Can them teachers read?

[sangha]

I've been reading about how teacher's are getting upset about Kerry's new plan for education. According to these teachers and other posters, Kerry has proposed that we test teachers, fire teachers based on their test scores, hold teachers "accountable" (accompanied by shudders for his use of a "republican" word) and so he is therefore "bashing" teacher.

Now I would have assumed that teachers, being educators, would have both the motivation and the competence to read and understand Kerry's plan. Obviously, I was wrong because Kerry's plan says nothing about testing teachers, firing them for poor test scores (by them or their students) or holding teachers accountable. The plan can be read at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/agreatteacher.html

For one thing, Kerry's plan uses the word "accountability" only twice:

1) " Kerry will also increase accountability for good preparation at colleges of education."

2) "Retain teachers through better preparation and support , including holding schools of education accountable for improved results, and offering more mentoring on the job; "

Kerry's plan is explicit on this point. The only ones being held "accountable" are schools of education. Not teachers

re: "testing teachers", here's what the plan says:

1) "Require Rigorous Tests for All New Teachers: Certification tests for new teachers are often too simple, and the bar for success is often too low. Kerry will invest in a national initiative to determine the right high standards for tests and require states receiving federal funds to implement tests with these standards.

2) "Require all new teachers to pass rigorous entry tests;

3) Create a New Teacher Corps with Scholarships and Loan Forgiveness. John Kerry will offer young people who excel in school a new deal: If you will spend at least four years teaching America's children at a high-need school, we will offer you scholarships or loan forgiveness that are enough to pay tuition at a public university. John Kerry will also provide comparable support for midcareer professionals, such as veterans or engineers, to join the Corps. In addition to traditional certification programs, Corps members will be able to become teachers through high-quality alternative certification, such as passing rigorous tests plus intensive student teaching and on-the-job mentoring by successful teachers.

4) "Great Teachers Fund. States will be eligible for a share of $15 billion in grants based on the number and percentage of high-need children. If States do not participate, school districts will be able to apply. States (or school districts) accepting these funds will be required to undertake the recruitment, retention, and parental involvement efforts outlined above (to the extent state activities), as well as requiring rigorous tests for all new teachers and ensuring fair, fast procedures for improving or removing teachers who do not perform. The major funding priority will be raising pay where we need teachers most. "

IMO, it's quite clear that the only tests he is talking about are the test teachers take to get certified. There is absolutely nothing about their salary being determined by tests.

wrt, firing teachers, here's what the plan actually says:

1) Ensure Schools Can Replace Teachers Who Perform Poorly: While teachers deserve protection from arbitrary dismissal, no teacher deserves a lock on a job. John Kerry will require states to develop or maintain fast, fair procedures for improving or replacing teachers who do not perform on the job, such as establishment of “inadequate performance” as a ground for dismissal.

2) Require fair, fast procedures for improving or replacing teachers who do not perform;

3) Ensure Schools Can Replace Teachers Who Perform Poorly. While every teacher should have protection from arbitrary dismissal, no teacher should have a lock on a job. This is a matter of fairness for children and for the great majority of teachers who do their work well. As Randi Weingarten, leader of New York City's teacher's union, recently said, “Teachers want to help struggling teachers improve, or if need be, help remove those who don't belong in the classroom. don't want to see incompetent or otherwise unqualified teachers in the classroom next door to them.” While protecting due process, John Kerry will require states to maintain fast, fair procedures for improving or replacing teachers who do not belong in the classroom. Although the appropriate approach will vary by state, examples of positive changes include:

Setting out “inadequate performance” or “failure to meet performance standards” as grounds for dismissal, as Massachusetts and fewer than 15 states have now done.

Shortening the amount of time for reviews of decisions to remove ineffective teachers

This one is not quite as clear, but I want to point that unlike his proposal on determining a national standard for certifying new teachers, this proposal isn't calling for a national standard. It merely requires that states have a formal process to remove incompetent and unqualified teachers in a timely way.

It does NOT call for ANY testing of teachers. It does NOT even require that "inadequate performance" be considered grounds for dismissal. It only calls such a move a "positive change". States will be free to decide for themselves, as they always have, what constitutes sufficient grounds for dismissal. All Kerry is requiring them to do is to create a process. He doesn't specify any grounds for dismissal. It's left to the states, as it always has been.

If teachers were to read the actual plan, something I would have thought teachers would do without my prompting, they'd see that the only other references to evaluating teachers performance relate to bonuses for teachers, and though I am aware of the concerns about the potential for abuse (it shouldn't be a "not what you know, but who you know" situation- and kerry seems aware of it too. He mentions it in the plan) I really don't see how giving teachers bonuses, training, mentoring, and raises can be considered "bashing teachers". IMO these fears have nothing to with what's been proposed.

So what do you think? Can them teachers read?

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Codification of the obvious...with a side orde of snark...

It merely requires that states have a formal process to remove incompetent and unqualified teachers in a timely way.

Already exist -- in every state. If they are not used, it is because the political will to used them is missing, or the process is inadequate. Blame the legislators who created them, not the teachers.

such as establishment of “inadequate performance” as a ground for dismissal.

Standard language in every contract I ever signed.

: Certification tests for new teachers are often too simple, and the bar for success is often too low.

The Feds are lowering the standards -- not the states. In my state, I am 'highly qualified' in three subkect areas, but certified by Maine in only one, because the state standards are higher than the federal 'highly qualified' guidelines.

[sangha]

2. No, it doesn't in every state

For one thing, the process is often determined by LOCAL govts, not state govts. Generally speaking, the states don't get involved in firing teachers.

And being able to fire teachers for "inadequate performance" may have been standard language in every contract you've signed, but I can tell you for a fact that it's not in the contracts NYC teachers sign.

The Feds are lowering the standards -- not the states

I'm confused. Do you think low Fed standards are a good thing? If not, then why complain about a plan to raise those standards?

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. Every state has a credentialing procedure for teachers...

and by removing a teacher's credentials, they could easily prevent a teacher from teaching -- at least public -- again.

The fact that state departments of education don't use their licensing power to police the profession, as they do for the law, and for medicine, is due to custom, habit, cheapness, inertia, and politics.

The fact that some local governamce units don't have an 'inadequate perfomance' clause in their standard contracts is due to the same thing: custom, habit, cheapness, inertia, and politics.

The language of contracts, the regulations that state departments of ed issue and the school law passed by legislatures all represent the result of a political process.

If they are -- and I maintain that they aren't -- excessively teacher-friendly, it's because there's a political consensus to maintain them that way.

The dirty little secret of educational reform is that America has the schools it wants.

[sangh0]

4. No, every state has a DIFFERENT procedure for credentialing teachers

and besides, that is irrelevant to the fact that some teachers have trouble reading and comprehending a plan that does NOT call for testing already accredited teachers and firing them if they don't do well on the test.

And repeating the phrase "due to custom, habit, cheapness, inertia, and politics" solves nothing.

[sangh0]

5. It's beginning to look as if

the answer to my question is "No"

[sangh0]

6. Anyone?

.

[AgentLadyBug]

7. sigh... in the same boat as journalism, pyschology, and business....

education majors - as a group - are among the stupidest people with degrees this country has....

(as a group) they don't read well, they don't do math well, they don't think well - they do unfortunately little well. one thing they DO do really well is resist all efforts to get them to do something well...

though on balance, i think we're better off with unions than without, this kind of thing is an unfortunate downside to unions.... as much freedom as possible, with as little responsibility as possible...

teachers, flame away....

[sangha]

8. I wouldn't go that far

Having been raised by a UFT member, and her teacher friends, I don't think that teachers are dumb. And I think teachers concerns about how they can be fired are justifiable because their is a history of performance evaluations being used by management to fire people for political reasons. However, I don't think we can continue to allow poorly performing teachers to remain on the job.

But that's why I think teachers should support Kerry's proposal. IMO in it's their interests to have this issue resolved by a liberal Democrat who has a history of supporting teachers. Remember that Kerry is the jr Senator to Sen Kennedy, who is the Dems point man on education issues. I think it would be much better for teachers if the person making these decisions is someone who supports them, as opposed to some repuke.