In college, I was lucky to take one of the more challenging courses from a gifted professor of Philosophy. Her humor, approachable personality, and rigorous expectations combined to create a teaching style that made her courses exciting to experience but far from easy. From the course simply titled, "Logic" I took away some helpful tools for critical thinking. One component of the course that stands out is the learning of logical fallacies and syllogisms.
Recently, Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad revealed a little sneak peak at his condition of the state address. One point that stuck in the ears of many Iowa educators was the statement that funding for Allowable Growth, the funds used by schools to increase budgets to cover necessary operations, would not be increased unless Branstad's proposed reform package passes this legislative session. Read the Des Moines Register article here.
The reasons are many for why Allowable Growth and education reform should not be tied together. For one, holding hostage the funds that have been stagnant for the past two years would only cause further harm to districts already hard pressed for cash. If it is assumed that budgets will not be allowed to grow, then the need to cut staff, programs, and other areas becomes not only a fear but a reality. The Iowa Senate, with a Democratic majority, voted along party lines and a narrow victory emerged for schools as a 4% bump was approved. We will see what the Iowa House (Republican majority) does with it.
Before being labeled as a pro-union, 20th-Century-minded opponent of Branstad, let me say- there are elements of the reform package that I think are great. I believe offering different career paths for teachers is an excellent way to keep teachers in the profession who might have felt the only way to grow professionally was a move to administration, which might not fit the individual. Likewise, I agree with the proposal to raise teacher salaries. However a point of contention with me is the fallacy that if we raise teacher salaries we will automatically recruit the best candidates for teaching positions. Here is the logic we are presented with:
All of the best employees choose high paying jobs
If teaching were a high paying job, the best employees would choose it
The faulty logic behind this belief is rooted in good intentions to strengthen the teaching force. Just because someone may be an expert at chemistry does not necessarily guarantee that they have the dispositions to be a quality educator or the desire to enter the classroom.
If pay is the only reason we do something, we eventually grow tired of the work and the money is not enough to keep us happy as we suffer through. You take a job for the money. You choose a career because there is no other place you could work happily. This is what being a teacher is. It is a career...not a job at which you work to collect a paycheck, leave work at work, live for the weekend, and dread coming back to on Monday. Are there rough days? Sure. Do kids wear you out but Christmas break? You bet. There is more to it though...which keeps you coming back. I get paid what I get paid. I work just as hard now as I did when I made $20,000 less in a private school. Is more money nice? Yes. However, it did not make me work harder than I previously had. Coming to a public school helped cover the expenses that arise with a growing family and offered some experiences to round out my skills as I desire a move to administration.
I understand the jump to blame stagnant test scores on teachers and teacher prep programs. However, the system needing a renovation is not reason enough to penalize districts that are doing great work to improve and provide quality learning each day. Here is the hope that we can not only move forward on real and necessary reform but also give schools the money they need to operate and conduct business.
