This bothers me....

[Liz]

I didn't know if this belonged on the main page, or this subpage of politics, since Pres. Obama is pushing this, I thought it went here.

Anyhoo, this is the thing:

LIBBY QUAID

AP Education Writer

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama called for tying teachers' pay to students' performance and expanding innovative charter schools Tuesday, embracing ideas that have provoked hostility from members of teachers unions. He also suggested longer school days — and years — to help America's kids compete in the world.

In his first big speech on education, Obama said the United States must drastically improve student achievement to regain lost international standing.

"The future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens," he said. "We have everything we need to be that nation ... and yet, despite resources that are unmatched anywhere in the world, we have let our grades slip, our schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short and other nations outpace us."

His solutions include teacher pay and charter school proposals that have met resistance among members of teachers unions, which constitute an important segment of the Democratic Party.

Obama acknowledged that conflict, saying, "Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom."

Despite their history on the issues, union leaders publicly welcomed Obama's words, saying it seems clear he wants to include them in his decisions in a way President George W. Bush did not.

"We finally have an education president," said Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers. "We really embrace the fact that he's talked about both shared responsibility and making sure there is a voice for teachers, something that was totally lacking in the last eight years."

The president of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association, Dennis van Roekel said, "President Obama always says he will do it with educators, not to them."

"That is a wonderful feeling, for the president of the United States to acknowledge and respect the professional knowledge and skills that those educators bring to every job in the school," van Roekel said.

Van Roekel insisted that Obama's call for teacher performance pay does not necessarily mean raises or bonuses would be tied to student test scores. It could mean more pay for board-certified teachers or for those who work in high-poverty, hard-to-staff schools, he said.

The union leaders also liked that Obama took on Republicans in his speech, saying the GOP has refused to spend more money on early childhood programs despite evidence they make a difference.

There also has been considerable friction over charter schools, which are publicly funded but operate independently, free from some of the rules that constrain regular schools. Many teachers are concerned that such schools drain money and talent from regular schools.

However, Obama said state limits on numbers of charter schools aren't "good for our children, our economy or our country." He said many of the innovations in education today are happening in charter schools.

Obama addressed the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a setting intended to underscore the need to boost academic performance, especially among Latino and black children who sometimes lag behind their white counterparts.

President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law aimed to close that achievement gap, but progress has been slow, and Obama says his administration can do better. None of what he outlined Tuesday was new; his education agenda reflects Obama's campaign platform.

Broadly speaking, Obama wants changes at every level from before kindergarten through college. He is putting special focus on solving the high school dropout crisis and pushing states to adopt more rigorous academic standards.

Some of his promises already are in the works: Public schools will get an unprecedented amount of money — double the education budget under Bush — from the economic stimulus bill over the next two years. To get some of those dollars, Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan insist states will have to prove they are making good progress in teacher quality, on data systems to track how students learn and on standards and tests.

After the scheduled event, Obama made a surprise visit with Duncan to a meeting of state school chiefs at a Washington hotel. Duncan said last Friday that states will get the first $44 billion by the end of the month.

Obama also wants kids to spend more time in school, with longer school days, school weeks and school years — a position he admitted will make him less popular with his school-age daughters.

Children in South Korea spend a month longer in school every year than do kids in the U.S., where the antiquated school calendar comes from the days when many people farmed and kids were needed in the fields.

"I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas, not with Malia and Sasha," Obama said as the crowd laughed. "But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom."

"If they can do that in South Korea, we can do it right here in the United States of America," Obama said.

[Liz]

Since, that first one was a long post, I thought I would let ya'll read that one, then I would whine in this one.

I don't mind the part about a longer school year, since some of the public schools here go year round. I do have a problem with a longer school day, the ones here go from 8:00 to 4:00 then they have a few hours of homework; I also have a problem with a longer school week, since they go five days a week already, which leaves Saturday or Sunday....hmmm I just wonder which one will get chosen? (That was sarcasm)

Then they want the teacher's pay to somehow correlate with how the student's are doing? As if teaching to the test already doesn't work, now their salary is going to depend on it?

I don't know guys, this really really bothers me.

[Bravus]

I agree wholeheartedly. Such schemes are invariably very simplistically implemented, which means that those teachers who teach wealthy students with stable home lives and lots of support in 'nice' areas (the easiest teaching job) get paid more because the students they teach were always going to do well (little to do with the quality of the teaching), while those who do the toughest jobs, teaching the most difficult students in the most difficult conditions, get further penalised. It means the only teachers poor kids will get will be the ones who can't teach anywhere else.

Basically, there are just so many other factors in student performance besides teaching quality that it's deeply unfair to tie teachers' compensation for their work to their students' performance.

[carolaa]

I totally agree with both of you. And I was thinking there might be more families turning to homeschool. But I wonder if he would try to restrict that?

I know the educators are really unhappy with No Child Left Behind, and I think he's trying to "improve" it, but I don't see Republicans or Democrats supporting this one.

One thing I've noticed about Obama is that he tends to ask for a lot more than he really thinks will fly, and then he has room for compromise.

[Woody]

I think that Homeschooling is being outlawed in some states such as California. Am I wrong?

I think they are requiring qualified registered teachers to teach.

[carolaa]

No, the California thing was overturned pretty quickly.

[Liz]

They didn't exactly try to outlaw it, just tried to make it where one had to either have teaching credentials or hire someone that did. However, the HSLDA rallied around and got that poor decision overturned. So now California views homeschoolers, as private schools.

Right now, it is legal to homeschool in all 50 states. However, it is up to the state to decide how much they are involved with homeschoolers, some states are more stringent than others.

In my view, Texas is one of the best states to homeschool in, as we have a very good HSLDA that works hard for us, and we are considered private schools with no interference whatsoever from the state.

Even though we homeschool, I always get a little nervous when the government tries to shake up the public schools, because we tend to have a bullseye target on our backs too.

[Gerr]

Could you please explain to me why it would bother you to reward good teachers with higher pay? We reward excellence in every other area of society, why not in education as well?

Now I realize that not every student is college material. And that is something our educational system should also acknowledge. Those not college material should be channeled early to vocational training.

[Liz]

Because they aren't just raising their salary. Which should be done, by the way. But they are tying how well the students do on the achievement test to their salary. So they will just reinforce teaching to those tests, which are not working.

[Bravus]

Yep, Gerry: I totally applaud rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. Think it should happen, and that there should be much better processes for getting rid of bad teachers too.

The problem is that students' test scores *do not* measure whether teachers are good. Doing that is much more complex (and expensive).

And IMO rewarding teachers on the basis of their students' performance is worse than no awards at all, because it actively increases the unfairness of society.

[Dr. Shane]

Parental involvement is what is required. I favor more charter schools that require parental involvement. Those parents that do not participate would not be able to keep their children in the school.

[Gerr]

Yep, Gerry: I totally applaud rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. Think it should happen, and that there should be much better processes for getting rid of bad teachers too.

The problem is that students' test scores *do not* measure whether teachers are good. Doing that is much more complex (and expensive).

And IMO rewarding teachers on the basis of their students' performance is worse than no awards at all, because it actively increases the unfairness of society.

Hmmmmmmmm. You've got me confused, Bravus. First, you say you applaud rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. But then you say that "rewarding teachers on the basis of their students' performance is worse than no awards at all!"

I realize it's more complex than mere scores, but how else can you measure whether a teacher is doing his/her job except by the students' performance? The gov't is trying to do the same thing in medicine, i.e. reward better performing doctors with financial incentives. Performance is measured by adherence to a certain set of criteria.

[Gerr]

Students' performance should be just one of the factors used to measure how well the teacher is doing his/her job, not the sole criterion. But you can't escape the conclusion that if a student who has an otherwise normal intelligence is not learning anything, one has to look at what the teacher is doing!

[Bravus]

Agreed. So if there was a sophisticated measure, I'd be fine with it. I've actually done some research myself on 'value added' measures, that look at what the student started with and where the student ended up. That in itself is much better than just a direct comparison of scores on standardised tests.

Let me give a more concrete example:

Jane teaches in an inner-city school in a poor neighbourhood. Many of her students come from single-parent families on welfare. Some of the kids see violence in the streets or in their homes, many don't get enough sleep, many have out-of-school jobs. Some drink and use drugs. Almost none have someone at home who can help them with homework, or a clear and quiet space to do it.

Jim works in a private school in an upscale neighbourhood. Most of his students have two parents at home, albeit sometimes working long hours. Some have maids as well. All have computer access at home and study space, many have tutors. All have parents with degrees who are able to help them with their study and have high expectations of their students.

Now, both Jane's and Jim's students are going to do the same test, and whoever's students gets the better grades is going to get a pay rise. How fair is that?

Take it a step in the direction I'm suggesting:

At the beginning of the year the test average for Jane's class is 20%. She's an amazing teacher, and by the end of the year she has lifted the class average to 55% and transformed several children's lives.

At the beginning of the year the average for Jim's class is 70%. He's a kind of average teacher, and at the end of the year the class average is still around 70%.

Jim's students are achieving better than Jane's in absolute terms, but it's clear that Jane is the better-performing teacher.

This illustrates why a simplistic 'pay teachers based on their students' performance' (in absolute terms) system is not fair, and (for those not so worried about fairness), will not achieve its objectives.

[Liz]

Exactly Bravus, then if one was to take it even further. Jane and Jim still aren't making that much, their raise wasn't what either of them expected. So then Administration gets involved. Since most schools have that zero tolerance clause now, they start expelling the kids that don't do well on those tests. Then those kids cannot be counted among the dropouts, as they did not drop out, since they were expelled from that particular school, in theory they can go to a different public school and try again.

And now with those kids who would have brought the averages down, not taking the test, Jane and Jim both get extremely nice raises.

However, what happens to those that are expelled?

[carolaa]

Parental involvement is what is required. I favor more charter schools that require parental involvement. Those parents that do not participate would not be able to keep their children in the school.

That's fine, but it's not fair to base teacher pay on student performance when the parents are just not there for their kids.

[carolaa]

Exactly Bravus, then if one was to take it even further. Jane and Jim still aren't making that much, their raise wasn't what either of them expected. So then Administration gets involved. Since most schools have that zero tolerance clause now, they start expelling the kids that don't do well on those tests. Then those kids cannot be counted among the dropouts, as they did not drop out, since they were expelled from that particular school, in theory they can go to a different public school and try again.

And now with those kids who would have brought the averages down, not taking the test, Jane and Jim both get extremely nice raises.

However, what happens to those that are expelled?

Exactly. The only way to make it halfway fair is to not allow schools to expel students based on academic performance. But, of course, they'd find some other way to get rid of them. There will always be children "left behind" because no one wants to deal with them. Especially when their pay hinges on student performance. They're going to put all their efforts into the students who have the most potential.