[jthomas1600]

The President and his education secretary have $5 billion to spend as they see fit. From reading this article it seems that the only requirement for receiving this money is to make the President and his education secretary happy. They have complete discretion with no oversight/accountability.

The Facts

[Epaphras]

Are we reading the same article? As I read it, the way to get the most points to qualify for the grants are:
1) loosen up bans on protecting bad teachers (the NEA supports using student test scores to evaluate teacher performance -- as long as it's not used to discipline or fire a teacher!).
2) expand the use of charter schools (the NEA opposes this for obvious reasons -- it doesn't have its claws in that segment of the "market").

I don't know about you, but I think both those reforms/priorities are good things. He's taking on the unions by telling them to shape up or miss out on the money.

Test scores as the sole means of teacher evaluation is foolish, just as foolish as not relying on them at all. Yes, there are factors besides teacher performance that affect test scores -- but those can be accounted for in teacher evaluations. We do the same thing with executive performance reviews in the business world: yeah, they might be heading up the company during a crappy economy: but they are still evaluated on the performance of their divisions.

Charter schools offer a great alternative to failing public schools. As long as there is a public lottery to get kids into a limited number of seats, that tells me that parents demand it and they should be supported. People are ready/willing for an alternative to "the" public school in the area.

[jthomas1600]

We're reading the same article and commenting on two different aspects I guess. I agree that both points you identified may good steps for public education. I am somewhat surprised and not at all disappointed that the President is supporting those...especially charter schools. It still bothers me though that it is $5 billion completely at two peoples discretion. It appears that there is no stipulation that the education secretary take other things into consideration. Shouldn't schools with a terrible student teacher ratio and in desperate need of capital improvement be at the top of this list? I also see a possible flaw with the test score/teacher evaluation issue. If I were a graduating educator and saw this coming down the pike there's no way I'd take a job in a school district that was struggling. So will that maneuver help the schools that are already doing well, and hurt the ones that are already doing poorly?

[bravesfan007]

States are lifting bans on using test scores to judge performance therefore allowing them to use the scores. Maybe it's just me, but by having the ban in place would only protect the teachers. I agree that it could be used to protect the bad teachers, but what about the teachers that are good, but the students still don't succeed. It seems as if people jumped Bush's behind because of No Child Left Behind, but this doesn't outrage people either? Seems as if not only does this tie the student down to their test scores, but also the teachers. If the teachers were at the mercy of the students, they'd be in trouble (at least in my experience). To some degree it is almost like letting the prisoners run the prison.

Also, instead of rewarding states and whatever that align with the president's vision, why not take the money and give it to the struggling schools. After all, it is possible that those aligning with his vision do not need the money to increase the educational experience. It seems to me as if Obama is bribing the states to do his dirty work because he cannot get it accomplished any other way. It infuriates me that he has that much money just to reward to states as he pleases.

[luvinjesus]

As a future teacher, I am a huge opponent to the No Child Left Behind Act. The act basically forces the teachers to get them through their class and passed on. Because of the enforcement of high test scores, a teacher is automatically blamed for any shortcomings. While the teacher is to blame, the law in place is more to blame. When you take away the ability of the teacher to teach students to reach their full potential in favor of a test mandated system, you take away most of the control the teachers have. I for one would prefer the teacher to have more control and rely less on the test scores, that way if a teacher is truly bad, they have the ability to get rid of them. The system now is painting a lot of GREAT teachers to be bad, because of test scores and that is unfortunate.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by luvinjesus

As a future teacher, I am a huge opponent to the No Child Left Behind Act. The act basically forces the teachers to get them through their class and passed on. Because of the enforcement of high test scores, a teacher is automatically blamed for any shortcomings. While the teacher is to blame, the law in place is more to blame. When you take away the ability of the teacher to teach students to reach their full potential in favor of a test mandated system, you take away most of the control the teachers have. I for one would prefer the teacher to have more control and rely less on the test scores, that way if a teacher is truly bad, they have the ability to get rid of them. The system now is painting a lot of GREAT teachers to be bad, because of test scores and that is unfortunate.

So the president wants teachers to be evaluated partly based on the success of the students and their test scores. This will be a bad move in your opinion?

[metropolis4]

I'm also completely against the notion of test scores being used to judge teachers, unless they do something to increase the validity of those test scores.
In my area, you can look at a chart of school test scores and overlay it on a chart of socio-economic status and the two line up perfectly. What does that tell you about the validity of those scores?

The test scores also do NOT take into account the students level coming in, or their language acquisition. 75% of the kids in my wife's classroom begin as monolingual Spanish speakers. It seems obvious to me that kids who are trying to learn the language are going to score lower than kids in upper middle class neighborhoods with parents who can afford to stay home with their kids, and who are starting with a firm English base. Is it really reasonable to expect the same test scores in the English language from a child who just moved here from Mexico and has heard nothing but Spanish his/her whole life as we do from a child who grew up here? How about expecting the same test scores from a child who's mom is able to stay home with him/her all day as we do from a child with two parents frantically working two jobs just to scrape by who don't have time to even read to their kids? Is that really fair to the teachers?

All this would do is to harm schools in lower socio-economic regions, and especially those in regions with lots of immigrants and migratory populations. They won't be able to get good teachers because the teachers won't want to deal with their jobs being at stake for things beyond their control. It's an entirely unfair way of judging the effectiveness of teachers. Some of the best teachers we have in this country have classrooms with some of the lowest test scores. That's a reflection on our culture, not the teachers.

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

So the president wants teachers to be evaluated partly based on the success of the students and their test scores. This will be a bad move in your opinion?

The question isn't about teachers being evaluated partly based on the success of their students. The question is do these test scores really reflect the success of students.


Think about this example:
Two children come into the same classroom at the same time with the same teacher. One child comes from a family who have lived here their whole lives and they grew up speaking English. He have very involved parents who are able to be home much of the time spending time teaching reading, letters, numbers etc.
The second child is from a family that just moved here from Mexico. Both parents are working very hard at two jobs trying to make ends meet and, even though they wish they had more time, they just don't have the time to spend with each child. The family only speaks Spanish. There is no one at home who is able to held the child learn his English letters, or how to read in English.

Now, at the end of the semester child one has been ahead of the class all semester. He hasn't had to work very hard because he already knows everything the class has been learning this semester. The second child has learned a tremendous amount. He is getting more and more of his letters down and has learned to write his name in English. He can even read a few short phrases in English.

When the teacher tests these kids child one will test much higher than child two, even though child two has made much more progress in his education. Is that a fair way to judge their educational success?

[luvinjesus]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

So the president wants teachers to be evaluated partly based on the success of the students and their test scores. This will be a bad move in your opinion?

No. I'm saying the current law is bad and needs to be changed. I'm happy for a compromise, but the way it is now, screws teachers over. Which is not really helping anything at all. There is a lack of teachers in the United States because of the crap they have to deal with on a consistent basis, and the No Child Left Behind Act is one of those issues almost any teacher you will talk to hates.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by luvinjesus

No. I'm saying the current law is bad and needs to be changed. I'm happy for a compromise, but the way it is now, screws teachers over. Which is not really helping anything at all. There is a lack of teachers in the United States because of the crap they have to deal with on a consistent basis, and the No Child Left Behind Act is one of those issues almost any teacher you will talk to hates.

This is an excerpt from an AP article....Wisconsin lawmakers planned to vote Thursday to lift a ban on using student test scores to judge teachers. That helps clear the way for an Obama priority, teacher pay tied to student performance. I guess my question was do you think that is going to make the situation worse. It seems to me if you are opposed to using test scores to evaluate teachers this is a move in the wrong direction.

[luvinjesus]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

This is an excerpt from an AP article....Wisconsin lawmakers planned to vote Thursday to lift a ban on using student test scores to judge teachers. That helps clear the way for an Obama priority, teacher pay tied to student performance. I guess my question was do you think that is going to make the situation worse. It seems to me if you are opposed to using test scores to evaluate teachers this is a move in the wrong direction.

I think that Obama's goal to get better teachers is a good one, however, I don't believe that relying solely on test scores is the way to go. For instance, when I become a teacher (in 2 years), I will be already be stressed out just going into my first classroom, but to have the added pressure of having my students perform well on state mandated tests adds more pressure. For those people who are great teachers and take a little more time to adjust to their first classroom it is like setting them up to fail. Then what do they do with the $40,000+ education they just received, passed their Praxis to teach, and then told they aren't good enough because their students had low scores? Most of these new teachers are being punished for lack of education from prior teachers and the blame will fall solely on the shoulders of these new teachers. I honestly don't think anything Obama does will fix the problem of the No Child Left Behind Act, because I think he cares far more about health care, and the war. I'm just saying that the education system needs a major overhaul and remodel, because until that happens there will be great teachers who are being fired for low state mandated tests because of the bad teachers who ruin it for everyone else. To me it is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. You may be getting rid of the truly bad teachers, but you are also getting rid of the good teachers who are getting the products of the horrible teachers. Eventually who will you have left to each? Anyone?

[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by luvinjesus

I think that Obama's goal to get better teachers is a good one, however, I don't believe that relying solely on test scores is the way to go. For instance, when I become a teacher (in 2 years), I will be already be stressed out just going into my first classroom, but to have the added pressure of having my students perform well on state mandated tests adds more pressure. For those people who are great teachers and take a little more time to adjust to their first classroom it is like setting them up to fail. Then what do they do with the $40,000+ education they just received, passed their Praxis to teach, and then told they aren't good enough because their students had low scores? Most of these new teachers are being punished for lack of education from prior teachers and the blame will fall solely on the shoulders of these new teachers. I honestly don't think anything Obama does will fix the problem of the No Child Left Behind Act, because I think he cares far more about health care, and the war. I'm just saying that the education system needs a major overhaul and remodel, because until that happens there will be great teachers who are being fired for low state mandated tests because of the bad teachers who ruin it for everyone else. To me it is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. You may be getting rid of the truly bad teachers, but you are also getting rid of the good teachers who are getting the products of the horrible teachers. Eventually who will you have left to each? Anyone?

And by that same logic it could potentially get worse if states are allowed to base teacher performance on standardized tests. By lifting the ban that is in place in some states, I believe it is increasing the probability of failure even more than it is under No Child Left Behind.

[Epaphras]

Does "student performance" necessarily equal "standardized test score"? Are they measuring more than one test or one series of tests?

[normajean777]

Does Obama himself get to go around and allot this money? Also I can't decide if this is small peanuts or a big thing. Wikipedia says the education budget is abut $45 billion, which would seem like $5 billion would be a huge additional chunk to the pot. But then again, this is not enough money to make any radical changes.

[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Does Obama himself get to go around and allot this money?

According to the article, it was part of the stimulus plan. His education secretary actually has control over the funds, but we all know who holds the key to that lock.