is the main part of the Constitution that deals with the legislative process of Congress. If you read it none of the detail of how a law is passed are outlined in the clauses. Only that both houses of Congress must concur with each other on any bill and that the President must sign said bill. There is nothing in there about committees, subcommittees, conference committees, limits on debate, how a law will be introduced, or any other details. Well those procedures were created out of the implied power of Congress. To carry out the power of passing bills into laws the Congress need to pass rules explaining how to pass a law with which both houses concur. This is also part of their procedural rules (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2) that they pass every two years.
Another big example I use most often with my students, is the postal powers given to Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). The text reads as follows: To establish Post Offices and Post Roads." Congress and the government does over see the United States Postal Service, but its mostly left alone as a government corporation. Technically under the implied powers of Congress this also means that Congress has the authority to regulate companies like FedEx, UPS, DHL, and other similar companies. The reason being is that they carry post, or mail. One could also reasonable imply that since almost roads in the United States carry post they also have the power to regulate these as well. I will strech this example just a little bit further. Since mail is often times also carried on airplanes then they have the authority, granted by this the implied power clause, to regulate air traffic as well.
This is also where the power of the military draft comes from; its an implied power of Congress to raise and maintain an Army and Navy.
I hope those examples are enough for you to understand the differences between the expressed and implied powers in our U.S. Constitution. These will be referenced a lot as we dive into the powers of the Constitution next week. If you have any questions do not hesitate to email or comment on this blog or on Facebook (it gets posted there as well).
One last thing before I dismiss class. I mentioned yesterday that I was thinking of moving my blog entirely to Facebook. Please send me any thoughts you may have on the subject.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Well then... class dismissed.
Friday, January 22, 2010
My Perfect School: Teacher Evaluation
In today's posting I will address the subject of teacher evaluation at my perfect school. This is in direct response to the article I posted earlier this week, when an incompetent CCSD teacher was not fired but moved to another school. In my school district, as a post-probationary teacher, I am only evaluated once a year. My supervisor only needs to observe me three times a year to make said evaluation. Compared to several years ago when I was evaluated three times with over nine observations from my supervisor. Here is my plan.
As stated in previous postings, my school would not have a central administration, with principles, deans and others. There would be one person responsible for evaluating the teacher of that school. That would be their job. Using a predetermined rubric of standards the Evaluation Manager would observe teachers on a daily basis. The goal would be for the Evaluation Manager to see each teacher AT LEAST once a grading period, but they would definately be observe them more than once.
The rubric used by the teacher would be something similar to this evaluation rubric (Click on the hypertext). I found this several weeks ago and thought it was one of the most comprehensive evaluation rubric for teachers. The only thing I would probably want to add to this rubric is an option for non-observed action or behavior. not that they are deficient but this cannot be observed by the evaluator. Here is the link if the hypertext does not work:
http://www.marshallmemo.com/articles/Kim%20Marshall%20Teacher%20Eval%20Rubrics%20May%2016,%2009.pdf
Now not everything on the evaluation rubric is observable in a classroom experience. Prior to the end of the grading period, the Evaluation Manager and the teacher will sit down and have a discussion on the evaluation. The goal would be for the manager to give the teacher all their notes, observations, and the rubrics prior to this final evaluation. The teacher would then need to provide evidence of any areas lacking in the evaluation rubrics. They would bring this to the meeting with the Evaluation Manager.
Also a part of the evaluation would include observations from other areas as well. In my perfect school the Department Chair (DC) would be responsible for observing and evaluation each teacher within their department. They would use the same rubric but included would be a section ability of the teacher on the course methods and content. The DC is the best person to do this since they should know the material better than anyone else. Teachers would also be observed and evaluated by a colleague. They would be randomly assigned at the start of the year. All of these observations and evaluations would also be given the the teacher so they could provide evidence of areas where they may be deficient or there was no observable evidence. These would be included in the final evaluation reports.
Lastly two groups of would also be allowed to observe and evaluate the teacher: parents and students. Too often schools do not listen to their parents and students about the teachers they hire. I would make it a prioroity to get an evaluation of the teacher from both students and parents as a part of the teacher's evaluation. Who knows the teacher's better than the students? They should have a voice in their evaluation. They observe them everyday, so their opinion should be consulted. Parents complain the most about teacher; they may not know them as well as their students, but they have insight to them as well. The school might send this out the last week or so of the grading period. It could be completely anonymous with student ID as the only identifier. The results could then be tabulated for that teacher.
All of these observations and evaluation, in the end the result would be a clearer picture of who this teacher is in the classroom. This evaluation method will apply to hiring, firing and pay increases. Though, I will leave those for postings for another day. Thanks for listening. Feel free to comment. If the comment link is not available her go over to my facebook page to comment on this posting.
Also, I may be abandoning this site for blogging. Facebook has a blogging app that seems to be just as good as blogger. Please email me your thoughts and comments on my moving my blog. Have a nice day.
As stated in previous postings, my school would not have a central administration, with principles, deans and others. There would be one person responsible for evaluating the teacher of that school. That would be their job. Using a predetermined rubric of standards the Evaluation Manager would observe teachers on a daily basis. The goal would be for the Evaluation Manager to see each teacher AT LEAST once a grading period, but they would definately be observe them more than once.
The rubric used by the teacher would be something similar to this evaluation rubric (Click on the hypertext). I found this several weeks ago and thought it was one of the most comprehensive evaluation rubric for teachers. The only thing I would probably want to add to this rubric is an option for non-observed action or behavior. not that they are deficient but this cannot be observed by the evaluator. Here is the link if the hypertext does not work:
http://www.marshallmemo.com/articles/Kim%20Marshall%20Teacher%20Eval%20Rubrics%20May%2016,%2009.pdf
Now not everything on the evaluation rubric is observable in a classroom experience. Prior to the end of the grading period, the Evaluation Manager and the teacher will sit down and have a discussion on the evaluation. The goal would be for the manager to give the teacher all their notes, observations, and the rubrics prior to this final evaluation. The teacher would then need to provide evidence of any areas lacking in the evaluation rubrics. They would bring this to the meeting with the Evaluation Manager.
Also a part of the evaluation would include observations from other areas as well. In my perfect school the Department Chair (DC) would be responsible for observing and evaluation each teacher within their department. They would use the same rubric but included would be a section ability of the teacher on the course methods and content. The DC is the best person to do this since they should know the material better than anyone else. Teachers would also be observed and evaluated by a colleague. They would be randomly assigned at the start of the year. All of these observations and evaluations would also be given the the teacher so they could provide evidence of areas where they may be deficient or there was no observable evidence. These would be included in the final evaluation reports.
Lastly two groups of would also be allowed to observe and evaluate the teacher: parents and students. Too often schools do not listen to their parents and students about the teachers they hire. I would make it a prioroity to get an evaluation of the teacher from both students and parents as a part of the teacher's evaluation. Who knows the teacher's better than the students? They should have a voice in their evaluation. They observe them everyday, so their opinion should be consulted. Parents complain the most about teacher; they may not know them as well as their students, but they have insight to them as well. The school might send this out the last week or so of the grading period. It could be completely anonymous with student ID as the only identifier. The results could then be tabulated for that teacher.
All of these observations and evaluation, in the end the result would be a clearer picture of who this teacher is in the classroom. This evaluation method will apply to hiring, firing and pay increases. Though, I will leave those for postings for another day. Thanks for listening. Feel free to comment. If the comment link is not available her go over to my facebook page to comment on this posting.
Also, I may be abandoning this site for blogging. Facebook has a blogging app that seems to be just as good as blogger. Please email me your thoughts and comments on my moving my blog. Have a nice day.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Public Policy: Campaign Finance Reforms
I am starting a new feature (added to the government Lessons, News of the Day and My Perfect School features) on my blog. I am titling this Public Policy because I will address an area of local or federal policy that should be implemented by those levels of government. Today I am drawing my focus on campaign finances. The topic for today is relevant because of the breaking news.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that part of the 2002 McCain-Fiengold Campaign finance law was unconstitutional. I will not get into the details of the law or the courts ruling. so you can read complete story at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp
Campaign finance law is so long, complicated and full of loop holes its not even funny. The limits they place on individual and organizational campaign contributions are affront to the liberties of our Constitution; specifically, the first amendment. Giving money to campaigns can be interpreted as a form of political speech, therefore there should be no law abridging that form of speech.
There are issues that need to be dealt with under campaign finance but they are all able to be handled with provisions inside the Constitution. In Article I, Section 4 it states:
First, every amount of money that is donated must be recorded by the receiver with the name of the person donating and a verifiable address for the person who donated the money. This is directly tied to the second major provision.
Secondly, no amount of money may be accepted from any foreign person, nation, and/or organization outside of the United States. Only U.S. citizens and organizations may be allowed to donate money to political campaigns. It would corrupt indeed if another country could donate money in an attempt to play a part or role in our elections. This provision is linked to the first because it provides for the enforcement of the previous provision. Any candidate who accepts money from one of these illegal contributors must pay the same amount of money to the federal government in the form of a fine.
Thirdly, only individuals may donate to any political campaigns. I am not really sure any more how I feel that corporation and other organization like Unions can give as much money as they want to a political campaign. If the money was raised specifically for the purpose of political action then there should be no problem, but when you have organizations taking money from dues or other sources to give to a political campaign, there is a danger of corruption. This is partially what the supreme court rule on today, removing the limits and restrictions corporations and other organization in donating to political campaigns.
Fourth, only people of a given state may give to any political campaign of that state. Meaning a citizen of California would not be allowed to donate to the campaign of a Massachusetts senator. Similar to what happened when churches and people from all over the country donated money to the Prop 8 campaign in California. It should be up the people of California, or whatever state, to decide that referendum. Money from outside the state could corrupt the results.
Those are the four major provisions that should be a part of any campaign finance law. The key to any legislation though is that it is easy to understand and easy to enforce; which these provisions meet I welcome all comments and questions on this post.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that part of the 2002 McCain-Fiengold Campaign finance law was unconstitutional. I will not get into the details of the law or the courts ruling. so you can read complete story at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp
Campaign finance law is so long, complicated and full of loop holes its not even funny. The limits they place on individual and organizational campaign contributions are affront to the liberties of our Constitution; specifically, the first amendment. Giving money to campaigns can be interpreted as a form of political speech, therefore there should be no law abridging that form of speech.
There are issues that need to be dealt with under campaign finance but they are all able to be handled with provisions inside the Constitution. In Article I, Section 4 it states:
The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as the the places of choosing Senators.With this clause the Congress has the expressed authority to write election laws which the states must follow. This would include laws governing campaign finances, which were first written following several controversial appointments in by President Nixon. Before that point there was very little regulation. In this day and age thought it should be vitally important that we know who is financing a person's campaign. In the end though, campaign finance law needs to be rewritten so that is simple and easy to understand. I can see possibly three major provisions in a campaign finance law.
First, every amount of money that is donated must be recorded by the receiver with the name of the person donating and a verifiable address for the person who donated the money. This is directly tied to the second major provision.
Secondly, no amount of money may be accepted from any foreign person, nation, and/or organization outside of the United States. Only U.S. citizens and organizations may be allowed to donate money to political campaigns. It would corrupt indeed if another country could donate money in an attempt to play a part or role in our elections. This provision is linked to the first because it provides for the enforcement of the previous provision. Any candidate who accepts money from one of these illegal contributors must pay the same amount of money to the federal government in the form of a fine.
Thirdly, only individuals may donate to any political campaigns. I am not really sure any more how I feel that corporation and other organization like Unions can give as much money as they want to a political campaign. If the money was raised specifically for the purpose of political action then there should be no problem, but when you have organizations taking money from dues or other sources to give to a political campaign, there is a danger of corruption. This is partially what the supreme court rule on today, removing the limits and restrictions corporations and other organization in donating to political campaigns.
Fourth, only people of a given state may give to any political campaign of that state. Meaning a citizen of California would not be allowed to donate to the campaign of a Massachusetts senator. Similar to what happened when churches and people from all over the country donated money to the Prop 8 campaign in California. It should be up the people of California, or whatever state, to decide that referendum. Money from outside the state could corrupt the results.
Those are the four major provisions that should be a part of any campaign finance law. The key to any legislation though is that it is easy to understand and easy to enforce; which these provisions meet I welcome all comments and questions on this post.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
News of the Day - 1/20/2010: CCSD Teacher Moved
There were a few interesting stories today I could have commented on but a friend posted on story already on Facebook. I will instead use the story linked below since it has a bit of local flair and has an interesting focus on education. It even connects to "My Perfect School" posts. Here's the story:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/district-moves-gym-teacher-82143517.html
In brief, a gym teacher at a Clark County School District, high school denied that the Holocaust actually happened. Several students mentioned it to their parents. No disciplinary actions were taken until 23 days after the incident, and only after the Review Journal reported on the story. She is now teaching gym in a middle school.
The major issue here is allowing a teacher that is obviously guilty of gross incompetence to keep her job. First, she was talking about a topic she was not qualified by the state to teach. Now if she has done some reading on the topic that is great, but don't try and teach my students about a subject not necessary for the class. Secondly, to deny the Holocaust is to deny verifiable historical facts. I would expect to be fired if I said taught something like that.
The larger issue is the ways it is next to impossible to get rid of incompetent, lazy, or bad teachers in our public school systems. A teacher who is not a good teacher keeps getting a paycheck even though they are not doing actions required of them by the state, district or school. What's worse is the teacher's union protects these people. This is akin when the Catholic Church did nothing but move around priests who were known child molesters (Its not exactly the same but the concept is the same.).
This is the largest argument I can see for the elimination of tenure at any school. A teacher should not be protected just because they have been there a certain number of years. They need to be held just as accountable, if not more accountable as a new teacher to that school. Teachers need to be observed continuously and evaluated by more than one person. Students and parents need to be involved in this work because they know the teachers, their methods, and behaviors better than anyone else. They should also be involved because they are the consumers of our service.
Since the topic at hand boils down to teacher evaluation, it would be a good idea for me to do a blog posting on the subject of teacher evaluations in "My Perfect School." I will start working on that to post in the near future.
Comments?
http://www.lvrj.com/news/district-moves-gym-teacher-82143517.html
In brief, a gym teacher at a Clark County School District, high school denied that the Holocaust actually happened. Several students mentioned it to their parents. No disciplinary actions were taken until 23 days after the incident, and only after the Review Journal reported on the story. She is now teaching gym in a middle school.
The major issue here is allowing a teacher that is obviously guilty of gross incompetence to keep her job. First, she was talking about a topic she was not qualified by the state to teach. Now if she has done some reading on the topic that is great, but don't try and teach my students about a subject not necessary for the class. Secondly, to deny the Holocaust is to deny verifiable historical facts. I would expect to be fired if I said taught something like that.
The larger issue is the ways it is next to impossible to get rid of incompetent, lazy, or bad teachers in our public school systems. A teacher who is not a good teacher keeps getting a paycheck even though they are not doing actions required of them by the state, district or school. What's worse is the teacher's union protects these people. This is akin when the Catholic Church did nothing but move around priests who were known child molesters (Its not exactly the same but the concept is the same.).
This is the largest argument I can see for the elimination of tenure at any school. A teacher should not be protected just because they have been there a certain number of years. They need to be held just as accountable, if not more accountable as a new teacher to that school. Teachers need to be observed continuously and evaluated by more than one person. Students and parents need to be involved in this work because they know the teachers, their methods, and behaviors better than anyone else. They should also be involved because they are the consumers of our service.
Since the topic at hand boils down to teacher evaluation, it would be a good idea for me to do a blog posting on the subject of teacher evaluations in "My Perfect School." I will start working on that to post in the near future.
Comments?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
News of the Day - 1/19/2010: Filibuster & Cloture Rules
There were a number of good articles I could comment on today but the following sound clip won out. Mostly because it deals with the specifics of how our government is run. Give a click on the link to hear from Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and his take on the filibuster rule of the U.S. Senate. I will deal with his arguments point by point.
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
First, there is no constitutional issue with the filibuster and cloture rules. The Constitution states in Article I, Section 4, Clause w: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." It has been in the rules of the U.S. Senate for over two hundred years that the Senate shall be entitled to unlimited debate. When Rep. Frank suggests the Senate change the rules, he is correct in that the Senate can change its rules as it sees fit. The filibuster is totally supported by the founding fathers though, to get rid of it would be going against the original intent. Here is a story that explains the reasons behind a Senate and unlimited debate:
Thirdly, he says that the filibuster is anti-democratic. The U.S. government though is not a true democracy, it is a republic; where the rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution. Any democratically majority can pass legislation very quickly, but that would lead the tyranny of the majority, whether it be Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative and/or independent. The filibuster is there to protect the minority. Also it provide a check and balance against the House of Representatives.
The larger issue at stake here is changing good rules just because you don't like them. This happened in Massachusetts when Sen. Ted Kennedy died. Several years ago Sen. Kennedy asked the legislature to change the rules so that Republican governor Mitt Romney would not be able to appoint a Republican candidate for a temporary senate seat for his state. And just last year he suggested another change, so that a Democratic governor could appoint a temporary senator for his state.
Also the changes they are currently making to the reconciliation process of laws passed by Congress. The health care bills need to go into a conference committee as determined by the rules of legislation in the U.S. Code of Law, but the majority party will have nothing to do with it since it would require having a number of minority party members as part of the conversation. It would also require another cloture vote in the Senate; both parties have been guilty of this practice. All of these rule changes are completely legal, but they are highly unethical and/or immoral.
Comments?
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
First, there is no constitutional issue with the filibuster and cloture rules. The Constitution states in Article I, Section 4, Clause w: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." It has been in the rules of the U.S. Senate for over two hundred years that the Senate shall be entitled to unlimited debate. When Rep. Frank suggests the Senate change the rules, he is correct in that the Senate can change its rules as it sees fit. The filibuster is totally supported by the founding fathers though, to get rid of it would be going against the original intent. Here is a story that explains the reasons behind a Senate and unlimited debate:
The “Senatorial saucer” conversation between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is part of U.S. Senate legend. Jefferson had returned from France and was breakfasting with Washington. Jefferson asked Washington why he agreed to have a Senate.Secondly, he makes the claim, and rightly so, that the smaller states usually are the states that usually help filibuster. Those who look at history and the Constitution will see that originally the Senators were not elected by the populace as a whole, but by the state legislatures. The reason behind this was the Senate was created to look out for the powers and rights of the individual states. Those smaller states fought for equal representation and got it in the Great Compromise.
“Why,” said Washington, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it?”
“To cool it,” said Jefferson; “my throat is not made of brass.”
“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”
(http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_senate_is_the_saucer_into_which_we_pour_legislation_to_cool/
Thirdly, he says that the filibuster is anti-democratic. The U.S. government though is not a true democracy, it is a republic; where the rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution. Any democratically majority can pass legislation very quickly, but that would lead the tyranny of the majority, whether it be Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative and/or independent. The filibuster is there to protect the minority. Also it provide a check and balance against the House of Representatives.
The larger issue at stake here is changing good rules just because you don't like them. This happened in Massachusetts when Sen. Ted Kennedy died. Several years ago Sen. Kennedy asked the legislature to change the rules so that Republican governor Mitt Romney would not be able to appoint a Republican candidate for a temporary senate seat for his state. And just last year he suggested another change, so that a Democratic governor could appoint a temporary senator for his state.
Also the changes they are currently making to the reconciliation process of laws passed by Congress. The health care bills need to go into a conference committee as determined by the rules of legislation in the U.S. Code of Law, but the majority party will have nothing to do with it since it would require having a number of minority party members as part of the conversation. It would also require another cloture vote in the Senate; both parties have been guilty of this practice. All of these rule changes are completely legal, but they are highly unethical and/or immoral.
Comments?
Monday, January 18, 2010
News of the Day - 1/18/2010: Bible Verses on Guns
Almost decided to not post today since I was spending the day with my wife, but I found something interesting to comment on. Here is the story of the day:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794
So the basic gist of this article is the gun sights made by this one company have abbreviated bible verses printed on them. I will deal with each of the issues of this story a point at a time.
The first point they make is the fact that the U.S. military cannot proselytize any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan. The key facts is that they are not trying to spread any faith. The sights have scriptures written on them but that's not proselytizing. Its as harmless as a person handing out Bible tracts in the street. People can ignore them if they want or look them up if they want.
The second major points is that the verses were always a part of the sights. If the military did not know about it than they are neither liable, nor do they have a legal right to cancel the contract. If they wanted sights without bible verses they should have researched the company a little bit more.
Third points is the legal or constitutional issues. Michael Weinstein says it violated federal law. If he feels so strongly about it he should state the statue found in the U.S. Code of Law. There is no real constitutional issue. Even though the separation of church and state is not a constitutional doctrine there is nothing here that violates the first amendment. The use of these sights does not establish a church or religion, nor does it limit the free exercise of one's religion (Which are the only two constitutional issues related when it comes to freedom of religion). The government did not know about the scripture before hand so this is not a true establishment of any religion. To void the contract would be a true violation of the free exercise clause since the manufacturer has the right to practice its religion on its manufacturing process. In the future the U.S. government should check its products more carefully. It is also a drastic and insane step to say these are "pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun."
Fourth point is the argument that the people we are fighting against think this is a Crusade against them since they have bible verses on the guns. Well the people we are fighting against do think their war is a Crusade against us and anyone who is not a follower of Islam. Secondly, this will not embolden the enemy, our way of life emboldens the enemy. The fact that we allow our women to drive and vote, emboldens the enemy. The fact that we have the freedom to speak what we want emboldens the enemy. Even if these gun sights did not have bible verses they would still hate us. Plus, these extremists are our enemies, who cares if we offend them.
Am I off base? Comments. Oh yeah... I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794
So the basic gist of this article is the gun sights made by this one company have abbreviated bible verses printed on them. I will deal with each of the issues of this story a point at a time.
The first point they make is the fact that the U.S. military cannot proselytize any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan. The key facts is that they are not trying to spread any faith. The sights have scriptures written on them but that's not proselytizing. Its as harmless as a person handing out Bible tracts in the street. People can ignore them if they want or look them up if they want.
The second major points is that the verses were always a part of the sights. If the military did not know about it than they are neither liable, nor do they have a legal right to cancel the contract. If they wanted sights without bible verses they should have researched the company a little bit more.
Third points is the legal or constitutional issues. Michael Weinstein says it violated federal law. If he feels so strongly about it he should state the statue found in the U.S. Code of Law. There is no real constitutional issue. Even though the separation of church and state is not a constitutional doctrine there is nothing here that violates the first amendment. The use of these sights does not establish a church or religion, nor does it limit the free exercise of one's religion (Which are the only two constitutional issues related when it comes to freedom of religion). The government did not know about the scripture before hand so this is not a true establishment of any religion. To void the contract would be a true violation of the free exercise clause since the manufacturer has the right to practice its religion on its manufacturing process. In the future the U.S. government should check its products more carefully. It is also a drastic and insane step to say these are "pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun."
Fourth point is the argument that the people we are fighting against think this is a Crusade against them since they have bible verses on the guns. Well the people we are fighting against do think their war is a Crusade against us and anyone who is not a follower of Islam. Secondly, this will not embolden the enemy, our way of life emboldens the enemy. The fact that we allow our women to drive and vote, emboldens the enemy. The fact that we have the freedom to speak what we want emboldens the enemy. Even if these gun sights did not have bible verses they would still hate us. Plus, these extremists are our enemies, who cares if we offend them.
Am I off base? Comments. Oh yeah... I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #2: The Structure of Congress
Article I, Section I - All legislative power herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
This simple sentence describes the very basic structure of the legislative branch of our government, but does not describe the massive amounts of debate and compromise needed to create our government, specifically the legislative branch.
Under the Articles of Confederation there was a unicameral (one house) legislature where the states had equal representation (one vote each). This section of the Constitution creates a bicameral (two house) legislature, named Congress; the two parts being named the House of Representatives and Senate. At the Constitutional convention both ideas were debated. Many wanted to keep the unicameral system with equal representation, known as the New Jersey Plan. The other plan, known as the Virginian Plan, sought to make a bicameral legislature with both houses membership being determined by the population of the state. After much debate (which more of it will be shared in up coming lessons), they compromised on a bicameral legislature. One house's membership would be based on the population of the state (House of Representatives) and the other would be based on upon the idea of equal representation of the states (Senate).
One principle you see in this section of Article I is that of the separation of powers (principle of dividing the powers of government between separate but equal branches). Each branch of the government has specifically defined powers laid out in the Constitution. The specific power given to Congress is legislative power; the power to make laws. One overlooked item in this section is the fact that ALL legislative power is vested in Congress. When a president writes executive orders, or a regulatory commission makes new rules without a law from Congress they are usurping the power given to Congress by the Constitution.
Associated with this is the principle of checks & balances (principle of each branch having a set of checks on the power of the other branches). Since the Congress is a two house legislature that means there is a series of checks and balances on each other so that the House and the Senate do not get more powerful than each other. We will examine these checks and balances over our entire study of the Constitution.
But for today that is all I will discuss. The next lesson will focus on the structure and setup of the U.S. House of Representatives. Any questions? Class dismissed.
This simple sentence describes the very basic structure of the legislative branch of our government, but does not describe the massive amounts of debate and compromise needed to create our government, specifically the legislative branch.
Under the Articles of Confederation there was a unicameral (one house) legislature where the states had equal representation (one vote each). This section of the Constitution creates a bicameral (two house) legislature, named Congress; the two parts being named the House of Representatives and Senate. At the Constitutional convention both ideas were debated. Many wanted to keep the unicameral system with equal representation, known as the New Jersey Plan. The other plan, known as the Virginian Plan, sought to make a bicameral legislature with both houses membership being determined by the population of the state. After much debate (which more of it will be shared in up coming lessons), they compromised on a bicameral legislature. One house's membership would be based on the population of the state (House of Representatives) and the other would be based on upon the idea of equal representation of the states (Senate).
One principle you see in this section of Article I is that of the separation of powers (principle of dividing the powers of government between separate but equal branches). Each branch of the government has specifically defined powers laid out in the Constitution. The specific power given to Congress is legislative power; the power to make laws. One overlooked item in this section is the fact that ALL legislative power is vested in Congress. When a president writes executive orders, or a regulatory commission makes new rules without a law from Congress they are usurping the power given to Congress by the Constitution.
Associated with this is the principle of checks & balances (principle of each branch having a set of checks on the power of the other branches). Since the Congress is a two house legislature that means there is a series of checks and balances on each other so that the House and the Senate do not get more powerful than each other. We will examine these checks and balances over our entire study of the Constitution.
But for today that is all I will discuss. The next lesson will focus on the structure and setup of the U.S. House of Representatives. Any questions? Class dismissed.
Friday, January 15, 2010
My Perfect School - Grading Policy #1
If anyone knows me, they know a huge stress and angst I have felt this year in my teaching job this year has been due to over regulation of the teachers by the administration. Specifically its over regulation of grading practices and policies. That is what I intend to focus on today for my perfect school.
Last year I implemented a grade weighting system intended to show more clearly a correlation between grades and learning. I call it the 90-10 weighting. The summative assessments are weighted heavier than the formative assessments, specifically in my class ninety percent of a grade is determined by their summative assessments and ten percent of a grades is determined by the formative assessments.
Formative? Summative? What do you mean Adam? For those of you who are not educators I will explain these terms. Formative assessments are those assignments that form the knowledge or skills students need to learn. This would be like the notes, in class assignments, and homework given by the teacher. It is there so that the student can practice and accurately form the knowledge correctly. Summative assessments are those things that summarize what the students learn, like tests, quizzes, essays, projects, etc. Everyone clear on the vocabulary? (Seven second pause for questions) Good moving on.
The reason behind this grading weighting is to put the emphasis back on learning not on the process or how hard the student works. I explain it to my students like this. What things that the teacher gives you to do in class really tell you, as a student, if learned the material. Does the homework tell you learned the material? Do the notes show you learned the material? Most kids instinctively point to their tests as that things that tells them if they learned the material. So if we are grading based on what they learn tests, quizzes, projects and other summative assessments need to be the largest grade weight in the class. The grade then reflects what they have learned.
In my school we would have a system similar to this. It would be the policy of the school that teachers would have to implement a form of this system. Summative assessments would be the largest weighted grade. It would then be up to the departments and/or individual teachers to determine what they proper division between summative and formative would be.
One criticism that I have heard on this system is the fact that a student could take the quizzes never do any of the assignments and still pass the class. That is very true. I know a student who did just that. He was a smart kid. He came up to me about three weeks into the year and asked me, "If I just pass the quizzes and don't do any of the homework can I still pass your class?" I said, "Yes, because you are proving to me that you learned the material."
Other criticisms I hear is about kids who are poor tests takers or don't get it the first time. A teacher will need to make allowances for factors like that. A policy they implemented this year at my school is the ability to retake an assessment they did not do well on. That would also be the policy of the school. The teacher can set reasonable guidelines for a student to retake or assign an alternative assessment. To some that means you have to correct your quiz first. For me it involves doing all the assignments you may have not completed before that assessment was given. Either way the poor test taker and the student who maybe a little bit slower still has a chance to show the teacher that they learned the material.
I plan on addressing grading policy a little bit more in detail but this is good place to start. Comments or questions? (Side note: Blogspot does not seem to recognize summative as a real word.)
Last year I implemented a grade weighting system intended to show more clearly a correlation between grades and learning. I call it the 90-10 weighting. The summative assessments are weighted heavier than the formative assessments, specifically in my class ninety percent of a grade is determined by their summative assessments and ten percent of a grades is determined by the formative assessments.
Formative? Summative? What do you mean Adam? For those of you who are not educators I will explain these terms. Formative assessments are those assignments that form the knowledge or skills students need to learn. This would be like the notes, in class assignments, and homework given by the teacher. It is there so that the student can practice and accurately form the knowledge correctly. Summative assessments are those things that summarize what the students learn, like tests, quizzes, essays, projects, etc. Everyone clear on the vocabulary? (Seven second pause for questions) Good moving on.
The reason behind this grading weighting is to put the emphasis back on learning not on the process or how hard the student works. I explain it to my students like this. What things that the teacher gives you to do in class really tell you, as a student, if learned the material. Does the homework tell you learned the material? Do the notes show you learned the material? Most kids instinctively point to their tests as that things that tells them if they learned the material. So if we are grading based on what they learn tests, quizzes, projects and other summative assessments need to be the largest grade weight in the class. The grade then reflects what they have learned.
In my school we would have a system similar to this. It would be the policy of the school that teachers would have to implement a form of this system. Summative assessments would be the largest weighted grade. It would then be up to the departments and/or individual teachers to determine what they proper division between summative and formative would be.
One criticism that I have heard on this system is the fact that a student could take the quizzes never do any of the assignments and still pass the class. That is very true. I know a student who did just that. He was a smart kid. He came up to me about three weeks into the year and asked me, "If I just pass the quizzes and don't do any of the homework can I still pass your class?" I said, "Yes, because you are proving to me that you learned the material."
Other criticisms I hear is about kids who are poor tests takers or don't get it the first time. A teacher will need to make allowances for factors like that. A policy they implemented this year at my school is the ability to retake an assessment they did not do well on. That would also be the policy of the school. The teacher can set reasonable guidelines for a student to retake or assign an alternative assessment. To some that means you have to correct your quiz first. For me it involves doing all the assignments you may have not completed before that assessment was given. Either way the poor test taker and the student who maybe a little bit slower still has a chance to show the teacher that they learned the material.
I plan on addressing grading policy a little bit more in detail but this is good place to start. Comments or questions? (Side note: Blogspot does not seem to recognize summative as a real word.)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
News of the Day - 1/14/2010: Transparency
So one news article, or maybe its a column I don't know, caught my attention today. Here is the link:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/joe-biden-update.html
So basically this story goes into all the claims made by the Obama Administration that their president would be one of the most transparent administration. Well that's not so true. The author goes in great detail to show how even a meeting with the chief of transparency for the recovery programs is a closed meeting; no press allowed. As well as many other meetings that are closed to the press.
The bigger issues is that President Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth in a lot of cases. He was against and attacked Sen. McCain's tax on health insurance. There is now a tax on our health insurance in the proposed legislation. He said there would be no lobbists working in the White House. Only took eight days for them to break that and then recind the executive order. He wants to allow gays in the military (which I support by the way), but no that is also delayed. He fought against President Bush keeping guest logs to the White House as private but then defends the same practice when he is in office. He even broke a law that he cosponsored as the junior senator from Illinois, which technically could be an impeachable offense. You want more proof of his broken promises, go to this story by the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100114/D9D7MDGG0.html
Comments?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/joe-biden-update.html
So basically this story goes into all the claims made by the Obama Administration that their president would be one of the most transparent administration. Well that's not so true. The author goes in great detail to show how even a meeting with the chief of transparency for the recovery programs is a closed meeting; no press allowed. As well as many other meetings that are closed to the press.
The bigger issues is that President Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth in a lot of cases. He was against and attacked Sen. McCain's tax on health insurance. There is now a tax on our health insurance in the proposed legislation. He said there would be no lobbists working in the White House. Only took eight days for them to break that and then recind the executive order. He wants to allow gays in the military (which I support by the way), but no that is also delayed. He fought against President Bush keeping guest logs to the White House as private but then defends the same practice when he is in office. He even broke a law that he cosponsored as the junior senator from Illinois, which technically could be an impeachable offense. You want more proof of his broken promises, go to this story by the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100114/D9D7MDGG0.html
Comments?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
My Perfect School - Extended School Year and Day
There are not real good stories in the news to which I want to comment (Most of the news is focused on Haiti right now. My prayers go out to all the men and women trying to dig their way out of the rubble). Also, I am currently trying to find an article to confirm some information presented yesterday in during "The Savage Nation." As soon as I can find the links I will more than likely post it as a News of the Day.
This is one area in which I actually agree with our President. I believe the school year and/or day in the United States needs to be extended to make us more competitive in the world. Where I differ with the president is that it should not be federally mandated. Education has always been a state and/or local issue. Therefore its up to the states and local communities to make those changes. But enough with politics, here is my reasoning behind the extended school day and year.
The main reason the school year and/or day needs to be extended is because we are working within a system that was used over 100 years ago when the society was very different. The nine month school calender was implemented because families need their children to help with the planting and harvesting of the fields. Now in the last 100-150 years our society has moved from primarily rural to urban and suburban. The traditional nine month school calender no longer is valid for about eighty percent of the nation.
The longer school day is also need so that students have a rich and complete education. Nowadays so many different things take up our student's lives when they should be focusing on school and their education. From basketball practice, to dance recitals and work. All of these things are great and beneficial but how much education has been lost to extracurricular activities, both inside and outside of school. That though is a topic for another time.
The school year would be comprised of three fifteen week trimesters. There would fourteen weeks of content and a week of exams. Between each trimester there would be at least a week break. Generally I would love to see if we could make it so the school "year" runs January through December but that might be stretching it at this point. In the traditional school year format, the first trimester would run roughly from the last week in August to the week before Christmas in December. I have planned for a possible week off during Thanksgiving, as well. The second trimester would run from the beginning of January through the beginning of April. The last trimester would run from the middle of April to the beginning or middle of July. Students would then get 5-6 weeks off as "summer break." By the way this plan is primarily for high schools since that is the level in which I teach. I fully support year round school for elementary schools with a track system properly implemented.
I would have school start between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning. Each class should run between forty-five and fifty-five minutes. Students would have to take between seven and eight classes a day. This means they would let out between 3:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon. I would not use block scheduling. I know the benefits of the block but find the faults of the system out weight the benefits. In a traditional period schedule student actually have more seat time with each teacher. They get more practice in essential skills in math classes. There it is easier for a teacher to see patterns of behavior, both academically and behaviorally, in the students.
Comments or questions? Feel free to post them. Lets start a discussion.
This is one area in which I actually agree with our President. I believe the school year and/or day in the United States needs to be extended to make us more competitive in the world. Where I differ with the president is that it should not be federally mandated. Education has always been a state and/or local issue. Therefore its up to the states and local communities to make those changes. But enough with politics, here is my reasoning behind the extended school day and year.
The main reason the school year and/or day needs to be extended is because we are working within a system that was used over 100 years ago when the society was very different. The nine month school calender was implemented because families need their children to help with the planting and harvesting of the fields. Now in the last 100-150 years our society has moved from primarily rural to urban and suburban. The traditional nine month school calender no longer is valid for about eighty percent of the nation.
The longer school day is also need so that students have a rich and complete education. Nowadays so many different things take up our student's lives when they should be focusing on school and their education. From basketball practice, to dance recitals and work. All of these things are great and beneficial but how much education has been lost to extracurricular activities, both inside and outside of school. That though is a topic for another time.
The school year would be comprised of three fifteen week trimesters. There would fourteen weeks of content and a week of exams. Between each trimester there would be at least a week break. Generally I would love to see if we could make it so the school "year" runs January through December but that might be stretching it at this point. In the traditional school year format, the first trimester would run roughly from the last week in August to the week before Christmas in December. I have planned for a possible week off during Thanksgiving, as well. The second trimester would run from the beginning of January through the beginning of April. The last trimester would run from the middle of April to the beginning or middle of July. Students would then get 5-6 weeks off as "summer break." By the way this plan is primarily for high schools since that is the level in which I teach. I fully support year round school for elementary schools with a track system properly implemented.
I would have school start between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning. Each class should run between forty-five and fifty-five minutes. Students would have to take between seven and eight classes a day. This means they would let out between 3:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon. I would not use block scheduling. I know the benefits of the block but find the faults of the system out weight the benefits. In a traditional period schedule student actually have more seat time with each teacher. They get more practice in essential skills in math classes. There it is easier for a teacher to see patterns of behavior, both academically and behaviorally, in the students.
Comments or questions? Feel free to post them. Lets start a discussion.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
My Perfect School - No Central Adminstration
Another feature I plan on contributing to my blog is my plans for the school I will build one of these days. Here I will try to explain some of the features that will be part of that school.
The first one is getting rid of as much of the bureaucratic central administrative structure. I see too many good teacher become deans, principals, and supervisors. It is my opinion administrators do almost nothing to influence the lives and education of the child. It is the teacher's in the classroom that make the different nine times out of ten. Here is my plan.
There will be managers of different specific areas but the teachers will run the major administrative functions of the school by working in various committees. The managers and the committees will work together saving money and time. The managers would be preferably teachers with experience but some are not required. Here is one example.
There will be an Evaluation Manager. It is their job to observe and evaluate every teacher in the school multiple times a year. These evaluations along with other evaluations from department chairs, colleagues, parents, and students will form a better picture of a teacher's strengths and weaknesses. The Evaluation Manager will then present to a rotating committee of faculty who should and should not be rehired during for the next school year. Also if there is a special circumstance the committee can be called to release a teacher prior to the end of the year. The teacher evaluation committee will not know exactly what teacher it is since the evaluation information will all be anonymous, with each teacher getting an ID to represent them at these meetings.
There will be an Discipline and Attendance Manager that keeps track of said records. If a student is sent to the discipline office. They fill out the paper work, set up appointments for conferences on behavior problems, dishes out disciplinary consequences, if needed, as well as other things that will fall into their domain. If there is a student that needs to be suspended or expelled then the discipline committee will be called to discuss the issues and give the student their due process.
The hiring of teachers will be handled primarily by a committee of teachers, specifically the Department Chairs, to search for and interview possible candidates. Budgetary items will be the concern of a Finances Manager and his staff.
Those teachers who serve as committee members will be compensated in some way out of the school's budget. They would either receive a stipend or an hourly rate for their work. Managers would be a salaried position at the school.
So what does everyone thing of my idea? Will it work? Give me your critiques.
The first one is getting rid of as much of the bureaucratic central administrative structure. I see too many good teacher become deans, principals, and supervisors. It is my opinion administrators do almost nothing to influence the lives and education of the child. It is the teacher's in the classroom that make the different nine times out of ten. Here is my plan.
There will be managers of different specific areas but the teachers will run the major administrative functions of the school by working in various committees. The managers and the committees will work together saving money and time. The managers would be preferably teachers with experience but some are not required. Here is one example.
There will be an Evaluation Manager. It is their job to observe and evaluate every teacher in the school multiple times a year. These evaluations along with other evaluations from department chairs, colleagues, parents, and students will form a better picture of a teacher's strengths and weaknesses. The Evaluation Manager will then present to a rotating committee of faculty who should and should not be rehired during for the next school year. Also if there is a special circumstance the committee can be called to release a teacher prior to the end of the year. The teacher evaluation committee will not know exactly what teacher it is since the evaluation information will all be anonymous, with each teacher getting an ID to represent them at these meetings.
There will be an Discipline and Attendance Manager that keeps track of said records. If a student is sent to the discipline office. They fill out the paper work, set up appointments for conferences on behavior problems, dishes out disciplinary consequences, if needed, as well as other things that will fall into their domain. If there is a student that needs to be suspended or expelled then the discipline committee will be called to discuss the issues and give the student their due process.
The hiring of teachers will be handled primarily by a committee of teachers, specifically the Department Chairs, to search for and interview possible candidates. Budgetary items will be the concern of a Finances Manager and his staff.
Those teachers who serve as committee members will be compensated in some way out of the school's budget. They would either receive a stipend or an hourly rate for their work. Managers would be a salaried position at the school.
So what does everyone thing of my idea? Will it work? Give me your critiques.
Monday, January 11, 2010
News of the Day #1 - 1/11/2010: Harry Reid
Today I would like to comment on the story that broke this past weekend. The story below is from the local newspaper the Review-Journal.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-sorry-about-race-comments-81088102.html
I have several issues related to this news that I relate to you in no particular order
First, did Harry Reid lie? I would argue his statement, while entirely improper and filled with derogatory language is the truth. President Obama, senator at the time of the quote, is a light skinned black man since he was parented by an Kenyan and a white U.S. citizen. Also President Obama speaks very good English and does not use Ebonics or a black dialect of the English language to reach people. He is a example all of us should live up to and exemplify. So if Sen. Reid did not lie, then I have no real issue with what he said.
Secondly, while Sen. Reid did use a term that could be labeled racist its none of our business. The person who he was making the comment about accepted his apology. While I may not agree with the language he does have the freedom of speech and made amends for his actions. Also this was like 2 years ago, so it has little validity today. I don't think Sen. Reid is racist.
The bigger issue in this whole news story is the hypocracy of the Democrats. If this had been a conservative or a member of the Republican Party (which is not always the same thing), the democrats would have been calling for guilty party's head. He would have lost all power and position in Washington, D.C. The fact that both Sen. Reid and former President Clinton are both quoted with offensive material in the new book "Game Change." Yet there is no outrage from the democrats shows them to be hypocrites in the worst way.
Lastly, Republicans and conservatives need to get off this issue, right now. To push it is only going to waste time and energy that could be better spent attacking the many wrong things Sen. Reid is doing as a Senator and majority. They should before the press daily about the nontransparent way this bill is being compromised on with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. They should talk about how no senator has even seen or read the Senate health care bill that has been sitting on the majority leaders desk since it was written. They should be talking about how the procedures of the U.S. House and Senate are being subverted to pass a bill, polls say a majority of Americans do not want. To double on the hypocrisy from my previous point; the actions of Reid, Pelosi and Obama are exactly the same methods they complained about several years ago against the Republicans. They should lead by example.
Anyway, just this government teacher's take on the news of the day.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/r
I have several issues related to this news that I relate to you in no particular order
First, did Harry Reid lie? I would argue his statement, while entirely improper and filled with derogatory language is the truth. President Obama, senator at the time of the quote, is a light skinned black man since he was parented by an Kenyan and a white U.S. citizen. Also President Obama speaks very good English and does not use Ebonics or a black dialect of the English language to reach people. He is a example all of us should live up to and exemplify. So if Sen. Reid did not lie, then I have no real issue with what he said.
Secondly, while Sen. Reid did use a term that could be labeled racist its none of our business. The person who he was making the comment about accepted his apology. While I may not agree with the language he does have the freedom of speech and made amends for his actions. Also this was like 2 years ago, so it has little validity today. I don't think Sen. Reid is racist.
The bigger issue in this whole news story is the hypocracy of the Democrats. If this had been a conservative or a member of the Republican Party (which is not always the same thing), the democrats would have been calling for guilty party's head. He would have lost all power and position in Washington, D.C. The fact that both Sen. Reid and former President Clinton are both quoted with offensive material in the new book "Game Change." Yet there is no outrage from the democrats shows them to be hypocrites in the worst way.
Lastly, Republicans and conservatives need to get off this issue, right now. To push it is only going to waste time and energy that could be better spent attacking the many wrong things Sen. Reid is doing as a Senator and majority. They should before the press daily about the nontransparent way this bill is being compromised on with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. They should talk about how no senator has even seen or read the Senate health care bill that has been sitting on the majority leaders desk since it was written. They should be talking about how the procedures of the U.S. House and Senate are being subverted to pass a bill, polls say a majority of Americans do not want. To double on the hypocrisy from my previous point; the actions of Reid, Pelosi and Obama are exactly the same methods they complained about several years ago against the Republicans. They should lead by example.
Anyway, just this government teacher's take on the news of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)