The Ant and the Grasshopper

And now, an allegory.  A first for iBlog America.

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

An American Tale

OLD SKOOL VERSION:

The ANT works hard in the

withering heat all summer long,

building his house and

laying up supplies for the winter.



The GRASSHOPPER laughs

and dances and plays

the summer away.


Come winter, the ANT

is warm and well fed.



The GRASSHOPPER

has no food or shelter,

so he dies out in the cold.

OLD Moral of the story:

Hard work deserves respect.

Cutting corners leads to ruin.

-------

NEW SKOOL VERSION:



There is a beautiful land

named “America.”

It is a wonderful place,

filled with natural treasures

and opportunity.

In it lives two citizens:

the ANT and the GRASSHOPPER.

THE ANT

The ANT is born into a family

with money and connections.

The ANT goes to private schools

and his uncle helps him attend Harvard.

By age 35, the ANT has a great job,

a house in town and one at the beach,

drives a great car, and investments.

He vacations in the Caymans.

The ANT

believes in the “Wealth Filter.”

Those who have or make money

are strong and worthy of respect.

Those who do not

are weak and deserve to fail.

THE GRASSHOPPER

The GRASSHOPPER is born into a family

with debt and obligations.

He goes to public school

and attends any college he can get into.

By age 35, the GRASSHOPPER has two jobs,

a big college loan and mortgage,

and two kids.

He vacations at the pub

or on the weekends.

The GRASSHOPPER

believes in the “Value Filter.”

Those who show value to others

should be respected and protected.

Many things of value

never generate wealth.

This is the story of the ANT and the GRASSHOPPER,

in THREE PARTS.

PART ONE

After a string of beautiful summers,

a hard winter surprises everyone

in the land. One icy day,

the ANT calls a press conference

And blames the cost of the cold weather

on the GRASSHOPPER.

The ANT

goes on TV and says

“The GRASSHOPPER laughed

and danced the summer away

while we ANTS were busy working.

Now, the silly GRASSHOPPER

wants to raise taxes to pay for

the lazy people during this

terrible cold weather.”

The ANT raises his fist and says,

“No one should have to pay

for other people. If you can't

heat your house,

that's your problem!

We should stop helping people

who aren't strong enough

to make a profit

to keep themselves warm!

The strong should win

and the weak should lose!”

The GRASSHOPPER,

who doesn't really follow politics,

sips a beer after his long day

at work and thinks the ANT is crazy.

The GRASSHOPPER turns to his

wife and says,

“Everyone was chilling this summer.
Even the ANTS were partying.
That's ok!  We all work a lot."

The GRASSHOPPER went on,
"But this winter is hard.

People need to help each other out.

Not everyone is born rich and healthy.

How about the elderly?

Retired and injured veterans?

Some things that never turn a

profit are important, too.

Firehouses and police stations

don't make profits,

neither do bridges and schools.”

The GRASSHOPPER turns on the

baseball game and opens

another beer. He goes on,

“Even an ANT needs help

when things get bad or go wrong.”

“One day, I'm going to become an ANT,”

says the GRASSHOPPER's son.

“Not unless you win the lottery,”

says the GRASSHOPPER's mom.

“Or marry somebody rich!”

says the GRASSHOPPER's daughter.

But the winter ends and summer comes,

and everyone is happy

and stops talking about it.

PART TWO

The next winter, things get even worse.

It snows for two weeks straight

and everyone's pipes freeze.

One particularly cold and gray day,

the ANT calls a

press conference.

“GRASSHOPPERISM is about

giving handouts to those

who do not deserve it.

Our society should stop paying

so much for schools, health care,

regulation, and safety for the lazy

GRASSHOPPER.

If it doesn't make money,

it should fail!”

The ANT raises his fist and says,

“We need to lower taxes!

Your mistakes are YOUR fault!

The ANT Way is simple:

every ANT for himself.”

America is stunned

by the ANT's brilliance.

It is easy to understand

how the strong should win

and the weak should lose.

The MEDIA gets

high ratings showing video

of GRASSHOPPERS

who commit crimes,

do stupid things, and are lazy.

The MEDIA also gets

high ratings showing video

of ANTS

who spend lots of money,

do exclusive things,

and hang with cool people.

The MEDIA gets

the best ratings

when an ANT fails at something.

Everyone on TV says

“look at how that ANT

ended up failing

like a GRASSHOPPER.

What a loser!”

Books fly off the shelves

to become best-sellers:

-Pinheads and ANTS

-Godless: The Church

of GRASSHOPPERISM

-The Audacity of

the GRASSHOPPER

-The Secret Connection

Between the GRASSHOPPER

and Islamic Fundamentalism

- God Helps ANTS

Who Help Themselves

The GRASSHOPPER,

shivering in the winter air,

listens and thinks,

“Maybe the ANT is right.

Life would be better if

I had more money.

I hate taxes. I'm tired of

taking care of other people.

IT'S MY MONEY!”

The GRASSHOPPER gets mad

at other grasshoppers.

“GRASSHOPPERISM

is ruining our country.”

PART THREE

The Winter Election shows

grasshoppers

talking like ants.

The ANT Party wins big!

Taxes drop to historically

low levels for everyone--

but especially for the ANT.

The ANT uses his money

and connections

to lobby Congress

to rewrite the tax code so that

ANT spending and expenses

can be deducted.

Regulations are lifted

on businesses so that profits

can soar.

The ANT hires an

accountant buddy from

Yale to shelter

ANT family money in

offshore accounts.

The ANT laughs at

how silly

the GRASSHOPPER is

to not know how to do this.

After the election, the

GRASSHOPPER buys a

big house. He takes

out a loan

to act more like the ANT.

“The ANT Way is awesome!”

the GRASSHOPPER's family

tells him.

“Our car sucks! Can we

get a cooler one?”

the GRASSHOPPER's son asks.

The next winter is

one of the coldest and iciest ever.

Foreclosures sweep the nation.

It turns out that

the savvy ANT has been

selling bad mortgages

and loans

to naïve grasshoppers

who can't afford them.

Everywhere, GRASSHOPPER

businesses go bankrupt.

When Big ANT Business

goes bankrupt,

the ANT uses his connections

in Congress to get a bailout

that he doesn't have

to pay back.

The ANT laughs at

how silly

the GRASSHOPPER is

to not know how to do this.

The GRASSHOPPER

gets laid off.

He finds out his mother

has cancer

but insurance won't cover it

because they call it a

“pre-existing condition.”

The GRASSHOPPER

applies for unemployment

and moves in

with his mom to take

care of her while she dies.

“You're and pathetic, Dad”

the GRASSHOPPER's son

tells him.

“You are too weak to be an ANT!

You deserve to fail!”

The story ends with the ANT,

sipping a cocktail in The Caymans,

watching TV from his hot tub

in his luxury condo.

The MEDIA gets high ratings

showing stories of

schools, firehouses, and hospitals

closing down.

There are pictures

of bridges collapsing

and veterans and the elderly

not getting health care.

“Another gin and tonic, Jose”

the ANT politely asks the

GRASSHOPPER he hired

to be a housekeeper.

The ANT shakes his head

and thinks about

how silly the GRASSHOPPER

is to not know how to work harder.

NEW Moral of the story:

Everyone for him/herself.

California Teachers: Hot or Not?

Value Added and Reduced.


This week, the LA Times published the findings of a study of teachers and effectiveness. 6,000 third-fifth grade teachers, from all over California, were rated and ranked from “most effective” to “least effective.” The top 100 were highlighted in their own column.

Bombshell! Teachers across California must be rattled. In a world where tenure has reigned supreme for decades, suddenly teachers are being reduced to numbers. A California fourth grade teacher can look herself up, on the LA Times website, and find her rank. And so can anyone else.

How did they decide who was Hot and who was Not?

The LA Times developed this ranking on one statistical value derived from one place: standardized tests. While not complicated, it does take a little explanation:
1. Researchers compared a student's performance on state-wide standardized tests from one year to next year.
2. The difference in scores reflected a higher score, a lower score, or the same score.
3. After each student's net change score was tabulated, the students were grouped by teacher.
4. Each teacher group's average net change score was determined based on these numbers.

This “Value Added” score, the Times argues, allows for anyone to see what “value” any teacher has added to any of his students. Simple. Clean. A raw piece of data-- just what we love.

Ah, but not so fast. Data's beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Those who challenge the data have some great arguments against the analysis. First, the data all hangs from the chain of the quality of the standardized tests. A 'good standardized test' has proven to be the the single hardest thing to build in the realm of student evaluation. Holy Grail hard.

Second, it's not that ONE test has to be terrific: the first year AND the second year test must give an accurate measure of a student's acumen. And then every subsequent test that is used in this manner. Furthermore, these tests must be built together in order to measure growth; the tests must work in concert in order to have comparative value.

Finally, the 'Value Added' score doesn't measure ability-- it only measures change. Take one example of the many scenarios that skew the data. Think about what happens when comparing a teacher with kids who start with an average of 95/100 to a teacher with kids who start out with an average of 45/100. The teacher with the better kids, weirdly, has a terrific chance of being ranked as a poor teacher.

However, those who support the data build a strong case, too. First, every teacher (and student) is measure using the same test. Subsequently, no matter how 'good' or 'bad' the test is, everyone is handled with equal fairness (and unfairness). This is true even in comparing first year to second year tests-- it's fair because everyone is measured with, theoretically, the same stick.

Second, no small number of students who had 'a bad day' will skew the data simply because all of the students took the test. Arguably, a nearly equal number of students would have had 'a great day' taking the test. The size of the sample smooths out the inconsistencies or anomalies. The more years this data is collected, the less the effect of accidentals.

Finally, supporters say, the data show that where a kid comes from (class, ethnicity, and gender) are far less important than the kind of teacher she has. This is good because we can finally separate the data about student achievement from the data about teacher achievement. The Value Added model focuses on growth as opposed to talent or natural endowment. (Richard Buddin, who wrote a paper about the data collection, loves to say the word 'endowment.' You have to love using that word earnestly. I implore you to work the word 'endowment' into conversations you have today.)

Find Buddin's work here http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2010-08/55538493.pdf

These are just the arguments about the data and its collection. The hot and nasty arguments are about philosophy, cultural values, and professionalism. Rightfully, some of the argument centers on whether or not information about teachers' evaluations should be made public.

I'd like to offer a broader perspective.

The idea of ranking teachers is ridiculous. It doesn't serve to improve the profession; it only serves the media's love of bite-sized information that allows for thin conclusions. Henry I. Braun, in his treatment of Value Added Assessment, warns of the dangers of "casual interpretation" of data. The amount of ugliness that will follow the Times posting this information may very well swallow any other productive dialogue.

It takes a quality blindfold to pretend that something is rank-able just because it has a number attached to it. It's a shame that the solid journalism that supported this research has been shared in this way. The LA Times decision to rank the teachers has turned California into a Miss America contest. A beauty pageant isn't about beauty: it's about winners and losers. Revamping education will require a much wider, more informed view than that.

That said, evaluating teachers (like evaluating anything) requires some hard statistical data. Toss the ranking; keep the data. The “Value Added” Score provides non-anecdotal information about a teacher. For this reason, this statistical information, despite its potential flaws, is not only useful. It is important.

Stats like “Value Added” are essential. And, they are the future.

As you will read in my long-awaited final installment of “Scapegoats and Saviors IV,” at least part of teacher evaluation must come from a number like this. It cannot-- and should not-- be avoided.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/teachers-investigation/
Check out the LA Times to read the article yourself. I'd love to hear what you think about it.


If you really want to dork out (and I highly recommend doing so), peruse the scholarly work (including that of Buddin and Braun) on how and why they did the Value Added model.
lookee here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-value-added-sources,0,6109096,full.story