The World Around You

I apologize for continually changing the appearance. I got rid of the wallpaper, slowed the load time too much.

Check out the latest caption contest at Outside the Beltway.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases (Court limits race as factor in admissions). The court made the right decision. The point system was wrong, but there is a compelling government interest in diversity in education. I’m sure the dissents are strong and I look forward to reading them, but it’s comforting that the decision was split and no suprise that Justice O’Connor once again made the difference.

The Montgomery Advertiser uses the release of disappointing national assessment scores in reading as an opportunity to push the Governor’s tax and accountability package.

It is no accident that the tax and accountability plan put forward by Gov. Bob Riley focuses on three areas that, we believe, could greatly impact reading scores, and all of them are connected to teachers.

The first would be the expansion of the Alabama Reading Initiative into all of the state’s schools. At the heart of the ARI is the requirement for teachers to go through an intensive training course during the summer on the best methods for teaching reading.

The second is dramatically improving the amount of continuing education and training that teachers receive. Alabama is among the worst states in the nation in spending on training to expand and maintain a teacher’s skills once he or she enters the classroom.

And finally, Riley’s plan would reform teacher tenure laws to make it easier and faster to get non-performing teachers out of the classroom.

Alabama’s leaders have known for years what needs to be done, but none of them have had the courage to do it. Until now.

So if you understand how Alabama government works, you also can understand how this state has come to have both a nationally recognized reading program and poor readers. It is not really a mystery, but it is a tragedy.

That is no exaggeration. It is one among many tragedies and again illustrates why it is inexcusable for Alabamians to oppose this package. We are capable of being a leader in so many areas if we just make the commitment with our tax dollars.

The counter-argument I have heard the most is that this package violates “conservative principles” of smaller government. Let’s follow this line of logic (or lack thereof). If you make government smaller at all costs, what responsibilities of the government would you like to eliminate? Should we close the public schools? the universities? community colleges? job training programs(say goodbye to Hyundai and Mercedes)? the prisons? the mental health facilities? eliminate meals on wheels? fire the state troopers? stop investigating cases of child abuse? close down the state courts? stop maintaining the roads?

The average citizen may not miss many of these services until they are not there. Maybe we should just start from scratch, let’s start with a clean slate and start a list of all the services that federal, state and local government should perform. You would notice if the state highways were in disrepair. You would notice if criminals were not caught, tried or punished for their crimes. How small is small enough?

The Birmingham News published another of my Letters to the Editor, entitled State Punishing Good Teachers:

I am deeply distressed by the way the state Department of Education has handled the “highly qualified teacher” provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. I deal with this legislation on a daily basis, and the department has drastically misinterpreted the law’s requirements.

I thank the state Board of Education for questioning the plan and hope its members will craft something that meets the requirements of the law, but does not go out of its way to punish good teachers and confuse the public.

There should be flexibility in the definition to give teachers time to meet the requirements outlined; a lot of good teachers are going to be deemed not “highly qualified” based on only one or two college courses.

Most important, Alabama should follow South Carolina and other states in meeting the parental notification requirement by making information about teachers’ qualifications available to parents. All parents in the state should get a letter, advising them of their right under the law to see the teachers’ qualifications. This is not in dispute.

There is no requirement to send a letter to the parents of each and every student whose teacher is not “highly qualified,” informing them of this fact. Why the Department of Education insists on going beyond the letter of the law is baffling.

The intent of the law was not to panic parents, but for the state to make progress toward ensuring every child has a qualified teacher in the classroom.