On the Growth Model

Value-added gets a pretty bad rap, being junk science proven valid by absolutely no one. Therefore, when UFT leadership talks about the evaluation system, they call it a growth model. It's simple, they say. Wherever your students happen to be, be they slow, fast, needy, or perfect, you need only get them a little further. Sounds simple, doesn't it? We can all show some progress, somehow, with our students.

Yet here's what no one says. Who designs these tests? What sort of pre-test will there be before a Regents exam? What end-term exam will be given if there is no Regents exam? Who will decide what goes on it?

It won't be you, of course. You cannot even be trusted to grade the exams, let alone design them. And of course you have no idea what your students need to know, or there would be no need for Regents exams in the first place. As an ESL teacher, I can't help but notice that NY State does not differentiate between kids who speak English and kids who don't. The state cannot be bothered to learn step one about language acquisition. It makes ELLs waste an incredible amount of time learning to pass a test that will largely be of no benefit, causing many kids to need remedial courses in college--courses I could certainly offer in high school.

Here's the other part of this--whatever the test is, you'd better believe every teacher in the city will teach to it. You will have no choice, as your job will depend upon it. If you have the very bad luck of having kids who score poorly one year, you will teach to it even more, as your job will be on the line the next. This will take time away from what you think kids need. Of course, in this system, what you think kids need is of no importance whatsoever.

Unless I see more and much more specific material about how this model will be used, on behalf of my students and my brother and sister teachers, I must categorically oppose it. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could come to any other conclusion. Blanche DuBois may trust in the kindness of strangers, but I most certainly do not.

The Growth Model in Medicine

-->

We all depend on doctors. They have a very good reputation, are highly educated, and we tend to trust them. Here’s a disturbing statistic, though. As western medicine is organized now, 100% of patients tend to die.

Clearly, there’s something wrong with this system. If 100% of patients die, what value are doctors adding? Sure, some say, they can provide medicine, surgery, and advice that often puts off the inevitable. But why should Americans, including children (whom we place first) invest countless millions of dollars in something that guarantees only death?

The only solution, as far as I can tell, is to institute a system that rewards good doctors. For example, I myself have seen many doctors, yet I'm not in as good shape as I was twenty years ago. I have less hair, and it's not quite the same color it used to be. Furthermore, I'm a government employee, and the taxpayers have subsidized my health insurance. Why on earth should they be paying for this?

 We need to offer merit pay to doctors who can reverse the aging process. Let's face it--everyone wants to be young and beautiful. People pay millions chasing this ideal. Yet our doctors go to school for years, study all sorts of things, and still people grow old and die.

Mayor Bloomberg is looking a little under the weather lately, to tell you the truth. It baffles me that he doesn't champion this cause.

It certainly makes about as much sense as anything else he's done lately.