November 12, 2009
It’s morons all the way down
The title is my new cosmological construct, and here's a data point in support of the contention:
Selling candy didn't raise much money last year, so a Goldsboro middle school tried selling grades.
[...]
A $20 donation to Rosewood Middle School would have gotten a student 20 test points – 10 extra points on two tests of the student's choosing. That could raise a B to an A, or a failing grade to a D.
Susie Shepherd, the principal, said a parent advisory council came up with the idea, and she endorsed it. She said the council was looking for a new way to raise money.
Susie Shepherd is a moron. The "parent advisory council" is a bunch of morons.
I suppose some dim wag somewhere might refer to the ill-advised endeavor as a worthy sally into the free market, but it's an education that schools want to be selling and not just the intrinsically worthless tokens of achievement.
And as bad as that is, it gets worse:
Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for the state Department of Public Instruction, said she understands that schools are struggling in the recession.
Tight state and local budgets have put extra pressure on schools to raise their own money. Teachers giving extra test credit to students who bring in classroom supplies is a longstanding practice at some schools.
But Garland said exchanging grades for money teaches children the wrong lessons. She also said it is bad testing practice and is unfair to students whose parents can't pay.
[...]
Garland said she has heard of schools offering test credit to students who bring supplies to school. But "I've never actually heard of being able to purchase grades before," she said.
Rebecca Garland is a moron, too, of course. She professes disdain for selling grades for filthy lucre, but apparently condones, or at least tolerates, the selling of grades for "classroom supplies". On what basis she discriminates thusly we are not told. But at least she admits that one or both of the practices is bad for herself. Buying grades instead of acquiring learning "is bad testing practice", said practice appearing to be the sole tenuous tether tying Ms Garland to the responsibility of her position.
Further, she's wrong about to whom it is "unfair". It is deeply unfair to those who are continuously bled (under threats of impoverishment and incarceration) of their hard earned dollars in order to finance the various stupidities of Susie Shepherd and Rebecca Garland. It's more aptly unjust to those whose grades are earned rather than bought. Rather, selling grades shortchanges the recipient, who is, after all there to learn, and is unfair to those down the line who rely on metrics like grade scores to discriminate as to who is best suited to the needs being sought. In other words, Ms Garland is deeply confused, albeit, (undoubtedly) highly paid with those commandeered tax dollars.
But wait! It goes on. The parents involved are idiots, too, but I've no time, and can only wish them what they earn. Instead, here's Susie, again:
Shepherd, the Rosewood principal, said her school needs more technology. She said any money raised would help buy digital cameras for the school's computer lab and a high-tech blackboard.
The kids need math, English (reading and writing), and history. Lots of all three. YOU don't need digital cameras or programmable blackboards to teach them any of what they really need. Regular, old fashioned blackboards can do anything the new ones can do, except suck up god awful amounts of money and time in software. If you think otherwise, you're a moron, but we've already established that.
Good morning!
