Intervention needs to be timely

In February of 2010, I started screening and then teaching a reading intervention program for 1st grade students in the Walnut Creek School District who were “at risk” for falling behind in reading.

My intervention classes were held after the normal school day, rather than instead of other school activities. Each of my intervention classes had six students or less.

In some districts where I have worked in the past, "intervention" is for students whose skills are two or more years below grade level.

In Walnut Creek, the intervention program I was tasked with teaching was for students who showed skill deficiencies that put them at risk of ending the next year (i.e. in June of 2011) performing below grade level. This program was designed to make sure that they ended the 2009-2010 school year with the foundation skills to stay on track when they entered 2nd grade that fall.

I ran into all of the first graders who were part of my after school reading intervention classes when I was substituting at their intermediate school when they were in 6th grade.
All were reading fluently - all but one at the 6th grade level (and that one was a special education student, and was reading at a mid 5th grade level).

All of them remembered me, and told me how much they had loved reading with me.
Two of the parents saw me on parking lot duty at the intermediate school, got out of their cars and came over to thank me for the huge impact that the early intervention had for their kids.

I have worked in other districts where we regularly had kids entering upper grades - going to intermediate school - who have never had any such targeted reading intervention, despite the fact that they have been reading at a kindergarten or low first grade level year after year.

Far too many students are socially promoted to higher grades each year based on their physical age, without regard to whether they are prepared to succeed in their new grade. These students are being set up for failure – as are their classmates and their teachers. Their regular teachers had to try to teach the curriculum for their current grade - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. – as well as reaching back to try to teach two or more years of lower grade level skills.

Why do we make Math hard for English Learners?

It's beyond sad that, at a time when many of our K-12 students are "English Language Learners" (kids whose primary language is not English - what used to be called "ESL" or "English as a Second Language") or who otherwise struggle with reading, that the move is to adopt a Math curriculum that is made up solely of word problems.

If you wanted to design a system that would cripple the education of those who struggle with reading - or just with the English language - you couldn't do a better job than this - making math as inaccessible to them as reading is.

And making the textbooks and resources bilingual in English and Spanish, or having Spanish speaking teachers still leaves out every "English Language Learner" whose home language is not Spanish.

Math is a language that is international when it uses numbers and symbols, but loses that strength when it focuses solely on word problems.

How do you feel when your student can do what you can't?

 "How do you feel when one of your students is able to do something better or faster than you can?" they asked, thinking I'd feel bad if my students surpassed me.

"How do you feel when one of your students is able to do something better or faster than you can?" they asked, thinking I'd feel bad if my students surpassed me.

As an instructor, a teacher, a mentor, and a coach, I am always happy to have one of my "students" reach the point where they take what I have taught them and surpass me.

I have students who are able to achieve much more than I ever could - and I am filled with joy that I was able to be a part of their journey to that success.

I just wish it happened more often.

It's not about being smarter than the students - if you teach them all that you know about a subject, and they keep going, learning more and more, it shouldn't bruise your ego - in fact, it should affirm your choice to be a teacher, instructor, or coach because you have helped them to achieve greatness.

Equal pay for equal work sounds great, but what if the work isn't equal?

Whether someone is getting "equal pay for equal work" is really going to depend on how a person defines “equal work” - but it could also depend on how you define “equal pay”.

I’ll start with the “equal work” concept.

Say you own a fast food franchise and hire a group of entry level employees. They all have the same level of required education (can read the employee manual) and experience (none), and start the same day. This avoids such factors as differences in job related education, work experience, and seniority in the organization.

Two of them, Alex and Bailey, are even working the same shifts, side by side.

At the end of the first month, you look at their stats.

Alex averages 33 orders an hour.
Bailey averages 48 orders an hour.
Corey averages 18 orders an hour.
Dell averages 36 orders per hour.
Ed averages 45 orders an hour.

Should Bailey be getting paid more than the others, because Bailey is getting more work done?

Should Alex and Dell make similar amounts, because they get similar amounts of work done?

Should Corey make less than the others, because Corey is less productive?

So we have to consider this question: Do they all actually have the same job?

Let's try to answer that by looking at other factors.

Alex and Bailey work the same schedule (M-F, days), side by side.

Corey works the graveyard shift (Thu-M), when most employees would rather be asleep, and there are just fewer customers at that time.  But Corey does a lot of prep work while the store is not busy. 

Dell also works some graveyard shifts (Tu-W), but is also working weekend days (Sa-Su, 12 hour shifts), when most employees would rather be off.

Ed works the busiest shifts (F-Su, 11am through midnight) and works three 13 hour shifts.

There are fewer customers during the graveyard shifts, and 18 orders an hour is the average for all of your graveyard shift workers, who are alone at the register.

How much “other duties as assigned” work does each of the employee do?
What if Bailey is not able to bend and lift as much as Alex, so Alex unpacks the delivery truck, and also does the sweeping, mopping, bathroom cleaning, and emptying the trash cans? This takes Alex away from the register, and reduces Alex’s ability to earn good sales numbers.

As you can see, at first glance, all of these employees have the same job, and should arguably make equal pay, or maybe some are "working harder" as measured by customers per hour, and thus might deserve to be paid more (or less) than the others. But on closer examination, we see that their jobs have different hours, working conditions, responsibilities, and opportunities.

Should there be a shift differential in pay for those working the less popular shifts (graveyard, weekends, and Friday evenings)?
How about a pay differential if the employee is doing more than their ‘fair” share of extra duties?
What about a performance/incentive pay raise?

Now let’s look at “equal pay”. Should that just be pay, or should it include benefits and other compensation that you, as an employer, will provide?
What if you find that due to maternity leave laws and other factors, you give female employees twice as many paid medical leave days - on average - as you give male employees?
What if you have to pay twice as much to provide medical insurance benefits to employees who have a spouse or child/ren?

To sum things up, there are a lot of factors that go into measuring work and pay, so it is not very easy to fairly claim equal work or even equal pay without considering those factors.

The smoke and mirrors of "record high profits"

 "Record high profits" is a deceptive term - particularly when you are in inflationary times.

Say your store makes a 1% profit on sales, and normally has $100 million in sales.

You make $1 million in profit, a very small return (1%) for the amount of money that you had to risk to get there.

Now inflation raises all prices by 100%.

If you sold the same amount of stuff, you would sell $200 million, and your 1% profit would net you $2 million.

But people aren't able to buy as much as prices rise, so they only spend $150 million at your store. This gives you a "record breaking" profit of $1.5 million.

But that $1.5 million only has the same buying power as $750 thousand used to, so you are not able to buy as much either.

This is how your standard of living and buying power went down 25% while your store earned you "record breaking profits" that were 50% higher than they used to be.

Political/Social Commentary - 2A supporters need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot

 One of the biggest failures of the pro-2A camp is that we often forget that our enemies are playing a long game. In the stress of dealing with the (often media manufactured) crisis and threat of the day, we sometimes do things that seem like a good move tactically, but are strategically suicidal.

Number One: If a bad prerson with a gun commits a heinous crime and harms other people, Do not say that they could have been just as deadly if they had used a different gun. Stick to ways other than firearms that bad people use to murder others - arson/fire, driving motor vehicles into crowds, bombs, poison, stabbing, beating with blunt objects, etc.. Do not give them ammunition (pun intended) to go after a different type of gun - because their long term goal is to ban all guns.

Some of you may be too young to have lived through this, and others may be old enough that you've forgotten, but the type of gun that the anti-2A crowd used to demonize was the handgun. One of the things that we said in defence of handguns was "At least the people who are misusing them are choosing handguns, and not something more powerful, like a rifle." And suddenly, the monsters started using rifles. The trap snapped on us - and now rifles are being demonized, even though hammers are used in more murders than rifles are.

Now, when a monster uses a rifle to murder a group of people, and the cries form the anti-2A crowd are to "ban assault rifles", it is common for some of us to say "they could have killed just as many, just as quickly with a handgun". And that is us, falling into the trap again.

Bad people do bad things. Monsters do terrible things. Guns are not the only tools that can be used (or misused) to kill large numbers of people. What guns are used for - millions of times a year - is to protect innocent people from violent criminals. We just don't hear much about that from politicians and the media - so that is something 2A supporters need to be making sure that other people hear about.

Horus Heresy Box - Quick peek

 Okay, the Horus Hersey box arrived today, and I put together a couple of the Mk VI beakies for comparison.

Missile Launcher from older HH Game on L, new HH (using heavy weapons set) on R.   New ones are slightly larger, mostly due to legs being longer (and straighter).

Mk VI Beaky Marine from the RTB 01 set on L, much smaller than new HH Mk VI (as expected).