Democrats On Education
I have a little secret for those that think I am a communist: I am not a huge fans of unions - especially teacher's unions. Please know, this is no slap at teachers themselves, as any person that decides to become a teacher receives the highest admiration of all Americans. However, teacher unions are far too often coddling bad teachers, all the while limiting incentives for good teachers to constantly provide students with their excellence.
For example, in California it takes two year to get tenure, which makes it damn near impossible to be fired. When Arnold put up a ballot initiative to make teachers wait five years to get tenure, the unions went crazy. The unions put the priorities of mediocre teachers that feared losing some job security over the benefit of teachers having to work harder to earn life-long job security. California Democrats followed the union's marching orders and blocked the very sensible ballot initiative. Another sad day for common sense, but a good day for the teacher unions.
These type of "victories" for teacher unions happen all over the nation, and sadly receive national support of the Democratic Party. Well, a growing battle is emerging over so-called "Merit Pay" for teachers. Proponents say the best teachers should make more. Opponents say teacher pay should be based on years of experience. The opponents archaic theory may make sense at a traditional factory union job, but it is beyond absurd when we talk about teaching America's children.
Barack Obama has separated himself from the Democrats pathetic pandering to teacher unions by supporting Merit Pay. Obama highlighted this difference in this morning's ABC debate from Iowa. Obama was so isolated on this issue that only Mike Gravel agrees with him. It has been a key part of Obama's plan for education reform since he entered Congress. Also, it is a key reason I have fallen so head-over-heels for Obama. In a nation where 30% of kids are not graduating from high school, I am inspired by the fact that Barack Obama is willing to bang heads with the teacher unions to combat the nation's clear education crisis.
Opponents of Merit Pay cite an unfair process of how teachers may be evaluated. This is an overblown excuse. As Obama points out (in his book), this can be accomplished by dividing the evaluation between administration evaluations, student evaluations, parent evaluations, and testing results. Balance the stats and give pay raises accordingly. Makes sense to me; more importantly, it will provide incentives for teachers to impress their bosses (the principles), not be a jerk to the students (which discourages the students), and communicate with the parents (which can hopefully improve student/parent relations).
In addition to Obama's wise plan for merit pay, he calls on modifying the teacher certification process. This is another idea that makes a great deal of sense, while upsetting the teacher unions. Right now, an Electrical Engineer has to jump through infinite hoops to teach high schoolers science classes. If it was easier for people to make teaching a second career, I guarantee more, highly qualified individuals would take up a teaching job for a few years. Instead, teacher unions and school boards are complicit in making it so difficult to become a teacher. This practice needs to end, because it deprives the students.
So I believe people can focus on education when looking for differences between the Democratic candidates. The conventional wisdom is that all the Democrats are the same, but it is unmentioned differences like this that set Barack Obama apart....unless you think the current our education system is working.
For example, in California it takes two year to get tenure, which makes it damn near impossible to be fired. When Arnold put up a ballot initiative to make teachers wait five years to get tenure, the unions went crazy. The unions put the priorities of mediocre teachers that feared losing some job security over the benefit of teachers having to work harder to earn life-long job security. California Democrats followed the union's marching orders and blocked the very sensible ballot initiative. Another sad day for common sense, but a good day for the teacher unions.
These type of "victories" for teacher unions happen all over the nation, and sadly receive national support of the Democratic Party. Well, a growing battle is emerging over so-called "Merit Pay" for teachers. Proponents say the best teachers should make more. Opponents say teacher pay should be based on years of experience. The opponents archaic theory may make sense at a traditional factory union job, but it is beyond absurd when we talk about teaching America's children.
Barack Obama has separated himself from the Democrats pathetic pandering to teacher unions by supporting Merit Pay. Obama highlighted this difference in this morning's ABC debate from Iowa. Obama was so isolated on this issue that only Mike Gravel agrees with him. It has been a key part of Obama's plan for education reform since he entered Congress. Also, it is a key reason I have fallen so head-over-heels for Obama. In a nation where 30% of kids are not graduating from high school, I am inspired by the fact that Barack Obama is willing to bang heads with the teacher unions to combat the nation's clear education crisis.
Opponents of Merit Pay cite an unfair process of how teachers may be evaluated. This is an overblown excuse. As Obama points out (in his book), this can be accomplished by dividing the evaluation between administration evaluations, student evaluations, parent evaluations, and testing results. Balance the stats and give pay raises accordingly. Makes sense to me; more importantly, it will provide incentives for teachers to impress their bosses (the principles), not be a jerk to the students (which discourages the students), and communicate with the parents (which can hopefully improve student/parent relations).
In addition to Obama's wise plan for merit pay, he calls on modifying the teacher certification process. This is another idea that makes a great deal of sense, while upsetting the teacher unions. Right now, an Electrical Engineer has to jump through infinite hoops to teach high schoolers science classes. If it was easier for people to make teaching a second career, I guarantee more, highly qualified individuals would take up a teaching job for a few years. Instead, teacher unions and school boards are complicit in making it so difficult to become a teacher. This practice needs to end, because it deprives the students.
So I believe people can focus on education when looking for differences between the Democratic candidates. The conventional wisdom is that all the Democrats are the same, but it is unmentioned differences like this that set Barack Obama apart....unless you think the current our education system is working.
By Chuck - 8/20/2007
23 Comments:
NOTES:
1) Along with these plans, he calls for across the board pay raises for teachers. Not a novel idea, but certainly applaudable.
2) Of course, I am very please when teacher unions fight and block proposed pay/benefits cuts. That's the unions job - not protecting bad or inexperienced teachers.
3) Republicans are supposedly all about competition. Obama's plan for education plan calls for increased competition amongst teachers. Another example of why Obama can bridge some gaps with the GOP - unlike the other candidates.
Chuck - this is far and away the most impressive argument I have heard from Obama. It was ridiculous what people in CA did when Arnold put out that proposition and it is refreshing to hear a dem. presidential candidate get behind reasonable and logical ideas like this.
"If it was easier for people to make teaching a second career, I guarantee more, highly qualified individuals would take up a teaching job for a few years. Instead, teacher unions and school boards are complicit in making it so difficult to become a teacher."
I would be a teacher if that wasnt true. But it is true...and because someone was "trained" to do it, I cant. Even though I would be just as good if not better than a lot of teachers.
Mike: agreed
Ben: agreed. I think people that already have a graduate level degree should be able to take like a 2 week class on how to not be an ass to kids, and then they should be qualified to teach something in the umbrella of their degrees.
One problem is the low pay of teachers. Yes, pay should increase. But it will never raise to the level of 100K/year. But if you let people in those 100K/year careers swoop in and teach some classes, a lot of highly qualified people would take a little break from their stressful career and teach for a couple years (not that teaching isn't stressful....but any change of pace would be nice for a lot of people).
Consider, I hear of a lot of attorneys that teach at universities on the side: lets get them teaching our kids instead.
This is the best post I've seen on The Chief Source. I hope it appears on Carnival of Ohio Politics, too.
Chuck, great line about riding the bumper cars at the fair to prepare for the Iowa debate by Obama.
I like Obama distinguishing himself on education. That is a red meat issue for Democrats that is too often left out of the national debate. This is an example of a candidate setting the agenda to be debate rather than just responding to what the Republicans want to talk about. We need to do more to return the national debate to Democrat issues in order to win elections.
Just think if Chuck sounded like a sane person more often.
Chuck, as much as I respect you and your excellent site, I have to take issue with much of what you say in this post.
Frankly I don't care about California. But in Ohio you need a Master's degree to be granted tenure, and it's typically three years service. If a competent administrator can't determine in 3 years whether a teacher is fit for service, he or she isn't doing their job.
The old canard that unions protect bad teachers is simply not true. Unions protect teachers' due process rights, and that's it. Bad administrators who don't know how to (or are too chickenshit to) evaluate and non-renew ineffective teachers are what "protects" bad teachers.
I will read Obama's proposal on merit pay before I respond in detail. But anyone who's worked in a public school will tell you it's a horrible idea.
Without teachers' unions, teachers wouldn't be making a decent middle class wage with great health and pension benefits. Withnout unions, who would advocate for teachers' rights and benefits?
The Democratic Party?
Kyle,
you're saying return to democratic issues, but Chuck is taking a GOP position on a Democratic issue!!!
Ohdave,
You imply that the unions chief purpose is to further the teachers position. For years a I have been told the teachers union exists to work for the CHILDREN. Please tell me I wasnt lied to all these years.
P.S. this all irrelevant. Unless Hillary stomps a little child to death on national TV she has it wrapped up. She is moving right getting ready for the election.
thanks daniel.
Dave,
Okay, so Ohio has a longer process to tenure. that's good.
and you may have an exellent point on administrators not being able to not renew. Those administrators must be held accountable (not sure what that means, without more thought).
So you make some good points. But then you say merit pay is a horrible idea, with no basis except that other teachers don't like it. What is so horrible?
I think teachers will work harder so they can get a 6% raise, instead of a 3% raise. Those that work hardest and perform the best will be rewarded. And this can be the process every year. I don't see much denying this would be positive. If some teachers think it is unfair, they should explore moving to a different school district to get a better boss: that is what every other person has to do if they don't like their job situation.
Bottom Line: I don't see the downside, and you fail to cite any specific downside.
Also, I never dispute that teacher unions serve to protect wages and benefits. I just think they have a corrosive affect in other areas. Like opposing reforms to a failing educational system.
And you ask who will protect teachers? I think strong leadership can and will. I think Barack Obama can and will.
NOTE: I think Congress can pass reforms that allow for Merit pay, stipulate minimum pay for teachers, and other teaching requirements. I don't know the legality of this under the Commerce Clause, but it could certainly be a stipulation of the receiving Federal Aid. So these scenarios seem doable, if Congress (and President Obama) choose to act.
Fred, Hillary has nothing locked.
Obama is right there in Iowa and New Hampshire polls. He has South Carolina. If he takes 2 of 3, he is in position to win it.
Then it is up to California and Florida to not screw things up. Considering California is filled with idiots, and Florida is always messed up, it is a concern.
But still, he has is sitting in good position, regardless of the national polls.
Chiming in on merit pay here, and I will admit up front that I am a public school teacher who is very happy to have a union to negotiate my rights and pay scale.
Beyond the truth of OHDave's comments, I will add that there are way too many variables to fairly implement merit pay for teachers. You might as well try to have merit pay for parenting. We all know that students with involved parents have a better chance of achieving academic success. Just imagine the headaches of trying to figure out what makes for meritorious parenting and all the exceptions to the rules that will be immediately brought up. ("I couldn't make it to little Corbin's parent/teacher conference because I work second shift, but I'm a good parent..." etc.)
Increased competition sounds like a good idea, but do we want teachers concentrating on how much more or less they are making compared to others or do we want teachers collaborating as a school team to solve the myriad problems of educating students so that none get left behind? Better to award merit pay to a building's staff than individual teachers. (You can start with my school -- five years in a row with the top rating of Excellent. And we succeed because everybody -- staff, students, parents and administration make it happen.)
Finally, I have some empathy for those who want to take up teaching as a second career. I did that, after years devoted to my craft, and had to go back to college to get the certificate/license. It took awhile and it cost me a lot of money, but I'm glad I did it. I would add that just because you know your subject, does not mean you will automatically succeed in the classroom. Communicating your passion is the key and that takes practice. Hence the elaborate mentoring system now in place to obtain a teaching license. I don't believe you could instantly become a teacher in two weeks time.
Chuck, I'm going to go into more detail at my place with a link back to you of course, but the real downside is in the design of merit pay, and, as I will explain, in the pressure it places on teachers to--how to put this?--get good kids in class.
If your pay is based on your students' performance, who in the heck is going to want to teach the Sweathogs?
Plus there is the whole popularity contest idea. Student and parent evaluations? Give me a break. Boy, I better not write any detentions this year... I need that good evaluation from the kids!! Plus a lot of other stuff.
village, re: second career
If the teachers suck at teaching, they will get fired (or at least not get any decent raise). I know that an engineer might be a shitty science teacher, but he might be a great one. Why not give him a chance, instead of making him go to 2 extra years of college, at age 48???
As far as the unfairness of Merit Pay, I stand by it being an overblown thing.
If teachers are only taking good kids in their class, it will (or should) reflect negatively on the Administrative review. Plus, the system could incorporate factors for the types of students being taught.
All these complaints over how Merit Pay will be administered is silly to me. No system will be perfectly fair, but does that mean we should not try to make a better system to encouarge teachers?
And almost all the complaints can be adjusted and accounted for in a multi-pronged review system.
So Chuck, last question, then we can argue at my site if you like:
Do you see this--merit pay--as an appropriate federal role in schools?
THere are many uncontrollable variables in all sorts of jobs that involve merit-based pay - like sec financial reporting - and those do not make merit-based pay unfair or useless in those professions so I think (as Chuck maintains) that it is ludicris and overblown to claim it such a detrimental idea in education. I would rather have my kid taught by someone who was incentivized to teach them well than by someone whose only monetary incentive is staying on the job.
Also, your point Chuck of teaching as a second career is a great one - I have often thought about one day teaching when I am done with my current profession, but doubt I will ever go back for the additional certifications currently mandated.
I think Obama and Chuck are right on streamlining the criteria to become a teacher. I have a BA in Political Science, a Masters of Public Administration, and will have a certificate in Applied Politics soon. I bet I'd have to complete at least one full year of college if not more before I could think about teaching a high school government class.
Village Green, my parents worked in APS too as teachers and then guidance counselors. I owe many of the benefits my family had to the teacher's unions. In his policy paper on reforming education, Obama talks about working with teachers unions, not against them, to establish criteria for evaluation and pay raises. I think Mike D. makes a good point that evaluation goes on in every other organization. I am not sure how this would be done, but I'll be listening as this idea is flushed out.
Republicans argue for competition in education that has kids competing over resources through no child left behind. I'd rather see teachers rewarded with merit pay rather than see schools punished for low test scores.
Village Green,
You are to be commended for your dedication and congrats to your school. How much of the success do you give to the teachers and administration vs. the fact that I assume you teach in a school district where the parents value education and demand that their children show up and learn?
Chuck,
We shall see. It is obvious Hillary is not concerned and the Clintons got where they are by being perhaps the preeminent polititcans of our time.
Dave, I know the Feds throw money into education, and I do think they Feds have an interest in spending their money wisely. So I can make the argument of yes.
Personally, I am the opposite of a federalist, so i don't take issue with the Federal government stepping in.
Teachers are not opposing reforms in education, teachers are constantly having to deal with the latest reform that is brought about from the administration, usually with huge pressure from the state board of education as well as the feds. We are constantly in-serviced on the next "great" new thing in education.
The criteria is always changing. You can't even look at the data and compare it over the past ten years here in Ohio because the tests are changed every two years. Teachers have had a front row seat in all of this nonsense. And you expect us to welcome some kind of merit pay system based upon continually changing standards set up by someone in authority with an agenda? And the end result will be more time taken away from actual teaching in order to comply with yet more standards.
Post a Comment
<< Home