Return
Expansion of Salem Home for Youth will have multiple
benefits
We see good things coming out of the expansion
of Salem's Industrial Home for Youth.
The $17 million project is scheduled to get under
way next week and completed by late 2000 or early 2001. It will result
in an increase of 140 beds and a near doubling of the current guard force.
The expansion promises benefits to both the area community and to the youth
whom it will house.
For one, it will allow many state youth who are
now serving sentences in out-of-state facilities to move back to West Virginia,
a move that will likely save our own state money. And in instances where
the support and intervention of family members could prove beneficial to
troubled youth, having proximity to them would certainly be advantageous.
According to Paul Leeper, superintendent of the
Industrial Home, the state is also hoping to increase the number of programs
to counsel and treat the juveniles. The goal, of course, is to rehabilitate
the youth so they won't commit additional crimes after their release. "Locking
them up doesn't just solve the problem," Leeper said.
True. And it would seem that incarcerating youth,
with little or no attempt to understand or solve the problem that got them
there in the first place, would only make the situation worse.
Another obvious result of the expansion will be
the creation of jobs. The number of youth at the home could very well triple,
according to Leeper, who also noted that all of the facility's resources
will multiply. While the exact number of jobs that will become available
can't be determined this early, "There's no question that new positions
will be a necessity.
The opportunity for troubled juveniles to return
home to serve out their sentences, an increase in counseling programs for
those same juveniles and the creation of job opportunities for the area:
It's hard to see much wrong with that picture.
Today's editorial reflects the opinion of the Exponent editorial
board, which includes William J. Sedivy, John G. Miller, Julie R. Cryser,
James Logue, Kevin Courtney and Cecil Jarvis.
Effectiveness, not exams, true test of excellent teachers
It has been stated that the quality of America's
public schools ultimately depends on the competence and the commitment
of its teachers, and West Virginia is certainly no exception.
To be fair, teachers must be graded by administrators
and accreditors on how well their students learn from them and by their
eagerness to see to it that the students are learning. Basing a teacher's
pay on anything not merit-related is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Generally, teachers will not remain in the profession
long enough to build a respectable tenure if their skills in assisting
their students to learn from them are not adequate. It goes back to merit.
If a teacher is effective in the classroom and properly motivates students
to want to learn, it will be borne out when test time comes.
There is a movement afoot by the U.S. Department
of Education to propose a national model for licensing teachers. While
Education Secretary Richard Riley’s motives of raising the bar on teacher
quality seem noble, we are not convinced that proposing national standards
for teacher licensing and certification is the answer. We have our doubts
that such standards will significantly address the problem of teacher quality.
Too much emphasis has been placed on the testing
of teachers and not enough on what their students have actually learned.
Is that not the whole idea of the education system?
The national Commission on Teaching and America's
Future reported last September that the single most important strategy
for achieving the nation's education goals is to recruit, to prepare and
to support excellent teachers for every school.
That looks all very well on paper, but in West Virginia,
as expressed by Senate Education Chairman Lloyd Jackson, D-Lincoln, historically
it has been difficult for school systems to find certified teachers for
every class every year.
To be sure, there are and have been some excellent teachers in West
Virginia. How do we know? Just ask their students.
Don’t simply rely on a hit-or-miss examination.
It is difficult for any test to predict the performance of teachers. It
is the same with students, some people do well on tests and others do not.
To us, there can be no better yardstick of teaching
quality than actual performance on the job. In fact, we are surprised that
school administrators have not made greater use of this actual performance
information in their personnel policies.
If school administrators and education experts are
really serious about raising the bar on teacher quality, they themselves
must demonstrate more efficient methods of recognizing their good teachers'
positive merits. What could be more important?
Robert F. Stealey
Telegram Editorial Board member
Return
|