Competition, merit pay, and other swamps for sale:

[LWolf]

I would like to step in here with a perspective different from that of Senator Barack Obama, and different from the right-wing propaganda tanks that have been touting these ideas for years.

I don't care if you love Obama or hate him. I don't like him, but I'm not here to talk about him, and if you love him, more power to you. I'm here to talk about the concepts of competition and merit pay as they relate to public education. My credentials to do so are, frankly, better than any of the presidential candidates'. I'm a teacher. I've worked in public education since 1983. I've been a classified employee, a school librarian, and have taught K-8th grades. I've taught in two states with 2 different licenses, at different school sites, and under a wide variety of administrators and school boards. I have numerous extra certifications, have done staff development for districts, written curriculum, and sat on various district committees focused on education-related issues. None of the Democratic candidates have my extensive background in the profession.

In every one of those scenarios, I have exemplary evaluations from admins, and strong peer, parent, and student support.

I'm also a product of public education, have raised two publicly-educated children, and now have a grandchild in the public ed system. I get to look at my profession from a parent's perspective, too.

I value the parent and student support most highly, as their opinions about my performance are the ones that count, at least to me. It's probable that political campaigners and spinners may not support what I have to say, but I know that the people who count, my "clients," so to speak, do.

On competition:

It is inevitable that competition is part of public education, since it is such a strongly embedded strand in American culture. Competition can lead to some limited, short-term gains in some cases. The key word there being "some." That's the sticking point, isn't it? "Some." Public education, by it's definition, is for ALL. Not some.

As educators, it is our job to offer opportunities for ALL to find success. We can't give it to them, we can't do it for them. That's not our job. We give them the opportunities, and they make the most of those opportunities, or not. That's the American way, is it not?

So what is the problem with competition among teachers? Let's take a practical, down-in-the-trenches look:

Competition, by it's very nature, RANKS people. If the goal is to offer equal opportunity to all, you are not going to get there by ranking those offering the opportunity. It can only be equal if teachers are equal.

Of course, in the real world, teachers are no more assembly-line machines than students are. There will be real differences. Is competition the way to address that reality? I don't think so. I don't think so because I think like a teacher. As a teacher, I would no more use competition in my classroom to rank students, to push them into lower, less valued ranks that offer fewer opportunities, than I would my colleagues.

That doesn't mean that I think anyone can teach, and that anyone with a license ought to be given free reign. I hold my colleagues to higher standards than any state board can. They do the same for me. If you want to be able to ensure that all teachers are "highly qualified," do these things:

1. Pay an appropriate professional salary that does not require investment of said salary in work to keep a license, in trainings, in supplies, etc..

2. Be realistic about the job so that those considering teaching as a profession don't think they are getting a short work day with lots of vacation. So that they understand what they are really getting into.

3. Offer alternate career choices for those who decide that teaching is not for them; career choices that don't require them to start over and invest more years and $$$ into separate education/training. Career choices that will take teachers at comparable pay into other professions.

4. Don't promote people who don't like teaching into administrative jobs, paying them more and giving them authority over those who do the job they couldn't, or didn't want, to do.

5. Provide for abundant peer observation, counseling, mentoring, and evaluating. The best way to get a teacher to improve practice is to make that teacher accountable to peers. End the isolation behind classroom doors.

Please note that teachers competing against each other for jobs, for evaluations, for "merit pay," will not be constructively engaged in #5 above. In this case, collaboration is a more powerful instrument of long-term improvement than competition will ever be.

Which is more likely to benefit students? Groups of teachers collaborating together to make sure that students have the best opportunities available to succeed, or teachers working against each other; teachers who will gain when other teachers' students don't? Teachers who are joined in the effort to help all succeed, or teachers who are motivated by incentives for "me?"


On "merit pay:"

First of all, it is more than obvious which scenario above merit pay will lead to. That alone should put an end to any efforts in that direction.

Secondly, just how will "merit" be measured to decide who is deserving? Talk about a swamp of corruption ready to suck down the most well- meaning. I see administrators using "merit" to advance those who support their agenda, and to hold back those who don't, regardless of benefit to actual students. Does the public really think that political manipulation doesn't happen at the school site level? Administrators quite regularly abolish all policies of their predecessors, no matter how beneficial, and institute sweeping policy and staffing changes, every time they are assigned to a new school. That's how they consolidate power. It has nothing to do with students. If a teacher has done nothing wrong to receive a "write up," or a poor evaluation, but continues to be a thorn in the side of a power-mongering agenda, admins can do things like reassign grade levels, duties, make up unbalanced class lists, etc.. to punish teachers already. You don't think assigning "merit" wouldn't become yet another tool of control and manipulation? Please know that I am not saying that all principals are unethical. I've worked for many good principals. Only 2 in my 25 years in public ed did not engage in some form of political manipulation of teachers.

As it stands right now, "merit" is based on student test scores. If you can't see that basing my "merit" on others' performance is not an ethical use of test scores, I'm not sure what to say. If you thought that what a teacher does in the classroom is the only, or even the most significant, factor in determining test scores, you need to learn some more. The most significant factor is outside of the teacher's, the school's, the public ed system's, control. It's parent ed and income level. We all know that. It's fine and dandy to say, "let's focus on what we CAN effect," as long as you are not going to pay me based on what we can't.

What if you had the best-case scenario in every classroom in a given school? A great admin, all superb, highly-qualified teachers, plenty of support, etc.. Guess what? Not all those kids will score the same.

So "merit pay" will be assigned to those who meet some pre-determined, politically decided goal. Fine. Guess what? We all know which kids have the best chance of reaching those goals before the first day of school ever happens. Does that mean we "give up" on the rest, and "leave them behind?" No. We work hard to bring them as far as we can. We celebrate their successes and go after their weak spots with passion and determination. Then we celebrate the progress we made, whether or not we met a politically-determined goal. Our goal was to move every student forward from where they began.

Now tell us that "merit pay" is determined by test scores. How many teachers will want to take on those kids who need them most? Now you'll see the competition. They'll be competing for the students most likely to make those gains. You wanted competition, right? What? That's not what you meant?

Do you want teachers who WANT the neediest kids, who want to take on the biggest challenge, even if they aren't in control of all the factors? Or do you want teachers who want the test scores? Make up your mind.

Are you thinking "Why can't we have both?" Because they are competing agendas. Competition fosters winners and losers. One agenda will win, and the other will lose. When there is a "winner," there is always a "loser." That's the nature of competition, and that's why it is not appropriate in public ed, where everyone is supposed to "win."

Do you think assigning students to teachers won't be affected by such a scenario? Please think again.

As someone who HAS worked in public ed for 25 years, I know that there are many, many areas that need improvement. I would love to dive right in and work on them. As a matter of fact, you can find some of my ideas here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=219x7314#7315

More competition and merit pay are not on my list, as you will see.

If you really want to tout your favorite candidate's position on public education, how about giving us their position on those suggestions?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. Great, post! Thanks for sharing your professional insight with us

Recommended.

[Alexander]

2. Sorry, I agree with Obama on this one, even though I don't support him.

There were plenty of shitty, abusive teachers in my schools when I was growing up, and despite a consensus from the parents, students and faculty that the offenders should be fired, we were given excuses that they can't, for whatever reason.

There needs to be a mechanism allowing removal of shitty teachers. Right now there isn't.

I think merit pay should encompass 9 or 10 different aspects of teaching quality, not just a standardized test.

Kudos to Obama for taking a risk and saying what needs to be said. :applause:

[LWolf]

5. Merit pay is not a mechanism for removal of poor teachers.

You are correct in saying that there should be mechanisms, but merit pay doesn't remove teachers. It's a political tool to control the teachers that are not removed.

I pointed out one possible mechanism for removing poor teachers in my post, if you read it. That's the mechanism I would support: make it easy for them to transition to a more appropriate career. I believe they would.

Somehow I've missed seeing "plenty" of shitty, abusive teachers. I've seen some, of course. They exist in the profession, just like shitty, abusive people exist in any population. I've found them to be few and far between. I agree that they should be removed. I just don't see you, or any political candidate, for that matter, offering an appropriate method of removal.

I've found more teachers who needed help to improve their practice. They weren't "shitty," and they weren't "abusive," but they were weak in some areas. There are lots of those; where will you find a population of people that have no professional or personal weaknesses? You won't.

Since we will all have weaknesses, I would prefer to address the weaknesses and grow the professional skills in those cases. That need was also addressed in my admittedly long post. Did you read it?

[Alexander]

24. Neither is anything you said.

"Merit pay" isn't 100% of what I'd like (by the way, what he was proposing wasn't actually "merit pay" as you describe), but he calls for accountability where not many of the other candidates do. He gets brownie points for that.

"You are correct in saying that there should be mechanisms, but merit pay doesn't remove teachers. It's a political tool to control the teachers that are not removed."

If a teacher gets a bonus because the faculty, parents, students all like him/her, the structure of the class is educational and engaging, and he/she is clearly going an excellent job, is that a "political tool"?

"I pointed out one possible mechanism for removing poor teachers in my post, if you read it. That's the mechanism I would support: make it easy for them to transition to a more appropriate career. I believe they would."

Amidst all your rhetoric, I only found the following proposal which did what you said.

"admins can do things like reassign grade levels, duties, make up unbalanced class lists, etc.. to punish teachers already."

But they don't. In many cases unions fight tooth and nail against any of these things. Not all, but many. And teachers respond to that by being more bitter and taking their anger out on students.

"Somehow I've missed seeing "plenty" of shitty, abusive teachers."

I guess you did, because I saw plenty. Mind you, I saw plenty of excellent ones, but as far as the terrible ones went, there was a general consensus of students, parents and administration officials that removal was the best option, but for some reason the administration's hands were always tied.

"I've seen some, of course. They exist in the profession, just like shitty, abusive people exist in any population. I've found them to be few and far between. I agree that they should be removed. I just don't see you, or any political candidate, for that matter, offering an appropriate method of removal."

Easy. Factor teacher evaluations and PTA meetings into the process, and give the community a chance to get involved in who teaches their children.

[LWolf]

29. Sure there is.

You just have to read it. I'll give you another chance to find where I discussed exiting teachers that shouldn't be in the classroom.

As for the rest,

If a teacher gets a bonus because the faculty, parents, students all like him/her, the structure of the class is educational and engaging, and he/she is clearly going an excellent job, is that a "political tool"?

I hope you are not suggesting merit pay based on a popularity contest. I would suggest that if the structure of the class is not educational, if there is some evidence that the teacher is not doing "an excellent job," that some of the other suggestions I made in that post kick in. That way, we're supporting EVERY teacher in improving their professional practice, and therefore supporting EVERY student.

Amidst all your rhetoric, I only found the following proposal which did what you said.

"admins can do things like reassign grade levels, duties, make up unbalanced class lists, etc.. to punish teachers already."

But they don't. In many cases unions fight tooth and nail against any of these things. Not all, but many. And teachers respond to that by being more bitter and taking their anger out on students.

1. That wasn't the mechanism for removing poor teachers. Those are mechanisms for political manipulation which are already in place.

2. Yes, admins sure as hell DO all of those things mentioned. Some local unions do a better job fighting than others, but if you think unions keep admins from doing their best to make professional life more uncomfortable for teachers that oppose them, I have to wonder what fantasy school administrations you have experience with.

I guess you did, because I saw plenty. Mind you, I saw plenty of excellent ones, but as far as the terrible ones went, there was a general consensus of students, parents and administration officials that removal was the best option, but for some reason the administration's hands were always tied.

I have seen them. I just haven't seen PLENTY of them. I'd have to point out here that to truly decide that a teacher is "shitty" and "abusive," you'd have to get a consensus. The reality is this: the best of teachers will find occasional parents that don't like them, that have a poor opinion of them, and that are willing to blame them for whatever poor experience their child had. The best of teachers will often find admins that it's hard to work for. A good teacher doesn't easily stomach policies that get in the way of helping students, and can find him/herself in the role of "thorn in the side." I hope you want teachers to oppose bad policy when it comes down the pipe.

This is also reality: not all teachers are the right "fit" for all students. Most teachers will have parents, peers, and admins who love what they are doing, and those who don't. Consensus on whether a teacher is poor enough to merit removal is not common.

For those who need to go, I've made a suggestion in the original post. I stand by that suggestion, and I'm open to others, as well. I think you'll find that most teachers SUPPORT the removal of teachers who lower the profession, the school, and the learning experience of students.

Easy. Factor teacher evaluations and PTA meetings into the process, and give the community a chance to get involved in who teaches their children.

I actually agree with some of this. I don't see where PTA meetings have anything to do with it. Teacher evaluations should. The problem is the structure of the evaluation process itself. I've experienced several different structures, and all of them were well-meant, but none of them really did the job. None really reflected the every day practice of teachers, and all were open to abuse.

I did work at a school that attempted to do some of what you were suggesting:

First of all, interviews for all positions, licensed, classified, and administrative, were conducted by a committee composed of, you guessed it, an admin, some teachers, parents, and classified staff. Candidates were discussed until consensus was reached, or, if there was no consensus, a vote was taken.

Evaluations were done informally by admins and peers. Informally, meaning no appointments with set objectives. The admin dropped in several times during the year, unannounced, took notes, asked questions, and conferenced with the teacher. So did a few peers. Then everybody got together to write up the evaluation, which focused on strengths and goals, and specific ways to achieve goals. Parents did not participate in the evaluations. However, this school had an open door policy. Any parent was welcome in any classroom at any time. They could come in and observe, participate, or offer to help.

This transparent climate made parents feel more welcome, and more a part of the process. If they had a question or concern, they were welcome to bring it up with the teacher involved, and the teacher didn't feel defensive. It was a true conversation where parent concerns and teacher pov could be aired with respect. Very few complaints ever went further. When they did, a committee made up like the interview committee addressed those concerns.

During the years this process was in place, there were 3 teachers that needed more than "improvement." You are correct in saying that there was no good way to do so. We were able to fire one, but that's because he lost a lawsuit about abuse, BROUGHT BY A PEER, in court. The other two were exited with poor evaluations. That didn't solve the problem, of course; they just got picked up by another school somewhere. That's why I suggest a mechanism to make a smooth, easy transition into some other profession entirely. Otherwise, you are just dumping the problem on someone else.

We all loved what we were doing. Families, teachers, admins; we were all unified. It didn't last, though. After about 5 years, the district office was very uncomfortable with that level of grassroots power. They replaced the admin with a top-down, my way is law and we're not doing this anymore kind of guy. Not coincidentally, our school went from being the most popular with families in the region to just another school people didn't trust. :shrug:

There has to be a balance, though, between the power to fire and protection from political manipulation. The political manipulation is real and active.

That brings me around to your first statement:

"Merit pay" isn't 100% of what I'd like (by the way, what he was proposing wasn't actually "merit pay" as you describe), but he calls for accountability where not many of the other candidates do. He gets brownie points for that.

I don't think Senator Obama was very clear about what kind of "merit pay" he was supporting; on the one hand, he said he wanted to base pay on test scores, and on the other, that he wouldn't use "arbitrary tests." Not exactly clear. Still, my point, and this thread, is not about Obama specifically.

Accountability? I absolutely agree that teachers, like the rest of the planet, can and should be accountable for the job that they do. It's what to use as the measure of accountability that gets so sticky. What are true objective measures? There is no consensus. Here are the measures of accountability that I suggest:

1. Is there evidence, in lesson plans, in observations, in assignments and classroom activities, that the teacher is teaching required curriculum?

2. Is there evidence that the teacher is using a variety of research-based strategies? I don't mean looking to see if the teacher is using the latest mandated strategy/corporate program to the exclusion of all else, or the latest strategy based on corporate research done by the company that wants to market their materials. I mean this: is the teacher using a wide variety of strategies that have been shown to help learners with a wide variety of strengths and needs? Is there something there for the auditory, the visual, the kinesthetic learner? Is there something there for the various intelligences as categorized by gardener? Is the teacher differentiating?

3. Is there evidence that students are treated with respect?

4. Is there evidence that classroom expectations are fair and reasonable?

5. Is there evidence that the teacher is responsive to parents?


If there is evidence of all of the above, then I believe that the teacher has met appropriate standards of accountability.

[Alexander]

41. I agree with your 5 points...

Rest assured most of my teachers were excellent or at least decent. Teaching is a hard profession and I believe teachers need to be paid more just on principle. It serves a practical purpose of encouraging the best of the best to pursue the profession.

The bad teachers I've had, though (thankfully only 5 or 6 people) I wouldn't wish on any student. My basic point is there needs to be a mechanism for addressing poor teachers, and none of the candidates has offered a coherent idea yet, save Obama.

I don't know if I'll vote for him, but I'm still giving him brownie points for speaking up on the matter.

"First of all, interviews for all positions, licensed, classified, and administrative, were conducted by a committee composed of, you guessed it, an admin, some teachers, parents, and classified staff. Candidates were discussed until consensus was reached, or, if there was no consensus, a vote was taken.

Evaluations were done informally by admins and peers. Informally, meaning no appointments with set objectives. The admin dropped in several times during the year, unannounced, took notes, asked questions, and conferenced with the teacher. So did a few peers. Then everybody got together to write up the evaluation, which focused on strengths and goals, and specific ways to achieve goals. Parents did not participate in the evaluations. However, this school had an open door policy. Any parent was welcome in any classroom at any time. They could come in and observe, participate, or offer to help.

This transparent climate made parents feel more welcome, and more a part of the process. If they had a question or concern, they were welcome to bring it up with the teacher involved, and the teacher didn't feel defensive. It was a true conversation where parent concerns and teacher pov could be aired with respect. Very few complaints ever went further. When they did, a committee made up like the interview committee addressed those concerns.

During the years this process was in place, there were 3 teachers that needed more than "improvement." You are correct in saying that there was no good way to do so. We were able to fire one, but that's because he lost a lawsuit about abuse, BROUGHT BY A PEER, in court. The other two were exited with poor evaluations. That didn't solve the problem, of course; they just got picked up by another school somewhere. That's why I suggest a mechanism to make a smooth, easy transition into some other profession entirely. Otherwise, you are just dumping the problem on someone else."

I agree with all this. An excellent idea.

[LWolf]

44. Here's the real sticky point:

The excellent idea we agree upon gives the power to the site level. Not just to the admin; to parents and teachers and admins, as a cohesive group.

It's an incredibly powerful way to build a positive climate, a positive experience, for all at the school. We proved it.

The downfall is that the people at the "top" don't like to share power. They want "top-down" power structures. Structures that de-power, rather than empower, the real stake-holders: families and teachers.

So far, every system of accountability that I've heard supported by a politician is a "top-down" system.

For an accountability system to truly work fairly and efficiently, our public ed system needs to be completely restructured from the bottom up, with the power held by the stakeholders. Frankly, that would solve most of the issues needing change and reform in public education. I don't think you will hear such a suggestion from most candidates. I'm not going to say from "any;" I'll give them all a chance. I'm skeptical, but willing to be shown differently.

[tigereye]

27. I find the politicizing of education and the "blame" that is laid at teacher's

doors incredibly frustrating. Good post. I've seen more teachers who are burnt out and frustrated by more and more bureaucracy, to the point that they don't enjoy teaching anymore. And that's a shame.

[LWolf]

30. That is a sad reality.

In many cases, what is seen by the public as "poor teachers" is, in reality, burn-out, loss of confidence, loss of any buy-in to what is happening. It happens when teachers are de-powered, rather than empowered.

Many of those teachers would do just fine with some support, hope, and empowerment.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. He did not take a risk. This helps him and is literally straight from the DLC's policy playbook

He is triangulating on this issue. His position will help his chances in the general election greatly and do little, if any, damage to him in the primaries. The benefits to him greatly outweigh the costs.

Post #5 shows that "merit pay" has nothing to do with the removal of "bad" teachers.

[Alexander]

25. How? The Democratic base is obviously not for it.

This doesn't help him among Democrats at all. And it's not "merit pay" he was proposing.

But yes, dmc, there are some ideas and personal beliefs I have that are not 100% in sync with the platform of the Democratic Party. Surprise, surprise!! We're not all clones of each other. :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. What makes you say that? There is a solid split even on DU on this

What do you think the views of Democrats outside DU are? I bet they are closer to that 70-80% than to the fairly even split at DU.

==But yes, dmc, there are some ideas and personal beliefs I have that are not 100% in sync with the platform of the Democratic Party. Surprise, surprise!! We're not all clones of each other.==

And your point is?

[last_texas_dem]

19. I disagree that Obama taking the stance he took was much of a risk

The concept of "merit pay" is politically popular.

If it's risky due to him coming out in favor of it in front of a teachers' union gathering, well, that may be so, but the same could be said if he'd come out in favor of vouchers in such a venue.

[Alexander]

26. Do you have any polls or evidence showing "merit pay" is popular?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. A BO supporter posted 1 in another thread on this. It has 70-80% support nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Yes, there is a mechanism allowing removal of shitty teachers

It's called not renewing their contract. And it is rarely used. This is an indication of shitty administrators. Yet, you want them to decide how much money I make and how much of a raise I get from year to year? The same people who can't figure out how to fire shitty teachers? No thanks.

[LWolf]

58. Simple enough, isn't it?

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. Too simple

As if you couldn't tell, I am about over shitty administrators. Everyone blames the teachers. But those not in our business have no idea who really causes the problems. It's not the teachers.

I remember a study about 10 years go that placed the blame on administrators. It found that administrators have a stronger effect on student achievement than teachers do. We can't do our job without their support. If they don't hire competent teachers, the kids don't learn. If they don't buy supplies, we can't run our classrooms. If they don't schedule efficiently, the whole school suffers. Administrators play a much larger role than anyone outside of education realizes.

[ulysses]

60. well said.

Case in point was the asshole who was my asst. principal first semester this last year. He suspended one of my special ed kids for 14 days in a row (didn't tell me, of course), and we all got to sit in my office the last day before winter break while the mom's attorney handed him his ass on a platter over the incident.

Of course, the next week he was made the principal of the school. Think he had it out for me? Oh yes he did - I got written up, after a surprise check of the special ed files, because IEPs that had been written the previous spring (by other teachers, before I was in the leadership role) contained misspelled words. But he'd have been fair about merit pay, surely...

[LWolf]

62. Of course he'd have been fair, lol.

Merit pay is intended to be a political tool. Any use of a political tool is fair game, right?

I am bewildered and horrified, to be honest, by the number of people in the general public, especially those who claim to be other than right wing, who somehow think administrators need more ways to abuse power.

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. I got written up for having school stationey on my desk.

The principal asked me why I had it and I said "Because I work here". She didn't like that answer so she wrote me up.

Then I had a parent file a complaint with the state over something that had happened last year, before I even knew her kid, and the special ed director tried to get ME suspended.

I have so many stories. 28 years worth. Many many :wtf: moments. LOL

[LWolf]

75. I think anyone who has taught for several years

has stories like that. Those that stay around to find out, anyway.

Half of us don't make it past 5 years. I think I'll post something about the attrition rate in a new thread.

That's HALF of the people entering the profession that leave due to low pay, poor working conditions, and bureaucratic bull.

But, of course, the way to "fix" public education is with threats and bribes. That'll do it. :eyes:

[ProudDad]

55. One person's "shitty teacher"

can be another persons inspirational example.

I experienced that in school. I had a couple of teachers the other students hated but who were able to enhance my educational experience.

What are these 9 or 10 aspects of "teaching quality" you would postulate?

[jody]

3. I agree in general with your points but disagree with #3. Society has no obligation to provide jobs

for those who made poor career choices.

[LWolf]

9. Here is my thinking:

I don't disagree with your point about "obligation." Still, the frustration we hear most frequently from those outside the profession is the difficulty in removing poor teachers.

I don't think they all need to be removed. See my response # 5 for more on that. For those that would be better off elsewhere, I suggest providing an easy transition for them as the easiest way to make that happen.

Here's what I mean:

Let's say a teacher isn't very effective, has found that he doesn't like teaching, doesn't like students, and is increasingly depressed, burnt-out, disgruntled, bad-tempered, and sloppy. He'd go elsewhere himself if he saw an out, but...

He's still paying student loans on the education he has already got. If he leaves, he'll be over-qualified for some jobs, but won't have specific qualifications for something else. With his current student-loan burden, he can't afford to take on more. If he takes a big pay cut, his family will suffer. So he stays.

That's the most frequent scenario, to tell the truth. It depends on what the original BA and MA degrees were in. For 2ndary educators, they may be able to find something appropriate. For multiple-subject elementary educators, there's nothing out there that will allow a smooth transition.

We may not be "obligated." I'd feel less obligated if we had universal preschool - college/trade school, so that there was no financial burden in leaving one profession and retraining for another. I'd feel less obligated if the profession was accurately understood and portrayed in the general population, but it isn't. Way too many people enter teaching with no clue whatsoever what it will really require of their lives. They don't find out until student teaching, after all the time and $$ invested. Some don't find out until they are on the job, and worrying about being financially self-sustaining after being a student.

Obligated or not, if we wanted a smooth, easy way to transition people out of the profession, we'd provide a smooth, easy transition. Is it a bad thing to realize that, after all those years of school and training, teaching is not what you've been called to do? No. It's bad if you have no better place to be, though. If we believe in a democratic society, don't we believe that people should have equal opportunity to work at something they can be successful with? If the goal is to punish people for choosing the wrong profession, fire them. If the goal is to provide students with the best teachers, offer a smooth transition out for those that don't fit.

[jody]

15. OK but IMO your reply is a special case and does not support a general policy. n/t

[LWolf]

31. I wouldn't call it a special case.

It isn't even a real case; it's a composite of many different cases that I've known.

That's my point. First of all, there are many more teachers that would be better supported to improve than to remove. Secondly, most of those that need to be removed would be glad of an opportunity to move into something they were more fit for. Very few teachers enter the teaching profession because they want to somehow milk the system. They want to serve. When their service is not effective, they aren't any happier than the students, parents, and peers that would like to see them gone. What would be better? A system set up to evict people, confrontational in nature, or a system set up to assist people in finding the best "fit" for their skills when their current placement must change?

Which is better for public ed, and for society as a whole?

Which is more democratic?

[jody]

36. OK, thanks for the exchange and explaining your position. Have a great day.

:hi:

[LWolf]

39. You're welcome.

Civil exchange is a positive start on any issue.

:hi:

[montanacowboy]

4. Absolutely Spot On!

on another post I said Obama was dead wrong on this; he has NO frickin clue what he is talking about.

Merit pay is a disaster - the question is...who decides? they tried to pull this shit in the Federal Govt. So who decides? Bushco cronies, appointees who know JACK SHIT about what they are doing are now left to decide who deserves a raise on merit. Well, this becomes pretty obvious = if you kiss my ass you get a merit increase. Or, if you follow MY agenda and not what is in the public interest, you get a merit increase.

Someone better pull Obama aside and give it to him straight - who is he pandering to with this failed policy? I would like to know.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Exactly. I have seen that too in the federal government

==Someone better pull Obama aside and give it to him straight - who is he pandering to with this failed policy? I would like to know.==

General election voters (this is straight from the DLC's policy playbook). One Obama supporter posted a poll in one of the threads on this showing 70-80% of people support this right-wing idea. Why? Because it sounds good. Once they hear of the details--or worse, if the MSM does not do its job under a President Obama, see its consequences they will change their views. The people at DU who have been the most vocal in opposition to this are those who know what exactly it is.

[LWolf]

47. Can Dolores Umbridge be far behind?

;-)

Seriously, though. What better way to control public education, and therefore the "training" of the next generation of voters, than to "punish" dissent with politically motivated punishments and rewards?

[tired_old_fireman]

8. Thanks for sharing your experiences and opinion

I can't speak to the subject with your expertise, but I do think merit pay is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper, but then when it is to put it into practice it will wind up being just another way to short change teachers and scare qualified people away from the profession. It doesn't address a lot of the real problems today of class sizes that are too large, teachers that have to buy their own supplies, children that don't speak English or have special needs not having special classes. A teacher can wind up in one class having to teach lessons to children who are hard of hearing, speak different languages, have dyslexia..to name a few examples. Wonder how that teacher's students will do on their test which determines the teacher's pay?

Everytime the government tries to run a social service like a corporation, it just doesn't work. Teacher's are not salesmen. There's no easy way to reward or punish based on performance.

[LWolf]

11. You express this very well.

You may not be a teacher, but if you are a tired old fireman, you are also a public servant. You understand the issue from the perspective of a public servant.

Social services cannot be run like corporations. The business model hurts more than it helps.

[LostInAnomie]

10. Merit pay is a scam.

It's another way to place unfair evaluations on a profession that is constantly under siege. How long do these people think it will be until the "progress" becomes mandatory to stay employed? How long until "merit pay" becomes base pay? How long until unscrupulous administrators start dumping the worst and most troublesome students on certain teachers and using "lack of merit" as reason for dismissal?

Teaching should not be judged like other professions where hard quantifications are used for evaluation, because it is not like most other jobs where progress is easily defined. Teaching is more like social work, drug counseling, psychiatry, probation/parole work, etc. where myriad factors come into play and have influence over the final result that are not within the workers' control. No one would ever say to a parole officer, "Either 100% of your parolees go straight or we'll cut your funding" or to a social worker "Either all the families in your case load become productive, functional families or you're out of a job", but we don't hesitate to apply that standard to teachers that deal with the exact same circumstances.

[tired_old_fireman]

14. Good examples.

How about merit pay for Presidents instead?

Either 100% of your citizens have access to health care or you receive less pay,

Either 100% of your citizens are employed and living above the poverty level or you receive less pay.

If there are any terrorist attacks on your nation's soil after you ignored warnings and vacationed for a month, you are fired.

If any of your citizens are injured or die in an illegal occupation of another country, you go to prison.

[LWolf]

48. Excellent points.

"Under siege" is right. What do Democrats have to gain by joining the "blame the teachers" propaganda force?

You make a great point about inappropriate measures used to evaluate, and you bring up a good question:

Why WOULD someone apply that sort of standard to teachers? What are they likely to gain?

Another good question:

How ARE social workers, counselors, etc. evaluated?

[madfloridian]

12. You don't test human beings as being all the same...to judge teachers.

It is wrong, and it hurts everyone involved.

Children are not objects to be given tests that assume they are all alike.

[LWolf]

13. Spoken like a teacher.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

16. Merit pay, like charter schools, and vouchers...are from the DLC. Links

As a retired teacher who loved her students, worked her butt off, and did a super job....I will refuse to vote for anyone who pushes merit pay for people who are working with young people every day. It is not possible.

http://dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=139&subid=273&contentid=3582

DLC | Model Initiatives | July 27, 2007
Innovating With Competitive Teacher Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Dem Play | Ensuring teachers are competent and linking their pay to their performance
Where It's Working | Chattanooga, Tenn.; North Carolina; Denver, Colo.; Pennsylvania; and school districts and charter schools around the country
Players | Federal, state, district, and local officials
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And from 1999

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=110&subid=135&contentid=1056

"DLC | The New Democrat | November 1, 1999
An Idea With Merit
By Theo Yedinsky

Teachers unions traditionally have loathed proposals to tie their members' salaries or raises to measures of student or school achievement. They have continually denounced merit pay plans as being unscientific, too subjective, and unfair because they hold teachers accountable for factors beyond their control."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There's a lot more there about the poor underperforming teachers.

[LWolf]

59. I find it interesting

that a supposedly "anti-dlc" candidate is espousing dlc positions for public education.

Of course, charter schools, vouchers, and merit pay are also favorites of rw conservative groups. A coincidence? I don't think so.

[Alamom]

17. Thank you. I have several teachers in my family, all with more than one

masters. Most are in Special Education, teaching Learning Disabled children. They are overworked and underpaid already. Their insurance has been whacked to pieces.

I appreciate your post on their behalf.

[LWolf]

32. You are welcome.

Please send them a :grouphug: from me.

[madfloridian]

18. In 2000, DLC and Al From started pushing to transform public education.

Transforming by privatizing. That's what its all about.

http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.asp?ID=2693

"Characterizing charter schools as "oases of innovation," From writes, "The time has come to bring life to the rest of the desert-by introducing the same forces of choice and competition to every public school in America."

From also says Democrats should work to redefine the very notion of public education itself.

"We should rid ourselves of the rigid notion that public schools are defined by who owns and operates them," he writes. "In the twenty-first century, a public school should be any school that is of the people (accountable to public authorities for its results), by the people (paid for by the public), and for the people (open to the public and geared toward public purposes)."

The DLC's mission, as part of the Democratic Party, is to articulate "a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, nonbureaucratic solutions."

Commonly known as the "New Democrats," the DLC was noted in 1992 as playing an instrumental role in the nomination of one of its former chairs, Bill Clinton, as the party's candidate for president."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And the DLC spanks the NEA for not wanting to cripple public education.

http://www.ndol.net/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=1359

"This week the nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association, rejected a mildly worded resolution endorsing limited experimentation with performance-based teacher pay. The excuses offered for this disappointing action are familiar and largely pointless: states and school boards could theoretically use merit-based pay to cut teacher salaries or use the wrong performance measurements. It's always possible, of course, to implement a good idea the wrong way, but that's no reason to reject the idea itself.

The contrast between the NEA and its sister union, the American Federation of Teachers, on this issue is typical and instructive. While not explicitly endorsing the concept, AFT President Sandra Feldman in an interesting and important speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, in January, urged a greater willingness among teachers to look at alternative pay schemes as a way to raise teacher pay and reward excellence and high skill.

In the long run, linking teacher pay to performance is not only the best way, but the only way, to muster public support for the higher salaries that teachers' unions rightly support"

Bull Hockey.

[last_texas_dem]

20. K & R

I enjoyed reading your informative perspective on this issue.

[madfloridian]

21. I will not vote for anyone who pushes merit pay.

It is just plain wrong. It shows a lack of understanding of the relationship between children and their teachers.

The FCAT and the NCLB are together pitting students and parents against teachers by all the damn testing.

One teacher had a bunch of kids with nothing to lose (like college) decide to sit there and not take a test. The result....the teacher was blamed, the kids got their wish because she was a teacher who pushed them to do their best.

I will not vote for anyone who pushes merit pay. They do not understand learning and relationships.

[madfloridian]

22. DLC's take on total transformation of public schools....read it all.

Charter schools are the answer, they say.

Charter schools involve businesses, it is called privatizing.

"Those at the Democratic Leadership Council believe the best option is a Third Way: a system of charter schools which are publicly accountable but free from the strict regulations that apply to schools today. Critics from both ends of the ideological spectrum believe that the DLC’s plan is simply the middle ground. The plan offends teachers’ unions — but not as much as privatization would — and conservatives — but not as much as if nothing were done at all. It appeases those middle class citizens who want some school system reform but who are not quite ready to redesign the system completely."

Goody, test the kids to death to judge the teachers and then let everybody go to charter schools....and leave the poor on their own.

Read this whole page to fully understand...if you really care about public education.

http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/lyman.htm

But if you just want to spout talking points...don't bother.

[LWolf]

35. Great link, and great point. Here's a nice point, too:

If the DLC position on public education so closely mirrors the conservative right-wing position,

why, oh why, does anyone in the Democratic Party continue to promote the dlc as a legitimate branch of the party?

Is it now okay for the Democratic party to adopt rw conservative stances, as long as they continue to call themselves "democrats?"

[madfloridian]

42. But ..but... but....

In defending their tax exempt against the IRS, they said that Republicans favored their policies more than Democrats. They said they did not intervene in elections.

Oh, really?

I knew of Dean memos in 2003, but I did not know they had a meeting.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/336

Just a paragraph...

"We are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year, but Dean is not the man to do it," Reed and From wrote. "Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else."

They had a press conference to read their memo that Dean should not be president.

[LWolf]

45. Dean's greatest strength is also his greatest downfall.

As I mentioned somewhere else on this thread, the greatest vehicle for reform of anything is empowerment of the stakeholders. Grassroots, bottom-up empowerment.

Power-holders don't share power willingly. That brings to mind a recent movie quote, lol: "There is only one Lord of the Rings and he does not share power."

Whenever there is an outbreak of grassroots power, the power-holders at the top will be sure to put it out.

[ulysses]

23. thank you for this.

:thumbsup:

[LWolf]

38. You're welcome, of course!

I hope, come this fall when I'm spending sleepless nights worrying about whether or not Johnny spent any time reading tonight or whether he was hanging out in the car looking for a place to crash...

When I'm wondering how to get Susie to value reading, rather than approaching it as a necessary, hated chore...

When I'm wondering if Betty will show up at school at all today, and if she's been to planned parenthood yet...

When I'm wondering if Mike has been absent for a week because he's decided to join the family "business" and accompany his older brothers on their rounds of drug delivery and payment collection...

I hope that Dolores Umbridge isn't following me around with her clipboard trying to find something "radical" enough to fire me.

[smoogatz]

28. Restore Clinton's block grants, ditch NCLB.

Our community had great schools under Clinton. Now they're okay at best: since Clinton's education block grants were discontinued by Bush, we have bigger class sizes by roughly 30%, and have endured several rounds of budget cuts which have eliminated everything from foreign languages (no more German--you can choose from Spanish or French) to art classes (four full-time art teachers have been reduced to two part-time) to the entire talented-gifted program to libraries to books to you name it. Even worse, teachers now spend huge chunks of class-time teaching to the NCLB tests, which are of questionable (if any) value as a diagnostic tool. Assessment has replaced teaching as the first mission of the public schools, which is obviously a doomed and tragic inversion of common sense, if nothing else. Merit bonuses/raises might be useful incentives if the way they're awarded can be determined by actual teacher effectiveness, not just by test scores (yes, the ethical problem there is obvious)--but really what we have to do is re-examine our antiquated school-funding system, which should be based on income rather than property value.

[LWolf]

49. All very good points.

Some of the cuts you mention are because of budget cuts, and extra expenses related to the standards/accountability/testing industry.

Others are because not making AYP can require schools to toss out everything but approved scripted curriculum to keep from having their school taken over. This process usually starts by cutting everything that isn't tested.

Merit pay and competition for teachers does nothing to address the reality of over-crowded, under-funded, under-supported schools.

Equal funding for schools would be a good start.

Not basing funding on ada would, as well. No one can guarantee an across the board 100% level of attendance. States know that. It's an interesting way to cut the budget. Schools have to pay staff, pay utilities, pay operating costs regardless of whether a student is absent. Operating costs don't go down when attendance is down, but funding does.

[illinoisprogressive]

37. why don't you write to the campaign on your thoughts. YOu don't have to agree with him or

like him. they take all suggestions. If you really want this to be heard by Obama then, email them your thoughts.
And, if you don't like him that is your right. I don't like Hillary. all of us have people we like and don't.

[LWolf]

40. As I've already indicated,

this isn't just about Obama. I've spent decades communicating to politicians about my profession, and I will continue to do so.

I am more concerned with the number of Democrats, voters and elected reps as well as candidates, that support rw conservative stances on public ed than I am with one specific candidate.

That said, I did ask for any candidates' positions on my suggestions for REAL improvement. I don't know if you clicked on that link to read them. If you did, I'd welcome hearing Obama's, or any of the others', stances on those suggestions.

[dsc]

43. Thank you for this wonderful post

I have intended to post something similar but yours is much better than mine would have been.

[LWolf]

46. You're welcome.

:hi:

[kickysnana]

50. MILof PS teacher wholeheartedly agrees with you.

Thanks for your service to America, taking the time to write this and answer the negative posts. I ams ure you have a lot of other things you could be doing.

[dugggy]

51. Something needs to change in American Education system because..

WE spend more than almost any other country per child/student
and our students rank near the bottom in performance tests.

I dunno if merit pay is the answer, I dunno if vouchers is the
answer or whatever! I do know that we are not getting the return
on investment by tax payers. Some drastic changes have to be tried.
Obama is speaking more on a change than any other candidate, and
although he is not at the top of my list, I do like his position
on education.

[TeamJordan23]

53. Agree, we need new ideas. Our education system has been broken for years now.

We need some changes. Or else, we will keep falling below more and more countries.

[LWolf]

56. Many things need to change.

I disagree with this part of what you said:

I do know that we are not getting the return on investment by tax payers.

We are getting EXACTLY what we are paying for. If you want to see different results, you need to decide just what you are WILLING to pay for. Everybody can demand change. Most who demand change don't want to invest in the kind of systemic change that will truly make a positive difference, though.

I gave you a link in the original post to another post where I've made suggestions for improving public schools. Did you read them? Are you willing to fund those changes? Those things that will make a real difference?

Blaming teachers for the systemic problems public ed suffers from is a rw conservative talking point. All the blame, threat, and punishment in the world won't improve anything when the changes that need to be made are not under teachers' control. Using teachers as the scapegoat is a way to distract people from the conversations that need to happen about systemic change. I hope you'll join in THAT conversation.

[dugggy]

76. My opinion is based on what we spend/student compared to

Japan, Europe, China & India. We spend a lot more!
And their student outperform ours by a lot more!!
So, how can you say we are getting a bang for the buck?

But I agree with you that the teachers are not to be
blamed for this. It is the system. Teachers should have
more autonomy and more control on how the money is
spent instead of administrators and beaurocrats.

[ProudDad]

54. Thank you for this post

When I read that remark of Obama's earlier today my first reaction was that there are some things in this world for which "competition" is completely unsuited.

Your remarks concerning teachers working as a team toward the common goal of education is spot on. If it "takes a village" to raise a child why should ONE teacher be required to do the job of education.

Your post is a voice of experience with many practical reasons why "merit pay" for teachers is like the current "health care" system that rewards doctors who deny care while letting people die.

For some things "competition" between individuals is totally inappropriate...teaching is one of those things.

I'm sure you also know of many situations where a teacher of "lesser regard" or training or education or rewards has been able to get through to a student that no one else can. To me, teaching is an art form. It has intangible aspects to it that cannot and SHOULD NOT be quantified

Why should one person be penalized and another raised up due to a set of inappropriate criteria?

[LWolf]

57. You're welcome. You've raised a critical point:

I also believe that teaching is an art form.

This is an unpopular belief among those who wish to place the blame for failure at the feet of teachers. There is an organized effort in some camps to demean teaching into some sort of standardized factory job. Not professional, not requiring skill, but simply requiring someone to read a script. Control of teachers is vital if the goal is to destroy public education.

It's not a science. There are scientific principles and methods involved, but there is something more. The art is this:

Reading the mood, energy, and focus of a whole group and of every individual tells me how to start the day, and how to start every class period. If I've gotten to know my class as a whole and as individuals well enough, I will read them correctly and choose the most effective way of getting their attention.

That personal touch will also allow me to know the difference between lack of motivation due to an anti-intellectual attitude, and lack of motivation due to hunger, neglect, etc.. What I do in these circumstances will be different.

That personal touch and sensitivity to the students around me allows me to read them, and to switch up the agenda if something is not working effectively. I don't have to be locked in to the planned lesson; if I see it is not achieving the desired results I can adjust as necessary.

When I stop by individual students and small groups to check on progress, and assist as necessary, what I say or do with each one is different, based on what is most likely to help that individual move forward.

Knowing students, flexibility, understanding diverse needs and attitudes, reading the overall energy and mood of any group or individual, and responding fluidly to achieve the desired outcome...that's all part of the art of teaching, and it's not something that gets taught in teacher college. How do you measure such qualities to determine "merit?"

[proud patriot]

63. It is an Art

as a pre-school teacher and currently SEA with the school
district with pre-schoolers, I know all about the art of teaching .

We all have our own gifts and talents and what works for one
child will not always work on the next . A teacher must have
a full choice of strategies and tactics to use at a drop of
a hat .

It is our job to cross the bridge to the child and facilitate
a love of learning .

Thanks for your post :hi:

[LWolf]

65. You are welcome. You have summed up the Art:

It is our job to cross the bridge to the child and facilitate
a love of learning.

The love of learning...curiosity, inquiry, exploration of ideas, conversation, independent thinking. All things that are fostered by good teachers.

All things that foster a healthy, democratic society. The same things that are dreaded by the right wing.

Just what do people think the war on teachers and on public education is all about?

[sutz12]

66. Education is the lighting of a fire, not the filling of a bucket...

I forget who said it. I can't forget the line.

[LWolf]

70. That's a poetic phrase

describing 2 opposing philosophies about education:

passive learning (bucket filling) vs active learning (lighting the fire).

These philosophies are more ingrained than we realize at first glance.

Having had extensive training and experience with inquiry-based learning, which is active, to say the least, I surveyed students for several years in a row. The survey:

Which way of learning did they feel most comfortable with; passive, or active?

There were always more passive learners than I expected. Students who didn't want to have to think about anything, who just wanted to be given answers or procedures to memorize.

Passive learning is not the way people learn naturally. Children are born wanting to do, to touch, to manipulate, to explore, to discover, to try, to engage. Our culture teaches them to be passive. To approach academic learning differently than "real" learning.

"Lighting the fire" refers to sparking curiosity, and giving students the necessary skills to satisfy that curiosity. Harnessing the natural urge to learn about the world around us.

[proud patriot]

67. One of my teachers told me that at College

I have to give her credit for that :)

[ProudDad]

69. Absolutely!

90% of what I know has been acquired by my own study outside of any classroom.

Once I learned how to read, it was the miracle of a few teachers who could light my fire, my love of learning for learning's sake, that gave me the motivation to educate myself.

Of course, the right-wing would HATE a country that contains a majority of learners and thinkers, of educated citizens.

Jefferson loved the idea but I'm sure the bushies hate it...

[proud patriot]

71. Thanks again for pointing me to this thread Dad

:loveya:

[ProudDad]

68. It sounds like what I do when I perform music

I sit up there playing and singing and during the entire performance I must read the audience. I must do the same kind of thing you're describing here:

"Reading the mood, energy, and focus of a whole group and of every individual tells me how to start the day, and how to start every class period. If I've gotten to know my class as a whole and as individuals well enough, I will read them correctly and choose the most effective way of getting their attention."

This is an art that NO ONE can learn quickly. It took me many years to get at all good at performance, at reading audiences, and adjusting my performance to meet their needs. This is an art that can't be taught in a teaching curriculum. This must be learned on the job and from our peers.

When my daughter was in elementary school she had an opportunity to be in a classroom with a team of teachers for a time. I thought this was a brilliant idea. Each of the 3 teachers had their own strengths and I suspect the whole of that experience greatly exceeded the sum of its parts for the students and the teachers.

Your point about teachers cooperating with one another, assessing and supporting one another was right on. The best evaluator of how a teacher is doing has to be her/his peers. Most of the folks inhabiting school "administration" is either corrupted by concerns about the "bottom line" above all (the Business School approach) or have been plucked out of the teaching ranks to occupy a rung one step above their Peter Plateau or, in the best case, have been removed from day to day contact with their ex-peers. In any case, they are rendered somewhat incompetent to determine how any teacher is really "performing".

Of course, it's "expensive" to do education right. It's much more important that we spend 12 BILLION dollars of my grandson's money for a phony "war on terror" and more billions on the phony "war on drugs" than spend any significant amount of money on educating our children.

[LWolf]

72. That's EXACTLY what it's like.

Storytelling and music were among the first teaching vehicles, not coincidentally.

Having had the opportunity to team teach, to share students with other teachers and teach together, I can affirm that it is a really great way to build on the various strengths of different teachers and ensure that more students benefit from all of those strengths.

In my 2.5 decades in public ed, I've seen grassroots efforts to restructure what's going on in the classroom, directly with students, erupt again and again. Those efforts are wonderful, they are always effective, even with flaws, yet they don't last. They don't last because the greater system they are working in doesn't allow success to well up from the source. I think turning the system upside down, so to speak, and empowering families and teachers at the local level is the best way to make sure that all students get opportunities to thrive.

You've stated the real issue, the true issue, the public ed issue that nobody wants to take on. The issue that things like merit pay and competition are designed to distract us from:

Of course, it's "expensive" to do education right. It's much more important that we spend 12 BILLION dollars of my grandson's money for a phony "war on terror" and more billions on the phony "war on drugs" than spend any significant amount of money on educating our children.

[gulliver]

61. Conservative zoo.

Conservative zoo: No cages. One large female lion. Skeletons.
Conservative garden: Kudzu

[sutz12]

64. I jus think that the whole RW meme that 'competition' is the answer to everything is wrong. nt

The corporate model does not work well for everything. Education, IMO, is a glaring example of that.

Keep the competition on the athletic fields. Otherwise, and in the classrooms, let's get back to real education.

[ProudDad]

77. A Kick to keep this on the front burner (n/t)

[ulysses]

78. and an excellent kick it was.

:thumbsup:

This should be required reading.

[LWolf]

79. Kicking, because it obviously bears repeating. n/t