Bias Detection

When I was in school I remember tests frequently having a reading comprehension component. I always liked this section because I was pretty good at it. I think when practicing reading comprehension skills there should also be some element of developing a skill for bias detection. This occurred to me as I'm now hearing and seeing campaign ads everywhere. Campaign ads make their bias obvious by saying who they are in favor of and who they don't like. I would say that most information we receive has a bias and often times it is not as clear as a campaign ad. For example in school we are taught that certain sources are acceptable for research and paper writing purposes but the reasons for their credibility aren't always clear. They may use legitimate facts in their stories but without examining their bias can we really use the information responsibly? Even in a news story that would claim to just be relating the facts of what happened can communicate a very subtle bias by the use of a couple adjectives.

Obviously we can't eliminate bias, and we shouldn't. But I think students should be learning how to detect it. When they read or hear things they should be equipped with an evaluation process that encourages them to ask questions like: Who is putting out this information and why are they doing it? Is there potentially more facts or another side to this story that isn't being given? and why is that? Is the source known for feeling a certain way about things? Is some specific action being encouraged? if so what would be the result of that action?

How wary are you of bias in the information you receive? I know I have certain sources of info that I trust more than others but I think due diligence is still important before we let some one guide our beliefs or actions.

They Fired all the Teachers!

I heard a story on the radio today and decided to look it up online for some more details. Here's the scoop according to ABCNews:

The school board has decided to fire all 74 teachers at Central Falls High School in Rhode Island. Here's some stats on the school:

- about 800 students

- only 48% graduate in 4 years

- 96% are eligible for free or reduced-fee lunches

- 65% Hispanic, 14% Black, 13% White

- 25% receive English as a second language instruction

- Secondary teacher's in Rhode Island are paid on average $60,000, the national average is $50,000

The school is considered chronically underperforming by the state and the superintendent had a choice among four federally guided models to choose for the high school in an effort to improve. The choice was one that would lengthen the school day by 25 minutes, require teachers to receive additional training during the summer, eat lunch with the students once a week, provide more tutoring to students, and submit to more rigorous evaluations. The plan would pay the teacher's $30/hr for the extra time. The teacher's wanted to be paid $90/hr for the extra time so they rejected the proposal. The superintendent then recommended a "turnaround" model which means firing all the teachers and restricting the school to hiring back no more than 50% of the ones fired.

So what do you think? Is this the right course of action given the circumstances? Do you have an alternative solution that might be helpful?

Here's a few comments from teachers at the school that I heard on the news report, I've included my responses to these people in green. I don't mean to be too insensitive but I feel the need to write responses. You are welcome to respond if you want to.

"I've been at Central Falls for 28 years and I have done nothing to deserve to be fired, I give my heart, my soul to my job" - Consistently not producing the results that are demanded is a reason people get fired all the time. If you truly are giving your heart and soul to the job and you still aren't getting good results then you are not a good fit in that job.

"I'm heartbroken, I would do anything for this school system, I've done everything I can" - You would not do anything for the school because you rejected the plan to put in a little bit more time to try and improve.

"I'm disheartened, I feel like after 20 years I can see some progress beginning to be made and I'm sad that we're not gonna be around to follow that through, to push that forward." - 20 years! 20 years and you are just starting to see some progress. I'm sorry but no one gets a period of 20 years to turn around job performance.

Speaking strictly about this situation I think it is reasonable to fire the teachers. Obviously they are considered responsible for the school's graduation rate and it is not at an acceptable level. If you don't perform at the expected level you get fired, that seems in accordance with most workplaces. They were offered a different solution and said no, so I think the superintendent doesn't really have another choice. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have offered to pay them for the extra time, I thought the extra $30/hr was a generous offer.

I'm curious if this will re-ignite the tough questions that surround our education system. Like, should we have stricter evaluations of our teachers, and if so how do we do it? Should we make the extra efforts to educate students that don't speak English? Should we keep pouring effort into kids that aren't willing to try in school? Should schools be privatized or remain public but be managed by charter school type companies? Should teacher's go through more rigorous training to prepare them for the challenges they are going to face? Do we need longer school days?

The list goes on and on. It seems like it is easier to just ignore these questions and keep trying with things as they are. But I'm not sure that's the best thing for us to do.

Sorry for the lengthy post, hopefully it wasn't too dull. Feel free to comment, I'm curious about your thoughts on this stuff.