The money we're putting into DEI in education could be spent much better. Two news stories, both alike in dignity. Kyle Clark pooh poohs while Dems eat away at oil and gas.
The money we're putting into DEI in education could be spent much better.
Even if you are in support of the concepts embodied in DEI, I hope you could understand that giving opportunity to all, making sure more people are represented, making sure that everyone feels invested in and welcome at school could be better done by investing in classrooms and not surveys and consultants as too often happens.
I recently read about moves in Aurora Public Schools to do just that. Make DEI a priority which resulted in spending on consultants and spending on surveys to see how well teachers understood where DEI resources were available.
Waste. Waste of money. Waste of time and, as I say above, even if you are a fan, not the way to achieve equal opportunity or inclusiveness in my view.
There are better ways.
I go on at more length in my op ed below.
https://denvergazette.com/opinion/columns/dei-dollars-could-be-better-spent-in-classrooms/article_bca0a65b-ba3a-5c8f-8933-e6b304a48b41.html
Related:
In my op-ed above, I talk about how money for DEI things would be better spent in the classroom and in improving outcomes for students.
The article linked below relates to one of my remarks about how we should put DEI money into things that support newer teachers (leading to better instruction and, I hope, retention of teachers).
One concrete example I can offer is in the CPR article below. It details a pilot program in Thornton that offers novel pay incentives to teachers.
To wit, "One goal of the pilot would be to incentivize more teachers to work in and stay at the low-performing schools with high percentages of high-risk students. The pilot also incentivizes teachers to collaborate to see if it helps with raising student achievement."
This sort of pay incentive would come in lieu of (in addition to? details are still being looked at I think) more traditional paths to higher salaries such as getting a graduate degree.
I'll be interested to see if it helps. I agree with one of the contentions in the article that, outside of specialized teaching fields like science or math, graduate degrees in a field don't necessarily lead to better teaching outcomes.
I think, rather, that attention to one's craft as a teacher has a much bigger impact, and I hold to that EVEN IN specialized classrooms (that is, I think in terms of priority, the order goes "get a bachelors in math", then "learn to be a teacher", and then "get a graduate degree").
What do you think? Any teachers out there wanting to weigh in?
https://www.cpr.org/2024/03/09/adams-12-thornton-teacher-pay-pilot-mentoring-graduate-degrees/
Two news stories, both alike in dignity ....
I came across an interesting disparity in the news that I wanted to share. It points to differential treatment and is a good example of what to look for if you are interested in finding bias in media coverage.
It's not so obvious either, so stay with me.
The first story starts at the 6:46 mark in the first link below. It's an interview between Kyle Clark and Rep Armagost. The topic is the Republican effort (led by Armagost) to impeach the Colorado Secretary of State after the US Supreme Court struck down the effort to remove Trump from CO's ballot.
The second link below is also a Nexton9News production about an ad running against the bill that would end oil and gas drilling permits after 2030.
What do these two stories have in common? They both cover efforts by legislators that will go absolutely nowhere. The Republican effort to impeach Griswold will likely never even be heard on the House floor and my guess is that the Democrat effort to end permitting for new wells will quietly die in committee. In both stories this is acknowledged by Clark.
What separates the news stories? This is what I meant when I said it wasn't necessarily obvious right away because what separates them is the tone. Watch both in succession. Look at the tone of Clark in the first case. Look at his tone in the second.
In the former it's almost mocking. In the latter it's dismissive. Those silly Republicans saying the quiet part out loud. I don't understand why the oil and gas people are upset, this bill has no chance. Putting both stories side by side (similar to how you might hear the same song by two different artists to glean some information about how the artists interpret the work and what their style is) puts stark contrast on how Kyle Clark and 9News treat differing people and issues.
Let's be plain speaking. Virtue signaling and "message" bills (or message impeachments) are par for the course in party politics. Neither party has a monopoly on preening for their adherents. Treating these efforts differently is not news in the sense of sharing information with the public. It's characterizing them, it's passing a judgement on them. It's telling viewers how they ought to think about it, not informing them.
Of course, saying this about Clark is like telling you the sky is blue, but do keep this tip in your pocket for later. As you watch news and other things, pay attention to tone. If possible try to find stories that are about similar issues and watch/read them in succession so you can pick up those subtle little "grace notes" like here.
And while Kyle Clark blithely pooh poohs Democrat efforts to end drilling in this state as unrealistic (see the preceding story today), Democrats recently voted out of committee a whole slew of regulations on the same industry among others.
In other words, while Clark says the Democrats aren't so extreme as to end oil and gas in this state (don't worry about it folks, it has no chance of passin) they are quietly nibbling away at and ending the industry in this state piece by piece.
Oh and they're adding greatly to the burden for other industries while they're at it.
I'm speaking about SB24-165 and SB24-166 which passed out of committee mid last week.
I have written about these bills before (and testified against 165) and was disappointed to see that, while they were both amended, they both made it. I put a quick story on their passage first below along with both bill pages below that for your reference if you want to read up.
This really highlights to me the fact that policy can be just as aggressive in single, broad strokes (like the bill that would end drilling permits after 2030) as it can be in smaller, cumulative efforts.
Unfortunately, all too often the news pays attention only to the former.
https://tsscolorado.com/senators-advance-seasonal-oil-and-gas-activity-pause-industrial-fine-increases/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-165
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-166