Archives for category: Florida

Maine’s State Commissioner of Education Stephen Bowen went to San Francisco to hear Jeb Bush tout the glories of for-profit online charter schools. Jeb Bush’s foundation paid for the trip. The commissioner met with Jeb’s chief education aide, Patricia Levesque, whose company lobbies for the online corporations. She promised help.

This is what the Maine Sunday Telegram found after getting access to public records of the correspondence:

Bowen was preparing an aggressive reform drive on initiatives intended to dramatically expand and deregulate online education in Maine, but he felt overwhelmed.

“I have no ‘political’ staff who I can work with to move this stuff through the process,” he emailed her from his office.

Levesque replied not to worry; her staff in Florida would be happy to suggest policies, write laws and gubernatorial decrees, and develop strategies to ensure they were implemented.

“When you suggested there might be a way for us to get some policy help, it was all I could do not to jump for joy,” Bowen wrote Levesque from his office.

“Let us help,” she responded.

So was a partnership formed between Maine’s top education official and a foundation entangled with the very companies that stand to make millions of dollars from the policies it advocates.

In the months that followed, according to more than 1,000 pages of emails obtained by a public records request, the commissioner would rely on the foundation to provide him with key portions of his education agenda. These included draft laws, the content of the administration’s digital education strategy and the text ofGov. Paul LePage’s Feb. 1 executive order on digital education.

A Maine Sunday Telegram investigation found large portions of Maine’s digital education agenda are being guided behind the scenes by out-of-state companies that stand to capitalize on the changes, especially the nation’s two largest online education providers.

K12 Inc. of Herndon, Va., and Connections Education, the Baltimore-based subsidiary of education publishing giant Pearson, are both seeking to expand online offerings and to open full-time virtual charter schools in Maine, with taxpayers paying the tuition for the students who use the services.

In Florida, as we learn from the comment below, it is never too soon to get tough. It’s never too soon to give tests and hand out grades. Even five-year-olds need to know that someone (the State Education Department? the Legislature? Jeb Bush? ) has high expectations for them! It’s never too soon for them to learn the Great Lesson: Perform on our tests or you are marked a failure. The treadmill starts here.

Must be part of that big Pearson contract with the state.

A reader reacts to an earlier post about whether it is right to give 2-3 assessments to kindergarten children:

In Clay County FL, we give NINE assessments to the kindergarteners. The math assessment will have 25 questions on it and be given one-on-one. The assessments include reading (FAIR), Performance Matters Math and Science. Our kinders are now being given grades weekly E, V, S, N, U.

Jeb Bush spoke to the Republican National Convention on his favorite subject: how to save American education by privatizing it.

Bush said that choosing a school should be like buying milk.

This came from a newspaper report:

    “Everywhere in our lives, we get the chance to choose,” he said in aprepared version of his remarks sent to reporters. “Go down any supermarket aisle – you’ll find an incredible selection of milk. You can get whole milk, 2% milk, low-fat milk or skim milk. Organic milk, and milk with extra Vitamin D. There’s flavored milk- chocolate, strawberry or vanilla – and it doesn’t even taste like milk. They even make milk for people who can’t drink milk.”
    “Shouldn’t parents have that kind of choice in schools?” Bush said.

He agrees with Condoleeza Rice that education is “the civil rights issue of our time.”

But how can this be?

Is shopping for milk a civil right? How are these comparable?

This is not a good analogy.

Isn’t public education a public responsibility? Isn’t it a public good? How can it be compared to something as trivial as shopping for milk?

You can see where he is going with this analogy. An end to public education, a welcome mat for the privatizers, the for-profit schools, the for-profit online corporations.

Anyone is welcome to produce their own brand of milk, funded by taxpayers.

They can buy the high-priced milk, if they can afford it. They can buy the plain milk, or if they are poor, they can buy the rancid milk. It’s their choice.

Needless to say, Bush said nothing about the research showing that charter schools and voucher schools get similar results to public schools; and that the online for-profit schools get decidedly worse results.

But this is not about the kids. It is about letting the free market have its way with the kids.

 

One of the model laws circulated and advocated by the rightwing group ALEC is a voucher program for students with special needs.

ALEC, you may know, represents many of our nation’s major corporations. It has about 2,000 conservative state legislators as members and a few hundred corporate sponsors. ALEC crafted the “Stand Your Ground” law that the shooter invoked when he killed Trayvon Martin last spring in Florida. ALEC also crafted model legislation for voter ID laws that are characterized by its critics as voter suppression laws.

In education, ALEC has written draft legislation for vouchers for all, vouchers for special needs, charters, alternative certification, test-based teacher evaluation, and anything else they could think of to transfer public money to private hands and to undermine the teaching profession.

Ohio recently expanded its statewide voucher program, which was written originally for students with autism; now it is for students with disabilities of other kinds. This is part of the ALEC game plan to erode public support for public education. Read the article from Ohio. It says that the private schools are not accepting the students with the greatest need, and that some students who never attended public schools are now getting public subsidy. All combine to reduce public funding to public schools.

The Florida voucher plan for students with disabilities is called the McKay Scholarship program. It was embroiled in controversy when an investigative reporter discovered that the program was unsupervised, that some participating schools had no curriculum, no educational program and were run by unqualified people. Which raises the question of whether the point of the program is to help the children or to dismantle public education.

New York state has a similar program for pre-K special education students. Although it is not called a voucher program, it is almost completely privatized (and it predates ALEC’s agenda). The New York State Comptroller recently released an audit showing the program to be rife with fraud, inflated enrollments, corruption, etc.  It is also the most expensive program for pre-K special education in the nation.

The private sector does not have all the answers. Neither does the public sector. Any program using public money should be carefully, rigorously supervised and regulated, especially when children are involved.

 

TO:     Interested Parties

From:  AFT President Randi Weingarten

Date:   August 28, 2012

RE:      “Won’t Back Down”

 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One can’t help but be moved by the characters and story portrayed in Walden Media’s film “Won’t Back Down.” The film is successful in driving home the sense of urgency parents and educators feel to do everything they can to provide the best possible education for their children. That is abundantly evident in this film—it’s what I hear as I visit schools across the country, and it’s what I heard when I sat down with parent and community groups from across the country last week.

We share that pain and frustration. And we firmly believe that every public school should be a school where every parent would want to send his or her child and where every teacher would want to teach. Unfortunately, using the most blatant stereotypes and caricatures I have ever seen—even worse than those in “Waiting for ‘Superman’”—the film affixes blame on the wrong culprit: America’s teachers unions.

As a former public school teacher and president of the American Federation of Teachers, I have spent my entire adult life working on behalf of children and teachers. After viewing this film, I can tell you that if I had taught at that school, and if I were a member of that union, I would have joined the characters played by Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis. I would have led the effort to mobilize parents and teachers to turn around that school myself.

I don’t recognize the teachers portrayed in this movie, and I don’t recognize that union. The teachers I know are women and men who have devoted their lives to helping children learn and grow and reach their full potential. These women and men come in early, stay late to mentor and tutor students, coach sports teams, advise the student council, work through lunch breaks, purchase school supplies using money from their own pockets, and spend their evenings planning lessons, grading papers and talking to parents. Yet their efforts, and the care with which they approach their work, are nowhere to be seen in this film.

This movie could have been a great opportunity to bring parents and teachers together to launch a national movement focused on real teacher and parent collaboration to help all children. Instead, this fictional portrayal, which makes the unions the culprit for all of the problems facing our schools, is divisive and demoralizes millions of great teachers. America’s teachers are already being asked to do more with less—budgets have been slashed, 300,000 teachers have been laid off since the start of the recession, class sizes have spiked, and more and more children are falling into poverty. And teachers are being demonized, marginalized and shamed by politicians and elites who want to undermine and dismiss their reform efforts.

Parent engagement is essential to ensuring children thrive in the classroom. The power of partnerships between parents, teachers and the community is at the heart of school change.

But instead of focusing on real parent empowerment and how communities can come together to help all children succeed, “Won’t Back Down” offers parents a false choice—you’re either for students or for teachers, you can either live with a low-performing school or take dramatic, disruptive action to shut a school down.

Real parent engagement means establishing meaningful ways for parents to be real partners in their children’s public education from the beginning—not just when a school is failing. The goal should be to never let a school get to that point. Parents are actually calling for real investments in their neighborhood public schools and that should be our collective focus. 

Across the country, AFT teachers and leaders are partnering with parents and community groups to create real parent engagement that strengthens schools and neighborhoods:

  • In the South Bronx, the Community Collaborative to Improve District 9 Schools (CC9) partnered with the United Federation of Teachers on a school reform agenda focused on teacher quality, school leadership and family-school partnerships. Through the partnership, teachers participated in neighborhood walks to visit with the families of their students. And they established the lead teacher program, which allowed experienced teachers to provide mentoring and guidance to newer and struggling teachers. CC9 members were involved in hiring the lead teachers.
     
  • In Minnesota, AFT affiliates negotiated the Parent-Teacher Home Visit Project into their contract, training teachers to visit their students’ families to establish bonds with parents outside of the school environment and help parents support their children’s learning. And the AFT’s affiliate in St. Paul surveyed parents to get their concerns and thoughts about their schools, and then incorporated the results into their contract negotiations. 
     
  • In Connecticut, the AFT helped create a law that provided an avenue for parents to become involved in their children’s schools. The 2011 law requires that certain low-performing schools create School Governance Councils to develop parental involvement policies and make recommendations on administrator hiring and, ultimately, on the school improvement plan. School councils are composed of parents, teachers and community members, with parents having a majority. This year, Connecticut’s new education reform law requires the creation of such councils in every low-performing school in the state.
     
  • In Cincinnati and elsewhere, AFT locals are working to mitigate the impact that poverty and other out-of-school factors have on students by offering wraparound services, including health and mental health services, meal programs, tutoring, counseling and after-school programs. Many of the services offered in Cincinnati schools were based on survey responses from neighborhood parents on what was needed for children and the neighborhood.
     
  • The AFT is leading a coalition of businesses, community groups, parents and educators to completely transform the educational and economic opportunities available to children and families in McDowell County, W.Va.
     
  • The AFT worked with a British corporation to develop a digital filing cabinet of lesson plans and resources for teachers called Share My Lesson. It’s an online community for teachers to share their best ideas and collaborate with one another.  

Sadly, this film chooses to ignore these success stories and the many others happening across the county. Instead, it promotes the deceptively named “parent trigger” laws, which are marketed as parent-empowerment laws. Actually, these laws deny both parents and teachers a voice in improving schools and helping children, by using parents to give control of our schools over to for-profit corporations. Parent trigger laws are being pushed by organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which Walden Media owner and oil billionaire Philip Anschutz helps fund.

The film advances a policy that in reality limits teacher and parent voices, the very voices that are celebrated and empowered in the movie.
 
In real life, there have been only two attempts to pull the parent trigger. One never made it to the approval process. In Adelanto, Calif., where the trigger petition is still in progress, many parents report feeling deceived by the for-profit charter-backed organizers who came in to gather petitions. They actually sued to take their signatures back when they found out they were being used to give their school away to a charter company.

Confusing the matter even further, those supporting the parent trigger asked the court to rule that once a signature was on a petition, it could not be rescinded. The court ruled in their favor, stating that the parent trigger law did not allow for rescinded signatures. But just this month, the Adelanto school board rejected the parent trigger proponents’ call for a charter operator and instead instituted numerous reforms including the formation of a community advisory council, an extended school day and improved technology, among other reforms. In both situations, the use of the parent trigger law has been disruptive and divided the school community. 
 
That’s one reason why a Florida parent coalition representing half a million parents joined with the Florida PTA and others to oppose parent trigger legislation when the bill was proposed there last year. They knew from the California parents’ experience that it would put all the power in the hands of for-profit companies, not public school parents.

It must be pointed out that the film contains several egregiously misleading scenes with the sole purpose of undermining people’s confidence in public education, public school teachers and teachers unions.
 
The film advances the “bad teacher” narrative through the character of Deborah. This teacher barks at students from her desk, uses her cell phone in class, refuses to let students use the restroom, puts children in a closet as a disciplinary measure and resists all reform efforts, yet miraculously remains employed at the school. She tells parents that she refuses to stay after school hours to help her students, and Davis’ character in the film asserts that union rules prohibit teachers from working past 3 p.m., an egregious lie. I know of no contract or local union that would ever prevent a teacher from remaining after school to help a student or do the work necessary to help children.

Let’s be clear—this teacher, or any teacher who engages in such deplorable actions against children, should be fired for this outrageous behavior.
 
The film features the union leader sharing a quote that anti-public education ideologues and right-wing politicians often attribute to former AFT president Albert Shanker: “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.” Despite the frequency with which corporate interests claim Shanker said this, a review of news reports, speeches, and interviews with Shanker’s aides and biographers, and even an analysis by the Washington Post, failed to find any person or report that could corroborate the statement. 

This is not the only time the movie resorts to falsehoods and anti-union stereotypes. Viola Davis’ character tells other teachers that the new school they create cannot be unionized because the union would restrict their ability to implement reforms that help kids. This is a false—unions are democratic organizations made up of individual educators, and collective bargaining is the process by which individuals come together to make things better. Many examples demonstrate that far from blocking reform efforts, unions fight for the things children need to thrive in school, like safe classrooms and smaller class sizes. And unions empower educators to win the tools and voice they need to help children.

Half of all teachers in the United States do not have collective bargaining contracts. The reality is that the states with the highest union density—states such as Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota—are the states that lead the nation in student achievement. And a recent Education Sector survey of teachers made clear that America’s teachers—both union and nonunion—recognize the importance of unions in strengthening the teaching profession and our public schools.
 
Though deeply unfortunate, it is also unsurprising that “Won’t Back Down” is such a false and misleading depiction of teachers and unions. Anschutz’s business partner is on record saying that he intends to use Walden Media (which also produced the equally misleading “Waiting for ‘Superman’”), as way for him to promote their values.
 
A look at the organizations in which Anschutz invests makes those values crystal clear. He has funded 20 organizations, including ALEC, Americans for Prosperity and the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation. All of these groups operate against the public interest in favor of corporate interests, and all of them actively oppose collective bargaining rights and other benefits for workers. Anschutz has also invested millions in anti-gay and extreme religious-right organizations such as the Promise Keepers, whose founder declared that “homosexuality is an abomination against almighty God,” and organizations affiliated with Focus on the Family. 
 
The last thing that the country and the debate over public education reform needs is another movie that maligns teachers, caricatures teachers unions and misleads the American public about what is happening in public education today. Children deserve great schools. That’s how we build great communities. And real public education reform comes from teachers, parents and communities working together to help all kids thrive.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further. To learn more about what AFT members are doing to help all children succeed, contact Marcus Mrowka at 202-531-0689 or mmrowka@aft.org.

 

The latest evaluation of the Florida voucher program showed that students in voucher schools made academic gains similar to their peers in public schools.

I am old enough to remember the old rhetoric:

Vouchers were going to “save” poor children from “failing” public schools.

Vouchers were going to “close the achievement gap.”

Vouchers were a panacea, all by themselves, for producing high academic achievement.

None of that is true.

If you read very, very carefully, you could find some tiny gains, but no panacea; no closing of the achievement gap.

When does all the high-flown rhetoric end?

Imagine if all those millions had been used to improve the public schools and to unite communities in common purpose.

This is from the report:

Test scores of program participants, 2010-11:
● The typical student in the program scored at the 45th national percentile in reading and
the 46th percentile in mathematics, about the same as in 2008-09 and 2009-10. The
distribution of test scores is similar whether one considers the entire program population
or only those who took the Stanford Achievement Test in the spring of 2010. The
Stanford Achievement Test is the most commonly administered test and is the test most
directly comparable to the FCAT.
● The mean reading gain for program participants is exactly 0 national percentile ranking
points in reading and -0.9 national percentile ranking points in mathematics. These mean
gains are indistinguishable from zero. In other words, the typical student participating in
the program gained a year’s worth of learning in a year’s worth of time. It is important to
note that these national comparisons pertain to all students nationally, and not just lowincome students.
● Test score gains for program participants are virtually identical to those of income-eligible non-participants remaining in Florida public schools. Participating students
gained slightly relative to comparable public school students in 2010-11, though this
difference is not statistically significant. It is important to recall that the participating
students differ from the income-eligible public school students in important ways – their
incomes are substantially lower and their previous test performance in public school
tended to be substantially lower. These differences make direct comparison of gain scores
more problematic. Because families can choose whether to participate in the program, it
is inappropriate to consider the differences in test score gains between FTC Program
participants and their public school counterparts to be caused by program participation.
It is, therefore, best to consider the fact that test score gains are extremely similar
between the public and private sector to be suggestive evidence of little difference in
average performance across the sectors, rather than causal evidence of differential
performance. That said, in past cohorts for whom there existed sufficient data to estimate
the causal consequences of program participation, there was evidence of positive effects
of participation in the FTC program, especially for math. Little has changed in terms of
test scores or factors influencing program participation across cohorts, indicating that one
might infer, albeit with caution, that positive effects found in prior cohorts continued to
the most recent application cohort.
● Recent statistical research has shown that the FTC Program has improved the
performance of Florida public schools to a modest degree. Therefore, the correct
interpretation of the findings in this report are that students participating in the program
have kept pace with the improvements in the public schools associated with the FTC
Program.

Three charter schools want to open in St. John’s County in Florida, which is the state’s highest ranking county.

Some of the state legislators, including one of the state senate’s most avid supporters of charters, are surprised. They thought that charters were supposed to rescue students in failing schools, but St. John’s County is known for its excellent public schools.

If approved, the charters will siphon almost $13 million out of the public school budget, requiring at least 200 teacher layoffs. School officials are alarmed. The excellent public schools of St. John’s County won’t be quite so excellent in the future. This is the kind of competition that Jeb Bush put into place, which he wants to replicate across the nation.

Two of the charters would be run by a for-profit charter chain that is already collecting $158 million in revenues from South Florida charters, which includes an annual profit to the firm of $9 million. It’s a very good business indeed.

A reader who runs a charter school wrote a week or so ago and insisted that charters are not deregulated; he asked for examples of state laws and regulations that charters are not required to meet. Here are some that apply in Florida, according to this article:

PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. CHARTER SCHOOL
A 2012 law passed by the Legislature makes charter schools part of the state’s public education program and thus makes charter schools public schools. Tax money can now go to the charters.
The law also gives charter schools what some see as preferential treatment, including now receiving all the state’s building money, which once went to public schools.
Charter schools do have to administer the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. They may or may not get a school grade.
Charter schools are not bound to the Sunshine State Standards or the upcoming Common Core standards.
Charter schools do not have to meet the Classroom Size Amendment, which sets the number of students in certain classes.
Charter schools don’t have to meet the same building standards required of traditional public schools, which face tougher standards than regular building codes.
Charter schools have parent contracts including requiring parents to fulfill certain contractual items. If the parents fail to keep their side of the bargain, their children can be removed from the schools.

This teacher has advice for Governor Rick Scott about the importance of quality time with his family:

 I am a 27 year veteran teacher from Miami Dade County, Florida, and I can finally say that Florida has done something right by invalidating a ridiculously arbitrary evaluation system that came without a valid rationale or explanation. I was also very pleased that our commissioner of education decided to resign to spend more time with his family after two public debacles with test scores and school grades. I can only hope that our governor follows his lead and decides his family, too, deserves more of his time.

A teacher in Boynton Beach sent me a letter he wrote to President Obama in 2010, trying to explain why merit pay doesn’t work. Obviously, no one at the White House or the U.S. Department of Education agrees with him. Since 2010, matters have gotten even worse, especially in Florida, where the Legislature mandated merit pay and provided no funding for it. No one at the White House or the U.S. Department of Education or the Florida legislature or any of the conservative governors seems to know or care that merit pay is not supported by evidence. They just like it, and it doesn’t matter that it never works.

Dear President Obama,

It appears my worst fears on the issue of teacher merit pay are now beginning to be realized – as a direct result of your administration’s general support and Race to the Top incentives for the concept. As such, I am re-sending this letter, originally sent the 2nd week of August, 2009 and again six weeks later due to no response. I believe the importance of this argument and its growing urgency justify my doing so.

Please allow me to begin by expressing my great, heartfelt appreciation for all you have undertaken and done so far in your still-young administration – particularly in these urgent and challenging times.

With this said, I feel conflicted – and, as an inner-city public high school teacher, compelled – to express my concern for one of your educational reform proposals. As I understand it, your announced support for a teacher merit pay plan is, I feel, misplaced. The concept of teacher merit pay is itself fundamentally ill conceived and corrosive in its societal, professional, and personal potential effects.

Please let me explain why. In its simplest and most positive reading, merit pay offers monetary rewards and public recognition to teachers of outstanding, measurable excellence and, possibly, effort. Since the number of teachers so honored will inevitably be limited in any given year, the program will create a much larger pool of non-recipients, many of whom will be hard working, praise-worthy teachers, who will automatically be labeled, at best, “average,” and at worst, “inferior,” or “substandard.” You, in fact, note and apparently endorsed this perception when speaking of educational reforms generally and this plan specifically, as you said in March of 2009: “We need to make sure our students have the teacher they need to be successful. That means states and school districts taking steps to move bad teachers out of the classroom.”

There are teachers who are incompetent or ineffective; I agree that they should be removed. Fair ways to assess such performance already exist. I doubt there is a school district anywhere without an established procedure for removing underperforming teachers. A teacher merit pay program, however, by its inescapable “praise some, condemn the rest” dynamic, is an improper and unfair method of doing this. Judiciously standardizing and enforcing the process of identifying and removing underperforming teachers is, I believe, a worthy and honest federal Department of Education goal. A merit pay plan as a means to do this is neither.

Because a merit pay program will create the impression among parents and students alike that there are a few good teachers, and the rest are inferior, the recognized teachers will be in greatest demand, not only at their schools but at other intra-district schools, inter-district schools, or even other states or organizations. A bidding war for such recognized teachers would no doubt be good for those teachers,

but a potential disaster for their school and community, especially if such teachers leave. Moreover, you immediately put every other teacher in an untenable position. What are they to say to those parents and students who now find they have to settle for those “inferior” educators? A plan that fosters a symbiotic relationship between school and community goals is, I believe, a worthy DOE goal. A merit pay program will do the opposite.

Professionally, the actual process of determining who deserves the merit pay is problematic in every respect. Whatever criteria are ultimately used, with whatever weight or priority assigned to each, some group of trained, objective and competent individuals must devote time and energy to the process – time and energy that, one can argue, should be better spent.

Insofar as the actual assessment goes, various methods – both objective and subjective – exist, each with their own advantages and shortcomings. Ultimately, however, it will almost inevitably include some form of student testing. Few teachers, administrators, parents or students would welcome yet more mandated testing. It has been a profoundly sad and questionable effect of the No Child Left Behind Act that mandated testing has gradually displaced – and sometimes altogether eliminated – virtually all other educational goals and their affiliated programs. Many of these endangered and terminated programs offer individualized student options for success; toward workforce ready skill- sets in career areas the student shows an interest, ability and desire in –frequently involving academically empowered technical training. Indeed, as authors Kenneth Gray and Edwin Herr expose in their book, Other Ways to Win, and Thomas Freidman reinforces in The World Is Flat, the virtually exclusive educational focus preparing all students for a four-year college degree leaves many students behind. In fact, the authors suggest, workforce areas of high demand today are increasingly underserved as a direct result.

I am heartened that past comments you have made suggest your awareness of some of the NCLB program’s dubious effects. The truth is that standardized tests, however valid, in no way connote standardized classroom challenges for the teacher. How then is a program to account for – and equalize for the sake of fairly assessing teacher merit – the wholly disparate nature of classes even across the day for the same teacher, let alone the myriad combinations and differences otherwise? Until a merit pay plan’s “hows” and “whys” are understood; until it demonstrates it recognizes and respects the distinct conditions under which teachers teach, you cannot expect teachers to endorse it. I can only hope you demonstrate the esteem for teacher unions that you have claimed you have for teachers. Their notable absence of input in the NCLB program’s design and mechanics correlates directly with the current teacher and administrator lack of support for, and frustration with it today.

In a July, 2008 speech to the National Education Association, regarding your support for merit pay you said, “Now I know this wasn’t necessarily the most popular part of my speech last year, but I said it then and I’m saying it again now because it’s what I believe and I will always be an honest partner to you in the White House.” With the vast majority of teachers against the merit pay idea, a consensus among partners is badly needed. A drive to collate and assess our nation’s teachers’ greatest local pressures and challenges could be a DOE goal toward creating such a consensus. A merit pay plan that will exacerbate teachers’ pressures and challenges will divide, not unite us.

On the personal level, a merit pay plan risks humiliation, frustration, invalidation, and dissention and rancor among the many for the benefit of the few. The attrition rate among new teachers is probably the highest among any professional group, not because they have been deemed incompetent, but because the effort, energy, time and work they give; the grief and thanklessness they receive quickly burn people out, and certainly aren’t worth the pay they get for it. Submitting to a federally sanctioned stigma of merit “non-recognition”, one might be able to tell oneself, does not necessarily mean I am a failure or my performance is sub-standard. But it surely offers no prospect of validation.

Teachers are taught that a student’s self-image matters. I would suggest this is true of adults and teachers too. And human nature being what it is, where a merit pay process perceives an individual as exemplary, but a number of their coworkers do not, dissonance and bad feelings are unavoidable.

Teaching is also a learning process. Many young teachers, some of whom undoubtedly have enormous potential, capitulate to the difficulties and leave early. Merit pay will only hasten their departure and further challenge all teachers’ perspectives.

For each of the reasons stated above I urge you to reconsider your support for teacher merit pay. I am aware my concern may be viewed as premature, since no actual plan has yet been publically proposed. One is anticipated, though, based on your oft-repeated support for it. As a teacher I understand that we, with administrators, are the system’s “front line”. As such, we answer to the rules, regulations and processes expected of us. But accountability, the current touchstone for education generally and teachers specifically, is not value-neutral. One is never “held accountable” for success or any positive outcome. Inasmuch the NCLB heralds “the arrival of accountability” to education, it insidiously suggests the system has heretofore been negligent. Cast in such light, an adversarial dynamic is created among the various players, with teachers again on the front line. Problematic assessment programs are themselves never held to account for either the pall they cast over the system or for the dysfunctional dynamics they foster; we teachers, almost exclusively, are.

Of all the ideas I’ve heard put forth for reforming and improving our public education system, none strike me as more prescient or promising than yours for universal preschool programs. As Geoffrey Canada has demonstrated with Harlem Children’s Zone and you have said, “research shows that early experiences shape whether a child’s brain develops strong skills for future learning, behavior and success. Without a strong base on which to build, children, particularly disadvantaged children, will be behind long before they reach kindergarten.” If a merit pay plan is to be mandated, it should be put in place only after the universal preschool program you propose has become the norm. Many of the students at my high school, a large number of whom are children of recently arrived immigrants, come without the strong base you describe. As a result, my school, as assessed by the system, faltered this past year (2008-2009). We now face the full impact of the accounting’s consequences. We will now narrow our focus even more to teach to the tests, and in the process lose the educational forest for the trees.

President Obama, I believe in your goals for our nation. For improving our educational system, however, teacher merit pay is completely counterproductive.

Thanking you for your consideration, I remain Sincerely Yours,

Martin Ginsberg martygraaa@yahoo.com

P.S. In Florida, Republican sponsored and partisan-passed Senate Bill 6 and its companion House Bill created great turmoil and stress – while exacerbating the “adversarial dynamic” mentioned above. Governor Crist vetoed it today as the Republican Party chair in the Florida Senate vowed to reintroduce it. It appears Georgia is now in the process of following suit. 

This just in.

The Florida Education Association and two named teacher-plaintiffs sued to block VAM because the process is confusing and the state has provided inadequate guidance.

A judge agreed with the plaintiffs. The state education department will either appeal or have to redo the rules and clarify the way VAM is supposed to work.

This teacher-evaluation stuff is complex, poorly thought out, and endlessly divisive.

It is being foisted on states across the nation–thank you, Race to the Top–without any clear evidence that it works.

No one knows whether VAM identifies the worst teachers or those unlucky enough to get difficult students or those who are good at teaching to the test.

District after district will be thrown into unnecessary turmoil.

A few teachers will be thrown out, and they may not be the “bad” teachers.

And the cult of data worship will grow stronger.