patrick.net

reposting:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/09/27/100927taco_talk_lemann

The idea of merit pay is a good one but doing it on a standardized test is an awful idea. I've taught high school Chemistry & Physics for 2 years. We don't need tests to measure talent. Everyone knows who the good teachers are and who the bad ones are. The kids, who are brutally honest, will tell it to you straight. The parents know as well. So do the other teachers around you. It's no secret. Honestly, it should be up to the administration to offer people to get paid what they deserve.

As for the unions. I'm currently a member of the NJEA. I've never seen more disgusting behavior than I've seen from the behavior of the unions. My local union is currently in the process of supporting a reduction in staff (10-20 teachers) in order to secure a 1.5% raise. They never posed the issue to a single member or even the lower representatives. The union is 3 selfish sociopaths who act behind close doors making decisions for the hundreds of members. Approximately 50 teachers have voiced their minds to agree to a pay freeze to prevent the staff reductions. It falls on deaf ears.

I've officially decided to leave the union after this year and a lot of my colleagues are doing the same. They will still garnish our wages to collect dues after we leave. But, those of us that keep our jobs refuse to sit by and support their decision to throw our coworkers under the bus so that they can collect an extra $900 next year. Anyone that thinks the teachers unions stick up for the little guy is kidding themselves. They use them as pawns and sacrificial lambs.

Why are you carrying water for Chris Christie's attacks against teachers? Christie said that layoffs would be avoided if teachers agreed to a wage freeze, but that was a total LIE:

"The few dozen school districts where employees agreed to concessions last year still saw layoffs and cuts in academic programs."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/nyregion/10christie.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

Only 10 to 20 teachers ? Doesn't seem like that much for all of New Jersey.

In my district that decision (by the union) is ALWAYS put to a vote. I fully expect this year to take more furlough days in order to prevent more layoffs.

Sometimes if it is a new contract with many agreements, that also is always put to a vote.

I'm not defending what your union did, or am I saying mine doesn't frequently disappoint its members in one way or another. Only that they would not do that.

HousingWatcher says

Why are you carrying water for Chris Christie’s attacks against teachers?

Who said that some teachers aren't republicans ? Note: For the rest of his teaching career, he will reluctantly take the benefits that his disgusting union gets for him.

http://www.njea.org/news/2010/11/30/christie%20takes%20aim%20at%20your%20paycheck

See the tables at the bottom.

I find it hard to respect someone who wouldn't pay their share for the battle against this, but who would gladly receive the benefits. Wow.

My republican teacher friends have issues with the union, but would never take such a position.

theoakman says

My local union is currently in the process of supporting a reduction in staff (10-20 teachers) in order to secure a 1.5% raise.

I would bet an ounce of gold that this is total spin, and that what they are negotiating is far more complex, preventing many of the other things Christie is trying to do, which actually cut take home pay by nearly 10%.

marcus says

theoakman says

My local union is currently in the process of supporting a reduction in staff (10-20 teachers) in order to secure a 1.5% raise.

I would bet an ounce of gold that this is total spin, and that what they are negotiating is far more complex, preventing many of the other things Christie is trying to do, which actually cut take home pay by nearly 10%.

No, you are talking about things on the state level. This is the local level. Our board proposed an 8 period day to reduce staff in order to budget for future possible cuts from Christie. Our union never said a word and supported it because they thought they could argue for a 1.5% raise based on the fact that they would spend more minutes into the classroom. Now, 5 months later, it appears as though they have no shot at their raise because of the budget woes and they are now scrambling to revert back on their original support because the cutting of staff will result in them losing revenue from the dues. We have been working without a contract for the entire year. It's not complex at all. Some people want their raise and they are going for it. Most of us voiced that we would choose to save jobs rather than receive a measly 1.5%. The union leadership doesn't care.

Most of the people leaving the union in my district are 100% anti-Christie and vote democrat.

marcus says

Only 10 to 20 teachers ? Doesn’t seem like that much for all of New Jersey.
In my district that decision (by the union) is ALWAYS put to a vote. I fully expect this year to take more furlough days in order to prevent more layoffs.
Sometimes if it is a new contract with many agreements, that also is always put to a vote.
I’m not defending what your union did, or am I saying mine doesn’t frequently disappoint its members in one way or another. Only that they would not do that.

10 to 20 teachers in 1 town. Not New Jersey.

theoakman says

The union leadership doesn’t care

Okay. Well, I take it back about no respect. Actually I respect the lack of emotion in your response to my comment which was maybe a little provocative.

"I’ve officially decided to leave the union after this year and a lot of my colleagues are doing the same."

See, this is precisely why Christie is going after teachers more than other state workers. Teachers are weaker and any teacher who leaves the union is just stabbing themselves in the back. All your doing is making Christie's goal of busting the NJEA that much easier.

Clarence 13X says

According to “Waiting for Superman” the US is losing jobs because we are barely pumping out highschool diplomas let alone college degrees.

I liked that film when I saw it, but the more I thought about it realized there was something very wrong about it.

The narrarative leads you to believe the students performed so well because of superior teachers and teaching methodology. But if you're paying attention you realize all of the students were HIGHLY motivated, and their families were HIGHLY motivated to support them getting a good education. They were a self selecting group, even if the final entrants were chosen by lottery.

The fact the film maker completely neglected to address this obvious issue really calls into question his motives in my mind.

Yes, right ? thank you.

This lady is the expert to pay attention to (Dianne Ravitch) She was in the Bush administration and has done a 180 on testing and merit pay since then. I wonder whether Obama and Bill Gates and Eli Broad have read her stuff.

another repost:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/

Probably not to be read by those who wish to hold on to their anti-public school opinions.

Does it measure change in scores or just the scores?

Most measure the change, what they call value added analysis. See what LA Times did to elementary school teachers last year. They published numbers. What can I say. It's sad. I don't see how it can work, unless you either increase tracking, or you leave a lot of kids behind.

Instead of leaving it to me, to assess where the sort of middle of my class is, and how I can best move them forward, I will be told from outside exactly what students will be tested on, and my success is only a function of how my kids do on that test. If you are tested on moving kids to the next grade level, let's hope that most of your students are at their current grade level or better.

What do you do with kids that are years behind grade level ?Will the test be sophisticated enough to measure their progress ?

marcus says

another repost:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/

A key paragraph to me from that article - a good one, thanks for posting, marcus - is this:

Guggenheim ignored other clues that might have gotten in the way of a good story. While blasting the teachers’ unions, he points to Finland as a nation whose educational system the US should emulate, not bothering to explain that it has a completely unionized teaching force. His documentary showers praise on testing and accountability, yet he does not acknowledge that Finland seldom tests its students. Any Finnish educator will say that Finland improved its public education system not by privatizing its schools or constantly testing its students, but by investing in the preparation, support, and retention of excellent teachers. It achieved its present eminence not by systematically firing 5–10 percent of its teachers, but by patiently building for the future. Finland has a national curriculum, which is not restricted to the basic skills of reading and math, but includes the arts, sciences, history, foreign languages, and other subjects that are essential to a good, rounded education. Finland also strengthened its social welfare programs for children and families. Guggenheim simply ignores the realities of the Finnish system.

Absent from basically ALL of the posts from the 'conservative' members on this list is the context provided by a comparison to what works in other places. But the realities of any situation, in this case the US education system, are not nearly as important to them as the opportunity to launch another of their endless factless attacks in support of whatever bug happens to be in their bonnet at the moment, always in the service of wanting to break down whatever public support system remains in the US in favor of some mythical 'free market' private for profit replacement. In this case its Clarence's continuing creepy obsession with unions.

And may I add:

Clarence 13X says

Man, I now see how much heat conservatives take at every turn for going against liberal ideals

Maybe its because you always post such stupid things, you poor victim, you.

HousingWatcher says

“I’ve officially decided to leave the union after this year and a lot of my colleagues are doing the same.”
See, this is precisely why Christie is going after teachers more than other state workers. Teachers are weaker and any teacher who leaves the union is just stabbing themselves in the back. All your doing is making Christie’s goal of busting the NJEA that much easier.

Please. The unions are holding the good teachers back and protecting the worthless ones. The union is vulnerable because they refuse to act in the interest of their young members. Not for nothing, but Christie has not been able to put a dent in the union's power one bit. However, if he does manage to allow people to leave the union and take their dues with them, it's going to be the union leaderships fault when people leave, not Christie's. We have about 12 people who are leaving the union on principle alone. They still get to take the money out of our paychecks for union dues. This has nothing to do with Christie and everything to do with the leadership acting in their own self interest over their members interests. I gave the union the benefit of the doubt. I really didn't want to join them but I figured I could use the legal representation if I ever needed it. After watching them openly support cutting 10 teachers while simultaneously arguing for a raise, I'm out, because I stand up for what's right. You don't seem to realize that the people that will leave my union this year are the only ones interested in saving people's jobs and actually acting like a union is supposed to.

"We have about 12 people who are leaving the union on principle alone."

How exactly does one "leave" a union? Can you elaborate? Let's see: You still pay dues. You still reap the benefits that the union gets the members.

HousingWatcher says

“We have about 12 people who are leaving the union on principle alone.”
How exactly does one “leave” a union? Can you elaborate? Let’s see: You still pay dues. You still reap the benefits that the union gets the members.

Wtf, did you even read? We don't care if they still take our dues. You leave by relinquishing your membership. It's a statement and a message. The fact of the matter is, Chris Christie is going to make it so that people can withhold their dues in the next year or two. At that point, the union is screwed unless they decide to actually act like they care about its members. If they have any sort of clear head on their shoulders, they'll start acting like they care before Christie ever opens up the exit door for us.

So in other words, your not REALLY leaving the union. Your just sending a symbolic message that has no impact whatsoever on the union.

"Chris Christie is going to make it so that people can withhold their dues in the next year or two."

What do you mean that Christie is going to "make it so that people can withhold their dues"?? Is Christie a dictator? Does he have the power to go around the Democratic controlled state legislature and impose a union busting bill? Because such a scheme would never fly in Trenton.

HousingWatcher says

So in other words, your not REALLY leaving the union. Your just sending a symbolic message that has no impact whatsoever on the union.
“Chris Christie is going to make it so that people can withhold their dues in the next year or two.”
What do you mean that Christie is going to “make it so that people can withhold their dues”?? Is Christie a dictator? Does he have the power to go around the Democratic controlled state legislature and impose a union busting bill? Because such a scheme would never fly in Trenton.

rofl, by your position, there is no way to leave the union. What part of "I won't be a member" don't you understand? And not for nothing. But if a few jobs are saved, it's those people that will look at me and know that I care about them more than $700. That's how you build good working relationships with your coworkers.

marcus says

Another education expert has the easy answers. The idea that the whole thing is broken is insane.
People, please read this.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/09/27/100927taco_talk_lemann

Lemann equates market driven education reform with the malregulation / mislabled "deregulation" of the banking industry?? Demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of the highly cartelized banking industry, which has rules and regulations in place that specifically give it super privileges / protect it from competition and inherent market governors against bad behavior. Deregulation was merely reregulation conferring further government privilege on the industry, plain as day.

Or to liken it to intervention in Iraq? Talk about a straw-man non-sequitur argument!

Point is, comparing this to education to drive your point home about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater is pure mish-mash.

What's needed is a freeing up of the system from the monopoly of first dibs on education resources. Plenty of schooling as is works for some people, but it does not work for just as many. Let the chips fall as they may with the market of ideas among educators being put to the test.

Let's face it: Most parents want the best education possible that they can afford. Many schools are bloated with costs that far exceed what's necessary to achieve results, and are far beyond what the market would bear absent the political power-grabs associated always when resources are collectivized and politicized.

Education should be objective driven, and those objectives should be market driven, not politicized and hijacked as they are by powerful special interests. As it stands, government schools that most people have as their only viable solution cover a small spectrum of potential ways to educate children... works for some, but not a whole lot, and turns out a finished product more and more frequently for which there isn't a job. Part of the reason there is no job is because the education process consumes far too many resources.

Note, I said part -- it is one of many many things in the U.S. economy that misdirects limited economic seedcorn inefficiently. That wasn't a problem when we had vast stores of said seedcorn, but these days, it represents a larger and larger portion of it. Collectively, this misuse is bankrupting the nation.

Visit a third world country and you'll see that absent economic security for capital and property, an education is an investment with limited return. It is a useless luxury.

Today everyone has been brainwashed that they need to go to college and blow tens of thousands of dollars as the only way to success, when they need to be trained in what the economy needs for growth, and learn that they are successful by bringing / creating value for society as efficiently as possible. Having everyone saddles themselves or their parents with massive debts is good for those in the education industrial complex (and the bankers, too), though... it is a very, very powerful lobby that tugs on the heartstrings of parents and grandparents -- who doesn't want every opportunity for children? (Meanwhile, college kids spend a great deal of time developing expertise in useless talents, and partying... Degrees in prolonged adolescence for so many.)

marcus says

Let’s put this puzzle together. Educators need to do better. Solution: take away their union, maybe lower their pay and their pensions and take away their job security.

We the people are saying take away the job security for the bottom 6% of poor performing teachers who are reading newspapers, sleeping, late on the job, etc. The Teachers Unions cannot continue to have the power to keep these persons onboard. All others are fine and deserve their tenure.

Could we agree that removal of tenure for poor performers is suitable?

MarkInSF says

I liked that film when I saw it, but the more I thought about it realized there was something very wrong about it.
The narrarative leads you to believe the students performed so well because of superior teachers and teaching methodology. But if you’re paying attention you realize all of the students were HIGHLY motivated, and their families were HIGHLY motivated to support them getting a good education. They were a self selecting group, even if the final entrants were chosen by lottery.

Me too, after 2 weeks of thought it has led me to believe it is a union busting one sided film. However, I still believe we should relieve the bottom 6% of poor performers of their tenure and duties as a teacher. All others should remain the same.

In the end good teachers will not make up for bad parents. A good student will perform regardless of who you put in front of them to guide their journey because they will go home and commit to their homework assignments. A good student with the proper parenting will be actively engaged in the classroom and will aggressively study for their exams. You can put a good student in a so-called “bad” school and they will still perform well. It’s the parenting skills that actually need the most work as a good teacher cannot reverse the bad habits being taught at home and in the streets.

That being said, the Teachers Union would win 100% support if they stopped blindly supporting “lemon” teachers and started holding them accountable for their misbehavior in the classroom. The unions have created a win at all cost brotherhood/sisterhood that has actually worked in reverse to create an environment where it is easy to stigmatized teachers as holding the key to all single students future when in fact it is the parents that hold the key.

I think the reason we see so many students doing so well in elementary is that they have not developed opinions, attitudes and cultural preferences until middle school where they may choose to hang with other disengaged students at school. Often times, a student is not engaged in school as a result of a poor, disengaged parent that is either mentally ill, addicted to drugs or outright uninterested in their childs future. No political party will ever openly hold parents (they account for too much of the voting population) accountable for their actions so the teachers are next easiest target. If the teachers unions want to get that target off their back they will need to pull the plug on tenured teachers that have been proven to have poor performance (Sleeping, Reading Newspaper, etc.) alleviating the bottom 6% (worst performers). This gives the naysayers no room to speak negatively.

I am not sure we can judge a teacher on a student’s test scores as test scores are a direct link to student motivation and motivation is linked to the parents ability to steer their children in the right direction. If test scores were a factor then we would be forced to remove even good teachers in poorer neighborhoods of their jobs.

kentm says

Absent from basically ALL of the posts from the ‘conservative’ members on this list is the context provided by a comparison to what works in other places. But the realities of any situation, in this case the US education system, are not nearly as important to them as the opportunity to launch another of their endless factless attacks in support of whatever bug happens to be in their bonnet at the moment, always in the service of wanting to break down whatever public support system remains in the US in favor of some mythical ‘free market’ private for profit replacement. In this case its Clarence’s continuing creepy obsession with unions.

Lets just say we remove the bottom 6% from their positions and alleviate tenure for poor performers altogether.

In the end good teachers will not make up for bad parents. A good student will perform regardless of who you put in front of them to guide their journey because they will go home and commit to their homework assignments. A good student with the proper parenting will be actively engaged in the classroom and will aggressively study for their exams. You can put a good student in a so-called “bad” school and they will still perform well. It’s the parenting skills that actually need the most work as a good teacher cannot reverse the bad habits being taught at home and in the streets.

That being said, the Teachers Union would win 100% support if they stopped blindly supporting “lemon” teachers and started holding them accountable for their misbehavior in the classroom. The unions have created a win at all cost brotherhood/sisterhood that has actually worked in reverse to create an environment where it is easy to stigmatized teachers as holding the key to all single students future when in fact it is the parents that hold the key.

I think the reason we see so many students doing so well in elementary is that they have not developed opinions, attitudes and cultural preferences until middle school where they may choose to hang with other disengaged students at school. Often times, a student is not engaged in school as a result of a poor, disengaged parent that is either mentally ill, addicted to drugs or outright uninterested in their childs future. No political party will ever openly hold parents (they account for too much of the voting population) accountable for their actions so the teachers are next easiest target. If the teachers unions want to get that target off their back they will need to pull the plug on tenured teachers that have been proven to have poor performance (Sleeping, Reading Newspaper, etc.) alleviating the bottom 6% (worst performers). This gives the naysayers no room to speak negatively.

I am not sure we can judge a teacher on a student’s test scores as test scores are a direct link to student motivation and motivation is linked to the parents ability to steer their children in the right direction. If test scores were a factor then we would be forced to remove even good teachers in poorer neighborhoods of their jobs.

Ronnie Honduras says

marcus says
Another education expert has the easy answers. The idea that the whole thing is broken is insane.
People, please read this.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/09/27/100927taco_talk_lemann

I think it was a good article, however, we should still remove the bottom 6%.