Mike May, Iowa State Representative, Explains His Vision Of Education Reform For Iowa

I want to comment about some of the ideas in this speech in a future post. Mike May in this video explains that he taught for 33 years. He is the ranking member of the education committee in Iowa’s House of Representatives

Share
This entry was posted in Special Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Mike May, Iowa State Representative, Explains His Vision Of Education Reform For Iowa

  1. Eric says:

    Mike, the press release was titled Iowa GOP Announces Bold Public Education Reform Measures. The Iowa GOP plan is pretty much the Strickland/Ohio Democratic plan, but without the disasterous policy blunders which undermine human rights (e.g. CERD).

    Fine. It’s not much of a vision. But after blizzards are vision is sometimes just getting to a cleared road. The Iowa GOP is closer to plowing snow than long-range planning. It takes both.

  2. truddick says:

    Same old same old. I guess Mike May was so busy running his resort that he couldn’t keep up with what was happening in education.

    He thinks that testing and assessment are two different things? If not, why does he point up “assessment” as a separate point?

    Nowhere in his little oration does he point up some of the bigger problems of urban districts: discipline and poverty. Perhaps the kids in Ames are all well-behaved and enjoying the same enriched home environments as the kids in Oakwood.

    He says that when he started teaching 33 years ago there were no curricular standards. That’s right: the “education reformers” did away with them. He wants curricular standards based on international models (I bet he does not want health care based on the same!) rather than curricular standards based on existing research into age-appropriate standards. And perhaps he’s short on time but he doesn’t seem to recognize that there should be 3 curricula: one for special education students (and that one very individualized), one for the 85% or so in the middle, and a more adventurous and self-paced one for the honors students.

    And he, like so many others, completely misses the main point; education happens when a teacher connects with a student. We reduce the potential for that connection when we complicate schools with too many administrators, too many restrictions, too much outcomes testing, too much trivia. When will teachers return to the upper half of professional salaries (they’re currently in the bottom 20%) and when will class sizes be kept reasonable?

    Mays has missed that good Kentucky axiom: you don’t make the pig fat by weighing it.

  3. Eric says:

    Eric: pretty much the Strickland/Ohio Democratic plan, but without the disasterous policy blunders…
    truddick : Nowhere in his little oration does he point up some of the bigger problems of urban districts: discipline and poverty.

    So how do the Strickland/Ohio Democratic ed “reforms” address discipline and poverty? By promising more money when Ohio’s economy improves?

    When will teachers return to the upper half of professional salaries (they’re currently in the bottom 20%) and when will class sizes be kept reasonable?

    Is that the plan for addressing discipline and poverty? Will it work for Dayton? Will the Dayton NAACP buy it? Why do Ohio’s current reforms look so much like what was tried in Dayton without getting the results promised in court?

  4. truddick says:

    Eric, you’re rather good at coming up with questions. But you’ve already heard many of the answers. So let me toss a few questions at you.

    Do you recognize that, by the measures the state has imposed, Dayton has made improvements in its public schools?

    Do you understand that those improvements would be greater if there had not been budget problems? If not, why not? Do you think any other professional is expected to do a job without being provided all the necessary tools and supplies?

    Would Dayton (and all districts) retain experienced, good teachers if salaries were higher? (Currently most new teachers quit the profession–usually because they can make more elsewhere–in their first five years. Did you know that?)

    Students in inner-city environments currently see few positive role models. What would they think if, every school day, they encountered teachers who were reasonably prosperous, who drove nice cars and who didn’t worry about whether they’d be able to pay their heating bills? Do you think that teachers would accept some standards (say, testing and a dress code) in return for incomes that were genuinely professional-level?

    If you’re deeply concerned about education, do you work in the profession? If not, why?

    If you want your plumbing repaired, do you ask a state legislator who doesn’t live in his district–or a foundation director who advanced several “reforms” that made things worse? Then why do people expect them to be able to fix schools (or anything much for that matter)?

    I await your answers.

  5. Eric says:

    I’d expect a state legislator to attend to needs assessments done by the school districts the legislator represents. That should be an open record. It should meet legal requirements (for Dayton, including the unitary status settlement). Board members, administrators, and all unions should be totally bought in.

    So where is the document, and why were Dayton’s representatives unable to convince Governor Strickland that it is was of sufficient quality to be included in the Governor’s 400-item “reform” bibliography. Instead, we have Summit County representatives telling us that out-of-state professors have–in an unprecedented act–applied science to determine what’s best for Dayton’s kids.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *