Title: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: dead0man on September 23, 2009, 12:55:27 AM link (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/75673.html)
Quote WASHINGTON — When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed merit pay for teachers and lifting the cap on charter schools, the head of the California NAACP stood by his side. And when the Los Angeles school board voted to approve a plan that could turn over a third of its schools to private operators, Latino members and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa led the charge. The nation's public school teachers are feeling the squeeze from all sides these days, and some of the heat is coming from unlikely sources: minorities and longtime Democratic allies. One of them is President Barack Obama, who is irking teachers by suggesting that student test scores be used to judge the success of educators. The pressure is particularly intense in California, where U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan says the state has "lost its way" with public schools. In an attempt to improve California's schools, the Obama administration is threatening to withhold federal stimulus money if the Golden State does not rescind a state law that prevents the state from tying test scores to teacher performance. None of this is exactly what teachers had in mind when they knocked on doors to help elect Obama. "It takes more than the ability to fill in bubbles to be considered an educated person," Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers, said in a letter to Duncan. "We thought President Obama understood that." As the battles intensify, longtime political alliances are shifting, said Jaime Regalado, executive director of the Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute, a nonprofit public-policy center at California State University, Los Angeles. <snip> "To be perfectly honest, it's disappointing again," Sanchez said. "Our perception is it's more of the same, and that's not good, because we thought we were going to be able to change something, make some true reform in public education." Ironically, the teacher unions find themselves opposing some of their former members. Alice Huffman, the NAACP's president since 1999, helped lead fights against school vouchers and merit pay when she worked as an organizer for the CTA for 13 years. Her thinking has definitely changed, which is why she was standing next to a Republican governor last month. "The only place the NAACP can be is with this governor," Huffman said. "If the teacher unions put a better proposal on the table, we would stand with them." For Huffman, the battle is personal. She said too many inner-city minority children are stuck in failing schools and that immediate and revolutionary changes are needed. "I have watched this for 20 years," Huffman said. "And I have nieces and nephews that have come out of the public schools that can't read, can't write, will never be employable. This is happening right here. ... Something profound has to happen. We can't wait another decade and another decade while people tweak with it." In Los Angeles, Villaraigosa turned against the local teachers union to help push a school-choice plan that was approved last month. It will allow private operators to submit plans on how they'd run 250 schools, including many that failed to meet federal benchmarks on state tests. United Teachers Los Angeles, Villaraigosa's former employer, is opposed to the plan, saying it's the first step toward privatizing the school district. <snip> Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Earth on September 23, 2009, 12:57:19 AM Who's not disappointed with Obama?
Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on September 23, 2009, 12:58:22 AM Make it easier to fire bad teachers. It's almost impossible in LA.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,679507.story Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: dead0man on September 23, 2009, 01:04:15 AM Make it easier to fire bad teachers. It's almost impossible in LA. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,679507.story Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 23, 2009, 01:12:06 AM To be fair, the idea of merit pay is retarded.
Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: CultureKing on September 23, 2009, 01:27:01 AM I personally am bitterly opposed to charter schools. Merit pay however if worked right has some potential.
Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 23, 2009, 01:28:32 AM To be fair, the idea of merit pay is retarded. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Stampever on September 23, 2009, 07:03:07 AM All teachers should be evaluated based upon the performance of their students. If their students aren't learning anything, then the teacher isn't doing his or her job. The government has every right to demand that the teacher be replaced with someone more qualified. For all the talk the NEA says about improving education for the next generation, they sure do a good job of keeping the worst teachers in their positions to the detriment to our children. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Zarn on September 23, 2009, 07:15:26 AM "Merit" is disgusting. It's extremely difficult to teach in urban areas. It's not the teachers themselves, but the 'culture' and lack of resources. Keep the Feds out! Public education should be as local as humanly possible.
Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 23, 2009, 07:26:58 AM "Merit" is disgusting. It's extremely difficult to teach in urban areas. It's not the teachers themselves, but the 'culture' and lack of resources. Keep the Feds out! Public education should be as local as humanly possible. Yeah, it's completely ridiculous to just blindly tie student performance to teacher pay, because most of the time the teacher's effectiveness can't translate into Straight-A's for the students. I'm not sure what the motivation for pressing what seems like a fair policy but is actually completely unfair and not at all thought-out, but I'd wager it's yet another effort to bust up union influence of some sort. "Merit pay" is ridiculous precisely because of what you just said, in many environments it's a complete red-herring to blame the teacher. It comes from a lack of an ability to think this issue out thoroughly and a lack of courage to face deeper societal issues at work here. It's like blaming a Driver's Ed teacher if a student has a car accident a few months down the road. If a school is underfunded, merit pay unfairly hurts teachers. If a school is in a poor environment or needs repaired, merit pay unfairly hurts teachers. If a school lacks the necessary resources to provide for their students, merit pay unfairly hurts the teachers. If students simply decide not to listen or don't do the work because they don't care, merit pay unfairly hurts teachers. It's a scape-goat game, and that's why it's ridiculous. Merit pay only works if all schools are properly funded, resourced, and all the students actually pay attention and come from decent households. So basically, it's a "works well in a perfect world" policy. Does that mean we shouldn't fire "bad" teachers? No, but it's really hard to judge what makes a teacher "bad" in the first place, let alone making some ignorant connection to teacher performance and grades. What we should be doing is rebuilding schools and giving existing schools the proper resources, and actually paying teachers more, instead of trying to find ways to avoid the real issue. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Rowan on September 23, 2009, 07:32:02 AM But aren't all jobs essentially "merit" based? If you are a bad factory worker, you get fired. If you suck at flipping burgers at Burger King, you get fired. The idea that you can't fire a teacher because her students aren't learning is absurd.
Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 23, 2009, 07:39:32 AM But aren't all jobs essentially "merit" based? If you are a bad factory worker, you get fired. If you suck at flipping burgers at Burger King, you get fired. The idea that you can't fire a teacher because her students aren't learning is absurd. I suppose you could consider them such, but there's a difference between educational positions and flipping burgers. In the latter scenario, pretty much everything is provided to you. You have co-workers to rely on, the patties to cook, and a stove to cook them on, the tools to do it, and people to serve them to who are willing to eat. In the former, the teacher may not have willing students to deal with. The teacher might be from an inner-city school with alot of cultural issues, or a poor school that needs repairs, or a school that lacks the necessary resources to compete with all the others. While the Burger King employee has everything there with him, it's almost entirely about his or her performance, while the teacher relies on everything that may not always be there. So there is more to blame for failing grades than just the teacher. To make the burger flipper and the teacher on equal footing, you would have to throw a number of cogs in burger boy's machine. Unwilling customers, defective stoves, lack of burgers in stock, employees that are unreliable, etc. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Franzl on September 23, 2009, 07:40:34 AM But aren't all jobs essentially "merit" based? If you are a bad factory worker, you get fired. If you suck at flipping burgers at Burger King, you get fired. The idea that you can't fire a teacher because her students aren't learning is absurd. The problem is that there is no objective way of measuring a teacher's ability, whereas it's very easy to tell if someone "sucks at flipping burgers". Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: dead0man on September 23, 2009, 07:57:34 AM Why must merit pay compare teachers in different schools? Couldn't merit pay be set up based on individual schools, or at least districts? If all the teachers at one school in a district seem to be doing good, start sending them to the schools where the teachers aren't doing so well.
Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Badger on September 23, 2009, 07:57:58 AM But aren't all jobs essentially "merit" based? If you are a bad factory worker, you get fired. If you suck at flipping burgers at Burger King, you get fired. The idea that you can't fire a teacher because her students aren't learning is absurd. The problem is that there is no objective way of measuring a teacher's ability, whereas it's very easy to tell if someone "sucks at flipping burgers". Exactamundo, Franzl. A personal anecdote, FWIW: My mother was a suburban school teacher for close to 30 years, and a registered Republican for as long (though admittedly she voted for Obama and Dukakis). Her take on merit pay is that it was doled out primarily to those who were the principal's or superentendint's drinking buddies more than on "merit". Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Badger on September 23, 2009, 07:59:04 AM Why must merit pay compare teachers in different schools? Couldn't merit pay be set up based on individual schools, or at least districts? If all the teachers at one school in a district seem to be doing good, start sending them to the schools where the teachers aren't doing so well. And you're worried about increased federal funding of education as being overly intrusive? Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Franzl on September 23, 2009, 08:04:22 AM But aren't all jobs essentially "merit" based? If you are a bad factory worker, you get fired. If you suck at flipping burgers at Burger King, you get fired. The idea that you can't fire a teacher because her students aren't learning is absurd. The problem is that there is no objective way of measuring a teacher's ability, whereas it's very easy to tell if someone "sucks at flipping burgers". Exactamundo, Franzl. A personal anecdote, FWIW: My mother was a suburban school teacher for close to 30 years, and a registered Republican for as long (though admittedly she voted for Obama and Dukakis). Her take on merit pay is that it was doled out primarily to those who were the principal's or superentendint's drinking buddies more than on "merit". Yeah my dad's a teacher as well (mathematics), and judging by the performance I see even in simple little quizzes where even a monkey could teach the class how to solve the problems, I must admit I'm extremely happy his pay isn't dependent on his students' test scores. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: dead0man on September 23, 2009, 10:19:53 AM Why must merit pay compare teachers in different schools? Couldn't merit pay be set up based on individual schools, or at least districts? If all the teachers at one school in a district seem to be doing good, start sending them to the schools where the teachers aren't doing so well. And you're worried about increased federal funding of education as being overly intrusive? Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Stampever on September 23, 2009, 02:06:57 PM The Washington Post's editorial page discusses this topic today: "Ms. Rhee's Belt-Tightening" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092203476.html) Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on September 23, 2009, 02:09:34 PM The last thing teachers need is to standarize their teachers to some perceived greater goal; no matter how noble or well-meaning (how exactly do you define a 'failure' as a teacher anyway keeping in mind the differences between Ghetto High, Detriot and the better Upper-Middle-Class Public Schools (Do such things exist in the US?)). Just let them teach.
Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Ban my account ffs! on September 23, 2009, 02:21:17 PM Why is it so impossible to fire teachers? I don't get it. Teachers get canned here all the time for bad performance, budget cuts, etc.
They have also been very willing to forego pay raises and even receive pay cuts to ease the constant strain on the budget by rising insurance and fuel/transportation/food/maintenance costs. The result has been class sizes that remain pretty low, teachers are relatively happy, and student achievement isn't hurt as a result. I just get so tired of hearing about the evil teachers' unions in a few places... because it turns the public against all teachers' unions, most of which place the students and the teachers on the same pedestal. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: opebo on September 23, 2009, 02:30:50 PM Tenure is the key to 'good' teachers.
Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on September 23, 2009, 02:32:04 PM Tenure is the key to 'good' teachers. And hell for getting rid of bad ones Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: opebo on September 23, 2009, 02:43:21 PM Tenure is the key to 'good' teachers. And hell for getting rid of bad ones No no, you don't understand. If a person feels absolutely secure in their salary, regardless of what they do, then they can focus on actually teaching. If they live in fear, constantly harrassed and threatened with sacking by a vicious thug of a boss, the last thing they're going to provide is quality work. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on September 23, 2009, 03:13:12 PM Tenure is the key to 'good' teachers. And hell for getting rid of bad ones No no, you don't understand. If a person feels absolutely secure in their salary, regardless of what they do, then they can focus on actually teaching. I understand more than you think....I've been around school boards and districts......tenored teachers (not all of course) become lazier, because short of them sodomizing your kid.......they can't be fired. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: opebo on September 23, 2009, 03:21:16 PM Tenure is the key to 'good' teachers. And hell for getting rid of bad ones No no, you don't understand. If a person feels absolutely secure in their salary, regardless of what they do, then they can focus on actually teaching. I understand more than you think....I've been around school boards and districts......tenored teachers (not all of course) become lazier, because short of them sodomizing your kid.......they can't be fired. No, they don't. In general the reduction in quality of work occasioned by the normal abusive form of employment will be much worse than any 'laziness' related to security. In fact once you feel assured of the permanency of your position and the security of your salary and retirement, you can teach well simply for fun. The brutal penal system of control that all of you embrace is not really the 'most productive', it just serves the powerful better. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on September 23, 2009, 03:26:44 PM Tenure is the key to 'good' teachers. And hell for getting rid of bad ones No no, you don't understand. If a person feels absolutely secure in their salary, regardless of what they do, then they can focus on actually teaching. I understand more than you think....I've been around school boards and districts......tenored teachers (not all of course) become lazier, because short of them sodomizing your kid.......they can't be fired. No, they don't. In general the reduction in quality of work occasioned by the normal abusive form of employment will be much worse than any 'laziness' related to security. In fact once you feel assured of the permanency of your position and the security of your salary and retirement, you can teach well simply for fun. The brutal penal system of control that all of you embrace is not really the 'most productive', it just serves the powerful better. Your points don't translate well to real life, is all I'm saying. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: opebo on September 23, 2009, 03:37:06 PM Your points don't translate well to real life, is all I'm saying. Your idea of 'real life' is purely the result of brainwashing, is all I'm saying. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on September 23, 2009, 06:07:02 PM Your points don't translate well to real life, is all I'm saying. Your idea of 'real life' is purely the result of brainwashing, is all I'm saying. At my age my brain is washed up......I'm only speaking from the position of being an Old, who has seen much in this area. But we'll agree to disagree. Title: Re: Teachers Unions disappointed by Obama Post by: Citizen James on September 23, 2009, 10:27:22 PM But aren't all jobs essentially "merit" based? If you are a bad factory worker, you get fired. If you suck at flipping burgers at Burger King, you get fired. The idea that you can't fire a teacher because her students aren't learning is absurd. The problem is that there is no objective way of measuring a teacher's ability, whereas it's very easy to tell if someone "sucks at flipping burgers". Exactamundo, Franzl. A personal anecdote, FWIW: My mother was a suburban school teacher for close to 30 years, and a registered Republican for as long (though admittedly she voted for Obama and Dukakis). Her take on merit pay is that it was doled out primarily to those who were the principal's or superintendent's drinking buddies more than on "merit". Sadly, that's how pay tends to work in private business too. The person who works the hardest tends to end up working even harder while the person who sucks up to the boss tends to get ahead. Not all businesses are like this, but plenty are. Teachers are not like supreme court justices, or even college professors. Termination requires proper cause, but it is far from impossible. Heck, anyone who has worked for a large company knows that even the department boss doesn't usually have carte blanche without at least showing a proper paper trail and following it up with their supervisor. The biggest problem with supposed merit is that it brings pressure to seek short term results over long term objectives. "Teaching to the test" ignores any sort of real learning in favor of rote and recitation. An analysis of something - say understanding the various forces that which led to WWII gets reduced to a list of bullet points to be memorized for a multiple guess test. Mathematics becomes blindly following a set of instructions for solving equations, rather than understanding how and why they work. It provides higher short to medium term test scores, but cripples a students understanding of the world as well as their long term progress in learning. Sadly, some teachers do succumb to these shortcuts - which are easier and lazier to teach, but they are also the sort of thing which give the illusion of progress and help in sucking up to the boss. So in at least some cases, 'merit' pay is likely to promote the worst (and bring out the worst in) teachers, and alienate those who actually want their students to learn, rather than just regurgitate. Consider the case of Jamie Ecalante (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28479.html). He didn't start with nothing and bring kids to brilliance in a single year (as it might seem from Hollywood magic), he put together a program going back into the middle schools helping students set the groundwork for higher mathematics. Education is a process that takes several years, not a one shot deal. If someone cuts corners and starts with a shaky foundation in order to bring things in faster and cheaper, it's going to be felt down the pipeline repeatedly for years to come as better teachers try and fill in the gaps. There may be some bad teachers who do game the system, but I suspect that connects more to good old fashioned cronyism (just as bad managers stay on the job because they golf with their boss), rather than deficits in the system. And although I have seen my share of awful teachers, I don't think they are quite as common at the propaganda would claim. |