Thursday, March 26, 2009
Obama, Merit Pay and Unions
Edukshun piece by
Ari Kaufman
If there was an issue whereupon John McCain and Barack Obama agreed during campaign season, it was the need for educational reform, since our schools are, as CBS’ Bob Schieffer confessed in the final debate, “the one area we lag behind the rest of the world.” Being ranked 35th in the world in math scores and 29th in Science would back that statement up nicely.
I am no fan of the current president. In fact, his first few months have been embarrassing in nearly all areas—from gaffes on the Leno Show and 60 Minutes to his cabinet appointees and naive economic policies. He simply seems unable to acknowledge his weaknesses, or his mistakes, such opposing the very successful Surge which has now won the War in Iraq he and the Democrats have tried to lose for six years.
What more would you expect from an arrogant man most concerned with being liked by Hollywood and our enemies, and who had no practical experience in running anything, except political campaigns? It’s my belief that Barack Obama was prepping himself for 2012 from the onset, and did not dream such an ignorant electorate would fall for his turgid rhetoric, much less a kowtowing media could carry him to the finish line. (Note that even some Obama-philes in the media—David Gergen, Chris Matthews, Jim Cramer, Marc Ambinder, Thomas Friedman and even Maureen Dowd, not to mention the far left—are now seeing their error in voting for an Empty Suit)
Another issue is his narrow background.
From elite schools in Hawaii, Los Angeles, New York and Boston to Rev. Wright, and “community organizing” with the Bill Ayres and the Chicago Democrat machine, this president has been surrounded solely by intellectually rigid people of the political left.
As the Ottawa Citizen’s David Warren recently noted of the president, “he is the product of environments in which even moderately conservative ideas are never considered...His whole idea of where the middle might be, is well to the left of where the average American might think it is.”
But there appears little doubt that Obama has the right vision for education, as did his predecessors. That evidence came during his first major education policy speech a fortnight ago. I was traveling abroad, but the emails I received warmed my heart. Here he once again mentioned, among much else, the necessity of performance pay with the crux being:
“Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, while we must move bad teachers out of the classroom.” With just 1 in a startling 43,000 tenured teachers being fired last school year, this task may prove more arduous than finding a Republican in Massachusetts.
In nearly every American job, the ancient concept of incentives has been successful, including the schools of many mid-size American cities where it has benefited all involved in recent years. Free-market principles applied to public schools unquestionably improve student achievement, especially in urban communities. Sadly, this idea will never see the light of day in our largest cities where teachers unions are the most obdurate and corrupt. That’s a shame since the larger the district, the more reform is needed for our children, and conveniently the more these powerful unions oppose it.
The president also expressed support for charter schools, rightfully bemoaned America’s “educational decline,” and demanded accountability. It was the first time I applauded one of his diatribes. I was therefore eager to read the capricious replies from the educational establishment.
The National Educators Association, whose enormous financial support propelled this Democrat into the White House, responded curiously by emphasizing that “President Obama’s plan calls for proposals we’ve been advocating for quite some time.”
Former President Bush may be piqued to read that, as he spent more money on education that any president in history, yet was vilified and mocked by teachers everyday for the five years I taught in Los Angeles—a city where just one in two kids who began high school when I moved east in the fall of 2005 will graduate this June.
The NEA’s comment is, thus, completely inapposite with past years’ stances. A reading from their own website’s policy page notes, “The Association opposes providing additional compensation to attract and/or retain education employees in hard-to-recruit positions.”
Randi Weingarten, the president of the 1.4 million member strong American Federation of Teachers, and a lifelong Democrat, echoed the odd NEA statement, noting “We finally have an education president. We really embrace the fact that he’s talked about both shared responsibility and making sure there is a voice for teachers.” Well, one in ten delegates to Obama’s coronation/convention did represent the AFT or NEA, so this is initially expected, I suppose.
However, this is indeed interesting since Weingarten has repeatedly blocked efforts to remove weak teachers and refused to go along with treating teachers like other white-collar professionals in terms of rewarding performance. Some union members and teacher groups felt differently though, and offered predictably callow conjecture.
“In education, the new administration is as ruinous as the old,” said Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at New York University. “It looks like Obama’s education policy will be a third term for President George W. Bush. This is not change I can believe in.”
The “New York City educator” blog called Obama “President Merit Pay” and wrote a scathing and rambling entry entitled, “How I Have Come To Despise Barack Obama.”
They said “merit helped create the financial Armageddon on Wall Street and Main Street that has nearly and may still bring the nation to its knees.” The writer then claimed teachers aren’t interested in money and typically refused to listen to “people who have never taught a day in their lives but claim to be education experts.”
Thankfully, I have taught hundreds of days in our urban schools. Though Alvie Kohn has not, he is admired by teachers because he opposes testing students, and therefore is firmly on their side of the debate. The man who fancies himself “a leader in progressive education” is against paying teachers for strong performance.
“Merit pay is Exhibit A for the proposition that the relevant distinction in education policy is not between Democrat and Republican but between those who have some understanding of the nuances of learning, teaching, and motivation – and those who haven’t a clue.”
He is right. The so-called “relevant distinction” is not ideological, as nearly all non-teachers favor necessary reform to aid our kids; Unions do not. Kohn then played ad hominen politics:
“President Obama – who chose for his Secretary of Education someone who would have felt right at home in the Bush administration – recently offered enthusiastic support for a concept that has been tried and found wanting over and over again: dangle more money in front of teachers to make them perform better.”
As opposed to just giving away money despite no evidence it’s been earned, like the unions have forced every president to do during my lifetime? (Remember folks, Washington D.C. spends more money on education than most other cities but still sees only nine percent of its high school graduates finishing college.)
Arne Duncan, the current Education Secretary and former head of Chicago’s schools recently said, “I’m a big believer in differential pay. I want to reward excellence by paying teachers and principals who do a great job in the classroom. I want to reward them for going into struggling school districts. That’s where the challenge is. If you’re going to take on a tough job, you should be rewarded.”
Since “merit” scares teachers, even though it is successful, “differential pay” is the new compromise. It awards salary bonuses to every teacher when the school’s overall academic performance improves, or offers extra pay for teaching hard-to-staff subjects, working in rough schools, or taking on additional responsibilites. It is sadly opposed by the unions, which means the president will have to do more coaxing to break their stranglehold on education. When even liberal comic Bill Maher is calling teachers unions “overly powerful and selfish,” it’s telling.
And what of the necessity of unions, especially in white collar professions here in 2009? Rasmussen, probably the most reliable name in the oft-subjective polling industry, recently noted that a paltry NINE percent of non-union folks would join a union if offered today. Smart people.
The 56 teachers of the Riley County Unified School District (Kansas) apparently agree. They recently decided they’d be better served not belonging to the agenda-driven thieves of the NEA and thereby formed a local-only union. The county in Central Kansas has two other school districts and a population of just 62,000, but this is a start.
So lefty Bill Maher concurs, and perhaps deep inside Pres. Obama does too. Considering his aforementioned radical past, the ideas he spoke of at that press conference-- whether they’re his own or not—clearly are not “conservative,” but mainstream ones. The most “conservative” ideas stem from jejune teachers unions, often incredibly resistant to change and fearful of reform. If Obama’s suggestions can be enacted, there is “hope” for our children. This is indeed “change we need” and that yours truly I “can believe in.”
Ari Kaufman
HowardWasRight 
more...
more... 
