Call me paranoid, but a few comments by the distinguished Executive Director have me scratching my head:

>>> b) merit pay reintroduces politics into the system and misunderstands how teachers are motivated

How many teachers and lawyers currently sit in the RI legislature???? The politics are already there, my friend, which is what has put us in the spot we are. Everyone has had a lemon of a teacher over the years that was notorious for incompetence yet protected by "tenure". Look what happens to teachers that do not join the union out of principle - they are ostracized and isolated due to...???? Politics. God forbid you have a system like the business world where people are paid for performance. Just what does motivate the teachers if not providing valuable services?

>>> More time (which means more compensation) may be merited in some districts...

Similar to pay for performance, they should be held accountable for meeting certain standards and if more time is necessary for the job at hand, so be it. The quick to "compensate" reaction bespeaks the attitudes of the unions. It is just a job in too many cases.

>>>How about taking the programs that work in charter schools and applying them to all public schools?

Similar again to pay for performance, charter schools would not be the successful option they are where and when instituted around the country if the current regime did their jobs.

>>>8. Strengthen Rhode Island’s academic standards, and require that students demonstrate proficiency as a graduation requirement.
Good idea - fund the programs to back it up.

This one takes it all - so now we have to fund more programs to get the kids to perform? I thought that was the product we were paying for??? Once again, avoidance of pay for performance sums it up. How can we expect our students to learn accountability and responsibility and the fundamental value of a meritocracy when the people we entrust to teach them hide from it all???

Tim2

I agree whole-heartedly with Tim2.

Rather than offering real-world solutions, Walsh has spent his time here attempting to deconstruct Coyne's thoughtful proposals while offering nothing productive in return.

Why is it always more of the same? All I have seen out of Walsh is repeated attempts to repackage the same failed policies and outrageous union demands.

I'm a pretty young guy - educated proudly in public school, but I already am thinking of which private school to send my children to. Thanks Mr. Walsh for contributing nothing to the solution and so generously to the problem.

Tim2 and JohnB,

I posted on this BLOG to start a dialogue, realizing that might not be possible in this forum.

What has the number of teachers in the legislature (2 in the Senate, 2 in the House, plus three retirees, two of whom are Republicans) to do with merit pay?

I was in the private sector for over a decade, and "merit pay" was a somewhat logical approach for incenting desired outcomes (make money for the company, cross sell product lines, etc.) The tasks could be easily measured.

With children, parents, and society in the mix, how do you fairly measure outcomes to establish merit? Propose an actual system instead of repeating the words over and over again (which is my issue with Mr. Coyne - no details!).

You also do not understand tenure - all tenure does is require that management have cause to dismiss a teacher - in other words, they have to make a case. The union does not hire or fire teachers, but we do have an obligation to protect their employemnt rights and we are proud to do so.

Your phrase "get kids to perform" is troubling, but we'll let it go for now. But yes, you may have to fund programs to help children reach their full potential - you know that we have children in the public schools who do not have adequate diets, health care and/or housing, who may have no books at home or chances to go to the library, or many worse issues to deal with before they can even focus on "performing." Some people on this BLOG may want to focus on attacking their parents, I'd rather figure out how to help the kids.

(And JohnB, I was proudly educated in a public school too, so I am not clear what caused you to join in with Tim2.)

Mr. Walsh,

I commend you for your willingness to engage in a forum where clearly the majority of readers do not agree with your positions. Personally, I cannot help but look at Rhode Island and see the opportunity to have what should be a national model and be dismayed by our track record. While education is only one of the many areas where I feel Rhode Island should and must do better, I believe - as I am sure you do too - that it is the foundation upon which our future is truly built.

So let me begin by laying some common ground:

I agree with you on the following points:
> "We certainly need more classroom materials"
> "Fund the programs" to strengthen our academic standards

Both of these points I believe go back in part to the funding of No Child Left Behind, which has emerged as an un-funded New Ferderalism project (which in itself is antithetical to the principles of New Fed). However, I do mean only in part. I believe that the administrative costs of our current system are in the least wasteful and in the most, irresponsible. We are a state of just over 1 million -- really, an urban county. What, specifically, is your objection to the consolidation of our school districts into regional or even a state-wide entity? We are small enough that RI can be a national model for efficiency. As a private-sector guy, certainly you recognize the value of streamlining organizations. Absent adequate federal funding, the savings alone from restructuring would certainly allow for additional text books and the like.

Our education system cannot afford to be run as a bureaucracy. Time is truly of the essence when dealing with developing minds. And time simply is not something that bureaucracies are not designed to maximize. With a more agile system, we would be able to respond more quickly and effectively to the needs of our children while at the same time saving taxpayers needed funds for buying those needed books, improving diets, and maybe even affording suitable healthcare (a stretch, I know)

I have said that I believe that Rhode Island can be a national model. Unfortunately, in many ways, it already is. This state has been dominated by a single political party for the last 60 years. In that time, we have driven out small businesses, encouraged monopolies, seen the gradual decline of our public schools, and have brought ourselves to verge of financial ruin while our neighboring states record state revenues and some of the highest school ratings in the nation.

You said that Tom Coyne has provided no answers, only rhetoric. Where are the cost-saving and performance improvent proposals from the NEA? Tom Coyne is one man and his criticisms are valid. But where are your proposals? You had a golden opportunity in responding to Coyne's points to take the time to highliht some of the NEA's dymanic or promising proposals.

This is a vastly complicated issue, but the General Assembly is littered with educators, and the unions are immensely powerful in this state, yet we still fall among the worst-performing states in the nation in education.

As the "Bluest" state in the nation, Rhode Island should be held up time and again by opposition as a model for how NOT to run a state

Bob -

Lest my eyes deceive me, I thought this was a dialogue transpiring. If it is not to your liking, does that cause it to be irrelevant?

The fundamental issue is accountability and progress. You raise some good points on the variety of situations that many students come from but does that mean we give up on them before we even start? Beware the bigotry of low expecations!!! A merit-based solution could still factor in these elements and also focus on progress - what is the baseline, how can we measure success, and what is a reasonable expectation of that success? There can always be a scale according to the social elements including access as well as aptitude of the individuals but nonetheless, we can also have the right attitude on how we approach.

You also marginalize the impact of tenure. In my PUBLIC schooling days in Cranston some 30 years ago, I had a high school Biology teacher with the spelling level of a 3rd grader. It was a disgrace this guy had no inclination to recognize that maybe he was setting a bad example. Fortunately everyone in my AP classroom knew better, but what about the underpriveleged students you reference? Talk about contradictory experiences going from English class to Biology. And tenure had nothing to do with it, right???

To my viewing, no one here is blaming the parents so why are you bringing it in? Another attempt to smear your critics and dodge the issues?

Here are some of my thoughts on points both of you have made:

“What, specifically, is your objection to the consolidation of our school districts into regional or even a state-wide entity?”

As I have stated many times publicly, I have no real objection to consolidating school districts – NEARI represents three regionalized districts (Chariho, Ponagansett, and Bristol- Warren). I usually note that the issue is unlikely to get to us in any real way due to local political objections. I do think there are many myths about what this would accomplish, however – using the recent focus on Hope High School (not represented by NEARI) in Providence as an example, one part of the solution was to divide the school into three smaller entities under one roof, which included replacing one principal with three principals. Another example is the one I used in response to a Tom Coyne statement about consolidating health care – some districts would see cost increases, others would see decreases by moving to an average cost. Consolidated purchasing of materials is always a good idea and should have been actively pursued years ago. I still believe that the state support for education overall is inadequate (44th in the country), with the result hurting the property taxpayer disproportionately.

“You said that Tom Coyne has provided no answers, only rhetoric. Where are the cost-saving and performance improvement proposals from the NEA?”

One example I always reference is lowering class size, especially at the early elementary level (the so-called “learning to read”, as opposed to “reading to learn”, years.) In his response on his BLOG, Tom claimed it was all about hiring more teachers and cited three studies which he said refuted my position. If you actually read these studies, however, they are at best mixed and the most significant of the three strongly supports reducing class size (and I quote: “Reducing class size has a substantial and cumulative effect on student learning.”). I do not know how to engage in a thoughtful dialogue when the response is that I always have an ulterior motive.

Another issue many school districts have undertaken is using advisories (or personalization or mentoring) to ensure that students get one-on-one or small group attention on a regular basis, which research is beginning to show makes sense (and common sense certainly agrees).

Other performance related issues that we advocate fall outside the schools – since socioeconomic status of parents and education levels of the mother are the two significant predictors of student performance, we support those programs (that Tom does not like) that put more resources into health care for kids, “welfare-to-work”, and adult literacy. Even though most NEARI districts are outside the “urban core”, we do believe it is within our mission to worry about all public school students in Rhode Island.

“This is a vastly complicated issue, but the General Assembly is littered with educators, and the unions are immensely powerful in this state, yet we still fall among the worst-performing states in the nation in education.”

As noted in my prior post, there are relatively few educators in the General Assembly, and they certainly do not even agree with each other on all issues. In most of the state, the numbers are very competitive with the region and the country (I still want to do better). In the urban core, we are hurting, but it is not spinning to point out that poverty is the underlying cause; it is simply the most significant factor.

"A merit-based solution could still factor in these elements and also focus on progress - what is the baseline, how can we measure success, and what is a reasonable expectation of that success? There can always be a scale according to the social elements including access as well as aptitude of the individuals but nonetheless, we can also have the right attitude on how we approach."

I don’t believe that merit pay (other than the objective criteria that already exists regarding additional pay for National Board Certification, for example) makes sense in the schools, and I have met very few education professionals who believe in it. If you study compensation plans, they ultimately involve motivation of employees, and this idea is a mismatch for this type of work, even before the “political” problems are factored in.

“You also marginalize the impact of tenure. In my PUBLIC schooling days in Cranston some 30 years ago, I had a high school Biology teacher with the spelling level of a 3rd grader. It was a disgrace this guy had no inclination to recognize that maybe he was setting a bad example. Fortunately everyone in my AP classroom knew better, but what about the underpriveleged students you reference? Talk about contradictory experiences going from English class to Biology. And tenure had nothing to do with it, right???”

As I noted, we have an obligation to represent our members. If management could not or would not take action against an employee without basic skills, or could not figure out how to pursue the issue, I think that is very unfortunate. All tenure means is that management had to take the time to make their case. Teaching, like most professions, is primarily not self policing and relies on management to make hiring and firing decisions. (Site based management experiments are an exception to this rule in some cases.) And to anticipate the question, it is hard to encourage folks to work collaborativly together while at the same time asking them to supervise each other.

“To my viewing, no one here is blaming the parents so why are you bringing it in? Another attempt to smear your critics and dodge the issues?”

Good, we need more parental involvement, not less. I do get find fault with those that do try to blame the parents,a nd am glad you are not amont them. As to dodging the issues, I may have many faults, and you may disagree with much that I say, but generally folks don’t accuse me of dodging the issues.

Bob,

I believe that the only way we will achieve success in the public schools is by getting rid of the teachers unions. While the NEA began as a professional association, your union has become nothing more than an old-style industrial union, in the UAW mold.
The nonsense you espouse about caring for the kids is about as sincere as that of a pedofile.
Here is why I say that: I remember my younger sister ran track and had a dedicated coach, also a great social studies teacher. Layoffs came and who went? This great teacher and dedicated coach. Who stayed: The older lazy teachers who simply go through the motions. Who benefited? The teachers.

I've seen the difficult assignments being doled out to the younger, inexperienced teachers. The older more experienced ones want the cushy jobs. Who benefits? The teachers, not the kids.

How about that annual ritual where the most tenured teachers get to pick the best (and always the easiest and least challenging) jobs. Who does this benefit, the teachers or the kids? Of course - the teachers.

I recently saw how in Cranston the teachers union approved a contract that has a mere pittance for the kids, yet healthy raises for the teachers. Who does this benefit, Bob, the teachers or the kids? Once again, the teachers.

Bob, there is no doubt that condition of the public schools in America is very much like the state of the airline industry or the auto industry. They are all hamstrung by archaic union work rules that limit the ability of the companies/schools to make the proper, intelligent choices that allow for effective competition. What makes teachers unions so egregious is that we are not just talking about cars, we are talking about our kids and the future of this country that the teachers unions are destroying and we are getting our asses kicked by foreign countries when it comes to producing educated children. The only reason the public schools are still in business is that the unions are able to hold a gun to the taxpayers head everytime they don't get what they want. They pull the "work to rule" crap (real caring preofessionals, Bob) or threaten to go on strike. They mask their inefficiency by forcing the municipalities to simply raise taxes to continue to pay for a defective product. After all, there is NO choice.

Then, I imagine this. Let's say that the city of Providence shut down their schools and took the $13,000 that is spent to "educate" every kid and gave it to the parents to send their kid to a private school. Do you think they could get their children a better education, Bob? You know that answer - ABSOLUTELY!
Now, I realize this couldn't happen overnight, but that is the direction we should be headed.
That old Pavlovian response of the unions that more money is needed is laughable to anyone with common sense.

When I hear NEA or AFT, I think UAW with all the associated ill effects.

Sorry, Bob. But I am ready for a revolution in the way we educate our kids. Your union and the AFT do NOTHING for the kids. Any appearance that you care for the kids is merely coincidental.

And, you do a very effective job for the teachers. I just wish you would have the honesty and the integrity to just say it - you are NOT here for the kids interests, you are here solely for the teachers interests.

whew. bravo. jsheehan, can you please run for cranston's school committee?

Dear JSheehan,

Just two little questions:

1. If appointments are not doled out by seniority, how owuld you do it?

2. Where is this magic supply of non-religously based, and very accepting of applicant background, schools coming from?

Bobby O -

I will take a stab at your questions of JSheehan while acknowledging he appears more than capable of speaking for himself.

1) Your question of "if not by seniority" begs the motive. Why not merit? Attitude? Aptitude? Seniority is a valuable measure and criteria if it brings experience, credibility and worthiness. If not, it can contribute to low morale and lack of confidence. Seniority or tenure or whatever you want to call it in its own right is a simplistic and limiting measurement.

2) ??????

JSheehan,

Clearly, our views are so far apart that a point-by-point debate would not be productive. I have certainly run into your viewpoints before - you choose to ignore all that the union itself does and our indivdual members do for children, and you seem to be locked into a corporate business model belief about how schools should be run.

I do offer you this challenge, however - find the five, or ten, or twenty best public school teachers that you know, or people you trust know, and ask them the honest question about the value of the union to themselves, to the profession, and to the children. And ask them honestly if they would choose teaching as a profession if they did not have the union behind them. (While you are at it, ask them if merit pay would be a motivator or a political nightmare.) And then figure out just who you would get to work in your version of the public schools. I look forward to your honest feedback if you truly ask these questions.

Bob,
One of the reasons I think the way I do is because I have many friends who are teachers. Maybe this comes as a surpirise, Bob, but the union is feared, not respected, by the membership.

In fact, here is a post from RI Future from a very liberal individual:
"Having been a member of a teachers union for over 30 years, I have to grudgingly agree with SOME of Acorn22’s points (boy, that hurt!)about public sector unions. Many times I saw the leadership as corrupt, myopic and devisive. They were often petty, did not act in the best interests of the membership and punished those who opposed them. If you look at teacher unions today, you will find them undemocratic and abusive to anyone who disagrees with their policies. The AFT is a prime example. Teachers, for example, do not elect their national leaders. The Locals do! The Teamsters, often associated with corruption, allows the membership to elect its president! You would think that highly educated teachers would posess the intelligence to cast a ballot for their candidate. Members pay dues, set by the local, but have little or no control over how much they pay or where that money goes. Most expenses are predetermined by the state and national headquarters with hefty expense accounts and generous packages for the elite.
Because of policies like these throughout the union world, it is easy to see why they have a bad reputation. Memebers are not stupid, but leaders believe they are!"

There is not a lot of respect there, Bob.

Again, Bob, your claims for what you do for children is really disingenuous. I mean anyone or any company can make that smae argument - GM, GE, or a homebuilder. They all do something for children in an incidental way. Your union does NOT factor children into its motives, Bob. Please be honest.

In fact, I remember a story (and I only remember it because it was so mindnumbingly idiotic) of some school lunch workers in East Greenwich who were going to work for a private company. Because the pay was going to be lower working for the private company, and the workers were NEA members, a woman from the NEA (I remember her name but will not say it) said that the children will suffer now, if the workers are privatized. Pressed by the reporter as to why, the NEA woman said that some of the lunch workers would leave. Even thought the private company assured there would be enough workers the reporter again asked how it would be bad for the students. The NEA woman said, "if they leave it will be bad for the students. They know when a kid is having a bad day, and they can give them a few extra french fries. You can't buy that touch" Are you puking now, Bob, because I do every time I think of that idiotic attempt to justify ones existence. Is that what YOU mean by what your union does for the kids, Bob?

Bob, I don't think you are ever given a true assessment of how members feel because your organization is indeed run like a communist organization. This comment, "If you look at teacher unions today, you will find them undemocratic and abusive to anyone who disagrees with their policies", made by the 30 year teacher is very telling and something that I hear every time we get into a discussion of teachers unions. Maybe you ought to have a blind "member survey" done of your membership, Bob. I'm betting there is a lot more discontent than you are willing to admit.

Furthemore, Bob, all the teachers that I know that stuanchly defend the union happen to be lazy individuals. Quite a few couldn't hold steady jobs in the private sector and decided to become teachers. Go figure.

JSheehan,

Again, we will just have to disagree, because your comments do not mesh with my experience. I have worked at NEARI since 1992 (and was in private, non-unionized business for almost a decade before that),and find NEARI to be one of the most democratic institutions in the world. Each local (we have 73) elects its own president, and together those presidents, plus additional representatives from our larger locals, plus our statewide elected officers, meet seven times a year to govern the organization. In addition, we have a Delegate Assembly where the ratio of representation is approximately one representative for every twenty members. I agree that not all members agree with all union positions, but no democratic organization in the world can claim full agreement.

We run a separate charitable organization (NEARI Children's Fund) which allows teachers and support professionals to identify kids in need (warm coat, eye glasses, dentist appointment, dress for the prom) and get them help. The same program also made sure that over 2000 kids in need had holiday gifts last year, including over 400 kids in one school in Providence (whose teachers we do not represent) because of the extreme poverty in that school.

While you won't see it on the news, many of our members spent the day at Warwick Mall today, providing free books to kids who need them and sponsoring an all day program of reading to kids (in celebration of Dr. Suess' birthday.)

I guarantee you, having worked in the private sector, for every "bad" union story you come up with, I can find 10 worse examples from the non-unionized world. Before unionization, teachers who were pregnant were forced to leave work when they began "to show", and political terminations (both due to point of view and due to changes in elected officials governing the schools) were common.

As to your East Greenwich example, I knew some of those employees, so I can tell you that the kids were better off having them working in the schools. If they talk about the need for every adult in the school setting to take an interest in the students, they should back it up by respecting the workers.

I have no doubt that you will not be convinced by anything that I say, but I suggest that you need to meet more teachers, because many that I know could be making a lot more (if that is your standard of measurement) in the private sector doing different work and I am thankful that they choose teaching (unlike me or our Governor!).

Tim,

You're criteria are fine except for one thing: you can't measure any of them objectively. Fortunately or unfortunately, time of service is a measurable device. If you can somehow satisfactorily measure the other components, let's make a switch. Until then, let's use something concrete.

Bobby -

You are endorsing the same broken one-dimensional system that has led to the waste of talent, tolerance of sub-par performance, and political posturing.

You seem to be implying that our administrators cannot be objective. Put them under review as well but have everyone marching towards the same positive outcome. Tenure alone is a flawed way to expect any progress.

Remember the definition of insanity - doing things the same way and expecting different results.