No, I'm serious -- who is responsible for feeding the children? Is it the parents, or is it the government?

That is my reaction to an editorial in today's Houston Chronicle.

Last month, needy children ate more than 2 million free, nourishing meals thanks to the Houston Independent School District. The Galena Park school district fed wholesome meals to 48,000 hungry youngsters.

Both school systems should be commended for recognizing the importance of a reliable, accessible source of food for children whose parents can't provide it. So it's inexplicable that both districts left the same kids utterly adrift when both shut their doors to prepare for the school year.

Now wait just one minute here. What is the business of a SCHOOL district? Is it providing an education for its students, or is it the complete care and feeding of the kids year round? I think the answer is obvious to sensibele, thinking people. That would explain why the Chronicles editorial staff gets the answer wrong.

Now I have to be careful here, because I work in one of these districts, but it seems to me that we have lost focus on the mission of the public schools. That mission is the intellectual, social, and moral education of children. It is not to be a one-stop medical/feeding/day-care center. During the school year, my district offers a free day-care program for the offspring of our students, a free/low-cost heath care clinic for students, and a free/reduced lunch program for all students. This summer it offered free breakfast and lunch for any "child" who walked in off the street, regardless of income -- and "child" was defined as AGE 20 AND UNDER! That's right. We had "children" age 18-20 (what most thinking people would generally refer to as "adults") walking into school buildings and being fed at taxpayer expense. What was even more absurd, the regulations imposed by the federal government forbade the sale of these same meals to school employees who were working in the building, including those of us who were actually teaching summer school!

Now, though, that the program is over, the Chronicle is upset that these districts are shirking some sort of purported moral responsibility to feed the children when there is no school in session.

Like other school districts around the country, Houston and Galena Park are eligible for reimbursement from the federal government for food and operating costs of student free meal programs. The government pays $2.74 for each meal a child consumes, which can be used to hire staff to handle the food and monitor the number of meals served. But as summer school ends and the fall semester starts to loom, school systems apparently find it difficult to keep serving the federally-funded meals on their campuses. Galena Park stopped serving its meals Friday; HISD shut most of its 256 cafeterias several weeks earlier.

This needless lapse in stewardship should not be allowed to happen. Even if entire school systems must close their doors for maintenance, the schools can still act as conduits to get that free food to poor children. Even after a district has ended its program for the summer, it can restart it again as a sponsor for another site, almost until the start of the school year. All the district needs to do is contact nonprofits, whether community centers or churches willing to provide a site where children can eat. Schools can invite teachers or contract cafeteria personnel to freelance as food managers at the interim locations. More than likely, some parents and other community members would be happy to oversee a meal program for free.

Arranging interim food service in the summer might be time-consuming, but what task could be more urgent?

I don't suppose that the Chronicle ever considered proposing that private groups run such programs without government money or oversight. After all, how can we possibly expect there to be positive results without government involvement? And I can't help but laugh at the notion that teachers should volunteer to run such programs -- after all, Texas teacher salaries are only about $6000 below the national average. Why doesn't the Chronicle send its employees out during the middle of the day to run such programs if, as they claim, "there is no task which could be more urgent"? All of this overlooks such antiquated notions as having the children fed a meal at home, prepared by a parent or other family member.

It's certainly feasible: In San Antonio, the schools have organized an almost seamless transfer of summer meals. There is no excuse for Harris County school districts to deny the same services for our own hungry children.

Right now, tens of thousands of Houston children are going without needed meals. Administrators at HISD and GPISD should get on the phone to help them right now. They'll likely find plenty of nonprofits eager to lend a hand. Galena Park Boxing Academy, which is also a child enrichment center, has space for 200 children to eat free meals at once, academy President Kenny Weldon said. The facility can even supply a monitor.

"Of course we'd be willing," Weldon said. "What do you do — take care of kids for one part of the year but not the other?"

But then again, maybe I am too hard-hearted. Maybe the editorial is right. Children need to be fed year-round, and parents are clearly not up to the task.

But what about other school breaks and holidays? These children should not be left to fend for themselves for a week or two at Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Spring Break! Clearly, the cafeterias must remain open during those times off as well.

And what about the irresponsible practice of sending children home on Friday afternoon and closing the cafeterias over the weekend? It seems absurd that we would expect children to survive through a Saturday and a Sunday without a hot breakfast and lunch. School districts need to keep the cafeterias open on the weekend as well, to avoid subjecting our nation's children to two whple days without nutrition.

I've also got a solution to what I see as the "dinner problem". By extending the school day by two or three hours, we can make sure that each student gets a hot dinner, ensuring three square meals a day. The interim time could be devoted to additional instructional time, though I certainly see the objections of those who see the extra classroom time as educators over-emphasizing academics.

But what I've not managed to solve is how to guarantee that evey child gets a bowl of ice cream and a kiss on the forehead before bed. What do you think -- are parents up to such a task?

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1136 words, total size 7 kb.

You may remember that some weeks ago I wrote about the Texas Legislature's disrespect of teachers. Well, they are at it again. Those changes in retirement rules for new teacher are going to be extended to ALL teachers -- even those already in the system -- under legislation considered likely to pass during this special session on education (by the way -- there is still no education budget or revised tax scheme -- the original purpose of this special session that ends next week).

A separate bill the Senate may debate later this week would make several changes to the Teacher Retirement System, including raising the minimum retirement age to 60.

Linda Bridges, president of the Texas Federation of Teachers, said the bill "is taking us backwards in our efforts to attract and retain quality teachers."

"The Teacher Retirement System deserves to be solvent. We need to pass a bill so that the Teacher Retirement System doesn't look like Social Security and we have to stand up here and say it's going to be bankrupt in 10 years," [Senate Finance Committee Chair Steve] Ogden said.

Well, Steve, maybe if the state quit funding the system at the statutory minimum percentage (as it has done on an "emergency basis" for the last 10 years) and took the funding level back up to its traditional level at which it was designed to function, then there would be no problem. You would not have to monkey with the plans of teachers approaching retirement -- nor would you have to engage in a practice which federal law bans in the private sector, namely changing the terms of a pension agreement for currently covered workers.

Listen we already make around $6000 a year below the national average, and you balanced the last budget (for the 2003-2004 biennium) on the backs of teachers by cutting our health insurance stipend in half (effectively a $500 annual "teacher tax" out of each of our pockets) and still haven't restored the money for the new biennium as we were promised, nor have you found the cash for an increase in teacher salaries. Retiree health insurance are more expensive because of legislative tinkering. Don't screw around with our retirement benefits as well! And I say that as a teacher who plans on being into the classroom significantly past the minimum retirement age.

But somehow, you have managed to find the dollars to fund this little measure, one that didn't make it through the regular session of the legislature.

The House and Senate haven't agreed on how to cut school property taxes, but both chambers approved bills Tuesday that would boost their own pensions.

The House used a nonrecorded voice vote Tuesday to pass a bill to raise judicial pay and lawmakers' pensions, while Senators voted on the record with two senators casting "no" votes on similar legislation.

Since 1975, legislative pensions have been calculated as a portion of a district judge's salary.

Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, said judicial salaries need to be increased to keep experienced judges from leaving the bench for private practice. But he said he cast a "protest vote" against the bill because it links a district judge's salary to lawmakers' pension benefits.

"I'm just down on that," said Janek.

Currently, lawmakers earn $7,200 a year in pay, and retired lawmakers can begin collecting pensions at age 50 if they have served for at least 12 years.

Under the House and Senate bills, a retired official with 12 years' experience would get $6,431 more a year for a total pension of $34,500. Benefits increase with each year of service.

In other words, you cannot take care of teachers and will vote for measures that cost us money and do nothing to properly compensate us for what you people keep claiming is one of the most important jobs in the state -- but you can guarantee yourself a pension from your PART-TIME JOB that is approximately equal to the state minimum salary for a full-time classroom teacher who has ten years of classroom experience! And you get to retire at age 50 with 12 years of service -- a "Rule of 62" rather thant the current "Rule of 80" that teachers must meet or the "Rule of 90" that you are seeking to impose with this new legislation. Oh, yeah -- and our benefits are equal to only about 70% of our annual salary, not 480% of our annual salary like you guys will be getting. And might I also mention that your annual pension increase approximates the dollar figure by which Texas teachers are paid below the national average.

So I have a message to Texas legislators -- SCREW YOU! You seem intent to keep on screwing me.

Posted by: Greg at 06:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 798 words, total size 5 kb.

While perusing this week's ediition of the Carnival of Education, I came across an entry that referenced these two posts on a third blog (yeah, I know -- Tinker to Evers to Chance) about a column on the official website of the NEA dishonestly trashing homeschooling -- and the author's clueless response to criticism.

I'll let you read about the initial coulmn yourself, but let me post you excerpts from the letter critical of the coulumn and the author's response.

Homeschool parent and column critic Dominick Cancilla wrote (as part of a much longer letter that you really should read -- it is priceless):

And socialization -- don't even get me started! No matter how many play dates and group classes or field trips a homeschooler participates in, there are so many lessons that a child can only learn on a public-school playground! This is where kids learn to stick up for themselves, where they discover their place in society, and where they find out who their real friends are. I got a lot of teasing myself when I was in grade school, and the teachers didn't make a big deal every time someone called me a name like my mom would have if she were always hanging around. I learned pretty quickly that I had to take care of these things myself instead of trying to get "authority" to take care of them, and knowing that I need to look out for number one has served me very well in the business world. If I'd been homeschooled, I'd probably let people walk all over me instead of putting them in their place where they belong! And how will a homeschooler, without school-yard experience, know how to handle some idiot who cuts them off in traffic? What'll they do -- just let it go?

I recently read an article about a 13-year-old girl who was taken away from her family and put in a mental institution with no contact with anyone because she had behavioral problems in school. If that kid was homeschooled, would her parents have given her the isolation and anti-psychotic drugs she needed? And how will kids learn how to deal with cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol if they are homeschooled? Not that kids should be using this stuff of course, but if you keep kids completely sheltered from them, they're going to go nuts with the stuff when they become adults. The same is true about sex -- isn't that too important a subject to be left to parents to teach? Again, what does a parent know about sex that a teacher doesn't know much better, particularly if the parent is just going to blindly teach abstinence or have some other unrealistic expectation!

As you can see, the satirical tone of the letter just bleeds through. But I guess it was too subtle for column author Dave Arnold, who replied in part (you really have to read the whole thing):

I deeply appreciate hearing from you and receiving your fantastic comments and compliments concerning my article on the fallacies of home schooling. As you likely gathered from my article, it is a subject that is truly a thorn in my side.

Like I said -- sarcasm and satire are just wasted on some people.

Posted by: Greg at 04:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 563 words, total size 4 kb.

From Catallarchy, and extended by the author (Scott Scheuele) at My Back Pages:

So I Was Teaching Highschoolers Entertainment Law This Morning

And the chapter was about intellectual property.

“Now why,” I asked, “do we need property? Why don’t we just let everything belong to everyone?”

One of my students raised his hand. “Because,” said he, “that’s called Communism. And Communism sucks.”

I have to say that I feel more than a little bit envious of Scott. Sounds like he has skimmed the cream right off the top of the bottle with this bunch.

As a classroom teacher in an urban school with over half my students falling into the lower quarter of the socio-economic system, I feel blessed when I have a kid advance a political opinion beyond "I think Clinton was the greatest president ever 'cause he was a P-I-M-P PIMP, baby!"

Although I will concede that said observation on the merits of the Clinton presidency may be more astute than that made by a kid who, when confronted about his Che t-shirt told me "He wasn't a Communist; he was an agrarian reformer." -- and then could not define "agrarian reformer" for me.

Posted by: Greg at 05:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.