INSERT STANDARD CLAP-TRAP FROM PAT CROWLEY HERE

I’ll pinch hit for Pat.

Justin, I think it is fair to ask exactly how these ideas would work, because a serious discussion of the issue has to answer these concerns.

In a school choice program, how do you prevent re-segregation? How do you balance parental involvement (presuming only involved parents will “play” the school choice game)? How do you deal with transportation efficiency? How do you deal with unequal infrastructure (even with all factors being otherwise equal, the buildings and facilities certainly are not)? How do you deal with the “false choice” of team building (the heck with education, School X’s football team is the best, and I want my kid to play on that team)? How do you deal with the parental expectation regarding a specific teacher (I want my kid to have Miss Smith for grade X, but so does everyone else, so I will choose that school if and only if . . .)? Finally – on what criteria do you advise parents to make their choice? Is it test scores? (If so, they are choosing schools with students whose family socioeconomic status and parental education levels are higher, at least at first.) Is it extracurricular activities? (Sports, band, chess club, whatever – these are all important if they motivate the student, but are not core academics.)

On merit pay, besides asking for the particulars of a fair program that is devoid of politics, I often wonder why people believe that the only motivating factor is money. When Don Carcieri decided he wanted to make more money, he got out of education - and even merit pay would not have made the the difference in the type of compensation he was seeking. We have merit pay now with objective criteria – generally, compensation is increased if you have a masters, or CAGS, or National Board Certification. Certain duties “above and beyond” also get extra compensation. If the vast majority of teachers do not think this will be an effective motivating strategy, maybe you need to rethink where these ideas are being generated and what the motivations are behind them, or come up with a system that will pass muster.

Ultimately, both these issues serve to distract from the important work of improving public education.

Bob,

As far as improving public education, would you be willing to agree that our generation got a superior education to that of today's children? I know I would.

And if you would agree to that, what would you say are the reasons for that?

Bob,

I completely disagree with your assertion that we have merit pay now for teachers. None of the items you listed have anything to do with actual performance. They are all forms of preparation for teaching, not measures of teaching ability. If we were talking about athletes it would be similiar to saying "if you practice 1 hour extra in the offseason, put on 20 lbs. of muscle, and demonstrate a thourough knowledge of your postion (weren't they already supposed to know that?) for 2 or 3 years then we will increase your pay 10-20% regardless of how you perform in the field, for the rest of your entire career". Wow, I know I'd do it! Similarly, there are "naturals" in any field. Individuals who just have the knack. The best teacher in a school system may never have gone thru any extra preparation (because they didn't require it, and they knew it) and are simply extremely proficient, they ARE a great teacher. Unfortunately they we be paid the least, except for seniority of course. The current system simply does not reward teachers based on their teaching ability, though it seems to do just about everything else.

The way the teacher contracts are written these items all just seem like reasons for teachers to pad their salaries, nothing more. Why is it that the school systems that offer the most lucrative incentives, or merit as you would say, do not perform any better than the ones that offer the fewest?

I’m all for merit-based teacher compensation. But I don’t think that the basis for success should be defined by the students test scores. I think it should be done the old-fashioned way – by people, such as the administrators or principles, viewing the teachers, talking with students & parents and making a judgment on their performance. It’s not as easy as comparing two numbers, but it’s the way most workers are judged in academic fields.

I completely agree with Frank on merit pay. Merit pay should performance based, not based on classes or extra-cirriculars.

School choice is a great theory but a more complicated concept in today’s reality. If I were dictator, I would unilaterally eliminate the teachers union, and change the way public schools are funded. If the public schools were able to compete with private schools on a close-to-level playing field, then school choice could work. The way it is now, I think school choice or vouchers would result in harming the public school system and turn the smaller private school systems into large school systems. I think the primary attractiveness of alternative schools is based on size – where less is more. This is one of the distinctions between the business of education and other ‘for-profit’ businesses where there is no doubt would be better off privatized.

hey walsh,

toss out all the rhetoric and just look at the statistics.. just a few basic ones like.

like we have soem of the worst performing schools around..like some schools have drop out rates of 50%

the system has failed a generation of people.

and i know, its not the schools, its the poverty, right. ri poverty is different from other poverty bc it affects your ability to learn.it doesnt affect kids in other states.

if you didnt have a voting block of teachers you would be on the same level as bob healy

Bob Walsh,
You ask these questions like they only apply to education. They don't. In fact, every rhetorical question you ask is one faced with selections we make in many aspects of life - what youth sports organization, what dance class, what musical group, what college, what industry to go into, what company to work for.
You simply attempt to justify the status quo with this lame line of questioning. You insinuate that the present system has the answers to all you rhetorical nonsense. In fact, the present system has failed us for over 40 years - right about the time when unions began to hijack the public education system.
Who are you kidding about "removing the politics?" Welcome to the real word Bob. Your union knows nothing but politics. That is your sanctimonious ruse to to distract from the important work of improving public education.

The only way an honest discussion begins is by figuring how to take the control away from the unions that have destroyed public education. Until that enters the discussion, we are pissing into the wind.

Actually, the statistics prove that Rhode Island public schools are competitive in our suburban, rural and urban ring districts, and that our urban core districts face great challenges primarily related to deep poverty, parental education levels, and language barriers. With our urban core representing a higher percentage of our total student population, our state averages take a hit (easy to visualize -some of "our suburbs" are in Massachusetts, and Narragansett Bay just isn't conducive to building houses.)

Many of these posts reaffirm why even our most cynical members are pleased to have a union, so thanks for that at least.

While much more can (and will) be said, I leave you this thought on merit pay - do you really want a system of public education that encourages teachers to look out over the classroom and decide which students will make them money, or give them a financial disincentive to share new ideas and otherwise cooperate with colleagues that they are now "competing" with?

And no, Alex, I am not justifying the status quo at all - if public education does not continue to evolve, it will not fulfill its mission. I just point out that many proposed solutions (such as merit pay, school choice, or even getting rid of the union) that are glibly suggested do no stand up to scrutiny.

Frank, it seems that some of the districts that were the first to emphasize additional compensation for advanced degrees or National Board Certification are among the best performing in the state, so I am not sure what statistics you are using.

Greg - I hope the education system today is better than yesterday - superior is an interesting concept though. I think that kids today have a lot more distractions that educaiton has had to try to adapt to - not always with complete success - computers can be a great learning tool, but are also a huge distraction for kids, as are cell phones - these two technologies alone keep kids in almost constant touch with one another, and they are probably not working on academic projects. There is also a lot more content that needs to be delivered so our kids can compete, once the basics are nailed down. To the extent that is happening, I suppose the education is far superior, but this deserves a long discussion of ust that people believe the goals of public education should be.

"As far as improving public education, would you be willing to agree that our generation got a superior education to that of today's children? I know I would."

No, I wouldn't agree with that. The amount of improvements that have been made in the last 15 years have been amazing. Reading coaches, literacy experts, curriculum specialists, full day kindergarten, improvements in math focus, computer drafting and programming, longer school days, longer school years, better student/teacher ratios. Better schools, safer transportation, healthier food can be added to the list. And even the much maligned special ed costs never talk about the extraordinary improvements for our most neediest students. When I was in school, the kids with special needs were stuck in the corner and left on their own, now there are real efforts to get them into the main stream.

All that being said, there are myriad problems with the status quo. There is not enough time spent on instruction and too much time spent on testing. There is not enough time spent on pushing real achievement. There is too much emphasis on the "college bound" track and not enough realization that not every kid is going to college - but still every kid needs a great education to prepare them for adulthood and that blue collar jobs are respectable and honorable (right Justin?) There are way too many administrators taking up space.

And no matter how hard you try Greg, or Justin, the facts don't support your arguments. Teacher salaries have risen slower than nearly all other professions in the last 15 years. Benefit levels have been cut, and then cut again. The number of consultants and paid "experts" that leech off the system has grown exponentially. Rhode Island has refused to make the Statewide commitment funding education (hello, Democratic Majority leader Senator Paiva-Weed) and despite having a member of the Republican majority in the senate for the bulk of the decade, the amount of federal dollars in education for the State is lower today than it was in 1999.

And Justin, talk about a straw man argument--- "The problem that teachers' advocates face in attempting to redirect attention toward parents is that two obvious questions emerge: If the job is undoable (SIC), why do we pay so much for it?" I am not sure where you are getting this, but If you want a real example of what at this "teachers' advocate" thinks are the problems facing education you can go here: http://www.rifthp.org/node/265

Greg, if all of that is Claptrap, then you just need to improve your game...

Let us hark back to the report below, discussed by Justin in March, and then decide if Bob Walsh and Pat Crowley are correct.

A couple of highlights:

Rhode Island received an "F" for return on education investment, "F" for flexibility in management and "F" for academic achievement of low-income and minority students.

http://www.uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default

Dear SusanD,

The US Chamber of Commerce is noted ly anti-teacher. They are also anti a lot of other things that can be embarassing.

Really good on networking, so so on trade issues, a total failure in other places. Quoting them, in short, will get you no where.

Please try to quote sources, even negative ones if necessary, who have a clue. Union haters and anti-teacher types need not apply.

Bobby O

Being able to cut and paste URLs is convenient. You should try it sometime.

Love teachers or hate them, the Chamber report card graded from A to F. If your argument held water, that grade would have been from D to F. A few minutes review shows that states such as MA and MN are top rated in teacher capabilities and in return on investment - the latter despite high education costs in both states.

Dear ChuckR,

If your "teaching trends" are slighted towards where the Chamber wants you to be, they grade you highly. This has nothing to do with overall education quality. Rather, it is a response to what teachers have done lately and how they are compensated.

If Massachusetts and Minnesota teachers don't "behave" next year, the grade will drop regardless of what may or may be not happening in the classroom.

Again, there are places where the Chamber's opinion is valued. There aren't many, but they exist. Education, due to the skew of its opinion, is not one of them.

Bobby's M.O.: "Your facts are from bad sources. Watch as I fail to link to any evidence supporting MY side of the argument..."

Bob,

There is no correlation between the school districts offering the most lucrative pay/extra incentives and district performance. I am using the RIASC data for teacher pay (all forms of it) and RIDE data on school performance. For example Coventry seems to top the list in nearly all forms of "extra" pay and yet is a mediocre performer by RI standards. East Greenwich and Barrington, two top performers, and in the low to mid range for offering 'extra" pay. AND I'm sure that you could not demonstrate that there ever has been a spike in student performance as this supposed merit pay came into effect. Which would indicate that there was no benefit to the students, only for the teachers.

One more thought, I don't believe for a moment that a capable and caring teacher will look out over their classrooms to decide which students they should help the most to enhance their own pay and would no longer cooperate with each other due to competition over pay (though this may be a good reason to do away with tenure). That would be unprofessional and mean spirited. This is nothing but a scare tactic and no excuse for supporting the status quo.

Dear Greg,

As usual, you intentionally misstate the premise in a weak attempt to make a point. I learned not to try that as a Freshmen in High School on the debate team.

The question is not whether what Susan posted was true; the question was whether you can use US Commerce statistics as evidence that it is true.

She is obviously more than welcome to come back with somebody else's data supporting the same point. However, she would do well to make that sure that "somebody else" does not have a history of skewing their observations based on an anti union/teacher bias.

>>The US Chamber of Commerce is noted ly anti-teacher.

First, teachers unions and teachers are entirely distinct. One can oppose teachers unions and be pro-teacher ... indeed one cannot be pro-teachers union and pro-teacher, for the union model harms GOOD teachers.

Just ask the "educator of the year" in Middletown who is losing her job because she doesn't have more seniority than lesser teachers.

As for dismissing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study, fine. Then please provide cites to studies that show U.S. public education is amongst the top in the world, and that RI is amongst the top in the U.S.

Every study I've seen (Chamber, OECD, "A Nation At Risk" etc. etc. etc.) has shown that U.S. public education has been declining in quality since the 1960's (i.e., concurrent with the widespread introduction of teachers unions into U.S. public education).

Today U.S. public education ranks poorly in comparison to other industrialized countries (OECD) ... and RI in below average in the U.S.

To be sure, teachers unions aren't the only reason for the precipitous decline in U.S. public education, but they are a MAJOR factor behind it and, more importantly, in no way are part of the solution.

They should be eliminated, and teaching restored to being a profession. Yes, compensate the teachers very, very well, because their role is critical - and we can't expect to get high quality people and high performance "on the cheap." But in return for that competitive and attractive compensation, we should expect in return high levels of competence, diligence and performance. Fair for both sides.

The union industrial model only interferes with that - benefiting slacker teachers and union officials who live off the dues steam.

i assume the chamber of commerce study is only anti ri teacher...becasue massachusetts got almost all a's.many other states did very well

go figure

Why, Bobby, should Susan have to produce additional data when you've produced absolutely nothing by way of evidence to disqualify that which she's already offered? Or are we just supposed to take your pro-union opinion at face value?

I can't help but feel that questions arise based on the possible directions of cause and effect. Perhaps, for example, those who are "anti-union," in your lexicon, are so because they have a reason to be...

BobbyO, if the Chamber of Commerce hates teachers and unions, why did other states get "A's" in many of these categories? For example, out of nine grades, our neighbor, Massachusetts, got seven "A's".

What spurred the Chamber to commission this report is the fact that private businesses across the United States spend $1 billion annually on remedial teaching of new employees. Teaching of skills that employees should have possessed as a function of the education they received.

The Chamber wanted to identify why this was, who was doing good, who was doing bad and what could be done to fix it. This strikes me something that could only benefit everyone, including especially students. Possibly, however, there is some down side which I missed; if so, please point it out.

As to the report itself, every state got an "Education Report Card" and was graded in nine areas. Rhode Island got one "B" (truth in advertising about student proficiency), one "C", three "D's" and four "F's".

Three "D's" and four "F's" out of nine "subjects". Rhode Island's education system is failing miserably. If there is some weakness or failing in the methodology of the report, BobbyO, please state them. Otherwise, the report stands and your comment will be taken simply as petulant annoyance about the results.

Let's be clear. Ultimate responsibility for the unacceptable state of Rhode Island's education system rests with our elected officials, who put our children a distant second to buying the votes of public union members by refusing to set sufficiently high standards for teachers and student results.

http://www.uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default

Let's go over this again because some of you aren't getting it:

The US Chamber has in the past ranked other things. By the end of tomorrow, I will post some examples for you (I'm at work now).

In some cases, these rankings did not even reflect their own position but were rather a "reward/consequence" system for different types of behavior.

Therefore, their rankings, regardless who they ranked where, cannot be trusted because we do not know what criteria they used. They have strayed from their stated criteria in the past.

Imagine for a moment that the DailyKos, something I would never use but it makes the example, did a "Governor's ranking". You would immediately have the same problems with anything it said. Take it a step further: imagine it said that Carcieri gets an "F" even though Romney gets an "A". It would be just as bad.

Again, being that you are in the minority, your job should be to draw people to your opinion. Using biased sources is not a way to do that. Then again, maybe you like the idea of never getting a bill out of Committee next session.

BobbyO, you're the one not getting the point. In order for there to be bias, there must be an underlying motive.

The US Chamber of Commerce commissioned this report BECAUSE ITS MEMBERS ARE TIRED OF PAYING FOR THE INADEQUACIES OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. One billion dollars a year of inadequacies. What does the Chamber want? They want better educated children.

Here's a newsflash. THAT'S WHAT WE ALL WANT. Better educated children get better jobs and have a better life. Even our bad politicians win - successful people pay more taxes.

To the charge that money is driving this desire of the Chamber, I say bravo. Not only do they have the same goal as we do, they are driven by a great motivator - money - to identify the problems and find real (unbiased) solutions to the demonstrated weaknesses in our education system.

As Tom W pointed out, reports from a variety of sources, not just the US Chamber of Commerce, concur that there are real problems with Rhode Island's education system and that it is our children who are paying the price. Why are you denying this, BobbyO, and defending the status quo?

One more thing. If your planned research about the Chamber Report Card does anything other than demonstrate flaws about the methodology of the report, save yourself the time. You will only be confirming that the results of the report are accurate. Satan himself could have commissioned this report but if he used proper procedures and data, its conclusions would still be perfectly valid.

Dear SusanD,

When did I say there was nothing wrong??

Go back and look at the newsclips from my 2004 race for School Committee.

However, when any organization looks at the same thing and always wants to pin the problems on the same people, you instinctively should know that there is another agenda at work.

In fact, it can be stated clearly that many on this Blog are more interested in breaking up unions then they are in fixing schools. There are key issues that are left out of every single one of these conversations. Because those issues are never discussed, the conclusion is simply arrived at.

If folks really were interested in fixing schools, there are at least 3 issues that would be discussed long before unions. Until they are, there is no reason to take anyone at their word.

Bob & Pat:

First, Bob W’s first post seems to be premised on school choice only within the “public” school system. That is analogous to Henry Ford’s “you can have any color you want, so long as it is black.”

Without choice between “public” and “private” schools, even (gasp!) for profit schools, then there is no choice. Both can co-exist, and the competition would benefit all, most importantly the children. This occurs in higher education – we have “public” and “private” colleges. We also have it in delivery services – there is the USPS and UPS and FedEx (and does anyone believe that the presence of UPS / FedEx has not caused the USPS to improve service and mitigate its price increases)?

It’s long past time to let urban and middle class children not be "segregated" and be able embrace the same opportunities for educational choice that was enjoyed by Patrick Kennedy, Sheldon Whitehouse and Chelsea Clinton.

Yes there will be problems (e.g., parents picking “football schools”) – there is no panacea – but there is no question that competition improves the breed.

>>Actually, the statistics prove that Rhode Island public schools are competitive in our suburban, rural and urban ring districts, and that our urban core districts face great challenges primarily related to deep poverty, parental education levels, and language barriers. With our urban core representing a higher percentage of our total student population, our state averages take a hit (easy to visualize -some of "our suburbs" are in Massachusetts, and Narragansett Bay just isn't conducive to building houses.).

The same old excuses. Teachers unions are quick to assert that skilled and dedication teachers are THE crucial element. Fair enough – we all agree – and “Stand and Deliver” type educators show that teaching urban kids and overcoming those challenges CAN be done. Implicit in your assertion is that RI public school teachers’ performance is entirely dependent upon the demographics coming in the door – so they’re not adding value. If highly skilled teachers can overcome the challenges of educating urban / disadvantaged youth - the “Stand and Deliver” model - then the record shows that Rhode Island’s teachers aren’t performing up to what they should be. Conversely, if even skilled educators can’t overcome those challenges, then we should stop wasting our time and money on programs for those groups.

Additionally, RI's suburban districts are "competitive" with what? Other U.S. public school districts? Hardly impressive, given that U.S. public schools rank poorly in comparison to other countries.

SHOW US DATA SHOWING HOW RI'S SCHOOLS COMPARE TO WORLDWIDE "BEST IN CLASS" - IF YOU DARE!

It is generally recognized that unionized workplaces are not generally associated with high performance or efficiency or leading quality. That is why in competitive environments unionized companies tend, over time, to shrink, if not become extinct (e.g., in the face of competition in the past thirty years, the UAW is down to about 1/3 of its peak membership as the UAW-burdened employers find that they cannot produce a competitive product at a competitive price).

The employees who benefit most from a union are those who are the worst employees and poorest performers. This explains why the teachers unions are inalterably opposed to true school choice – for the most vocal of their members who drive the agenda know that they would have difficulty competing, and the union bosses know that the resulting shrinkage in the dues-paying membership pool would imperil their own pay and perks (some - GASP! - might even be forced to go back into the classroom and – GASP! – compete with private school educators)!

The fundamental tenets of teachers unions, such as seniority and tenure, are inherently incompatible with achieving the best possible performance – WITNESS MIDDLETOWN’S “EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR” BEING CANNED DUE TO LACK OF SENIORITY. If this doesn’t demonstrate the bass-ackward priorities of unionized public education, I don’t know what does.

The #1 priority should be world-class education – the best it can possibly be – and if this is the priority then, when you shake it all out, on a NET basis whatever “good” the teachers unions might bring to the table is far outweighed by the harm they do.

>> No, I wouldn't agree with that. The amount of improvements that have been made in the last 15 years have been amazing. Reading coaches, literacy experts, curriculum specialists, full day kindergarten, improvements in math focus, computer drafting and programming, longer school days, longer school years, better student/teacher ratios. Better schools, safer transportation, healthier food can be added to the list. And even the much maligned special ed costs never talk about the extraordinary improvements for our most neediest students. When I was in school, the kids with special needs were stuck in the corner and left on their own, now there are real efforts to get them into the main stream.

That displays the typical public sector mindset: effort and performance are judged be inputs (particularly monetary inputs) and not by end-results and accomplishments. Studies are uniform in demonstrating that public school student ACHIEVEMENT has been in decline since the mid-1960’s (see.,e.g., “A Nation at Risk”). This despite the fact that per pupil monetary inputs have more than doubled since that time (even adjusted for inflation). Given this monetary input vs. actual achievement dynamic, we should actually be cutting school budgets in order to foster improvements in achievement!

Frank says: "One more thought, I don't believe for a moment that a capable and caring teacher will look out over their classrooms to decide which students they should help the most to enhance their own pay and would no longer cooperate with each other due to competition over pay (though this may be a good reason to do away with tenure). That would be unprofessional and mean spirited."

Frank, other than your shot at tenure, exactly my point. Your merit pay system would benefit any teacher who would put competition above cooperation - it would actually compensate unprofessional and mean spirited behavior.

If funds were available for merit pay, the vast majority of teachers would like to see them applied to system wide improvements such as lower class size.

And tenure, by the way, simply means that after three full years of employment, dismissal must be for cause. The whole world should be on that standard!

"ACHIEVEMENT has been in decline since the mid-1960’s (see.,e.g., “A Nation at Risk”)"

-- another discredited report. Great source.

... and another unsubstantiated declaration of invalidity.

I ask half honestly: Y'all do understand that the fact that some folks with whom you agree (mainly with financial incentive to minimize negative reports) have said bad things about a data source does not of itself constitute discreditment, right?

Bob Walsh wrote: "Your merit pay system would benefit any teacher who would put competition above cooperation - it would actually compensate unprofessional and mean spirited behavior."

As a public school teacher I find these comments to be most offensive. Merit pay does not need to pit one teacher against another. In fact, "unprofessional and mean spirited" teachers would not do well under a merit pay system. Merit pay would allow teachers' salaries to be based on how well the job is performed, rather than how long the employee has been in the classroom.

We all know there are teachers who put in more time than others, more of themselves, more of a commitment to each individual student. They come to school events, support families, and most importantly, stay current on research and best practice to ensure the needs of their students are met.

When we grade students we use a scale...rubrics are most common today. On a 1-4 scale, 3 is passing. But the 4 exists to reward those students who go above and beyond what's expected. And students who earn the highest score don't have to be competitive with the other students, don't have to be mean-spirited. They have to work hard and show they are capable of more.

What's wrong with rewarding those teachers who excel? Your opposition to merit pay actually prevents many teachers from being paid what they deserve.

>>Your opposition to merit pay actually prevents many teachers from being paid what they deserve.

Thank you mikeinRI - for what you said, for the work you do, and the attitude of PROFESSIONALISM that you are displaying.

The teachers unions want "us" and teachers both to believe that the union is the teachers, and the teachers the union - one amorphous, collective mass individually distinguishable only by seniority. Thus the unions play the "criticism of the teachers unions is 'teacher bashing'" game.

Teachers like you, who remain professional notwithstanding the union culture and contractual minimums, give lie to this charade of "teacher bashing."

To repeat what I said in an previous post: "They [teachers unions] should be eliminated, and teaching restored to being a profession. Yes, compensate the teachers very, very well, because their role is critical - and we can't expect to get high quality people and high performance 'on the cheap.' But in return for that competitive and attractive compensation, we should expect in return high levels of competence, diligence and performance. Fair for both sides."

Fair for both sides doesn't appear on the teachers union label.

"The fundamental tenets of teachers unions, such as seniority and tenure, are inherently incompatible with achieving the best possible performance – WITNESS MIDDLETOWN’S “EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR” BEING CANNED DUE TO LACK OF SENIORITY. If this doesn’t demonstrate the bass-ackward priorities of unionized public education, I don’t know what does."

This is such a crock. Believe me. If this were true, why hasn't the Superintendent brought this teacher back yet and why is she fiddling around with the job of the husband of one of her "administrators" to keep the "teacher of the year" out?
Never mind that the lay offs never would have been needed if Middletown was so top heavy with administration, more than many schools. Nor would it have happened if Paiva-Weed kept her promise to give us a funding formula.

See, the REAL story is so much deeper. But that OK Tom W. keep making things up.... it has worked so far

"If funds were available for merit pay,"

Actually, they are available. They are presently going to the bad and mediocre teachers. This is one of our objections. Why should bad and mediocre teachers receive the same compensation as good ones?

Pardon me as I anticipate the response that has been made in the past: "it is very difficult to establish a merit system".

That's fine. Until we come up with one, all teachers receive the same pay that bad or mediocre teachers should receive. That way, it's fair and everyone is in the same boat. Isn't that the justification for the present compensation?

>>See, the REAL story is so much deeper. But that OK Tom W. keep making things up.... it has worked so far

Yeah, I made it up - right from the front page of the Newport Daily News.

>>Never mind that the lay offs never would have been needed if Middletown was so top heavy with administration, more than many schools. Nor would it have happened if Paiva-Weed kept her promise to give us a funding formula.

The whole public education system is featherbedded: administrators, teachers, teachers aides, reading specialist (to make up for the deficiencies of the classroom teacher?), special ed personnel to "serve" the approximately TWENTY PERCENT classified as "special needs."

Since administrators don't pay union dues you focus on that featherbedding - as for the rest, that's all the more dues revenue to fund the union staff, bosses and the UNISERVE political commissars.

>>Nor would it have happened if Paiva-Weed kept her promise to give us a funding formula.

Gee, you got screwed by the General Assembly? Welcome to the club that the rest of us have been in for decades!

Look at the trendline of educational expenditures in Rhode Island for the past forty years, per pupil, adjust for inflation ... and then try to tell us that you're underfunded - then you won't be able to deny "this is such a crock."

Pat, your attempts to blame administration and a legislator only add fodder to the cases presented by others on this thread. Is administration a problem? You bet it is. There's too many and their budgets too large, bad at the municipal level and worse at the state level. How about calling for the elimination of the biggest bureaucratic waste, the US department of education?

And what Rep. Paiva-Weed proposed was an acknowledgement of the taxpayers. The well can run dry, and with the amount of taxes paid by RIers, a drought is pretty close to a reality.

I love my job Pat. Not only do I love what I do, I get paid fairly, have great benefits, and enough time off to stay energetic and motivated. I appreciate that the teachers before me unionized as a way to ensure this. But we are professionals, and we must look at our students as doctors look at patients. We need to resupply our shelves with books, repair the decaying infrastructure, and invest in significant professional development. We need to lower class size, particularly in urban schools and at lower grade levels. All of this will take money, and commitment.

Let's look at ways to save money. Does administration really need its own building or can space be found within the schools? Do teachers really need 2 personal days a year? Are there administrators or assistants we absolutely don't need? Do smaller towns really need full time therapists on staff (OT, PT, Speech) or are there more cost efficient ways to offer these services? Is switching health care providers who offer similar coverage too much to ask if it saves a lot of money?

It's not us against them. Everything is not a fight. We need to stop blaming everyone else, but rather, look to see how we can be part of the solution.

I've read every comment in this post and I've yet to see a SINGLE piece of evidence from the union whores supporting their cause. I've seen LOTS of "Your data sucks because somebody I know doesn't like it" but I haven't even seen anything to support that OUR data is flawed.

Just more proof that when liberals can't support their argument with facts they go after the messengers.

Greg, why should we take you seriously with how you refer to us? Mikein RI, look at how Greg and TomW refer to teachers, do you really think that THEY don't see this as a fight?

But, here is your reading assignment for the day:

http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0704-231-EPRU.pdf

http://www.aft.org/topics/teacher-quality/downloads/Teacher_Transfer_Rates.pdf

http://www.pat-crowley.org/research/The%20Nations%20Report%20Card%20-%20Comparing%20Private%20and%20Public%20Schoo.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_ZBhSEIwQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Epat%2Dcrowley%2Eorg%2Fresearch%2F

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/books_teacher_pay

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Mar/04/ln/FP703040361.html

http://www.nea.org/pay/teachermyths.html

From the Rand Coporatation:

􀂾􀀃Impact of Title I school choice on student achievement. In contrast, across six
districts,3 no statistically significant effect on achievement, positive or negative, was found
for students participating in Title I school choice.

more from Rand:

Impact of Title I supplemental educational services on student achievement. On
average, across seven districts,2 participation in supplemental educational services had a
statistically significant, positive effect on students’ achievement in reading and math.
Students participating for multiple years experienced larger gains.

from a different Rand report:

"Our results from California show that charter schools generally perform
on par with traditional public schools on achievement tests, but they have not closed the
achievement gaps for minorities and have not had the expected competitive effects on traditional
public schools. Charters have achieved comparable test score results with fewer public
resources than traditional schools, and many have emphasized non-core subjects"

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/24/Opinion/Never_mind_the_doomsa.shtml

more light reading for Greg

So Pat, from your quotes there it looks like there's no DOWNSIDE to school choice.

And citing an OPINION piece as a factual defense for your position is sloppy and of zero value.

The union slouches have a favorite tactic that we saw in Cranston with the firefighters.
Whenever a study is done that accurately depicts the excessive cost along with the inferior performance of the union operation, they claim that you can't compare us to them for whatever dumb reason. In other words, you need to compare us to another bunch of losers so that we don't look bad.
What a pathetic lot.
People need to stop kidding themselves; no improvement in public education will come about until the union grip is removed. Despite the union mouthpieces claims , the statistics show that the introduction of unions into public education was the catalyst for the demise.

"It's the reading, Stupid!"

The attention focused on the union angle of education reform is absurdly overblown. What is of greater consequence is the weakness in our teacher education system. If a teacher is not well educated for the job, it doesn't matter if she is a union member or teacher at a charter school. The children will not learn. If just a third of the caloric heat directed at the union issue was lit under Rhode Island College instead, we just might get some where.

RIC is failing us badly. Two recent reports by the National Council on Teacher Quality are must-reads for local education reform. They detail two critical weaknesses: first and most important, the science of reading instruction is not taught to candidates for elementary level certification at RIC; second, the same candidates are not getting an adequate liberal arts education to equip them to most effectively teach in each of the various content areas. And yet,
RIC seems to enjoy a free pass in our media. No questions at all, no criticism. What you get at RIC is the threadbare, century old "Progressive" view from above the clouds, a belief system untouched by the findings of cognitive science and disdainful of the liberal arts. In fact, the only place you can get effective reading science instruction in RI is in those few districts organized by the American Federation of Teachers where administration cooperates and allows the AFT to provide reading professional development to their elementary faculties---Cranston, for example: look up the "Value Added' performance of Cranston elementary schools since the inception of "Informationworks!" in '98. Pull on that thread hard. Then go to the AFT's website and have a look at their reading instruction program, "Teaching Reading is Rocket Science." By reflexively bashing "unions" you would-be reformers are shooting off your toes in these important respects. Teacher training, especially at the elementary level, is a monster of a problem here in Rhode Island, and, ironically, one of your two favorite targets, the AFT, is actually on your side on this issue.

Just remember---take it from an old veteran RI teacher---"It's the reading, stupid!" And get a start by reading those reports at the National Council for Teacher Quality, the report on teacher preparation in reading and the report on teacher preparation in general. They carry a lot more credibility than the Chamber of Commerce. And you should also go to the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation site and check the host of relevent publications you can access there.

This stupid cat and dog fight over unions needs to stop and the spotlight be put, for a change, on the absolutely critical issue of teacher education.

Iggy

Union greed, along with such issues as teacher aide and administrator featherbedding, may explain the costs, but wave a magic wand and get rid of these and you still may not achieve a quality education. Administrators and school committees need to grow spines in dealing with not only the unions, but also the parents. Parents who regard schools as free day care may be incorrigible. Litigious parents should be resisted at whatever the cost, as in the long run, it will be cheaper. Your little knucklehead slept though the grading period? Well then, "F" it is. Cutting up in class? Detention, followed if necessary by suspension/expulsion. Do it early enough to instill some discipline before the age when hormones take over. Parochial schools seem to get this right more often than other private schools or public schools. Attending public school is a privilege, not some God-granted right.

Greg: Maybe if my other post with a number of other links was up.....

And talk about only reading what you want to. The folks who claim school choice is a panacea simply have no evidence to back the claim.

Pat, the palpable fear you union whores have of school choice only reinforces for me that it's a good idea.

MikeinRI- Thank you for this: "It's not us against them. Everything is not a fight. We need to stop blaming everyone else, but rather, look to see how we can be part of the solution."

SusanD said, "Until we come up with [a merit pay system], all teachers receive the same pay that bad or mediocre teachers should receive." I generally believe people when they say they are anti-union, not anti teacher, but underpaying good teachers seems pretty harsh to me.

Iggy- I think you're right to focus on to teacher training. I'd include certification standards. Did you notice in the Chamber report that RI was the ONLY state to receive an F in teacher , largely because it requires neither basic skill nor subject matter examinations. I wonder if the NEA opposes these.

Did anyone notice that, of the 10 states that receive an "F" from the Chamber on student achievement, 7 are also in the bottom (worst) quintile for percent of children in poverty. Of the 10 states which received an A on achievement, six (including MA) are in the top (best) quintile for child poverty. RI is in the 4th (=D) quintile for child poverty, at 33rd in a best-to-worst ranking (US Census Bureau figures from 2005).

The Chamber's F rating for RI on "return on investment" does control for this, and recognizes that it's more costly to educate these kids, but their description of their sprecise method of doing this is unclear, at least to me.

MikeinRI - 1) I agree with you that not everything is a fight, and that we can be part of many solutions. 2) on merit pay, do you believe that your views are those of a majority of your colleagues? If so, it is simple enough for the union to which you belong to advance those proposals in bargaining - in 15 years in this business in RI, I have never seen a management proposal on the topic, and never had a teacher request that it be proposed either.

I would be interested in your personal view on how a merit pay system could work in an effective manner.

SusanD - please tell me you are not suggesting that we accept "bad teachers" as long as we pay tham less. We have enough issues to address without adding that problem to the list.

ChuckR - actaully, attending public school is a right, as decided by the Courts and in most cases, state law (in fact, attending some sort of school is technically a requirement in most states).

Greg - your immature language has earned you a timeout. You sometimes make salient points, which often get lost when you use terms like "union whores." This is an interesting Blog, with the downside that the threaded discussions often get buried with silly comments like yours. If you think we truly hold all the power, why make it easy for us to ignore you with comments like that?

Dear Mr. Walsh,

I would be grateful if you would state the position of your organization on testing prospective (and possibly current) teachers. I refer to content examinations for high school (and possibly middle school) teachers, and basic skills tests for elementary (possibly middle school) teachers.

I have had significant experience with the college graduates who become RI teachers, and I believe a fair number of them simply do not know enough to be qualified teachers. Where the fault for this lies is another question, but I think everyone agrees that our teachers ought to have, and be able to demonstrate, the substantive knowledge, as well as the teaching skills, to help our children learn.

It's meaningless crap exactly like 'time outs' that brought up the entitled, disrespectful pieces of garbage your teachers are failing to teach before sending them out into the world confident in the knowledge that they are the most important person in the universe.

You're a joke.

psssst.... Greg. You just proved Bob Walsh's point for him. You might not want to do that.

Greg - 'whore' is not a useful term in the debate on schools

Bob - I know that schools started for the common good of the community and then became institutionalized as you describe. But its not a God-given right and, IIRC, for about 50 years after the Constitution was ratified, any government aid was catch as catch can, so not a Constitutional right either. School should not be day care and further, disruptive kids should be given the boot, either temporarily or permanently. If they come to their senses, there is always adult ed and a GED, if not, we need people who can say - Need any fries with that?
When our 6th grade daughter talked to us about private school, it was because each of her class periods involved settling down the class (10 min), followed by a recapitulation of the the previous days work (15 min) followed by 15 min of new stuff followed by keeping the lid on before the bell (5 min). She was bored to tears. Her main teacher actually recommended the same school we were considering and where she got her secondary ed. If we want to make progress, we need to get tougher. As do the school boards with the unions, the teachers, the kids and the parents. We are at least a half dozen school strikes short of what we needed in the 1990s.

Only slightly OT, one of the first easy things to do is cell phone jamming throughout all schools (currently illegal). The telecom industry wouldn't approve, would they?

"please tell me you are not suggesting that we accept "bad teachers" as long as we pay tham less"

Mr. Walsh, as things stand now, we accept "bad teachers" and pay them more. Any alteration to that - though asking them to leave the teaching profession would be the optimum solution - would be an improvement.

"Teacher training, especially at the elementary level, is a monster of a problem here in Rhode Island"

Thank you for pointing this out as a problem that we must also address, Iggy. So what you are saying is, we are paying our teachers very generously and yet they are less qualified than we realized. Now one of the components of the "F" which the "Leaders and Laggards" report gives Rhode Island for return on investment comes into focus.

" disruptive kids should be given the boot, either temporarily or permanently "

Yes, ChuckR, this should be given serious consideration. Possibly also they could be transferred to a baby-sitting service.

Bob Walsh,

Care to share the latest statistics on the percentage of Rhode Island's 'graduating' public school students who are illiterate? That's a whole bunch of teachers falling down on the job with just one kid. How many teachers fell down on the job when thousands 'graduate' while functionally illiterate? The teacher version of go along to get along?
We do understand why union whores fight oversight testing and standards for the rank and file.
You might want to be careful about attacking the 'salient' commentary of others. Pat Duck Suit Crowley works for the NEA does he not? 'Nuff said. lol
One thing I've been meaning to ask you Bob Walsh, was it scumbag Guy Dufault who came up with the recall the governor idea that you floated at your union rally?
Always remember a tried and true axiom in life Bob Walsh, 'you are who you associate with'.

Thomas,

This position was adopted at last year's national meeting:

"Teacher Certification Tests (2006-59)
NEA will investigate Education Testing Service and other teacher certification companies to find how their tests are handled and the failure and loss rate at individual testing sites. NEA will advocate for independent auditing of scoring of educational licensure exams on a regular basis. Additionally, NEA will insist that score reports give meaningful feedback of individual strengths and areas of growth. NEA will work to lower testing costs and to allow the refund of preregistration fees for the next exam date if the applicant has already passed the test."

I agree with you that teachers should be well versed in both subject matter and teaching methods. I think NEA is still suspicious of testing for teachers as you can see in the above language.

SusanD - I do not accept "bad teachers" - I hope you do not either. And please do not hide behind the "union is too powerful" rhetoric. Approximately 50% of starting teachers are gone within 5 years for a wide variety of reasons, including those for whom the profession was not the best choice.

As I noted above, the only "rights" tenure grants is the right to defend yourself, and the need for management to have cause to dismiss a teacher. The union has, as one of its obligations, the role of defending a teacher in those proceedings. Just as in our legal system, the facts decide the case before an arbitrator - IF it gets that far. Many cases settle well before that.

ChuckR - if you could sell the "cell phone blocker" to teachers, you would become a very rich man. The school discipline issue has become a very difficult one in many districts.

Tim - you are in time out with Greg (but you can still listen to talk radio from time out, so have fun).

"Only slightly OT, one of the first easy things to do is cell phone jamming throughout all schools (currently illegal). The telecom industry wouldn't approve, would they?"

But a school committee could ban them from the school and punish kids who use them.. Fine with me, but can you imagine the parents reaction?

Mr. Walsh,

Thanks for the helpful response. I see then, that the NEA does not oppose such testing, but insists that the testing be well-managed and provide useful feedback to the test-taker, both of which seem reasonable.

According to the Chamber report, RI is one of only seven states to have no subject-matter test for licensing high school teachers, one of only fourteen states to have no basic skills test to license elementary teachers, and one of only five states that have neither. This does not seem to be a case where our famous independent streak is making us better off.

I wonder, then, why RI has no such tests. I assume this must be imposed by RIDE (or, in this state, more probably by the state legislature). Has such legislation failed in the past? If so, did the RI NEA oppose it?

In fairness, I will note that there doesn't seem to be much correlation in the Chamber report between testing and performance. Still, my sense is that Iggy is right, and we are graduating a number of teachers who are just not prepared, but whose grades don't show that. Testing them before they get a classroom seems to be one reasonable and fairly objective way of helping to make sure we're not letting bad teachers slip in. It might also encourage RIC, PC and other institutions to tighten their standards.
Thanks again.

Bob,

I wonder whom you include as "starting teachers."
My wife was one who didn't stay in the game for more than five years, because we could no longer afford for her to be on the unpredictable substitute list while waiting for older teachers to finally tire of watching their children fill out dittos. When we could no longer afford for her to keep up with "continuing education" requirements, she let it lapse.

It's too bad; she was an excellent teacher. I will admit to relief that my family never fully became Part of the Problem, although I could live without the education loans.

Bob,

Quite amusing to see how often you reference talk radio when no one else does. It's on your mind an awful lot. How come? lol I do appreciate that you never answered either of my very salient inquiries. Didn't think you would! Far too embarrassing for an NEA mouth to pubicly acknowledge the rate of illiteracy among public high school 'graduates' here in Rhode Island as it would be for an NEA mouth to acknowledge publicly he's been mouthing the 'spin' of scumbag Guy Dufault at union rallies. Ouch!
Quick question Bob when you listen to talk radio every single day do you tape the shows or simply take notes? Ah such an irrelevant medium for you isn't it Bob?
Thank god it's never on your mind! lol

Justin- I hear what you are saying. I am very close to a very-highly qualified and successful teacher with tons of experience. Her qualifications far exceeded those of the teachers we have seen in the positions she applied for. After coming to Providence, she did a term on the sub list. It was a brutal, demeaning and frustrating experience for her. She eventually gave up, and found a much better-paying position in private industry.

However, it is not clear to me how much of that horror was the responsibiliity of the union. Certainly it was not the fault of teachers. The district administration appeared to treat the substitute teachers like cattle. At best, it was a bureacracy out of Kafka. Some of the principals were no better. If well-qualified teachers are passed over and leave the system discourage, I think it is as much the fault of adminstrators as anyone else.

Tim- You should not be surprised if Bob doesn't answer your questions, salient or not, because your language is immature and deliberately offensive. I wouldn't answer either. If you're really interested in an interchange of ideas, which I rather doubt, try showing some respect, even to people with whom you disagree, and see what happens then.

Mr. Walsh, merit pay could be instituted via new lanes in the pay scale. Currently most districts have 10 or 12 steps and teachers' pay increases as their experience increases. There are also "lanes" for degrees and educational experience (BA, BA+30, MA, etc). It's not that unreasonable to include lanes based on merit. A base pay would exist for those with a bachelors for instance. But bachelors+merit lanes would also exist. During the evaluation process, the principal or director could, after providing a teacher an excellent evaluation, recommend a teacher receive a merit addition. A less than excellent evaluation would mean the teacher receives just the base pay for his or her step. Each evaluation the determination could change, and the principal could set the goals for each individual and for his or her school. During negotiations, unions and administration could show their commitment to strong teachers but focusing the largest pay increases for the merit lanes. A base lane may only increase 1 percent, while the merit lane increases 4 percent, rather than a standard 3 percent raise for every teacher.

Perhaps the biggest weakness in our schools, Mr. Walsh, are the principals. Not because they don't try or are incapable, but because their hands are tied by contracts and administrators. We need to restore some power to the principals, to allow them to lead schools in a particular direction, to be advocates for reform, and to reward those teachers who are willing to move forward and work for reform. Those to don't want to, won't. But the consequences will be financial ones.

Would appreciate your feedback Mr. Walsh, positive and negative.

And just for disclosure, I am not a member of the NEA. My district is AFT. You're probably pleased :)

Thomas,

I do not think that report is accurate - between RIDE requirements and NCLB requirements, a lot of this seems to be covered (also, while we would be concerend about the details, I think it has been about a decade since we opposed the testing requirements).

First, from RIDE:
1. MEET TESTING REQUIREMENTS: Except for vocational teachers*, all individuals applying for a teaching certificate in Rhode Island must pass the appropriate test(s) as noted below for the designated teaching certificates. Test results must accompany the application. Educational Testing Service (ETS) administers these examinations through the PRAXIS Series of assessments. ETS can be contacted by calling (609) 771-7395 or online at www.ets.org. Registration booklets can also be secured at most institutions of higher education with teacher preparation programs.
The following tests and passing scores are required for certification in Early Childhood, Early Childhood Special Educator, Elementary, Elementary Special Educator, and Special Educator of Students with Severe Profound Disabilities:
• Elementary Education: Content Knowledge Test (0014) - Passing Score 145
• Elementary Education: Content Area Exercises Test (0012) - Passing Score 148
The following test and passing score are required for all secondary teaching certificates:
• Principles of Learning & Teaching 7-12 - Passing score 167
The following test and passing score are required for PK-12 special subjects area teachers:
• Principles of Learning & Teaching K-6 - Passing score 167
OR
• Principles of Learning & Teaching 7-12 - Passing score 167
The following tests and passing scores are required for a Bilingual Endorsement in Spanish:
• Spanish Content Knowledge (10191) - Passing score 156
• Spanish Productive Language Skills (20192) - Passing score 174
A COPY OF THE TEST REPORT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.
*Vocational Educators are required to complete the National Occupational Competency Testing Institute (NOCTI) exam

Next, from RIDE's website about NCLB:

A significant provision of NCLB requires that all K-12 teachers of the core content areas must demonstrate that they are ‘highly qualified’ by the close of the 2005-06 school year. The law identifies the core content areas as English/language arts, mathematics, science, geography, civics, government, economics, foreign language and the arts (music, theatre, dance and visual arts). Teachers of English language learners, special education teachers and public school teachers in programs for neglected and delinquent students who provide core content instruction must also demonstrate that they meet the ‘highly qualified’ standard. It is recommended, but not required, that long-term substitute teachers also be ’highly qualified’.
---------------

Justin and Thomas - I am sorry that you both know people who would have been good teachers that are not teaching. I think Providence in the only RI district that formally used the sub list method to get teachers (which seems to at least address the quality sub issue).

In the districts we represent, it is not unusual to wait for a job in the positions where supply exceeds demand (elementary education, secondary English and maybe Social Studies) and to get hired much more quickly when the reverse is true (special education, math, the sciences). Also, some districts are more in demand than others for the usual range of reasons - from compensation and working conditions (primarily class size) to wanting a specific town or even school.

I usually note that we don't hire or fire/retire our members, just represent them between those two points in time, but it always amazes me that some people think we would be against having highly qualified teachers in every classroom.

Mr. Walsh,

Thanks for the detailed response regarding testing. It appears Chamber got it wrong with respect to basic skills tests for elementary school teachers. I hope someone will notify them. They did seem to get it right for secondary-level content exams, except for Spanish. (I assume "principles of teaching and learning" is a methods exam, not a content exam).

If I may respectfully offer a suggestion, I think you should get past your amazement that "some people think we would be against having highly qualified teachers in every classroom" as soon as you can. It's a very wide-spread feeling- not just on this blog, but in the communities -that the unions are willing to defend lazy or incompetent teachers at a large cost to children. I'm not saying that's true; only that, if it's not, your PR staff hasn't been doing a very good job of convincing people.

And once again, "It's the reading, s...!"

First, Mr. Walsh's recitation of the testing teachers undergo in RI is meaningless because these tests do not measure attainment of instructionally meaningful knowlege---most critically in the domain of reading. It is especially critical to understand that Mr. Walsh's union, the NEA, is not meanfully engaged with the issue. The AFT, in contrast, has wisely embraced instructional improvement. They have consulted the findings of cognitive science and they have institued an effective reading instruction professional development curriculum called "Teaching Reading is Rocket Science" that has had proven results in some districts here is RI. So Mr. Walsh has little credibility. As far as classroom instruction is concerned in reading, you might as well consult a pre-germ theory medical text for the treatment of your next strep throat as expect the NEA to provide an answer. (Disclosure: I am an NEA member and heartily embarassed for it. Unions that don't embrace product-quality as a key concern, whatever field they are in, are on the wrong side of history.)

Here is the address of the two most potentially explosive teacher education reports you are going to find---again, far closer to the bone of the problem than the Chamber of Commerce report that has been endlessly cited here. Go to NCTQ.org
and read "What Education Schools Aren't Teaching About Reading---and What Elementary Teachers Aren't Learning", and the "2007 State Teacher Policy Yearbook."

Begin with Rhode Island's ratings, then go back and read the reports from the beginning.

Yes, of course, the data in these reports can and should be challenged. But to be challenged the reports have to surface, they have to be put into the public forum, and so far, despite constant editorial fulmination about education reform, our great media outlet here, the Projo, will not ask critical questions such as are raised in these reports of RIC, the ed schools at Brown and URI, or of the Dept. of Ed., and most importanly of Peter McWalters. It is as if there is a total severance of the nerve connecting the editorial board and the newsroom at that paper. So they fail to understand that the rot doesn't begin with the unions, it begins at the real head, the schools of education where the philosophic outlook on the problems of education is virtually medieval, pre-modern. Just consider how in the issue of reading instruction advocates of the modern view must qualify their position as being "scientific". When you take your kid to a doctor, does the doctor assure you that his methods are "scientitic"? Yet that is how reading reformers must deal with the teaching school establishment and, sadly, with the bulk of their teaching colleagues on the job. Would the Ed. Dept. at RIC threaten Galleleo with the stake? You bet they would!

Historical context is very important. (Ah, history, best taught subject in America, right? Who needs it, eh?) Two works to begin with: "Left Behind" by historian Dianne Ravitch covers the inception and growth of the perpetual school reform machine during the past century in America. This is a very well written book, and if you find a single school administrator in your local district who has read it, let me know and I'll send you five free Powerball Tickets. An essential companion is historian E.D. Hirsch's "The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them," which is especially strong on the history of the campus disconnect between the schools of education and cognitive science, the Ground Zero of our problem. (Cranstonians, you will especially enjoy the reference in this book to the attempt to "reform" your elementary school report cards back in the '90's, "reforming" report cards being one of the oldest cogs in the machine.)

So again, somehow, someway, we---that is everyone of all political persuasions---must get this information into the public forum. We've got to badger and agitate and finally get that whiff of blood in the water that'll start the media feeding on this issue like sharks. Otherwise, everything else is in vain. You see the matter right now in Mr. Walsh's treatment of the present teacher testing scheme. He thinks its real and useful. But how real and useful is a test that asks "How do you treat a high fever" and presents as choices "a.) bleed with leeches. b.) apply hot plasters to the chest. c.) withhold food except clear liquids. d.) bathe the forehead with bat urine." That's about what our "teacher-tests" amount to right now.

And I haven't mentioned direct instruction, have I?

Iggy

Thomas - it is one of our obligations to defend teachers and we do not shy away from that, nor should we. in the vast majority of cases, when the facts favor us, we prevail and when the facts favor management, management wins. In my experience, the labor side is more likely to "fold a bad hand".

MikeinRI - I still owe you an answer on your merit pay thoughts.

Iggy - I am surprised at your comments - you must get bombarded with literature on the very topics with which you claim NEA is not meaningfully engaged, especially regarding reading.

The following is a sample of entries that can easily be found on NEA's website (you need to go there to access the follow up links):
-------------------
A debate about the "best way" to teach reading has been raging for decades. In what is often described as the "reading wars" by academic and policy insiders, there are opposing factions of experts, policy makers, and politicians who champion "phonics," on the one side, or "whole language," on the other. Each faction declares their respective approach as the key to effectively teaching all children to read.
Unfortunately, this "war" has been politicized and it does little to help teachers and students in the trenches, in America's classrooms.
There is virtually no disagreement, though, "that reading is the gateway to learning in all content areas and essential for achieving high standards," as stated in the National Education Association's official reading policy.
To open that gateway for all students, the NEA, International Reading Association, and many others believe it is counterproductive to promote any particular program, procedure, or method of reading instruction to the exclusion of all others.
Complete Reading Program Is Like Balanced Diet

In its final report, the NEA's Task Force on Reading said a complete reading program is "analogous in several ways to a balanced diet."
"Completeness in both diet and reading," said the Task Force, "is achieved by providing diverse components in ratios that are not necessarily equal. In addition, the ratios might vary with individual needs and with development. For example, infants do not eat five servings of fruits and vegetables as recommended for children and adults. In a similar fashion, beginning readers might require different amounts of certain types of reading activities than more proficient readers. Just as some infants do not do well on milk products and need special formulae, so beginning readers may have special instructional needs."
Teacher Is the Key to Successful Reading

NEA's official reading policy puts it this way:
"There is no one way to teach reading that is effective for all students. The teacher is the key to successful reading. Teachers should receive a sound preservice education as well as ongoing, relevant professional development in order to implement complete reading programs that address the full spectrum of reading skills and diverse student needs. Teachers should be supported by parents, skilled education support professionals, communities that value and promote reading, and policies that provide adequate resources and allow them to use their expertise."
----------------------

Also, Iggy, you need to read my comments more carefully - I made no claim about the usefulness of the present teacher testing situation (or any testing system, for that matter) - I shared information to answer inquiries about 1) NEA's recent position on issue and 2) RI's current testing requirements.

Bob,

Sorry about mis-characterizing your comments about the teacher testing. On second reading it is evident you took no position on their usefulness.

However, I stick to my broader point and I have cited two important sources of evidence for it that you have so far not addressed. (I also offer those sources as a mere tip of the ice-berg. And no, I'm not "bombarded" by reading information. To the contrary, my point is that we teachers are starving for sound information about teaching reading, that we cannot acquire sound training in the elementary education department of our chief public institution for teacher education, RIC. I think this is a SCANDAL. I think this should be public education issue Number One because because reading is the foundation of education.

Your characterization of the reading issue---the union line of the NEA--- as a "war" is mis-leading. There is no "war". We know through science a great deal about how people learn to read and in what sequence the sub-set of interacting skills is acquired. This body of knowledge is not referenced in the NEA's position while it is referenced in the AFT's position, and my biggest point of all is that, largely because of the insidious "war" characterization, none of this is familiar to the public or classroom teachers. The "war" analogy is an obfuscation that serves the interest of those parties who benefit economically from the present system. (Read the NCTQ report on reading training and when you finish it, pour a second cup of coffee and think about this a moment.) Elementary teachers in Rhode Island still persist, largely, to adhere to your flabby "dietary" model of reading acquistion without having---the crucial point!---any scientific understanding of nutrition. I think it is time for a change. I think it is high time that teachers and the public were fully informed about the scientific model described in any number of available publications such as the AFT's "Teaching Reading is Rocket Science", The Report of the National Reading Panel which was conducted under the ageis of the National Institute for Health, (the people who erradicated smallpox, polio, etc---folks who can tell the difference between shabby and sound research,) the prior NIH synthesis of reading research done by Dr. Marylyn Adams, the National Council for Teacher Quality reports I referenced earlier, the work of Jeanne Chall, etc, and on and on, even including our own Rhode Island Association of School Psychologists.

Let the public decide if this body of knowlege supports your "dietary" theory or not.

Iggy

UU OY PJ EG OS BK GN JV SL IG ZX AY QA XUJM TI AS OD LG TK TN HZ SI YJ RCTA BG GN IZ GZ YI XT XE PV QA YT JV XP LT LYEP PY YT FH MOFREI.EDU RV RV KT IC APKO IG UG OP XC SZ CO BS DVXR GV YN HH XH GT WNBW JH KOCI FA CM VN

HO MG CF SH HE JS BV YF RF OX QM MZ XP QDLA EQ FL JA XU DG QG AM MB VC ROSZ VB TC KM WH AE NS LG RD VP WU EJ NS DB RCRL XA KA AZ MOFREI.EDU CK SW CI RI YTGT IT YY HI WT JJ MD KI YYKT FS XS SS JX DF QQIB PG OKYQ TL SV YH

GN LO IT XI QD HA PE NQ NA LT AA VZ JK XUNZ MQ FT PF TN CR QV WO XN NC HPQC MB UK FW EA IO QC HV GE QY NY SK DY ST HFPH YQ MV IM MOFREI.EDU RA NW KX LL YPCS TC UI JE HR XB JP XH ULVB UQ AH PL FU TF ECVF JA KZIE XW GF OE