Obama lays out his Education plans

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama gave a speech laying out his plans for education. He manages to back the ideas of more charter schools as well as merit pay for teachers, which will upset the unions. He also says he backs better funding for pre-K education, which will rankle Republicans.

 

I like his plans at this point, overall. Here is a synopsis.

 

Maybe this can spark a good discussion on education in this country.

 

 

[Soxy]

I don't like merit pay for teachers. Under performing districts (that are already in dire need of good teachers) will be less likely to attract and retain good teachers. So, kids that are screwed by being in a poor district or one with low parental involvement (or both) will be screwed because teachers will be reluctant to take positions there.

 

Should be fine for teachers with plenty of resources though.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't like merit pay for teachers. Under performing districts (that are already in dire need of good teachers) will be less likely to attract and retain good teachers. So, kids that are screwed by being in a poor district or one with low parental involvement (or both) will be screwed because teachers will be reluctant to take positions there.

 

Should be fine for teachers with plenty of resources though.

I think that goes to how merit pay is implemented. You don't allocate merit award moneys to schools based purely on performance against a large pool, you take into consideration funding levels, student population and their issues, and have at least some money going to every school regardless of school-wide performance. Also, you need to be careful how you measure "performance".

 

[Balta1701]

I think that goes to how merit pay is implemented. You don't allocate merit award moneys to schools based purely on performance against a large pool, you take into consideration funding levels, student population and their issues, and have at least some money going to every school regardless of school-wide performance. Also, you need to be careful how you measure "performance".

There you've hit the rub on all of these. All of those things...improved standards for standardized tests, merit pay for teachers, etc., can be good ideas in the right scenario. But there are so many other underlying problems so deeply rooted in the makeup of the education system...from the inequalities of the private/public school systems to the inequalities created by how they're funded through property taxes (amongst many others), that everything so far winds up being a band-aid on a gaping wound.

 

Things that can be wonderful policies on paper, like say, better and more thorough standardized testing, can so easily be destroyed by the current system that I'm not sure any of these things will actually make a difference. Just look at what happened to NCLB. It was created. Then it was under-funded. Then schools realized that the goals were unreachable. Then schools started teaching only to the tests. Then states started dramatically lowering testing standards so that they wouldn't lose federal moneys. And the only end result seems to have been that nothing changed except more class time was wasted on preparing for the tests that would make or break the school's funding for the year.

[NorthSideSox72]

There you've hit the rub on all of these. All of those things...improved standards for standardized tests, merit pay for teachers, etc., can be good ideas in the right scenario. But there are so many other underlying problems so deeply rooted in the makeup of the education system...from the inequalities of the private/public school systems to the inequalities created by how they're funded through property taxes (amongst many others), that everything so far winds up being a band-aid on a gaping wound.

 

Things that can be wonderful policies on paper, like say, better and more thorough standardized testing, can so easily be destroyed by the current system that I'm not sure any of these things will actually make a difference. Just look at what happened to NCLB. It was created. Then it was under-funded. Then schools realized that the goals were unreachable. Then schools started teaching only to the tests. Then states started dramatically lowering testing standards so that they wouldn't lose federal moneys. And the only end result seems to have been that nothing changed except more class time was wasted on preparing for the tests that would make or break the school's funding for the year.

The system is most certainly littered with different contending problems. That shouldn't stop you from fixing some of it though, and then addressing more as time goes on. You cannot realistically rebuild the whole thing in one shot.

 

[Balta1701]

The system is most certainly littered with different contending problems. That shouldn't stop you from fixing some of it though, and then addressing more as time goes on. You cannot realistically rebuild the whole thing in one shot.

That's not what I was trying to suggest though. The issue I'm trying to make is that the system is so fundamentally broken that things that could be good reforms can easily wind up screwing up/backfiring because they will only work in a functioning system.

 

I'll try to give you a specific example other than NCLB. Merit pay for teachers. Seems like a no-brainer, right? If a teacher is sucking, they should get paid less. But of course it's more complicated than that. Not just how you measure the suckiness of the teacher, which has a whole host of factors like the type of students, the quality of equipment, etc., coming in to the classroom, there's every reason to think that a merit-pay system could easily drive people away from the profession entirely, thus driving the overall quality of teaching downwards year after year as people don't want to risk having their pay cut because they get a bad set of students some year.

 

It's not that you're not trying to fix it. It's not that the idea itself is bad. It's that the messes are so entrenched that they literally take what could be a positive fix and turn it in to a negative. That describes NCLB's testing program to the letter, and it could easily describe other proposed good ideas.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's not what I was trying to suggest though. The issue I'm trying to make is that the system is so fundamentally broken that things that could be good reforms can easily wind up screwing up/backfiring because they will only work in a functioning system.

 

I'll try to give you a specific example other than NCLB. Merit pay for teachers. Seems like a no-brainer, right? If a teacher is sucking, they should get paid less. But of course it's more complicated than that. Not just how you measure the suckiness of the teacher, which has a whole host of factors like the type of students, the quality of equipment, etc., coming in to the classroom, there's every reason to think that a merit-pay system could easily drive people away from the profession entirely, thus driving the overall quality of teaching downwards year after year as people don't want to risk having their pay cut because they get a bad set of students some year.

 

It's not that you're not trying to fix it. It's not that the idea itself is bad. It's that the messes are so entrenched that they literally take what could be a positive fix and turn it in to a negative. That describes NCLB's testing program to the letter, and it could easily describe other proposed good ideas.

And sometimes, you need to increase the turbidity to extract the crap.

 

[Balta1701]

And sometimes, you need to increase the turbidity to extract the crap.

So basically your argument is that we should keep trying things whether or not they fail? Even if they're entirely likely to make things worse in schools for both students and teachers?

 

Just want to throw some more data in to this discussion. Again, not saying it is something that can't work. I'm saying someone needs to give me an argument as to why it will work if applied in this case, especially if I can cite examples of places where it has been tried and abandoned.

A recent Urban Institute examination of merit pay in eighteen school districts illustrates the problems with implementing merit pay. While the authors report some positive short-lived effects of merit pay--reduced turnover and absenteeism, greater goal orientation, increased engagement in constructive and innovative activities--they conclude that most plans had "major problems." They state: "By and large, the school districts we examined did not succeed at implementing lasting, effective, monetary or non-monetary incentive plans, ones that had a demonstrated ability to improve student learning (presumably the major rationale for providing added public funds in the case of monetary incentives)." The negative outcomes include (1) teacher morale problems from increased competition and divisiveness; (2) teachers being upset because they did not get the awards they deserved; (3) the use of quotas on the number of teachers who could receive awards; and (4) the plans were costly and time-consuming. The authors also reviewed other studies of merit pay and found "little evidence from other research, including the evaluation literature, that incentive programs (particularly pay-for-performance) had led to improved teacher performance and student achievements."

 

There were several merit pay systems in existence in Pennsylvania school districts in the late 1970’s, particularly in the Southeastern and Mideastern Regions (Downingtown, Great Valley, Lower Merion, Tredyffrin/Easttown, Upper Darby). All of those merit pay plans were abandoned in favor of the salary schedule. As is the case with many of the traditional merit pay plans, these plans resulted in serious inequities among teachers with similar skill and performance levels, and created morale problems. There was no evidence that the plans improved performance. In most cases, the school boards sought to eliminate them.

[NorthSideSox72]

So basically your argument is that we should keep trying things whether or not they fail? Even if they're entirely likely to make things worse in schools for both students and teachers?

No. I am saying that when dealing with a complex system that is broken in multiple key and related ways, if a true all-at-once overhaul isn't realistic (which it is not here, for cost reasons among others), then you need to try to fix a few things at a time. You go with what will work long term, even though it may not work well short term. And when you implement those things, you see where the bad parts fall out, and then deal with the biggest pain points (again addressing them with long term solutions). You keep doing this until you have your cohesive system.

 

[Balta1701]

No. I am saying that when dealing with a complex system that is broken in multiple key and related ways, if a true all-at-once overhaul isn't realistic (which it is not here, for cost reasons among others), then you need to try to fix a few things at a time. You go with what will work long term, even though it may not work well short term. And when you implement those things, you see where the bad parts fall out, and then deal with the biggest pain points (again addressing them with long term solutions). You keep doing this until you have your cohesive system.

Whether you like how I'm going to reword it or not, your argument is that we should just keep going for quick-fixes that sound good because actually fixing the problems are too hard, and you hope that you can build something solid out of the quick-fixes.

 

Without some hard data saying that the quick fixes will make a positive difference rather than going all NCLB on us and making things worse, I find that logic flawed, and I think the data that is out there backs my case up.

[Harry Chappas]

Charter Schools are BS. Why isn't every school run like a charter school?

 

I think vouchers are the way to go as then parents can elect where to send their child and voice displeasure with a school by essentially holding back funding. In urban areas this would cause the parentsto be more involved in their local school board which will never happen.

 

Oh and teachers union destroy any conversation on improving the system.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Jenks Heat

[NorthSideSox72]

Whether you like how I'm going to reword it or not, your argument is that we should just keep going for quick-fixes that sound good because actually fixing the problems are too hard, and you hope that you can build something solid out of the quick-fixes.

 

Without some hard data saying that the quick fixes will make a positive difference rather than going all NCLB on us and making things worse, I find that logic flawed, and I think the data that is out there backs my case up.

If you read my posts, I said the opposite of quick fixes - long term fixes to individual elements of the problem, is what I am suggesting. I agree that the logic you THINK I used is flawed.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I don't like merit pay for teachers. Under performing districts (that are already in dire need of good teachers) will be less likely to attract and retain good teachers. So, kids that are screwed by being in a poor district or one with low parental involvement (or both) will be screwed because teachers will be reluctant to take positions there.

 

Should be fine for teachers with plenty of resources though.

IMO, teacher merit pay should be on the micro level, not macro. Compare your performance to other schools in your area, social economic structure, ect. To compare a south side school to schaumburg isnt fair to the south side school.

[Chet Lemon]

Also, you need to be careful how you measure "performance".

 

Exactly, with the "how" being my chief gripe. If the "how" is using some kind of standardized testing system, then that will do nothing to improve "education" long-term. It may improve test scores as teachers will invariably teach to the test if the testing system is used to determine "merit" pay.