Comments on: Obama, Teachers Unions and New Democrats: Which one of these things doesn’t belong?

By: daral

daral — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:15:35 +0000

Obama is very necessary of teacher union Because Obama is the democratic. Democratic is very best in country decision.

By: Rob Brown

Rob Brown — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:47:29 +0000

There are reasons teachers do not believe in merit pay. I would probably earn a higher salary as a result, yet I still condemn it.
1) There is not an objective measure for which to judge teachers. If you base it on test scores, teachers will attempt to only have the brightest students in their classrooms. If you base it on administrators reviews, this is obviously a very subjective and easily biased possibility.
2) Unlike businesses, teacher performance does not create a higher profit for the school. The same pool of money will still be there. If you give it you one teacher, it will take away from another. Teachers already just make enough to get by, and a decrease in salary would be devastating. No matter how you slice it, half the teachers will lose.
3) Teachers currently collaborate about great ideas. If these great ideas are going to be the basis for their salary, they would not be as willing to share with coworkers. It would create a nasty environment that would be hurtful to the overall education of our students.

By: 23452ArtTeacher

23452ArtTeacher — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:53:04 +0000

The real world of teaching…I just returned from a four year leave of absence as a local President. I was assigned to a Title I school in a large, suburban, middle class school division in Virginia.
The first two days of the teacher work week were spent almost entirely in meetings with no time to prepare our rooms much less write lesson plans. Of note were the meetings on “Bullying” and “Diversity.” I say of note, because I started teaching in 1970…if at this point in my career, or life, I need some additional coaching on bullying and diversity, I should have been weeded out of the classroom a long, long time ago.
I am an art teacher, so I thought I was going to be on a cart. However, a teacher was cut, so I got a room. Although the floor was relatively clean, the rest of the room was filthy. The computers were dusty; the chalk board unwashed; chalk dust in the chalk tray; the pencil sharpener doesn’t work; the desk, as I was moving it, fell to the floor with a broken leg; no teacher chair; the teacher computer was removed from my room while I was at lunch and I was left with one student computer that I must use while I sit in a chair for kindergartners. There were mouse droppings on the sink counter. The sink does not have hot water. and the front counter strip is taped on. Oh, I cannot adjust the air conditioner and the room was freezing with condensation on each of the units.
And I just spent $72.00 on “teacher supplies.”
There is something wrong with this picture. It is not the way professionals are treated in other professions. Can you see an attorney reporting for work and having to wash off the desk or ask for another desk because the WWII issue metal desk had fallen to the floor? Or how about a doctor reporting for their first day in a hospital that was filthy with no supplies? If they go out and buy new equipment for their hospital, they are considered heroes. When teachers spend money on their classrooms, its considered part of the job.
What is wrong with all of these discussions about the union, pay for performance, recruiting competent teachers, getting rid of incompetent teachers is that teaching is not respected, period. If this is all about children, as many, including Michele Rhee, say, then we do not value our children very much or we wouldn’t allow those people who work the closest with children return to a job, year after year, and face these obstacles: We would treat these teachers with respect, give them time to prepare for their jobs, and treat like the professionals they are. The message is loud and clear: It isn’t about children (that’s political spin)…its about power and money…and arrogance. These kinds of articles and discussions do more to set public schools back than they are about moving public education in America forward.

By: Erin Johnson

Erin Johnson — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:39:17 +0000

Marktropolis,

Yes, and that approach is doomed to fail. It is the quality of the *teaching* not some innate quality of the teacher that matters in the classroom.

Even if they recruit all the top college students to teach, it won’t be enough to fill all the teaching positions. And why does anyone think that those top recruits will learn to teach any better than what we already have in place? The study from TFA only showed that the recruits were only slightly better. Are we looking at just making our schools slightly better or truely competitive with the best school systems around the world?

Those top recruits still will not have system support to improve their teaching. They will have no idea about what good teaching really is. They will still have to work with the poorly written, horribly organized curricula that they are given. They still will have to deal with the silly/innane mandates that largely prevent improvements in classroom instruction.

All school reforms need to focus on what happens (or doesn’t happen) in the classroom, for that is where the bulk of student learning occurs.

Tinkering around the edges may make us feel good. It will do nothing to improve student learning.

By: Marktropolis

Marktropolis — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:31:05 +0000

Erin, I think what you’re missing is the campaign’s surrogates direct connection between alternative recruitment and teacher quality. They do believe that teacher quality matters, but they also believe that quality is only achievable through mechanisms like TFA and NTP. In other words it’s all about “fixing” the teachers (by bringing in Ivy League educated temp workers, a la TFA), and not about substantive system change.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:23:01 +0000

It’s exciting to hear that a candidate is promising these things. I’m always skeptical, though, since teachers and educators represent a huge block of votes that a sneaky candidate would say anything to reach. I’m also skeptical because these things don’t seem to line up with other parts of his platform.

By: Erin Johnson

Erin Johnson — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:11:37 +0000

We may agree on those reforms but unfortunately they will do *nothing* to improve our children’s education.

Why are you not promoting reforms that might actually improve our schools.

Student learning is competely dependant upon quality teaching, quality curricula and developing quality assessments that align with classroom instruction. There is nothing in your list of reforms that addresses any one of these issues let alone all three.

Our schools are doing very poorly when compared to high quality school systems around the world. Even our best students are considered *mediocre* when compared to the average student in the top school systems.

When you speak about tutoring and teacher recruitment, these resemble more the rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. They will fail to improve anything in the classroom, where the bulk of our children learn.

Where is the passion for education? Where is the committment that every child recieves a quality learning experience?

It seems as if you picked up those few ed reforms that will offend the least amount of people instead of showing real educational leadership.

Education is essential for our future. Improving our schools should be a national priority. Unfortunately, you have picked ed reforms that resemble more milquetoast than presidential.