Obama education secretary: unions should reconsider tenure, incorporate student acheivement in teacher evaluations and pay
Something that kind of went under the media’s radar last week was Arne Duncan’s July 2nd speech before the National Education Association convention. The annual gathering of the nation’s largest union was held from July 1-6 in San Diego, California. The Secretary’s address received some coverage from wire news services and California newspapers, but for what Mr. Duncan was saying, major newspaper coverage (i.e. NYT and WashPo) was noticeably absent.
The U.S. Secretary of Education took the opportunity to address close to 7,000 delegates by issuing the obligatory calls for continued funding and support of public education, in addition to praising the NEA for mythical improvements in the quality of the educational workforce. For these comments, Duncan was resoundingly applauded by the assembly.
However, not all of the Secretary’s comments were greeted so warmly, especially his challenge to reconsider teacher compensation and job protections. Duncan was booed and hissed for challenging the NEA to reconsider union contract rules which result in the protection of under-preforming teachers. In what seems unlikely, Duncan also encouraged the incorporation of student performance in teacher evaluations and pay:
“Test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation or tenure decisions. That would never make sense. But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible.”
Duncan’s remarks to the NEA wrapped up a series of speeches outlining the initiatives states must address in attaining grants from the $5 billion “Race to the Top” grant, which is financed with stimulus money. The program seeks to award grants to those states leading the way in school reform.
Major media outlets have editorialized on Duncan’s recent attempts to spur a dialogue on education reform, but their silence on the Secretary’s tough words for the NEA was noticeable.
User Comments
Marilyn Monroe
July, 2009
Wow, if only they had implemented these changes earlier, then perhaps I would have a full time teaching job after graduating as a “Meritorious New Teacher” from a distinguished college, rather than being forced to accept 29% of a job.
gene nichol
July, 2009
It is a simple equation that the NEA wants (more money+ no accountability^2 X silly payscale = their ideal workforce)
In reality, let’s use DC as an example, Arne Duncan might be calling for results based actions now, but the Voucher program in DC was producing results. he did not raise a finger to stop it from being cut. It was only like $6 million, but it was made a part of Obama’s 100 million trimmed from the budget. (enter joke here) He did that after saying his department would try “anything that worked.”
This is just another smoke and mirrors maneuver by the secretary to get us to think he is going to fight against the Union industry. Remember, this guy is from Chicago and plays hoops with obama; I don’t trust him. if Obama was gonna pick a Chicago education person it should have been Vallas.
That all said, while in chicago he did make an attempt to fire teachers who were not doing their jobs. Not poor performing teachers; he targeted teachers that sat at their desks or chilled in the breakroom while they were supposed to be teaching and let kids run wild. the union still fought him tooth and nail on nearly all of the ones he picked to be terminated.
Having a national education secretary is a joke anyway
Twitted by averagejoele
July, 2009
[...] This post was Twitted by averagejoele [...]
Kevin
July, 2009
Merit pay would ensure that teachers that were well liked or affiliated with the right political connections would always get the best and brightest students. The other teachers would have class lists full of the most troublesome and most difficult students. This would guarantee the continuation of nepotism and political favors. It would not weed out “bad” teachers as some in favor of merit pay claim. Although it might motivate these “bad” teachers to become either larger monetary contributors to those who can influence their classes acedemic strength, or it will encourage them to cheat on tests. Bonuses and merit pay sound great in political speeches, and educational reform rhetoric, but in reality they are likely to make the problem of corruption even worse, as well as worsen the already low morale of dedicated teachers that are tired of being used in the ongoing clashing of political ideologies.