Did the Dodd people really misspell "principal" in a press release about education?

Bemused

Chris Dodd's criticism of Obama:

I fear that instituting a merit pay system may encourage teaching to the test and discourage teachers from working in schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students.

Obama:

The Illinois senator said it's possible to "find new ways to increase pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them and not based on some arbitrary test score."

He promised...extra incentives for those willing to work in lower-performing schools in urban and rural areas

So, was the criticism...

Ineptly toothless? Or purposefully dishonest?

first quote

second quote

No.

Not surprised

LOL!

You and Obama are essentially picking up Bush's line that the problem with education is teachers. I suggest you read some Johnathan Kozol to see where the real problems lie.

And you obviously have not listened to Obama's plan for education. As a teacher I have listened closely, and NO WHERE has he ever blamed teachers. Perhaps you should do some more reading or go hear Obama speak when he is in your area.

I'd have to say that Obama's claim that he'll back merit pay that isn't really merit pay but instead something that can be found smacks strongly of purposeful bullshit

Why? You seem to be defining "merit" in one way and assuming that anyone support merit pay agrees with you. I can think of a variety of ways to measure "merit" that have little to do with kissing up or teaching to any standarized test.

There is no content here at all -- it's just a lot of buzzwords, DLC-style.

Well, actually, there was plenty of content, but mainly, the quotes were a call to teachers to help mold the content, so, in one sense...no shit.

I don't see any value in the feds adding further micromanagement to the mess the NCLBA has saddled local schools with. I hope Obama starts thinking more before he speaks. I still think he's better than this.

Kinda funny, considering, again, if you'd both to read the articles linked too (clearly still have not), he said

Obama was firm in his denunciation of the No Child Left Behind law, saying he would not support its reauthorization, an issue now pending before Congress, unless the reliance on standardized test scores was softened and more federal funding was poured into compliance.

hmmm...sounds like he addressed exactly the problem you had with what he said. Or perhaps the problem was that you don't know what he said, and are inventing problems with it.

you want to throw around invective

No, I don't want to throw around invective, I want criticisms of candidates' positions to have some real world connection to the candidates' actual positions. Attacking a candidate for a position he/she does not hold is the lowest form of political attack...it only obfuscates debate.

Rather than be able to discuss the merits of what Obama has proposed so far (which is a fair discussion to have), we instead have to engage in BS conversations like this one, with people rabidly insisting he's put forth positions he simply has not.

A merit based system does not address the issue of getting teachers into the tough schools. It would probably have the opposite effect

...which is why you further incentivize teaching in tough schools. I mean, this isn't that difficult.

Dodd is not missing the point or twisting the facts. There is plenty of research and experience from which Dodd draws upon.

Research into a merit-based system that hasn't even been proposed yet? That's a neat trick.

Again, stop defining for Obama what "merit" means, since he has not yet himself defined it, and explicitly asked the teachers union to help him define it.

While I applaud Dodd's dedication to the idea of education, his execution of the support of education has often resulted in the detriment of education.

'No Child Left Behind' has done more damage to public education in a few short years than all the right oriented rhetoric of the last century and a half. Dodd likes to feel he is earning his paycheck, so he jumps to action without forethought and entered into devil deals with folk who desire diametrically opposite results than he intends. Any compromise between the sane and sober left and the insanity of the right is insane . . . Dodd has more than once danced with the insane in the name of education.

That said Merit Pay (and hazzard pay and the teacher next door programs) are not evil in their own right. It is implementation and oversight (and the overseers) that often runs a foul. A true merit system is not a slush fund for toadies . . . Unfortunately, the rules are bent by the folk in control on the system. Merit systems must be specific measurable results-oriented and time frame focused. People outside of the system need to administer the program OR a balanced group of folk need to be in charge. The Merit Pay issue is in the design of the program and the normal day-in, day-out compromise/polarize mentality of our political system may not be able to adequately cope with the design of a merit system.

On the third hand, ALL teachers NEED to be compensated at a liveable wage. Merit MUST be a bonus system only. Additionally, pay may not be what movitivates the individual. Some people love their jobs and want to positively impact future generations. Others may want additional personal edification through acess to further education. The real focus should be on regular pay first . . .

I don't see how anyone can talk about "merit pay" without using some sort of metric for distinguishing better from worse teachers. Who gets the merit pay, everybody? If only some teachers get it, then on what basis are they chosen? If they are chosen on the basis of their willingness to teach in tougher (ie. lower performing) schools, then it isn't really merit pay, it is "hardship pay" or some other term.

But then to argue that "merit pay" is part of the solution to the education problem is to argue three things: that good teachers can be distinguished from not-so-good teachers; that the quality of the teaching directly addresses the problem (as compared to other factors such as readiness to learn; appropriateness and quality of facilities, curriculum and textbooks; class sizes, etc.); and that paying the better teachers more, as opposed to paying all teachers more, will provide incentives for all the teachers to improve.

I don't want to judge either Dodd or Obama on the basis of these two quotes (especially since Dodd's support of NCLB is a big black eye, in my opinion) -- the primaries are too far away and I hope both of them, and the other democratic candidates too, continue to develop their thinking on and pay attention to this issue. But I have to agree with Dodd here -- you can't talk about merit pay without basing it on some sort of test. The assumptions you have to make to argue for merit pay as a solution to so-called failing schools are suspect. And merit pay brings negative consequences too; it attacks the power of teachers' unions, and introduces dissention into the ranks of teachers by introducing a multi-tier pay scale -- there is benefit to the schools if teachers are collegial and collaborative.

You might want to argue that merit pay is a political mechanism for arriving at higher teacher pay overall, a compromise, a bone to throw to the crowd that wants to see school taxes cut or at least more stringently justified. But you also have to recognize that many of the forces in favor of merit pay are coming from a perspective that wants to reduce educational costs overall -- to them, merit pay means differential pay coming from the same or a reduced pool -- and any candidate who endorses merit pay had better be careful who he's getting in bed with.

I wish one of the candidates would come out in favor of teachers, with, for example, proposals to improve the prestige of the profession. I think the fact that people know that teachers are underpaid and underappreciated contributes to the lack of support for them, the fact that kids aren't encouraged by their parents to take education seriously. If merit pay could lead to an outcome like that, I would be much more in favor of it.

I wish one of the candidates would come out in favor of teachers, with, for example, proposals to improve the prestige of the profession. I think the fact that people know that teachers are underpaid and underappreciated contributes to the lack of support for them, the fact that kids aren't encouraged by their parents to take education seriously. If merit pay could lead to an outcome like that, I would be much more in favor of it.

Exactly right I think.

I am very surprised by Dodd's position, which I think is precisely to the point.

One thing that needs changing is the funding of schools. As long as schools in very poor neighborhoods are funded mainly by taxes on the property in that neighborhood, the schools will surely reflect that. Obviously schools in poor neighborhoods require greater expenditures rather than less to have any kind of claim that there is anything approaching equal education.

Obama had a lot more to say rather than just talking of merit pay increases. He couldn't figure out how merit should be judged. I think there will be no satisfactory solution. Certainly the Obama fans hurt by opposition to merit pay are right in saying that was hardly all Obama was proposing but it is a sore point.

Best, Terry

A merit pay system could easily be designed to compare apples to apples

Have at it then. I don't believe you or anyone can do it.

And no I am not against Obama being the nominee.

Best, Terry

But then to argue that "merit pay" is part of the solution to the education problem is to argue three things: that good teachers can be distinguished from not-so-good teachers;

Yes, I believe they can. When I was a 1st time teacher, it took only a couple months for me to identify who were and were not good teachers in the grades below me.

that the quality of the teaching directly addresses the problem (as compared to other factors such as readiness to learn; appropriateness and quality of facilities, curriculum and textbooks; class sizes, etc.)

You seem to be confusing "necessary" conditions with "sufficient" conditions (or presenting a false dichotomy, or...both). Quality of teaching can address the problem directly in conjunction with those other factors you list

and that paying the better teachers more, as opposed to paying all teachers more, will provide incentives for all the teachers to improve.

Another false dichotomy. Can't all teacher salaries be increased and merit-based incentives included?

But I have to agree with Dodd here -- you can't talk about merit pay without basing it on some sort of test.

I hate to argue semantics, but you seem to be capitalizing on the vagueness of the word "test". Does it have to be based on a standarized, national test? No, not really, in my opinion. There needs to be some metric, obviously, but that metric does not have to be the "test" Dodd is suggesting teachers would then subsequently "teach to".

-------------------

As a former teacher myself, I'll tell you exactly how I and everyone in my dept rated other teachers: we looked at how their students did compared to their peers, in general, the next year. I taught Algebra II and could tell you off-hand who would be the best prepared of the kids from 6 different Algebra I teachers from 2 different schools that go funneled into my class. Why? Because the students from 1 teacher in particular were always incredibly prepared from day 1, knowing their stuff hands down, having great work ethics, etc. There was also one teacher in particular who was atrocious, as across the board, the other 2 Algebra II teachers and I all observed his students would consistently under-perform. Etc etc.

It was pretty easy to judge who was simply competent, who was outstanding, and who was inept, and it showed up the following year in the grades of their students as well.

I agree that there are lots of different problems facing our educational system. Obama spoke about a number of them in his speech to the NEA. This topic was posted on TPMCafe and is getting commented upon.

One thing that needs changing is the funding of schools. As long as schools in very poor neighborhoods are funded mainly by taxes on the property in that neighborhood, the schools will surely reflect that. Obviously schools in poor neighborhoods require greater expenditures rather than less to have any kind of claim that there is anything approaching equal education.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. I'd also add that in addition, the culture within those neighborhoods needs to be aggressively addressed. The broken institution is only part of the problem, as even well-functioning classes often have to compete with the street to be effective. Even a good school serving an severely impoverished community is going to have dysfunctional issues IMO.

Obama had a lot more to say rather than just talking of merit pay increases. He couldn't figure out how merit should be judged. I think there will be no satisfactory solution. Certainly the Obama fans hurt by opposition to merit pay are right in saying that was hardly all Obama was proposing but it is a sore point.

Why I always enjoy your posts Terry. All I ask is for some honest discussion. Your position seems eminently fair to me.

When I was a 1st time teacher, it took only a couple months for me to identify who were and were not good teachers in the grades below me.

And then were you asked for your opinion so that your choice of the best teachers would get the merit pay increase?

You see that's the problem.

Those who know the most are the least likely to be in a position to judge.

Again if you decided to have teachers rather than administrators vote on the best, are you certain there would be no politics involved? :-)

Best, Terry

Changing funding of schools from property taxes is easily as hard or harder to do than merit pay.

But unless merit pay actually helps solve the problem, the fact that it's easier politically should not be a reason to choose it as a solution over changing the funding model.

I don't think there is any good reason why merit pay should have any effect on the power of the teachers' union. . . Plenty of employers use merit pay without dissent in the ranks and while remaining collegial and collaborative workplaces, and I think our schools can do so as well.

In an ideal world, yes, I agree with you. But in fact merit pay is considered a union-busting technique by many on the right who advocate it. They want to sow dissention in the ranks. That's precisely why so many teachers' unions oppose it -- they know what the enemy is saying.

Oh, I agree with that sentiment. I fully understand the problem. I have my own ideas about the way the system would be run. Its long and involved and requires some fluency in basic statistics, and it would be (admittedly) cumbersome to employ, and would be limited in its scope (as it'd be much more effective in some subjects than in others).

That being said, my basic idea is built off what I said above, and involves rewarding teachers for the grades their students get in the same subject the following year

Let me respond as both a classroom teacher and someone somewhat knowledgeable about education policy - I won't bore you with my CV, but I do have some knowledge.

There have been many attempts at so-called merit pay plans. Most have failed for the simple reason that they were imposed upon teachers without their input. There are several exemplars that might provide some evidence, but have not been around long enough to draw significant conclusions. In Denver the plan was designed with the cooperation of the teachers' union. And there is another plan designed by teachers, http://www.teacherleaders.org/
that has some interesting aspects to it, as those participating in its design would all be considered exemplar teachers. What is interesting about the latter is that unlike many proposal it includes teachers outside the core subjects that are so heavily tested. Again, there is as ye no research base to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach - there is some, albeit limited, for Denver.

Perhaps if you want to see more effective teaching, you ought to consider involving teachers in the discussion. Any attempts to impose from above without the cooperation and commitment of the teachers supposed to carry out such a program will inevitably fail. Worse, it may drive away precisely those teachers you most want to honor and reward.

And by the way - remember that the current National Teacher of the Year is a Music Teacher, a teacher of a subject for which there are no high stakes tests, but without which many of our disaffected young people might give up on school.

Peace.