As some of you can tell by the title, I am blogging out of frustration and may not necessarily mean that I don't want to teach anymore. However, after watching Oprahs' episode glorifying D.C. schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, I can no longer stomach the disrespect that teachers are subject to. I won't use this as a forum to rip the chancellor (I'll save that for another post), but I do want to address the gamut of issues that plague our school systems. Issues that have seemed to be scapegoated by the teachers who are asked to overcome these issues. So, since the Oprah show only focused on ineffective teachers, I'll focus on everything else.
Compensation: I think this is the most obvious factor when it comes to education. While other fields enjoy pay comparable to the amount of time that they put in, teachers are often asked to go above and beyond without being compensated properly. Now, I don't mind putting my business out there, so telling you all that I started out making 42K in Washington, D.C. doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that after taxes, I can't afford a decent place to live on this salary. If being undervalued doesn't take affect in any other form, it does in the pockets. Of course, people outside of the education arena will try to mind fuck us (yes I said fuck! lol) into thinking that it shouldn't be about money, but how else are we supposed to live?
Socioeconomic Status: I heard the chancellor say (this isn't an exact quote) that all students can learn regardless of the circumstances. In theory, this is a great attitude to have because you shouldn't walk into a classroom and think that all of your students will be failures because they are from a particular background. The thing about theory, is that when it is applied to real life situations, it may not work as well as we liked to think it will. Actually, to really believe that socioeconomic situations don't affect education and learning would suggest that you as a person deal in idealism. For a person to make that statement and actually believe it means that he/she is a little out of touch with reality. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has made it very clear that poor students don't need as much money as students that are well off. While this is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it speaks to the agenda of the people at the top pulling the strings.
Classroom Size: Have you ever tried to get order in a room full of 20+ children??? No? Well not only do teachers in the District have to gain order and control, but they also have to make sure every student is on or above grade level. Now, Chancellor Rhee bragged about closing schools that were under performing. These schools already had large class sizes, so what happened to the students at these schools? Yup! You guessed it. These students were placed into already over crowded schools and classrooms to put more pressure on teachers. Sad reality: Given the differences in learning styles, if you place 30+ students in a classroom, they won't all learn.
Standardized Tests: If you have heard of NCLB then you have an idea that test scores tie into how much money schools receive. The problem with this is that administrators put pressure on teachers to raise test scores "by any means necessary". This forces teachers to "teach to the test" instead of create a well rounded educational experience. This method of teaching doesn't not foster learning, but well else can you do if this is required of you as educators?
Parent Involvement (or lack thereof): The first teachers that children will ever have are their parents. The epidemic of "babies having babies" has severely inhibited childrens early years learning. With that being said, children are coming into classrooms knowing the hottest song on the radio, but not their ABC's. How effective can you be as a teacher if you aren't receiving reinforcement at home? Not to mention that curricula are filled with standards that parents should be teaching at home anyway. Why as a physical education teacher do I have to teach about hygiene? Students should come to school without knowing about hygiene!!! But today some parents would rather we raise their kids. I parent told me on the first day of school that they sure are glad that their child is back in school so that they can get a break. Is this what it has come to? Parents placing the onus of child rearing on teachers?
Just writing this post has made me more angry. To enter a career as thankless as teaching, and then to be told that you are the primary reason for the decline of student achievement is a bit of a smack in the face. I do understand that there are teachers out there who are horrible and need to be run out of the school system, but what about the teachers who are being pushed out without any type of support. If this continues, the teaching profession will become more unattractive than it already is, and getting people to enter the field will be more challenging than trying to educate students. I'll just tell people like Chancellor Rhee, goodluck with that. Now, that may sound harsh, but "I'm Just Sayin'"...
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Take The Heisman From That Hoe
Ok, so no disrespect to Reggie Bush because I'm sure you read this title and said, "Jarrett is so disrespectful!" I just tried to make a play on words with that song whose hook goes, "Do the heisman on that hoe!" (No I don't know the correct title or who sings it, but neither do you!!!)
Every since this morning I have been itching to respond to the question that Russ Parr placed on the people poll (Should Reggie Busg be stripped of his Heisman?). Listening to the show, the overwhelming senitment by most callers was that since he hadn't taken steroids or done anything to to enhance his play on the field, he should not be stripped of the heisman trophy. I can understand why most people would make that assessment in lieu of the recent transgressions of baseball players, but my problem with this issue stems more from an overall mindset and disconnect.
If you know me, then you know that I was a collegiate athlete. Even if you don't know me I'm sure you could tell by looking. (as i get stopped and asked, "who do you play for?" regularly) Now, I didn't play any place as fancy as USC, but I am happy with my overall experience at Howard University. Since football is on a larger scale at a place like USC, I didn't have to worry about boosters slipping me envelopes full of cash, or someone paying my rent every month. My scholarship, Pell grants, and loans were all I had to rely on. With all that being said, I can't say for sure if I would have indulged in the lavish perks that comes with playing for a perinnial power like USC. What I can say, is that I believe that you make every choice consciously. With those choices come consequences. One of the consequences of taking money as a student athlete, is that you forfeit your amatuer status. Professional athletes are the only athletes that can be paid for sport. Once Reggie decided to indulge, he was no longer a college athlete. Yes, he did amazing (no skittles) things on the field, but he did those things as a professional athlete. I'm sure that someone will make the argument that Reggie isn't the only amatuer athlete to take money, and we can assume that some probably have, but there is no definitive evidence out there agaisnt anyone else. Another argument that I'm sure some of you will make, is that colleges receive millions, if not billions of dollars off of the sweat and pain of these college athletes, so they should get paid. I do agree that it is totally unfair for colleges to make all of this money and not be able to give athletes a penny, but if I remember correctly scholarships pay at least 30k a year. Ask they person working 3 jobs and taking out loans, what's fair? I may be biased because I didn't have to deal with issues like that, but I just feel like todays athletes are way too pampered. Reggie was a year from getting millions in the league, so why couldn't he just wait?
So, if you ask me, yes he should be stripped of his heisman. I'm sure that was apparent by the tone of the text, but there are a bunch of messages that must be sent. 1) You must be responsible for you actions. If Reggie took money, he should just own up to it. I've seen him dodge those questions like he was running back a punt. 2) Rather good or bad, your choices have consequences. Let's think of the message we send other athletes if we allow Reggie to keep his trophy. You can be immoral and unethical with no real consequences. The ramifications would be paramount.
I think one of the bigger problems that I have with this whole issue, is the response from the majority. Everyone was so caught on what he didn't do and what every one else was doing that he was basically being exonerated for his actions. I understand that he could have done something worse, but he broke the rules. I think the response to this issue speaks more to the moral code (or lack thereof) of our society today. If we teach our kids that he or she only have to assume responsibility and accept consequences for his or her actions, only if there was no one that has done something worse, then our society is going to hell in a handbasket. Sport is all about teaching discipline and teamwork, and "I'm Just Sayin'" if we're going to do it right, let's not let the athletes off the hook when they don't display these attributes.
Every since this morning I have been itching to respond to the question that Russ Parr placed on the people poll (Should Reggie Busg be stripped of his Heisman?). Listening to the show, the overwhelming senitment by most callers was that since he hadn't taken steroids or done anything to to enhance his play on the field, he should not be stripped of the heisman trophy. I can understand why most people would make that assessment in lieu of the recent transgressions of baseball players, but my problem with this issue stems more from an overall mindset and disconnect.
If you know me, then you know that I was a collegiate athlete. Even if you don't know me I'm sure you could tell by looking. (as i get stopped and asked, "who do you play for?" regularly) Now, I didn't play any place as fancy as USC, but I am happy with my overall experience at Howard University. Since football is on a larger scale at a place like USC, I didn't have to worry about boosters slipping me envelopes full of cash, or someone paying my rent every month. My scholarship, Pell grants, and loans were all I had to rely on. With all that being said, I can't say for sure if I would have indulged in the lavish perks that comes with playing for a perinnial power like USC. What I can say, is that I believe that you make every choice consciously. With those choices come consequences. One of the consequences of taking money as a student athlete, is that you forfeit your amatuer status. Professional athletes are the only athletes that can be paid for sport. Once Reggie decided to indulge, he was no longer a college athlete. Yes, he did amazing (no skittles) things on the field, but he did those things as a professional athlete. I'm sure that someone will make the argument that Reggie isn't the only amatuer athlete to take money, and we can assume that some probably have, but there is no definitive evidence out there agaisnt anyone else. Another argument that I'm sure some of you will make, is that colleges receive millions, if not billions of dollars off of the sweat and pain of these college athletes, so they should get paid. I do agree that it is totally unfair for colleges to make all of this money and not be able to give athletes a penny, but if I remember correctly scholarships pay at least 30k a year. Ask they person working 3 jobs and taking out loans, what's fair? I may be biased because I didn't have to deal with issues like that, but I just feel like todays athletes are way too pampered. Reggie was a year from getting millions in the league, so why couldn't he just wait?
So, if you ask me, yes he should be stripped of his heisman. I'm sure that was apparent by the tone of the text, but there are a bunch of messages that must be sent. 1) You must be responsible for you actions. If Reggie took money, he should just own up to it. I've seen him dodge those questions like he was running back a punt. 2) Rather good or bad, your choices have consequences. Let's think of the message we send other athletes if we allow Reggie to keep his trophy. You can be immoral and unethical with no real consequences. The ramifications would be paramount.
I think one of the bigger problems that I have with this whole issue, is the response from the majority. Everyone was so caught on what he didn't do and what every one else was doing that he was basically being exonerated for his actions. I understand that he could have done something worse, but he broke the rules. I think the response to this issue speaks more to the moral code (or lack thereof) of our society today. If we teach our kids that he or she only have to assume responsibility and accept consequences for his or her actions, only if there was no one that has done something worse, then our society is going to hell in a handbasket. Sport is all about teaching discipline and teamwork, and "I'm Just Sayin'" if we're going to do it right, let's not let the athletes off the hook when they don't display these attributes.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Oh Thee Insanity!
About 5 months ago I vonluntarily checked myself into the Insane Asylum. I did about a 9-week bid and it changed me a little bit. But after suffering a recent setback, I realize that I didn't follow the program correctly so I am admitting myself back in. But before I do, take a look at my before and after pics.
Before
After
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)