Re: Presidential Politics

[George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>]

Senator Obama understands several key points, beginning with the 
importance of what Jonathan Kozol called "savage inequalities."

In a letter to NEA members, Senator Obama emphasized three points:
        Our nation currently is failing to provide high quality 
education to many of its neediest students;
        The so-called No Child Left Behind Act is not the solution;
        America must invest in educators.

Senator Obama wrote, "The first point is that the status quo is not 
acceptable. There are enormous educational and fiscal inequities 
among public schools." He went on to describe how the lack of funds 
in one Illinois district led to a shortened school day and the 
elimination of critical classes like science, concluding "Those 
children knew they were being short-changed, like others in poor 
communities across America who lack the programs, textbooks, 
computers, science labs, and qualified educators they need."

In his comments on the so-called No Child Left Behind Act, Senator 
Obama embraced its ostensible goal of raising achievement for all 
students while criticizing its accountability regime, saying "The 
focus on a single, high-stakes standardized test too often distorts 
how educators teach."  He called for increased funding, including 
federal funding for special education. And he said "We must ensure 
that the federal government provides a helping hand in enabling 
schools to improve, rather than a heavy hand ..." Then he added, 
"Fixing the problems of No Child Left Behind is not an educational 
policy on its own. It's just a starting point."

Senator Obama wrote, "Real reform begins with the understanding that 
from the moment our children step into a classroom, the single most 
important factor in determining their achievement is their educator." 
This opens up a discussion in which subtle distinctions are 
important. Certainly the single most important factor over which we 
the public or we as educators have any control is the quality of 
teachers and other educators. A great deal of the accountability 
agenda has been based on the same premise, coupled with the 
assumption that the majority of teachers are lazy, racist, or both, 
and that if only teachers could be forced by sanctions or encouraged 
by merit pay to work harder, almost all problems of the schools would 
be solved. Often the standards-and-accountability movement has 
included direction for teacher in what to say and do, based on the 
assumption that some expert or group of experts can specify what 
should happen in each classroom, sometimes on a day-to-day or 
minute-to-minute basis. Hence we have adopted content standards, 
performance standards, curriculum guides, textbooks, and pacing 
plans, together with benchmarks and so-called "formative" assessments 
designed to measure whether each child has mastered the specified 
material at the specified time.

Accept the premise that the quality of educators is critical, and 
accept also that we already have an educational work force that is 
intelligent, hard working and caring, and a different set of 
implications follow. Teachers and other education professionals need 
opportunities for high-quality professional development. Compelling 
research evidence indicates that high-quality professional growth 
plans for teachers are teacher-directed. By and large, we in the 
profession are capable of figuring out what we need to get better at 
our jobs and we have the motivation to do so.

With adequate resources and an emphasis on real professional growth, 
we can begin to make good on the promise of great public schools for 
every child. Senator Obama wrote that the federal government needs to 
collaborate with states on policies that help attract and retain 
qualified educators in high-poverty and hard-to-staff schools. This 
again is the kind of issue where we can agree on goals, but the 
details are critical. When Governor Schwarzenegger proposed "combat 
pay" for teachers in inner-city schools, the California Teachers 
Association launched an all-out assault on him and his policies. We 
know that working conditions, including class size, administrative 
support, and other resources are far more important in retaining 
teachers in these schools than salary differentials.

Senator Obama has advanced one idea that greatly disturbs me, along 
with  many of my colleagues. His emphasis on "merit pay" - by 
whatever name -  is troubling, because it is based on ideological 
assumptions rather than on evidence of what really works for 
students. In his letter to the NEA, he wrote, "When our educators 
succeed, I will not simply talk about how great they are; I will 
reward their greatness with better pay and more support." We don't 
object to better pay. On the contrary. But we are convinced that 
every scheme yet tried or proposed to reward some and not others for 
student achievement is fatally flawed. Often, these plans simply 
duplicate for teachers the same kind of "one size fits all" measures 
NCLB has imposed on students.

In this context, Senator McCain's endorsement of growth models should 
be treated skeptically. Many of those advocating "performance pay" 
for teachers want to base it on something like the Sanders 
"value-added" model - using changes in test scores as the measure of 
a teacher's effectiveness. In education as in other areas, Senator 
McCain is committed to continuing and furthering the policies of the 
Bush years. An unwillingness to make major changes in health care 
means that a high proportion of our students would continue to lack 
the prerequisites for academic achievement. To me it's clear that 
Senator McCain supports most of what the majority of us on this list 
oppose, and he opposes most of what we support.

Electing Senator Obama is not the same as legislating our point of 
view. But we can agree with his main points. After his election we 
will still have to work to shape legislation to reflect our 
understanding of what really works.

At 07:05 AM 7/26/2008 -1000, Diane Aoki wrote:
> I was at NEA and endorsed Obama. I don't think he had the strongest
> education stance of all the Democratic candidates, but I think he represents
> more my views on foreign and domestic issues that McCain. However, if we
> just look at education, NCLB, and high-stakes standardized testing, I am
> having trouble being rah-rah about him. Teachers do ask me for my opinion
> and I haven't been able to be enthusiastic. I want to be, but I haven't
> been, so I need help. I have looked at both candidates' websites. My sister,
> who tends to go Republican, pointed out to me that on McCain's website, he
> is saying some good things, like growth models and ending sanctions. Those
> are what seems to be bolded. But unbolded, are other statements referring to
> preferences for vouchers. Too many mixed messages seeming to be like a
> Rorsharch test that you can read into depending on what you want to see.
> Obama's website is similarly vague, and what comes through is that he wants
> to fully fund NCLB, which is missing the boat. I guess I could say that he
> said he supports NEA's plan, NEA says that he does, but there is no evidence
> of that on Obama's website.
>
> Thanks for you opinions and insights.
> Diane




George Sheridan