Mayim Bialik Should Apologize for Apologizing

With the Harvey Weinstein scandal all over the news recently, many people have come out on social media to speak on sexual harassment and assault. Obviously, the vast majority of sane humans is against such atrocious behavior. But probably the most important outcome from all this is increased awareness of just how pervasive this behavior is throughout our society, particularly the workplace.

Adding her own two cents and sharing her experiences on this hot-button topic, actress Mayim Bialik penned an opinion piece published in The New York Times. In it, she describes how her "self-protecting and wise" choices and behavior have contributed, along with what she terms her "non-traditional" physical appearance, to her steering clear of the kinds of encounters suffered by women who may dress provocatively and "act flirtatiously."

Naturally, there was a backlash by victims of sexual harassment and assault and their advocates who make the most important point of all: sexual harassment and assault is always the perpetrator's fault and never the victim's fault. That is 100% true. Period. Full stop.

But while asserting that victims are always blameless is certainly a valid point, that doesn't mean that Ms. Bialik's point is not valid. In fact, in her essay, she points out how "women should be free to act however they want" in a "perfect" world. And that's true! In a perfect world, anyone and everyone should be free to act however they want: free to walk down a dark alley in a crime-ridden neighborhood in the middle of the night; free to wear blue in Bloods gang territory; free to pet a rattlesnake. Sure, in a "perfect" world, we should be free to do any of those things. But the fact is, our world is far from perfect, and while a woman does not deserve to be sexually harassed or assaulted no matter how provocatively she dresses or how flirtatiously she acts, engaging in certain behaviors can certainly be misinterpreted by men blinded by hormones, wealth, power, or a lethal combination of all three.

So, in essence, Mayim Bialik should apologize for apologizing. Or rather, she should not have apologized at all, because the points she made in her opinion piece are perfectly valid and appropriate. 

Gun Violence vs Gun Rights

In the wake of the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas, we find ourselves, as a nation, once again grappling with the same questions that arise way too frequently: How do we stop the gun violence plaguing our country? How do we keep something like this from happening again? Naturally, these questions usually come up when the hurt is still fresh and the grieving is in full force, but also while the powerful gun lobby continues to look out for its own bottom line and decent law-abiding citizens seek to preserve their right to bear arms. All too often, these opposing forces create an environment where people are talking past each other rather than coming together to find common sense solutions. What typically ends up happening, as a result, is nothing much.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I’m just another concerned citizen who believes that our right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is assaulted in a very real sense every time one of these brutal attacks occurs. But perhaps by sharing my interpretation of the Second Amendment, I can make at least a tiny positive contribution to the conversation about how best to solve an extremely serious problem.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The very first part of the amendment is where the greatest trouble lies. Based on the incredible amount of gun violence in our country, it is clear to any rational person, regardless of where they stand on gun laws, that the “well regulated” part of the Second Amendment is utterly failing. One of the NRA’s most famous slogans is: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Without getting into the merits or validity of the slogan itself, we can interpret it to mean that any regulation of guns should strive to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys while not taking guns away from the good guys. The question then becomes, how do we determine who the good guys are and who the bad guys are? For our gun rights to be “well regulated,” the answer to that question becomes, very literally, a life and death matter.

The next word in the amendment, “Militia,” is also not without controversy. A militia is basically a civilian military force. Based on this definition, civilians may indeed possess military style weapons. However, the possession of these weapons by civilians must be “well regulated.” Therefore, ownership of these weapons should be severely restricted based on the qualifications of the civilian and the weapon’s degree of deadliness. In other words, the deadlier the weapon, the harder it should be to acquire. For civilians to possess military style weapons, they should have to exhaustively prove their physical and mental fitness, as well as receive the proper training on how to handle, use, and safely store such weapons.

The phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State” that follows in the amendment is important because it outlines the purpose of the militia. Broadly, we can interpret this to mean that armed civilians secure the “free State” by doing everything from fighting off an invading force (not very likely) to protecting their own homes and family from a burglar (much more likely).

Finally, the Second Amendment ends with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This phrase enshrines in the Constitution our right to have guns, which brings us back to square one: How do we stop gun violence in the United States? Certainly, neither the spirit nor the original intent of the Second Amendment has anything to do with the devastating events unfolding across our nation on a seemingly regular basis. For that reason, we must demand that Congress respect the Constitution and ensure that our right to bear arms is “well regulated” by passing sensible laws that will safeguard our gun rights while helping to prevent these national tragedies.

ADDENDUM (10/05/2017):

I don't customarily make changes to my blog posts once they're published (with one notable exception), but I felt a certain uneasiness with this one almost as soon as I finished it. I realized that I spent a large part of the post addressing gun violence and gun rights through my interpretation of the Second Amendment, but I didn't address the social aspects of gun violence. I failed to bring up what are probably the most important questions of all: How can someone feel the need to commit such a horrible deed against other human beings? What would drive someone to act so violently?

Like I wrote before, I don't have all the answers. But taking a broad view of our social structure might offer some insight. While some may argue that we do not explicitly encourage such violence as a society, there can be little doubt that, at the very least, we pave the road by which these awful incidents travel, as we can see by taking a look at our nation's values.

The United States has the world's largest economy. We also spend more on the military than the next several nations combined. These two telling facts are a basic reflection of the values of our society. The most important things to us are wealth and power. We believe in accumulating untold riches. We also believe in strength, force, and domination. That's it! Long and healthy lives for our citizens? Forget it! We rank #42 in the world in life expectancy. A smart, well-educated populace? Please! The U.S. lags far behind many other countries in reading, math, and science while many of our teachers earn virtual poverty wages. Our values, once again, are money and might. Period.

So, how do we expect our mentally unstable citizens to react when they feel powerless? When there is such a stigma on mental illness? When we look down with disdain, starting with our own president, on those whom we perceive as "weak?" When our multi-billion dollar entertainment industry constantly bombards us with violent movies, TV shows, music, and video games, then uses their own people to hypocritically lament the acts of violence that happen in the real world? When it is so easy to get a deadly firearm with which to rain death upon fellow human beings? When the idea of strength is equal to wanton destruction in the eyes of certain twisted individuals?

We can't keep turning a blind eye to the effect that our own values play on our society. We can keep believing the people profiting from the violence, whether it's the entertainment industry telling us "it's just art" or the gun industry telling us "it's your Constitutional right." While we're at it, we might as well believe whatever the tobacco industry wants to tell us about cigarettes or whatever the fossil fuel industry wants to tell us about climate change!

Wealth and power. Those are our values. We either change our values, or we keep living (and dying) with the consequences.

The State of Our Politics: Where Do We Go from Here? (Part 3 of 3)

NOTE: This is a series of three blog posts that look at the current state of American politics. In the first post, I break down the Republican party base in the age of Donald Trump, using historical analysis for context. The second post focuses on what the Democrats, as the party currently out of power, can learn from the recent success of the Republicans. Finally, this third post highlights how we can all help move the country forward, regardless of which political party is in power.

The State of Our Politics: Where Do We Go from Here?

The deep political divisions all across the United States might inspire many to scoff at the idea of unifying the country, but the truth is that not only is it possible, it is absolutely necessary. As described in part one, the divisions in our country go way back to its earliest years. And even as the Democrats can learn from the success of the Republicans over the last several elections, as described in part two, healing our nation and moving it forward should be accomplished together, regardless of how we choose to politically identify ourselves individually.

The main obstacle to unity comes from our nation’s great diversity. So, the first step has to be an acceptance that different people have different worldviews. A healthy respect for that diversity is necessary to coexist effectively. We must understand that a large part of the population has religious beliefs that teach that homosexuality is a sin and aborting a pregnancy is akin to murder. However, we must also understand that the United States has separation of church and state, and morality cannot be legislated. We have to see the existence of social and racial injustices stemming from the ugly aspects of our country's history, but we also have to encourage a sense of individual responsibility among Americans of every color, size, and shape. But accepting our racial and religious diversity can only go so far. The most dangerous aspect of our diversity has nothing to do with our beliefs or our skin color.

Our free enterprise system has helped the United States achieve an unprecedented level of prosperity. Under that system, we've accepted that there will be wealthy people, poor people, and a middle class in between. However, our vast income and wealth inequality goes far beyond what most Americans can even fathom, let alone what they believe is fair (see video below). Most Americans of all socioeconomic levels acknowledge that a civilized nation like ours should be perfectly capable of not only providing citizens with opportunities to amass wealth, but also make sure that the most vulnerable among us do not suffer needlessly, and that our middle class is strong and healthy. Overall, we must take concrete steps to ensure that our nation functions well for the benefit of every American.

One idea we can enact as part of our political discourse is to focus on the solutions to our problems, not on attacking opponents just to score a “win.” Although the two major political parties seem like they’re always at each other’s throats, our representatives need to realize that none of them got elected with 100% of the vote. Many of them probably won with only slight majorities. Therefore, the best way to govern is as close to the middle as possible, incorporating the best ideas from all sides. In that spirit, we need to recognize that the free market is incapable of solving all of society's problems, but we also need to realize that neither can the government. We need to acknowledge that businesses deserve to maximize profits, but workers also deserve to earn enough to be able to provide for their families. We must allow for the extraction of resources and manufacture of goods, but we must also demand protection for our shared natural environment. We should encourage the wealth-building power of capitalism, but we shouldn't do so at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens or the workers whose daily efforts help create that wealth. We must also strengthen our democracy by passing laws to encourage voter participation, curtail or even eliminate gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing and lobbying to minimize the undue influence of powerful and wealthy interests, benefiting all Americans in the long run.

Another way our country shows its strength is by protecting the freedom of every citizen to pursue happiness in their own individual way. However, as long as we have such a vast and growing wealth and income inequality gap, the number of people who will never have a fair shot at pursuing that happiness will only increase, depressing economic growth, straining our social structure, and sending millions of Americans from the middle class into poverty. The hard-working Americans who help create trillions of dollars in wealth every year should be able to enjoy it, not just the small group of rich investors who own the businesses. We can also look beyond our borders for smart solutions to pressing issues.

On the global stage, the United States already has the largest economy and most powerful military in the world. However, while America enjoys supremacy in these areas, we fall behind in others. And our military and economic dominance should not preclude us from learning what we can from countries that are outdoing us in other areas. For example: What is the health care system like in countries with the highest life expectancy? What is the criminal justice system like in countries with the lowest crime rates? What is the education system like in countries with the highest student achievement? How much paid family leave, paid vacation time, and child care assistance do they have in countries with the happiest citizens? We do not diminish our greatness by incorporating and improving upon the successful ideas of other nations. Rather, we enhance our strength and show the leadership that comes with the ability to adapt to given circumstances and learn from others to make our society better.

The problems we face in our country are deep and, in many ways, embedded into the very fabric of who we are. But that doesn’t mean we can’t strive for and achieve the promise set forth in our Constitution of creating “a more perfect Union.” Only by embracing our differences, not shunning them, and working together to solve the issues that vex us all, can we move forward as “one Nation under God.”

The State of Our Politics: Learning How to Win (Part 2 of 3)

NOTE: This is a series of three blog posts that look at the current state of American politics. In the first post, I break down the Republican party base in the age of Donald Trump, using historical analysis for context. In this second post, I focus on what the Democrats, as the party currently out of power, can learn from the recent success of the Republicans. Finally, the third post highlights how we can all help move the country forward, regardless of which political party is in power.

The State of Our Politics: Learning How to Win

In the 2016 election, the Republican party took over the White House and Congress. With control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, the GOP earned the power to advance its agenda with little opposition. Many diverse factors aligned to make this rise to power possible, including what could be considered a backlash against the first black president and the country’s shifting racial and cultural demographics, as alluded to in part one of this three part series. But the GOP owes its political success, in large part, to very deliberate moves it made to galvanize the electorate behind its candidates in the years leading up to 2016. It would be good for the Democratic party to learn some of the tactics and strategies employed by the Republicans if the Democrats hope to regain any kind of significant political power ever again.  

One method of gaining political advantage the Republicans used to great effect is gerrymandering. Although both parties have been guilty of gerrymandering, the GOP used it after the last census to solidify majorities in districts across the country. The Princeton Election Consortium conducted in-depth research that debunked the myth that both sides are equally guilty of gerrymandering. They discovered significant and widespread Republican gerrymandering in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, and Indiana that by and large surpassed any Democratic gerrymandering efforts. Journalists for Business Insider and The Washington Post have also reported on the extent of Republican gerrymandering far exceeding Democrats' own efforts in this regard. The solution, however, is not for the Democrats to work at becoming better at gerrymandering than the Republicans. After all, gerrymandering by either party hurts our democracy because the people who get elected do not accurately represent the people who elect them. The real solution is to take the necessary steps to minimize, or eliminate the practice altogether.

And while gerrymandering is a very old method of gaining political power, Republicans have also relied on modern technology, starting with the president. Donald Trump’s technology use is mostly limited to Twitter. He doesn’t even use email. However, his campaign used technology in revolutionary ways, by compiling detailed voter data and micro-targeting through social media, including Democratic voters for the purpose of switching their vote or depressing turnout. With the help of data firms like Cambridge Analytica, the Trump campaign devoted a significant amount of resources to its digital division, to great effect. This is all “listening” to the voters 21st Century style, and the Democrats would be well-served to ramp up their voter data analysis efforts in order to target their message right down to the individual voter, whether that voter is a Republican or a Democrat. And while many people still watch plenty of TV, social media can be much more effective to reach voters, particularly younger voters. Who knows? Maybe the next Democratic presidential candidate will be able to match Trump tweet for tweet!

Another one of the great strengths of the Republican party might actually be confused for a weakness. As of this writing, Republicans have struggled to pass a healthcare reform bill, even with majorities in both chambers of Congress. Although the bill’s unpopularity and the president’s low approval rating have certainly contributed to stalling this legislation, one of the main problems in mustering the necessary number of votes has been the wide political diversity within the Republican conference. The Republicans in the House include the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, the more moderate Tuesday Group, and representatives spanning the entire conservative political spectrum. The Senate Republican membership also constitutes a wide variety of conservative ideologies ranging from very conservative to moderate. As a small example of the ideological diversity within the Republican party, right here in South Florida we have Carlos Curbelo, a Republican House member who's a strong proponent for climate change policy, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican congresswoman who's an outspoken supporter of LGBTQ rights. While this ideological diversity can sometimes present challenges when trying to pass legislation, it’s a testament to the GOP being a true big tent political party. With winning elections in mind, the Democrats would do well to embrace center-left candidates in the upper Midwest, even if they may happen to be strong gun rights advocates. They should support center-left candidates, who just might happen to be pro-life, in deeply religious districts in the South. They could win back control of Congress by helping center-left candidates in Arizona and Texas, even if those candidates are in favor of Trump’s border wall. This party loyalty and determination to win was most evident in the presidential race. While many Republicans had serious misgivings about a Trump presidency, most of them ended up uniting behind him as their candidate and helped propel him to the White House. On the other hand, many traditionally Democratic voters stayed home or chose a third party candidate rather than supporting Hillary Clinton. The bottom line is that in order to win more elections, Democrats need to relax their ideological litmus test and support members with more diverse views, even if some of those views might occasionally go against their own.

So, gerrymandering, technology, and party unity have all helped Republicans gain significant majorities at both the federal and state level. It all culminated with winning the White House in the November 2016 presidential election. In response to Trump’s victory and presidency, many Americans have taken to the streets in protest. While the right to protest is constitutionally protected, Republicans have shown that the single most powerful weapon we have is the vote. So, another very valuable lesson the Democrats can apply to themselves is to focus on getting out the vote instead of protesting. Because even though protests can help achieve some victories, the real winning always takes place at the ballot box. But you have to give the voters something to vote for as well, which is where messaging is crucial.

Perhaps the most important thing the Democrats can learn from the Republicans is the idea of having a simple and clear economic and political philosophy. The Republican ideas of smaller government, stronger military, less regulation, and lower taxes have a broad appeal to a majority of voters, even if those voters may disagree with specific policies. The Democrats need to formulate an equally appealing philosophy that the average working and middle class voter can embrace. Unfortunately, bigger government, less military spending, more regulation, and higher taxes just doesn’t cut it! In the classic sense of politics being the art of the possible, the message should focus on what needs to be accomplished: a healthier, better-educated populace; a vibrant and upwardly mobile workforce; a clean and safe natural environment. Those are policy messages that every American can support.

Ultimately, the Democrats, if they wish to regain political power in this country, need to learn from the party that actually possesses that power at the present time. Beyond that, the Democratic party needs to also find its own innovative ways to appeal to the American voter by doing more than just resisting Trump and the Republicans. If the Democrats don’t do this, we may end up with many years of Republican rule even while the majority of Americans may inherently support Democratic policies. Regardless of which party is in power, we the people need to take steps to heal the division that's such an inherent part of our nation's history, as discussed in part one, and learn to work together to move our nation forward. And how we can achieve this very important task will be covered more in-depth in the final part of this three-part series.

The State of Our Politics: Breaking Down the Republican Base (Part 1 of 3)

NOTE: This is a series of three blog posts that look at the current state of American politics. In this first post, I break down the Republican party base in the age of Donald Trump, using historical analysis for context. The second post focuses on what the Democrats, as the party currently out of power, can learn from the recent success of the Republicans. Finally, the third post highlights how we can all help move the country forward, regardless of which political party is in power.

The State of Our Politics: Breaking Down the Republican Base

The election of Donald Trump in November 2016 solidified Republican control of the presidency to go with both chambers of Congress, in addition to holding a majority of state governments. While polling data seems to indicate that a larger proportion of the population actually favors more of the center-left policies usually espoused by Democrats, certain significant factors have nevertheless allowed the Republican party to establish decisive control of the government. Since they’re the party currently in charge of the nation’s political agenda, it’s important to understand which voters make up the GOP base. To do that, we have to first look at history.

Political parties change and evolve over time. In its over 160-year existence, the Republican party is no exception. In fact, one could argue that the modern-day Republican party is very different from the Republican party of even twenty years ago. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, we’re going to focus on the voters that support the Republican party in its current incarnation.

Donald Trump won thirty states on his way to the presidency (refer to map below). These states, which make up three-fifths, or 60% of all states, are full or majority Republican at just about every level, from federal congressional representation to state governorships and legislatures. This level of dominance by one political party should not be understated. However, what’s even more important is knowing the people who are voting overwhelmingly Republican. What is the historical context behind the control the GOP currently enjoys? Will understanding the Republican base help us make sense of the deep division in our country?

Let’s start by looking at the history of these states that vote Republican. First, let’s go back to the Civil War, to the time when the Republican party was formed and our nation was literally at its most divided. Ten of the 11 states that formed the Confederacy back then are states that voted for Trump and are full or majority Republican. Of all Confederate states, only Virginia went Democratic in the 2016 presidential election. Yes, it’s true that Abraham Lincoln, the president who led the Union and wrote the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves, was a Republican, and the Confederate states that wanted to preserve slavery were Democrat. But what is most important is which party the descendants of those Confederates are voting for and supporting now. And the answer to that is, by a significantly large margin, the Republican party.

Next, let’s look at the lynchings of African Americans. There were 3,446 total recorded lynchings of African Americans from 1882 to 1968. Of these lynchings, 3,303 of them occurred in states that voted for Trump and are full or majority Republican. In other words, over 95% of these black lynchings took place in states currently controlled by the GOP.

Another aftereffect of the Civil War and the racial divide in our country was the enactment of Jim Crow laws. These laws were specifically designed to oppress and subjugate black people in most areas of American society, from education to transportation, and everything in between. Most Jim Crow laws were passed in states that voted for Trump and are full or majority Republican.

Finally, let’s look at a detail that is not directly related to race: the federal funds dependency score (refer to map below). This score is derived based on how much a state relies on federal funding. The higher the score, the more that state depends on federal funds. In the 2016 presidential election, nine of the 10 states with the highest federal funds dependency score voted for the Republican candidate. By contrast, nine of the 10 states with the lowest federal funds dependency score voted for the Democratic candidate. The biggest irony here is that the Republican party bills itself as the party of “smaller government,” yet the federal funds dependency score shows that Republican voters rely on big funds from this government they keep wanting to shrink.

What does all this mean? Does the Republican party consist of a bunch of racist people who can’t get by without government help? Certainly not. The great majority of the people living in these Republican states are good, decent, hard-working, self-sufficient people. In fact, I can attest that some of the most honest, loyal, warm people I’ve ever met have been Republican voters. Nevertheless, this country’s racist legacy cannot be ignored. And there's no denying that the descendants of the people who owned slaves, enacted Jim Crow laws, and lynched black people are mostly Republican voters today. It is also a fact that while many of these Republican voters decry “big government” and its “runaway spending,” they depend on funding from that same government more than their Democratic counterparts.

So, the Republican party controls the presidency and Congress, as well as a majority of governorships and state legislatures. And while it enjoys support from a cross section of American society, a large portion of the GOP base consists of the keepers of our nation’s ugly racist legacy. Additionally, the economic realities of these Republican states contradict a central tenet of their own party’s political philosophy. Overall, what takes on a deeper meaning is not so much who makes up the Republican party base, but how these voters help shape the path our nation takes while we head to an uncertain future, as we will see in parts two and three of this three-part series.

How Should Teachers Get Paid?

Not long ago, I wrote about the ridiculous Florida Best & Brightest Scholarship Program, which has doled out millions of dollars in bonus money to teachers who got a high score on a college entrance exam they took long before they were even teachers. There's also performance pay, which ties teacher salaries to student test scores. No other public servants get paid like this. We don't pay cops based on how well they did in high school or how many criminals they arrest. Firefighters get paid even when the house burns down, and they don’t get a bonus for every kitten they rescue from a tree. So, the question is, how should teachers get paid?

For starters, like the aforementioned cops and firefighters, teachers perform a vital service for the community. Therefore, rookie teachers should count on a decent salary from the beginning of their career. Nobody goes into teaching to get rich, but a reasonable starting salary should be one that's significantly above the median salary in the particular school district. When it comes to salary increases, nothing helps teachers become better quite like good old-fashioned experience. However, teacher salaries should be based on other factors as well.

Teachers who earn additional teaching-related degrees and certificates are gaining the knowledge necessary to become better teachers, so they should earn more money. For example, a high school social sciences teacher with a master’s degree in economics should get paid more than a like teacher who doesn’t possess such a degree. Simply put, the more degrees and certifications teachers get related to their field, the more money they should make.

Teachers can also get better by participating in professional development workshops. These courses give teachers valuable knowledge that they can immediately apply in the classroom for the direct benefit of their students. Perhaps this is an area where a bonus system would actually make sense; the more professional development workshops teachers attend, the more they get paid. And teachers who actually lead workshops and help disseminate information to other teachers can get even bigger bonuses.

What about the "performance pay" system that ties teacher salaries to student test scores? On the surface, this may seem like a good idea, but we run into serious problems when it comes to equity and fairness. To illustrate, I currently teach both regular and advanced Language Arts classes. Although I’m the same teacher teaching the same standards to both groups, my advanced students routinely outperform my regular students in both grades and test scores. Does that mean I’m the Jekyll and Hyde of education? Am I a genius teacher with one group of students and a bungling fool with the other? Of course not. Student success ultimately comes from the student, not the teacher. So why tie teachers' salaries to something they have little or no control over?

When it comes to teacher salaries, like with most things, the best approach is simplicity and common sense. Instead of using complex formulas or arbitrary guidelines as criteria, we should reward teachers who improve by accumulating experience, acquiring teaching-related higher education degrees and certifications, and participating in professional development. This will help teachers teach better and lift up all students, rather than having the weight and pressure of student test scores dragging both teachers and students down.

High Impact Teacher vs. Best & Brightest

In the wake of a recent Herald article describing how Miami ranks near the bottom of all major U.S. cities when it comes to housing affordability for teachers, how teachers are compensated in the state of Florida takes on a bigger, real-world, dollars-and-cents significance. While the state’s legislature prepares to continue the Best & Brightest Scholarship Program that’s based on a teacher’s college entrance exam score that may be decades old, teachers who are actually making a positive contribution to their students’ learning are receiving nothing more than the paper equivalent of a pat on the back. I am one of those teachers!

Recently, I received a letter from Florida Department of Education Commissioner Pam Stewart congratulating me for being “one of the highest impact teachers in the state!” This determination was made “based on a state-level value-added model (VAM)” that “used each of the most recent three years of data” of my “former students’ performance on statewide standardized assessments.” While the VAM, and how it’s calculated, has received plenty of well-deserved criticism, it is currently the only official way used to tie a teacher’s effectiveness to actual student performance. And what does this High Impact Teacher achievement earn me? Not one shiny red penny!

Meanwhile, the Florida Legislature has allocated $50 million in each of the last two years for the Best & Brightest Scholarship Program. This year, a Florida House member proposed adding an additional $200 million to the program. The Best & Brightest bonus is determined in part by how high a teacher’s score was on a college entrance exam, such as the SAT. Teachers who qualified received over $8,000 under this program last year. In my case, I took the SAT nearly a quarter century ago. Under the criteria for Best & Brightest, I scored high enough on one of the two SAT categories, but to qualify, I would have had to score high enough on both.

Let that sink in for a minute. I had a measurable real-life positive effect on my students’ education for the past three years, and I am not getting any money whatsoever for this. Yet, Florida legislators have determined that if I would have scored well enough on a test I took almost 25 years ago that has no definitive connection to my students’ education, I would deserve thousands of bonus dollars! In case you’re slapping your face at the baffling absurdity of it all, please rest assured that you are not alone!

If you are a fellow teacher, a parent, or just a concerned citizen, you should contact your Florida state representative and senator and let them know that you believe the allocation of the Best & Brightest Scholarship Program money based on the results of a teacher’s college entrance exam test score is ill-conceived, at best. If you are a Florida legislator yourself, then it is your duty to talk some sense into your fellow legislators! We should award the Best & Brightest Scholarship Program bonus money to the teachers who are actually providing a genuine quantifiable benefit to their students' education.