Sex and Religion: Two Hard Topics to Teach

Until recently, I was relatively unaware of the importance of the blogosphere and the wealth of information that it contains. Now that I am a part of this unique online world, I have begun to explore it and have found a couple of interesting posts that relate to the topic of my blog. I have decided to comment on these and thus contribute to my peers in the aforementioned internet-based universe. The first post I am going to talk about is called “Like A Virgin? Teens Think So” from the blog, “Reality Check,” and is authored by Wendy Norris; a freelance writer from Fort Collins and a political columnist for the “Rocky Mountain Chronicle.” In this post, she discusses the confusion present in the minds of teenagers concerning the difference between abstinence and virginity. The second piece I am taking a look at is by Roger Sinasohn and is from the blog, “Parent Dish.” The post, “Improving science edumacation in Louisiana,” deals with teaching creationism in the classroom and how this affects the thinking of the students. Both of these posts relate to different issues faced by public school teachers concerning what to teach. My comments can be found by clicking on the links below or by simply reading the following paragraphs.

“Like a Virgin? Teens Think So”
I enjoyed this post and thought that it was very informative and dealt with a very important topic. However, I cannot agree with the reasons you state are behind the confusion over certain sex-related terms. You talk about how teens are confused when it comes to the meanings of the words “abstinence” and “virginity.” You claim that this is due in part to “vague language in sex education classes.” I would argue that the reasons are far more basic than how this subject is being taught. I think that the confusion arises because many students do not take their sex education classes seriously(see picture to the left). They look at them as jokes and disregard the information as unimportant or funny. I have experienced first hand the offhand manner in which students talk about sexual diseases and different sexual acts. Perhaps it is not what we teach that is the problem as much as it is how we teach. You also argue that “Abstinence . . . appears to be linked to the time frame in which sexual behavior occurs.” Yet, I do not see any statistics in your post that support that idea. I am not saying that there is no basis for that statement, but that you should always include facts that support your opinions.

“Improving science edumacation in Louisiana”
I thought that this post was very well-written, interesting, and provocative: Three things I look for in any piece of writing. Yet, I felt that your argument was flawed in several areas. You state that Senator Vitter wants to give money for “a Louisiana Christian group to undertake a study of and to produce a report on ways to improve science education in Louisiana.” You go on to discuss how teaching creationism in the classroom is detrimental to the education of the students. If you look back at the quote, you will see that Mr. Vitter wants to fund a study of how teaching creationism mixed with evolution(see image to the right) works in Louisiana schools. The keyword there is study. The money will not go toward teaching creationism on a state-wide level, but rather selecting a few schools and noting how the students respond to parts of the Bible being taught at their schools. You go on to claim that the Louisiana Family Forum wants to “replace the teaching of established, uncontested science” with creationism. It appears that you wrote that and then try to pass it off as the goal of the LFF. I am not sure if you were paraphrasing something from the LFF or simply making that up. Next time, quote directly so as to avoid possible confusion between your opinions and your facts. At the end of your post you say “I’m glad my kids aren’t going to school in Louisiana.” This seems like a rather insulting and unnecessary addition to your post. The one thing that I really agree with you on is the separation of church and state. You say that “science can be left to the scientists and religion to the churches.” Overall, I thought that your post was not as informative as it could have been and too full of opinions to be looked at as a fair commentary on the subject matter. However, I thought it was both entertaining and fun to read.

Merit Pay: A Way to Better Teaching

Should a teacher’s salary reflect the test scores produced by that educator’s students? That is the idea behind the practice of merit pay. The debate over this question is currently in full sway in both local arenas and on Capital Hill. Some might say that this system is inherently unfair because the quality of the school or the ability of the students might be unequal and therefore give an advantage to a teacher in a wealthy area whose students are given all the tools necessary to achieve on a standardized test. One Oklahoma teacher, Barry Beauchamp, claimed that merit pay based simply on test scores is “not fair to the students or the teachers.” He claims that you can’t “look at every teacher and say they should achieve exactly the same thing.” Beauchamp says that this is due to the fact that the instructor’s are dealing with different subjects, different students, and different issues.

Yet, there are several examples of the effectiveness of merit pay. In Little Rock, Arkansas, one school has discovered the advantages of this approach. A few years ago they implemented a plan that would reward teachers for higher test scores (merit pay) and the results have been very promising. Vanderbilt University has gone so far as to create a research program to investigate the worth of the merit pay system. In fact, the aforementioned Arkansas school took part in this study and it was found that test (sample answer sheet shown below) results went up seven percentage points when compared to a similar school that was not giving bonuses to its instructors. The only real problem seen by most prognosticators is how the public would react to the utilization of such an arrangement. This question was answered when the voters in Denver decided to take a tax hike in order to increase teachers’ salaries through the merit pay system.

The only group standing in the way of a federally sponsored implementation of this method is, and this will be a surprise to most people, a teacher's union. Specifically, the National Education Association and its leader, Reg Weaver(top left photo), opposed a bill being proposed by California Representative George Miller that would include merit pay in an updated version of the No Child Left Behind education law. In an Associated Press article, Weaver states his belief that the decisions as to who is eligible and what constitutes an improvement in test scores should be decided locally rather than at a national level. The article goes on to explain that Weaver had earlier stated his support for merit pay and how his flip-flopping angered the aforementioned California Representative.

Despite Weaver’s sudden opposition to this method, most teachers are pushing for merit pay. They believe that it is the only way to make their salaries respectable. So, this system is not only intended to increase test scores, but to give teacher’s a much deserved pay raise.

Is this system completely fair? Probably not, but nothing is perfect. Most people who have knowledge of this situation agree that the pros outweigh the cons. If, as the Vanderbilt study suggests, the system works, why not use it? Even Mr. Beauchamp agrees that merit pay would work regardless of whether or not it favors certain educators because of the subject they happen to teach. Even in the face of scattered criticism, merit pay is taking off as is illustrated by its spreading to Tennessee, Florida, and Minnesota: It is also being considered by a number of other states. Needless to say, merit pay looks like its here to stay and I, for one, think that is a good thing; teachers deserve to be paid more than what they’re getting now and more importantly, the system works. If it’s raising test scores, the students are getting a better education and everyone benefits. It certainly seems like its worth a few extra dollars in taxes if the returns are so positive.