Another Voice

Top Teachers Want Pay Scale Revamped

 

According to a Washington Post article, a report, sponsored by the Hillsborough, N.C.-based Center for Teaching Quality, said teachers should be able to advance through three pay tiers -- novice, professional and expert -- and schools should stop paying teachers more just because they have more years on the job.

"If you don't have a career ladder that encourages teachers to advance in their profession -- and be paid accordingly as they advance -- tinkering around the edges by providing $2,000 bonuses for a handful of teachers will not secure the stable, high-quality professional workforce we need," the teachers said.

In particular, the group said, pay plans should "reward leadership, not seniority." It said that "qualified teachers who take on additional responsibilities -- mentoring novices and peers and preparing new teachers, creating family- and community-outreach programs, serving on advisory councils and the like -- should be paid for their time outside the classroom." And the jobs should go not to the oldest teachers but to the ones with the best classroom results, the group said.

Taking North Carolina as an example, the group suggested an annual pay scale that started at $30,000 for a novice and climbed to $70,000 for an expert. But an expert with extra school improvement responsibilities could make as much as $130,000.

The article further stated that the report endorsed the views of many expert panels that teachers should be paid more if they have better results in their classroom, but it pointed out flaws in efforts to do that. The team was critical of a Florida program that limited performance incentives to one out of every four teachers. They also said rewarding only those who teach state-tested subjects, such as reading and math, was a bad idea.

They recommended more money for teachers whose students improved significantly, as long as the results were based on more than just one variety of test. They said systems should be free to target specialties they need. "It makes no sense for an individual community to pay more for a math teacher if it actually needs more art or history teachers," the report said.

The pay scales for teachers definitely should be revamped.  A teacher should not be paid more simply because he/she has more experience in the classroom.  The pay should be based upon successful experience in the classroom.  Certain questions should be asked and answered affirmatively.  Are the students making progress in the class?  Are the students meeting  bench marks set by the school system?  Is the teacher going that extra mile to make sure that the students are performing to  their maximum potential, or is the teacher just there to collect a pay check?

At the same time, if a school system believes that they are going to get the best and brightest by offering beginning teachers a $30,000.00 salary, they are living in a fantasy world.  If our top teachers are suggesting that this be a starting salary for teachers in North Carolina, that explains why they rank 21st in the estimated teachers' salary in the United States.

New teachers earn less than their peers in other professions requiring comparable education and responsibilities. Wages start low, and the gap keeps widening, causing many good teachers to leave the profession for greener financial pastures.  So in conjunction with the revamping of salaries for teachers that are on board, as suggested by Hillsborough, N.C.-based Center for Teaching Quality, we clearly need to step up the salary for entry level teachers. 

 

Technorati tags: Loretta Perkins, education, teachers, salaries, North Carolina, professionals, classrooms

Google Earth maps atrocities in Darfur

According to Reuters, Search engine Google and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum launched an online mapping project on Tuesday to provide what the museum said was evidence of atrocities committed in Sudan's western Darfur region.

More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur since 2003 and some of this carnage -- which the United States calls the first genocide of this century -- has been detailed by Google Earth, the search engine's mapping service (http://earth.google.com).

Using high-resolution imagery, users can zoom into Darfur to view more than 1,600 damaged or destroyed villages, providing what the Holocaust Museum says is evidence of the genocide. Sudan's government denies that genocide is taking place.

In addition, the remnants of more than 100,000 homes, schools, mosques and other structures destroyed by janjaweed militia in Darfur, Sudanese forces and others are visible.

"When it comes to responding to genocide, the world's record is terrible. We hope this important initiative with Google will make it that much harder for the world to ignore those who need us the most," said Holocaust Museum director Sara Bloomfield in a statement.

"Crisis in Darfur" is the first of the museum's "Genocide Prevention Mapping Initiative" that is aimed at providing information on potential genocides early on in the hope that governments and others can act quickly to prevent them.

"At Google, we believe technology can be a catalyst for education and action," Elliot Schrage, Google's vice president, said in a statement.

Sources for the project included the U.S. State Department, nongovernmental organizations, the United Nations and individual photographers as well as the Holocaust Museum, which is based in Washington.

Illegal Immigrants Urge Maryland Senate To Offer In State Tuition

The Washington Post reports that about 50 students rallied outside the Maryland State House this morning, urging the Senate to pass a bill that offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

The legislation, which has the support of Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), was approved by the House of Delegates last month, after an emotional debate on the floor.

Opponents argued that the bill sanctions illegal immigration while proponents said it was discriminatory not to offer the same tuition rates to all high school students.

To qualify for the in-state tuition students must attend high school in Maryland for at least two years, provide proof to the school that they or their parents paid state income tax for a year before the teenager's graduation, and submit an affidavit that they will apply for permanent residency within 30 days of becoming eligible. The rate would only be available to students within three years after graduating.

"Their parents pay taxes, it's only fair that they pay in-state tuition," said Victor R. Ramirez (D-Prince George's), the bill sponsor.

Former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) vetoed a similar bill in 2003, arguing that the legislation would reward illegal behavior and allow illegal immigrants to take spots away from legal Maryland residents.

According to the article, the students were joined today by several top elected officials, including Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown (D) and Comptroller Peter Franchot (D).

It appears that politicians, particularly Democrats, are ignoring the term, ILLEGAL.  Why should there even be a discussion as to whether or not ILLEGAL immigrants should receive in state tuition? If they are illegal, these individuals should not even be in this country.  And they have the gall to demand in state tuition?  Only in America!  Democrats are on a collision course with American citizens, the majority of which want enforcement of laws pertaining to ILLEGAL immigrants.  Enforcement certainly does not include giving in state tuition, or anything else for that matter, to people who are in this country illegally.

We realize that ILLEGAL immigrants may have dreams too.  However, ne of the great things about the United States is that if you are persistent and work hard enough  dreams can become a realities.  So my message to ILLEGAL immigrants is pretty clear. Put in the hard work....become a legal U.S. citizen, and then make your demands. 

 

Technorati tags: Loretta Perkins, illegal immigrants, Democrats, Rupublicans, State Senate, college, in state tuition, Maryland

Where There Was Smoke,Prosecutors were Fired!

It is true that U. S. Prosecutors are political appointees and that the President of the United States has the right to appoint and remove as he sees fit.  However, appointed U.S. Prosecutors are supposed to be able to do their jobs freely, and isolated from any political pressures.  For a handful of  U.S.  Prosecutors, this was certainly not the case. 

Eight U. S. Prosecutors were fired by the Justice Department, and there appears to be political reasons for them being fired rather than for performance which has been claimed.

According to the Washington Post, a  U.S. attorney in San Diego notified the Justice Department of search warrants in a Republican bribery scandal last May 10, one day before the attorney general's chief of staff warned the White House of a "real problem" with her, a Democratic senator said yesterday.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a television appearance yesterday that Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants" in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who had just quit as the CIA's top administrator amid questions about his ties to disgraced former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The next day, May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House counsel's office saying that Carol Lam should be removed as quickly as possible, according to documents turned over to Congress last week.

David C. Iglesias of New Mexico and five other former prosecutors recounted specific instances in which some said they felt pressured by Republicans on corruption cases and one said a Justice Department official warned him to keep quiet or face retaliation.  Additionally, one Prosecutor was removed so that an aid for Karl Rove who he felt needed the position.

Iglesias's allegations of congressional interference have prompted a Senate ethics committee inquiry. Yesterday he offered new details about telephone calls he received in October from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), saying he felt "leaned on" and "sickened" by the contacts seeking information about an investigation of a local Democrat.

The article also points out that U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential. Perhaps Fitzgerald would have been next to be fired.

Mary Jo White, who supervised Fitzgerald when she served as the U.S. attorney in Manhattan and who has criticized the firings, said ranking him as a middling prosecutor "lacks total credibility across the board."

Fitzgerald has been widely recognized for his pursuit of criminal cases against al-Qaeda's terrorist network before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and he drew up the official U.S. indictment against Osama bin Laden. He was named as special counsel in the CIA leak case in December 2003 after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself.

Fitzgerald also won the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 2002 under Ashcroft

"He is probably the best prosecutor in the nation -- certainly one of them," said White, who worked in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "It casts total doubt on the whole process. It's kind of the icing on the cake."

The firing of these Prosecutors is just another example of how emboldened White House officials have been in manipulating  and withholding information, and blatantly attacking, and in the eight prosecutors' cases, removing anyone who voices differing views, or attempts to do his/her job. 

However, now is a new day.  The Congress should make sure that we have a transparent government.  It has been six years coming, and not one day too soon.  

 

Technorati tags: Loretta Perkins, U.S. Prosecutors, CIA Leak, Presidential Election, Justice Department, Washington Post, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Carol Lam, David Iglesias, Karl Rove, Patrick Fitzgerald

Immigration Raids Rip Families? Whose Fault Is That?

The Washington Post featured an article today regarding a raid that took place in a Massachussets' garment factory.  The article reports that at least 360  illegal immigrants were taken into custody there March 6 after a raid by federal agents on the Michael Bianco Inc. factory -- a military contractor 60 miles south of Boston. Many of them, including Escoto, a 38 year old mother of two young children, were women whose detention separated them from their children, some of whom were stranded at day-care centers, schools, or friends' or relatives' homes.

Robin Shulman, the author of the article, who is obviously sympathetic to the illegal immigrants' plights, wrote that Immigration officials said they made provisions for the children so none would be left alone. But in the days right after the raid -- as a 7-year-old called a hotline and asked for her mother, and a breastfeeding baby refused a bottle and was hospitalized for dehydration -- Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) began to categorize the raid's aftermath as a "humanitarian crisis."

Shulman also reports that Escoto, like most of those detained, was flown to a holding center in Texas as deportation proceedings began. A single mother, she was separated from her two young children, who were born in the United States and are U.S. citizens. Daniel, 2, asked for her constantly, while relatives worried about the care of frail 4-year-old Jessie -- who cannot walk and suffers from an illness that prevents her from absorbing enough nutrition.

My question is whose fault is all of this and who should be held accountable?  While I realize that the thought of mothers being torn away from their children is a horrible one, it happens everyday in our country. 

When people come into this country illegally, they must consider that events such as raids may happen and if the government is doing its job, they should happen. If you are here illegally, and mind you, illegally is the optimum term here, you are a fugitive. The gender of the person should be of no significance. The government is not to blame if the illegal immigrant has put his/her family at risk. That was a decision made by the illegal immigrant. If a U.S. citizen, who happens to be female is convicted of a crime, she is incarcerated, and her children are left out there. If she is fortunate, she will have family members to care for them, but often times, they are put in foster care. That is the price that is paid for making poor decisions. Why should an illegal immigrant expect anything different? Oh, because you are an illegal immigrant, and you have children, we should just let you break the law and get away with it?  The illegal immigrant and her children should be deported.

Our country is clearly being abused. Many illegal immigrants have used having babies in the U.S. as a way to anchor themselves into this country.   An illegal alien can cross the border, have a baby five minutes later, and that baby is automatically declared a citizen of the U.S.A. Automatically!   They are, in fact, rewarded for disobeying U.S. law by having their children granted automatic citizenship. In addition, the family is entitled to welfare benefits. Illegal alien parents who have children born in the U.S. are seldom deported . That's why their children are called "anchor babies" - they anchor their families securely in the U.S.A.  This law should be repealed.

Until the Federal Government gets off of it's behind, and does something about this growing immigration crisis in our country, perhaps these raids, and the possibility of being separated from their children, will act as a deterrent to people coming into our country illegally.

Technorati tags: Loretta Perkins, illegal immigrants, Massachussets, fugitive, Gov. Deval Patrick, humanitarian crisis, deportation