Re: Presidential Politics

[Diane Aoki <dkeikoa@hawaii.rr.com>]

Thank you George.


On 7/26/08 8:49 AM, "George Sheridan" <learn@jps.net> wrote:

> 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