Opinion: Merit pay works to boost success in our schools

Your Sept. 13 editorial, Illusion of merit pay for teachers started out on a very positive note: "Teachers who work extra hard ought to get extra money." And while I certainly agree with that opening statement, it was your repeated suggestion of state-sponsored deception and disillusionment that left me perplexed.

First, we have "provided the dollars" and the flexibility that goes with them. Part of the A+ Plan is to devote additional resources for public education, but another important part is to provide districts with the flexibility to spend them as they choose. The 2002-2003 budget passed by the Florida Legislature includes a 9 percent increase in education funding, the largest single-year increase in more than 12 years, for a total of $14.17-billion. This means that under our watch, education funding for K-12 has increased by $3-billion or 27 percent -- a larger increase than was provided in either term of the previous administration.

Flexibility is also there. Your own editorial illustrated the various approaches that districts are taking to provide merit pay for teachers utilizing the historic increases in K-12 funding that we have provided. The Legislature enacted the goal and provided the resources; now districts are developing methods of reaching it.

Second, your editorial once again attempts to shoot the messenger by describing the FCAT as a "misleading judge of a teacher's work output." The true purpose of the FCAT is to ensure that our children are learning a year's worth of knowledge in a year's time. And recent test scores suggest that Florida teachers are meeting that challenge head-on. From 1998 to 2002, FCAT reading and math scores have improved significantly at all grade levels tested and among African-American, Hispanic and white regular-curriculum students. FCAT scores are even up slightly among students with disabilities.

But rather than focusing on the fact that the A+ Plan is working as envisioned, you choose to brand the merit pay initiative with a host of adjectives like "formidable," "rigorous," and "divisive." One can assume that these are simply negative sentiments harbored by your editorial board, considering that the genesis of performance-based pay for the A+ Plan came from classroom teachers themselves.

In reality, merit pay for teachers is just one of the ways that we are rewarding performance and encouraging even greater success in our public schools. With its implementation, we hope to see even greater gains in student achievement than we have witnessed over the last four years.
-- Jeb Bush, governor, Tallahassee

The trouble with merit pay

Re: Illusion of merit pay for teachers.

Could it be possible that the concept of merit pay is just another obfuscation to adequate professional salaries for all teachers? Having had some experience (I've had 30 years of teaching from seventh grade through the university level and am now retired), may I offer a few insights from the inside?

The process begins with the humiliating self-nominating system that forces one teacher to propose that he or she is more valuable than the next one. Is a chemistry teacher worth more than a first-grade or special education teacher? Absolutely not. Just try any of those positions. Objective testing and subjective evaluating (sometimes by administrators who never even had a course in your specialty) follows. Even if you make 100 percent on the objective test, on the subjective part you might face an evaluator who is not a specialist in your area and end up being judged as being without "merit."

This happens and there is no appeal, except that the principal can award points, which he/she usually reserves for those who are strong in extra curriculars, not teaching.

Changes have been made, but this is at least part of the demeaning, demoralizing subjugation teachers go through. Even if you get the "award" you may not be proud of it because you know the teacher next door works just as hard, perhaps harder, with more difficult students, than you. Large numbers of outstanding teachers are refusing to participate. Believe me, if teachers merit being in that classroom, they merit a good professional pay.
-- Henry L. King, Dunedin

Disabled vouchers hurt public schools

Re: Disabled are top voucher users, Sept. 13.

Voucher proponents always claim that when a student leaves public schools with a voucher, the public schools are no worse off because, though the money follows the student, there is a corresponding savings since the public schools no longer have to educate that child. Very simple, right?

Wrong! In Hillsborough County this year, students leaving with McKay Scholarships (vouchers) to private schools are taking more than $4.5-million with them. The problem is, the district is unable to make corresponding cuts, as voucher proponents claim they should. As FEA president Maureen Dinnen points out, "Even if you take two kids out of a classroom, we still have to have a teacher in that classroom." Because the vouchers pull one student here and one there, no one class is affected enough to allow the school district to cut any classes! So this year, the Hillsborough school district is simply out a much-needed $4.5-million.

Voucher proponents don't care. Generally, their cover is that vouchers help poor children escape "failing" schools. But McKay Scholarships don't have an income requirement, nor are they based on a school's performance. Supposedly, they are to help disabled students. But if Exceptional Student Education teachers in public schools struggle to meet ESE student needs, why don't the Bush brothers work together to give those teachers what they need instead of shirking that responsibility?

Public school teachers who teach disabled students are themselves disabled by lack of funding and crushing paperwork loads. Private schools, on the other hand, are exempt from federal law that seeks to ensure that public schools meet the needs of these students.

I wonder how many parents are aware that most private schools don't have the resources to meet disabled students' needs, and that the moment they leave public schools, they give up federal rights meant to ensure that their child's needs are being met?
-- John L. Perry, teacher, Tampa

To find missing foster children

Re: A good start at DCF, editorial, Sept. 19.

As your editorial pointed out, the Department of Children and Families has made a good start under Jerry Regier in locating missing foster children. It is obvious from previous reporting that part of the problem is too many cases and too few caseworkers. Therefore, what is needed are additional arms and legs (especially legs) to chase down these kids and foster families.

A suggestion: We have many fine retired law enforcement veterans who have training and experience in tracking people in our mobile society. These individuals also have demonstrated a personal concern for our society's welfare and readily volunteer when needed. I am sure that if assigned in pairs and provided expenses these dedicated individuals would provide the additional one-time work force to locate these missing foster children and help DCF catch up in this critical area.

I am not suggesting the retirees replace the caseworkers but be assigned to overloaded workers who could utilize and direct their help in the time-consuming task of gathering and following leads to locate the missing children. Once located, then, of course, the caseworkers would assume the job of dealing with the families.
-- William Beasley, Largo

Be responsible for your children

Re: Hispanic dropout dilemma, Sept. 17.

Tony Morejon, Hispanic affairs liaison for Hillsborough County, said in this story that the Hispanic school dropout problem is "America's problem."

He is wrong. America is not in the business of raising children through school. Let's put the blame where it belongs: square on the shoulders of the students and the parents. Why is it that young people from the Far East and Middle East can come to this country and be successful? Because their parents take responsibility and won't let them make mistakes in their young lives. It's time for some of these minority groups to stand up and take responsibility for raising their children, not someone else.
-- Steve Harris, St. Petersburg

Focus on helping the vulnerable elderly

Re: Portrayal of older adults was insulting, letter, Sept. 8.

This senior citizen was shocked by the letter writer's vicious attack on Don Addis as a result of his Aug. 29 "Little Old Riding Hood" cartoon.

With all due respect to the letter writer's credentials (i.e., doctorate in gerontology, etc.), she just didn't get it! The cartoon wasn't aimed at portraying seniors as stupid, foolish or demented. The very reasons the letter writer cites for vulnerability of the elderly (social isolation and loneliness, etc.) are the same factors that make many of us specialized targets for the flim-flam and con artists. These "wolves" are very intelligent professionals who seek out intelligent and wealthy senior citizens far more often than they prey on those who are less educated and living on fixed incomes . . . and their success rate is astronomical. Ergo, we call them "artists."

The letter writer should call either the Pinellas or Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and speak with one of the many detectives assigned to protecting senior citizens from those who constantly strive to separate them from their property. Then she might better serve her constituency by citing Addis' well-targeted and well-intended cartoon to warn and/or educate those elderly people for whom she attempts to speak.

As for the words of wisdom "spoken by the usual insect" in Addis' drawings, you'd think we'd all know better by now, however, none of us is perfect. Some of us still need more reminding and/or protection than others, and I believe we need to provide that for one another whenever and however possible.
-- E.J. Schaffner, Ridge Manor

Childhoods revisited

Re: Homeland security, Sept. 12.

The article about the Sun City Center Security Patrol reminded me of the old joke about the guy who builds a high wall in his back yard. His astonished neighbor asked, "Why did you do that?" "To keep out the elephants," he said. "But, there are no elephants around here!" the neighbor gasped. The guy smiled and said, "Effective, isn't it!"

At the risk of sounding disrespectful to my peers, it seems to me the folks in Sun City Center are deluding themselves into thinking they are keeping their neighborhood safe. Frankly, I think they are reliving their youth when they played "cops and robbers." They ran and used toy guns as little kids, now they ride and use walkie-talkies. Please, this is make-believe. And, it's the kind of behavior that causes our children to cluck their tongues and worry that we're "slipping." For me, though, it was more upsetting to read that they spend $130,000 a year to "keep the organization afloat." Holy retirement packages!

With virtually no serious crime in Sun City Center and a local police force trained and responsible for protecting the residents, this "security patrol," as far as I'm concerned, is simply an elitist endeavor by bored and well-off retirees who are living in a place chosen for its isolation from the "not so well off." What a terrible waste of money that could have been better spent as yearly ongoing support for some needy charity.
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page