Obama Wants $1 Billion For "Master Teachers Corps"

theodp writes "The White House has unveiled a proposal to create a national elite teachers corps to reward the nation's best educators in science, technology, engineering and math. In the first year, as many as 2,500 teachers in those subjects would get $20,000 stipends on top of their base salaries in exchange for a multiyear commitment to the STEM Master Teacher Corps. The Obama administration plans to expand the corps to 10,000 nationwide over the next four years, with the ultimate goal that the elite group of teachers will pass their knowledge and skills on to their colleagues to help bolster the quality of teaching nationwide."

Comments

Reflections from the UK

[RogueyWon]

I'm tring to work out from TFA whether this is aimed at recruiting new teachers, or developing existing ones. If it's the former, then there have been various similar schemes (or perhaps it's a single often-rebranded scheme) in the UK over the last decade or so. The focus hasn't always been so narrowly on the STEM subjects, but it has tended to be on "difficult" subjects, where recruitment and retention of teachers is usually difficult (and where pupil uptake and performance has been fastest to decline).

In fact, I have a friend who works in teaching who got into it via the scheme in one of its various guises. He's fairly open about both its strengths and drawbacks.

In terms of strengths, he quite openly admits that the salary supplement (which was less than the GBP equivalent of $20,000 when he joined - closer to around $8,000 equivalent) was a very attactive consideration, given that he was graduating with a fair old pile of debt. None of the other career options he was considering would have made it possible for him to move away from the parents and live independently in London quite so quickly. He's also noted that he (and others like him) actually know his subject (maths) to the extent that they can actually field questions from students that go away from the narrow syllabus. He was horrified by how many of his older colleagues were dependant on being allowed to stick to a very narrow syllabus.

On the other side of the coin, a lot of his intake to the graduate scheme dropped out relatively quickly - within the first year in many cases. The scheme was highly focussed on underperforming schools - which largely tend to be those which have the most severe discipline problems. It's no secret that many classes in those schools are more about crowd control than education. As my friend is the oldest of 6 siblings, he came to this with a natural advantage. By contrast, those who had gotten onto the scheme on the basis of academic ability often simply couldn't cope with the levels of misbehaviour, abuse and violence that are endemic in our less impressive schools and dropped out.

The other problem revolved around the reactions of other teachers - and particularly the teaching unions - to the scheme members. This is a profession where pay and career advancement had long been (and is still largely expected to be) determined by length of service, rather than performance or potential. Having a bunch of "bright young things" on additional pay and a fast track to Department-head and other management positions went down in most staff-rooms like a cup of cold sick. At the same time, the unions (membership of which is not mandatory, but is widespread) did everything they legally could to make life unpleasant for them. If you find yourself on a "Fast Track" scheme like this, you need to be prepared to be a bit of a staff room pariah.

So yeah, it's not a bad idea in theory, but expect results in practice to be mixed.

Re:Reflections from the UK

[AliasMarlowe]

In terms of strengths, he quite openly admits that the salary supplement (which was less than the GBP equivalent of $20,000 when he joined - closer to around $8,000 equivalent) was a very attactive consideration, given that he was graduating with a fair old pile of debt. None of the other career options he was considering would have made it possible for him to move away from the parents and live independently in London quite so quickly. He's also noted that he (and others like him) actually know his subject (maths) to the extent that they can actually field questions from students that go away from the narrow syllabus. He was horrified by how many of his older colleagues were dependant on being allowed to stick to a very narrow syllabus.

This is one of the keys - a teacher should know the subject he/she is teaching. Having a teacher who fears/dodges off-syllabus questions is probably quite demotivating for the student. When I was in high school (some decades ago), our maths teacher died suddenly two years before we were due to graduate, and there was "difficulty" finding a replacement. The solution was that two postgrad engineering students did it as part-time jobs. They were great, not just being closer in age to us than the older teachers, but they both knew more than enough maths, were very keen on the subject, and imparted all sorts of unifying insights that weren't on the syllabus then. We had a "real" maths teacher again for the final year of high school, but he made the subject dull again.

On the other side of the coin, a lot of his intake to the graduate scheme dropped out relatively quickly - within the first year in many cases. The scheme was highly focussed on underperforming schools - which largely tend to be those which have the most severe discipline problems. It's no secret that many classes in those schools are more about crowd control than education. As my friend is the oldest of 6 siblings, he came to this with a natural advantage. By contrast, those who had gotten onto the scheme on the basis of academic ability often simply couldn't cope with the levels of misbehaviour, abuse and violence that are endemic in our less impressive schools and dropped out.

The second key is the parents, since it is they who will impart the love of learning (or not) at an early age, and provide encouragement (or not) by the way they value their kids' achievements at school. This key is largely missing in the more deprived areas, and consequent problems involving discipline and rejection of authority can be contagious when large numbers of the kids are dismissive of education. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, unless one adopts some kind of dispersal of the kids among other schools whose pupils are more attuned to learning (this is also not without drawbacks, and bussing has a poor reputation in the US).

The other problem revolved around the reactions of other teachers - and particularly the teaching unions - to the scheme members. This is a profession where pay and career advancement had long been (and is still largely expected to be) determined by length of service, rather than performance or potential. Having a bunch of "bright young things" on additional pay and a fast track to Department-head and other management positions went down in most staff-rooms like a cup of cold sick. At the same time, the unions (membership of which is not mandatory, but is widespread) did everything they legally could to make life unpleasant for them. If you find yourself on a "Fast Track" scheme like this, you need to be prepared to be a bit of a staff room pariah.

Teachers' unions in the US - good luck with that. Your image of "two teachers one cup" is probably accurate enough as an estimate of their reaction.

Re:Reflections from the UK

[cold fjord]

So they will not be paid to teach as much as they will be paid to lead meetings... just what we need in the education system is less teaching and more meetings -not-

It really all depends on what you need from the "education" system, doesn't it?

Teachers’ Unions 101: ‘A’ Is for ‘Agitation’

Re:Reflections from the UK

[crazyjj]

I'm tring to work out from TFA whether this is aimed at recruiting new teachers, or developing existing ones. If it's the former, then there have been various similar schemes (or perhaps it's a single often-rebranded scheme) in the UK over the last decade

There have been in the U.S. too. The National Board Certification program was started here to "make better teachers" and all that. States offered salary bonuses to teachers completing it, it was going to improve our schools, blah, blah. In the end, tons of teachers went through it for the salary bonuses (as much as $10,000/yr extra in some states), ballooning up education budgets across the country--all with absolutely no evidence that Board Certified teachers became any more effective in the classroom. I suspect this new program will be more of the same. Teachers will do it for the extra money, students will see no benefit.

Re:Reflections from the UK

[thesandtiger]

The thing with parents is that there needs to be parental involvement during the school day, not just at home.

My sister has my nephews enrolled in a school in her area where one of the requirements is that the parent or parents of each child must attend training sessions (at least one nighht a month) and also spend one school day per month in the classroom providing assistance to the teacher per child they have enrolled.

The training covers a number of things, but one biggie is classroom management, and another biggie is dispute resolution between teachers and parents. This winds up vastly reducing issues caused by helicopter parents because they have to work with the teachers, not against them, and their children WILL be removed from the school if the parents cause a problem.

Just the fact of having a second adult in the room - who knows a parent of all the other kids in the room - will cut down hugely on discipline problems. And because the parents get some level of training in ways to assist the teachers, it means that if there is an issue a child has that would normally require a derail of the lesson, it can be handled without throwing things off too much.

It also means that the teachers can't slack off either - they have a parent there to see what's going on, so it's hard to phone it in which means bad teachers get bounced out fairly quickly.

It also means that the parents are much more involved at home, which makes for a be improvement in learning.

Finally, the school itself will have an administrator contact the employers of working parents and arrange for the parents to get the workday off each month to handle things, and in several cases have also gotten the employers to sponsor school events etc.

Basically, this school does everything they can to make educating the children in the community a true community exercise. It does require a bit of extra administrative burden, but it also reduces the administrative burden with reduced discipline issues and increased learning and retention, requiring material to be re-taught less frequently.

It's a charter school, though, but I really do think that this kind of thing could be done efficiently and effectively at any school, especially public ones where parental involvement is spotty. Personally, I think if you want to have your child educated in a public school, you should have to do volunteer work like this with the school rather than just dumping your kid off there.

Obvious money giveaway is obvious

[Iamthecheese]

Obama has been looking for ways to release money into the economy as stimulus. I would much rather see it given to teachers than spent making and expending explosives where brown people live.

Re:Obvious money giveaway is obvious

[Capt James McCarthy]

Obama has been looking for ways to release money into the economy as stimulus. I would much rather see it given to teachers than spent making and expending explosives where brown people live.

He's already been doing that since he's been in office with no results. This is just an election ploy to get votes.

Re:Obvious money giveaway is obvious

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In some sense, basically all political activities(save only the occasional throwing-your-career-on-the-grenade 'giving them what they need not what they want' ones) are 'election ploys'.

However, simply by virtue of that, stating the fact becomes nearly irrelevant to evaluating any politician's suggested program(doing so would be roughly analogous with replacing all reviews of consumer products with 'this is just a ploy to make money', which is pointless; because we want to know about how good they are, not the obvious fact that the seller hopes to profit).

There are electoral ploys to get votes that also happen to be good ideas(if we are very lucky indeed, they even get votes because they are good ideas...) There are other electoral ploys to get votes that are outright terrible ideas, from essentially every perspective except vote-getting, and then some that consist of taking a side between two irreconcilable interests that have pretty clear upsides for one side and downsides for the other.

So that leaves us with the more interesting(and difficult) question of whether this program is actually a good one.

Re:Obvious money giveaway is obvious

[cold fjord]

Nice try. He said "where brown people live" because that's where we are using bombs and where we most likely will use bombs next. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb ba France? Where are we bombing non brown people? What country with non brown people could we possibly invade? We bomb brown people because the majority of American people don't think of them as people or civilized or whatever excuse they use to make killing people OK.

Just like the good ol' day of the crusades. Saracens aren't people so go get 'em boys.

In living memory, just barely, the United States has bombed or fought against multiple European countries, and several Asian countries, in more than one war. Those conflicts, like the present one, have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the behavior of the people being bombed. Repeated attacks with the goal of mass killings of Americans isn't going to be acceptable regardless of the color of the nationals involved be they European or Arab. I will also point out, since you are apparently ignorant of the fact, than many Americans are non-white, and are fully accepted members of American society. Take the race baiting elsewhere.

Re:Obvious money giveaway is obvious

[luis_a_espinal]

so children, which type of fallacy does this response fall under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

<me, me, me, me, me/>

In essence, the argument exhibits non sequitur dumbfoolery. Despite the pedestrian simplicity of it, however, it hides a masterful combination of the following (or variants, in whole or in part):

1. false attribution
2. begging the question
3. affirming a disjunction
4. argument from fallacy
5. affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
6. circular cause and consequence
7. false dichotomy
8. fallacy of composition
9. presumption of guilt
10. causal oversimplification

... and so on and so on...

Re:Obvious money giveaway is obvious

[Oligonicella]

The government does not "release" money. There is no great big vault with money waiting in the wings. What happens is they appropriate money from the citizenry, keep a portion for things they won't tell you about and then graciously allow some of it back to citizens (and non) who typically weren't the ones who paid in.

This money cannot stimulate the economy because it is a net loss.

once again, it's the parents, stupid

[alen]

almost every "smart" kid at school is that way mostly due to parents making sure he does his work and understands everything

Re:once again, it's the parents, stupid

[DarkFencer]

Though I think it is helpful when the parents know and can help the children, its more than that. Parents who help and encourage their children and create an environment where their children can succeed is more important than anything.

You can have parents who have very little formal education who can truly be great parents and can help their children do what they didn't/couldn't.

Re:once again, it's the parents, stupid

[luis_a_espinal]

I'm sorry but if you can't help your kid in elementary school then you should be doing the homework with them. There is nothing hard or advanced in elementary school, that by the time your an adult you shouldn't know.

Pray tell how a single mom or parents who work two jobs, or parents of families under the poverty line can do that? In an ideal world, yes, every parent should be held responsible to help his children, including doing the homework with them and learn for themselves in the process.

In the real world, there are many cases (and under a certain income bracket, it is the general case) where this is not possible. And no, I'm not advocating free-wheeling welfare. But I don't advocate a dog-eat-dog system either. Someone else's failure will eventually become a social burden to me or my children. So a stable, developed sociaty needs to provide the means to lift up individuals in need to a point where they can pick themselves up.

Have you ever lived in a poor country? I have, I was born in one (hard to study and make it through with a half-filled stomach let me tell you). The cycles of poverty and uneducation are pervasive and self-perpetuating. Parents are uneducated and thus can't help their children. Such parents rarely have the means to educate themselves (ergo their children's education suffer). Options are limited, and opportunities are missed (again, due to lack of vision powered by education). Such children become adults and have children under the same conditions, perpetuating the cycle.

The wonderful thing about developed countries like the US (of which I became a citizen after climbing myself up through college while flipping burgers and driving forklifts), or Japan (which I visit frequently) or many others, is that such developed societies have infrastructures and means to lift people up and give a fighting chance (not an assurance of winning, but a chance to go for it) to anyone willing to take it.

Sadly in the last 20 years or so, that has been gradually changing in the US.

I could understand some rich disconnected latifundist in Brazil or Mexico saying "undeducated parents should go back to school" while playing with their silverware. But here in the US, the richest and most prosperous country in the world, the country that should be a paragon of progressive thinking in the industrialized world? I would never in my wildest dreams imagine such thinking to gradually become so common place.

If a parent can't assist there child in the courses there being taught then they should be going back to school.

And how is a parent going to afford going to school while working and supporting his family? Middle class people are finding it hard to put their children to college, and you expect a parent with little education (and ergo at or below the poverty line) to be able to do that? You are seriously disconnected with the realities of this country, and the consequences that will ultimately affect anyone regardless of income.

Re:Feh. Obama buys more votes with taxpayer $$

[Chrisq]

It's so much fun spending other peoples money, isn't it?

We are 15 TRILLION dollars in debt yet they keep spending like drunken leftists. Why worry, they can print all the money they want.

And these teachers go on to brainwash the young to be good little socialists such that they vote for more and more big government spending.

We are truly in deep shit if we do not trow these tyrants out of power in November.

Vote Romney for president and conservative in all other offices on your ballot.

Wake up drones!

Yes, the whole program could fund another four days of the US presence in Iraq

Re:Feh. Obama buys more votes with taxpayer $$

[coinreturn]

Hey, dumbass. Are you aware that fully half of the deficit is due to the Bush-era tax cuts? You know, those ones that were put in place when Republicans claimed that deficits didn't matter? The ones that turned a budget surplus into a deficit? Yeah, those. The endless money we spend on foreign wars accounts for another 1/4 of the deficit. Spending stimulates the economy, not austerity.

Re:critical thinking

[oiron]

Forgive me for asking, but wtf are HOTS AND OBE? As far as I know, one is a passing crush, and the other is a British knightly order. I fail to see how either has any relevance to education, apart from someone having hots for their teacher who was knighted by the Queen...

Re:Reward good behavior?

[jacknifetoaswan]

Please. As a conservative, methinks you're talking out your ass. We have no problem with public school teachers. What we have a problem with is unions that continue to protect teachers that are poor performers or don't adapt to new teaching techniques, which is exactly the reason why we're in the sad state we are, these days. The point is that as teachers reach tenure, some, not all, can become complacent, and just use their job for a paycheck, while others go out of their way to create interesting, stimulating lesson plans. Who gets rewarded more? In most cases, the complacent one, as they've achieved tenure, they get greater raises and it's nigh on impossible to fire them. As a realist, I think this program is a step in the right direction, incentivizing good, young teachers to excel and actually TEACH their students, rather than just read out of a book. ON the other hand, nothing the federal government ever does ONLY costs a billion dollars.

How about the low hanging fruit first?

[MikeRT]

I can think of many things which would improve the quality of public schools without raising taxes:

1. Tort reform. Serious, hardcore tort reform at the state level which takes an axe to all of the areas where frivolous lawsuits can be brought would eliminate the argument for any policy that is grounded in the fear of what some idiot might sue over.
2. End zero tolerance under pain of imprisonment for anyone who punishes a student for acting in self-defense.
3. Remove any student who is constantly disrupting class. If they become a problem (and don't have a documented mental handicap), simply expel them and kick them out onto the street.
4. Establish a general policy of erring on the side of pacing the class to the speed of the top 50% of the class, not the bottom 50%. If the bottom cannot keep up, offer them tutoring; if they fail objectively, fail them for the year.

Re:How about the low hanging fruit first?

[__aaeihw9960]

Here;s my experience in education talking:

3. Remove any student who is constantly disrupting class. If they become a problem (and don't have a documented mental handicap), simply expel them and kick them out onto the street.

If they are a problem, the parents will just get them diagnosed as something. The kid could just be a little shit, and somewhere, someone will diagnose him/her as having oppositional defiance disorder.

"4. Establish a general policy of erring on the side of pacing the class to the speed of the top 50% of the class, not the bottom 50%. If the bottom cannot keep up, offer them tutoring; if they fail objectively, fail them for the year.

Tried that once - parents lose their minds. Remember - teachers have a class of 20-40 little special fucking snowflakes to deal with. Most parents believe that their kid is the most special, and that if little Johnny fails the teacher has done something wrong. It is damned near impossible to hold a student back - not because of the school, but because of the parents and their propensity to sue at the drop of a hat.

Re:How about the low hanging fruit first?

[benjfowler]

Better yet, put classroom troublemakers into referral units/borstal/whatever to get them the help they need, while letting kids who want to learn get on it without being disrupted.

And cop to the fact that cleaning up other people's chaotic lives is expensive -- but is just part of the cost of doing business as a civilized society.

Re:How about the low hanging fruit first?

[hackula]

1) Tiny amount of money would be saved by tort reform, all so that corporations and governments could get away with outrageous injustices with just a slap on the wrist. Most anyone affected by tort has insurance for it anyway.

2) A teacher acting in self defense against a student will not be punished under the law. What crime are they supposedly being locked up for? Also, this happens to a tiny fraction of teachers. Corporal punishment is a totally different thing, but it is not what you brought up (I do not think it is what you meant, even though you did use the word "punish". wtf does it mean to "punishes a student for acting in self-defense")

3) I do not want kids to be disrupting class, but do we really want a mob of street kids who got expelled when they were 11 and now have no purpose in life? I don't think so.

4) So what do we do with people who keep failing? Clearly we need a tiered system where dummies get put with dummies, regulars get put with regulars, and geniuses get put with geniuses. Match the material accordingly so that we do not end up with blocks in the system where kids can never graduate or geniuses being spoon fed nursery rhymes in their senior year of high school. By the way, this is how practically every school in the US is already operated. Some of those high school AP classes are pretty damn difficult. If a student is really that far ahead of their peers, then they should be switched to the more difficult classes. You would have to be 3 standard deviations above average for the AP classes not to provide any challenge, and at that point you can probably graduate early and go be a Doogie Houser because you are a class A genius.

Re:How about the low hanging fruit first?

[couchslug]

"And cop to the fact that cleaning up other people's chaotic lives is expensive"

It is often impossible.Have the courage to write off disruptive and bullying students.

There is no reason to tolerate a Hellmouth where thugs (be they jock thugs or hood rats or anything else) disrupt the students who are there to learn. Letting the trash abuse and drag down the good students is cruel and unjustifiable.

The US focuses many resources on low performers when it should be nurturing the best performers instead. Oddly, Americans appreciate SPORTS competition, but don't quite get that supporting our best academic competitors is far more beneficial for society.

Its a cunning plan

[Chrisq]

The term "corps" gives it away. Once they have signed they will realise that they have signed for military service, and due to a change of plans are due to be deployed in Iraq.

Re:critical thinking

[tbannist]

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." - Texas Republican Party 2012 Platform

So they oppose Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) and Outcome-Based Education (OBE). The real issue for the Texas Republican Party is that these programs might lead children to question their parent's religion or politics. Personally, I think it's a sign of weakness to fear questions.

Re:Feh. Obama buys more votes with taxpayer $$

[jacknifetoaswan]

Actually, you're wrong. The national debt was roughly $10T when Bush left office in 2008. It's now pushing $16T, three years and six months into Obama's term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Re:critical thinking

[Riceballsan]

The washington post article may not be telling the whole story, but the reasoning and explanations are right in the document. If the texas government was opposed to it because they thought it teaches poorly or has something wrong in the curriculum I could sympathize, the republican party's actual platform documentation specifically states the issue with the programs is "Challenging the students fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority". Quite simply, they oppose the idea of teaching kids to think for themselves instead of blindly following what their parents or other authority figures tell them.

Re:Actually, it would be both

[__aaeihw9960]

Parents don't have to 'make their kids work,' they have to encourage their kids to work, and teach them the value of an education. I believe that what the poster was trying to say is that if parents don't encourage education, the student won't succeed. That rule stands --regardless of ability--. There's research there - go to ERIC, and search the words 'parental involvement correlation with student achievement'. That's a basic, basic fact about education. Teachers are only glorified babysitters if parents don't teach the kids to value education.

Re:critical thinking

[PopeRatzo]

There is discussion in the education profession whether HOTS/OBE is advantageous to all/some students over traditional education .

"There is discussion". Now there is a loaded phrase. You could also say, "There is discussion that the bleeding Virgin Mary statue is a harbinger of End Times" but that doesn't mean it should be taken seriously.

That's the new way the Right is attacking anything science-based: "There is discussion" or "There is a controversy in the field...". Yeah, except the controversy is mainly on the pages of NewsMax just above the story about how eating soy products will make you gay.

If you actually look at the "critical thinking" curricula that this whole "controversy" is about, it's pretty reasonable: "Test hypotheses" is basically what it comes down to, but that's just a bridge to far for the belly-scratchers who call themselves "conservatives" these days.

It's a good thing that I took the time out to ask a teacher about this "Critical Thinking" curricula that is driving the Right crazy, or I might have thought this was some sort of post-modern education-theory drivel and moved on. It's not. It's basic, Isaac Newton-stuff. Problem is, that if you get a kid testing hypotheses and thinking about what he's told, he might end up wondering how God put all those phony dinosaur fossils in the Earth just to fool us into thinking that we revolve around the Sun instead of the other way around. Or something.

Re:critical thinking

[bmo]

It was in the PDF available from the Texas GOP website.

They have since tried to distance themselves from it, but left it standing, because somehow they can't go back and remove it because of "rules."

The thing about the platform document is not just the critical thinking paragraph, it's the xenophobia and outright tinfoil haberdashery and millinery in the rest of the document. The opposition to critical thinking fits right in and completes the document.

I suggest you read the Texas GOP platform document itself. It's a laugh riot. You can't download it from the Texas GOP site anymore, because I guess someone figured out that actually publishing your stupid ideas and people identifying them as stupid leads to a backlash.

So let's go with this.

http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/2012-Platform-Final.pdf?docID=3201

Read. It doesn't disappoint. It's even more crazy than the 2008 platform.

Be fuckin' amazed that people actually think like this.

--
BMO

Teaching excellence

[benjfowler]

From everything I've read about successful education systems, the best systems have one feature in common: world class teachers who are valued, and paid accordingly.

I think, given what we know right now, this stands a reasonable chance of being a stunning success.

I think it's a disgrace that teaching isn't as prestigious and hard to get into as law or medicine, given it's extreme importance to the way our societies work.

Re:Teaching excellence

[CptPicard]

That's how it is here in Finland; it's pretty difficult to get into a teacher's education, and they all have Master's degrees. Sure, once you are a teacher it's a very steady government job and you also have lots of autonomy, but this tends to foster pride in what they're doing and a desire to do it well.

Re:Teaching excellence

[benjfowler]

I need to be convinced that free markets produce the right incentives. Here in the UK, successive governments have tried to introduce an element of competition to the school system, but instead of seeing 'competition', we see these things:

Poor, government funded schools being starved of funds on ideological grounds, where in fact, they are the schools that need the most resources put into them to turn them around.
Rich private schools creaming off the best students and teachers, concentrating privilege in the best schools, and creating a Dead Sea effect in the worst schools
Governments introducing 'competition' through gimmicks like league tables; and schools gaming the shit out of the league tables. They choose exam boards who produce the easiest tests to pass and do the softest marking. It had lead to a FLOURISHING free market in educational services (including expensive seminars by the for-profit exam boards, giving teachers advice and hints on how to game their system). That free market has created some incredibly bad incentives.

However, I don't expect you to appreciate the limitations of the free market in improving education. You seem to be a card carrying libertarian and a naiive, ideologically blinkered idealist every bit as bad as the "socialists" you hate. You libertarians, on the sum of it, are actually pretty stupid, because like all extremists, you think the truth comes exclusively from your simplistic, naive and frankly stupid ideology. You are every bit as bad as the leftists.

Like foreign aid

[xzvf]

One billion to give 2500 teachers a $20K stipend. So it costs $400K per teacher to provide that $20K raise?!!!!

Re:critical thinking

[glueball]

  Quite simply, they oppose the idea of teaching kids to think for themselves instead of blindly following what their parents or other authority figures tell them.

So we should teach children to challenge authority. How wonderful! I look forward to another generation of children who believe every one of their arguments actually means something. Just make sure to teach kids to challenge all authority. Starting with yours.

Its a Trap, Teachers ARE Left Behind

[ohnocitizen]

Teaching is becoming a nasty job. The pay is low, and constantly under political threat. Socially teaching is looked down upon ("those who can't, teach", and "they get the summer off", "they are ruining our kids"). Teachers are under all kinds of pressures: "Teach to the test, even at the expense of your own curriculum!", "Handle larger numbers of kids at a time!", etc. Not to mention the sick urge to over-evaluate and fire teachers, sometimes on crazy-town metrics (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/nyregion/in-brooklyn-hard-working-teachers-sabotaged-when-student-test-scores-slip.html?pagewanted=all).

Becoming a teacher means embracing low pay, constant criticism, an ever increasing workload, and a political environment aching for more ways to fire you. Ask yourself this: Would you leave your job to teach? As a college student, would you risk making a career of teaching? Would a potential $20k annual bonus in exchange for a multiyear commitment to more work change your mind?

I'm sure it's coincidental

[argStyopa]

...that one of the most reliably-Democratic demographics is teachers?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000064
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml?topl=1&topnum=10000

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
- #1 Contributors to state-level campaigns, political parties, and ballot measure committees in 2007 and 2008
- donated 2:1 to Democrats over Republicans in state races.
- donated 25:1 Dems:Repubs in national races since 1990 (the charted dates, but it's been a mainstay of DNC contributors for much, much longer)

Re:I'm sure it's coincidental

[Taxman415a]

Yes, but this isn't really a proposal that teachers are going to like. Teachers in this program will be more highly paid than those not in it and will not be well liked by their peers. They will be expected to disseminate their expertise among their peers. Imagine how well that would go over in the lunch room. Teachers unions and their democratic members are staunchly against pay for performance systems and this is basically another one.

Re:I'm sure it's coincidental

[T.E.D.]

Yeah. Really funny how groups that are subjected to persistent demonization from a political party for naked political reasons for years don't tend to vote for that party. You'd think they'd be more forgiving.

Re:No national governmental role in education

[hamburger lady]

our founding fathers never envisioned that blacks and women would ever have the right to vote. times have changed.

Re:Reward good behavior?

[luis_a_espinal]

Please. As a conservative, methinks you're talking out your ass. We have no problem with public school teachers. What we have a problem with is unions that continue to protect teachers that are poor performers or don't adapt to new teaching techniques, which is exactly the reason why we're in the sad state we are, these days. The point is that as teachers reach tenure, some, not all, can become complacent, and just use their job for a paycheck, while others go out of their way to create interesting, stimulating lesson plans. Who gets rewarded more? In most cases, the complacent one, as they've achieved tenure, they get greater raises and it's nigh on impossible to fire them.

^^^ This. I'm also a conservative (though I will most likely be voting for Obama), and indeed the problem is not public school teachers, but how many unions (not all, but many) protect under-performing teachers. There are vested interests to keep the status-quo.

However, the other side of the coin to be fair is that many in the current conservative echelons attack the teaching profession, think privatization and education budget cutting (think Gov. Rick Scott) is the solution of everything, and worse, they pander to creationists (which is one of the reasons I will not be voting GOP in these coming elections.)

There is a lot to blame on both sides of the political fence. The important thing is to move past the blaming game, pick and plan and work from there.

As a direct reply to the AC, whenever someone says "conservatives X" or "liberals X", it is almost certain that one can ignore his/her words without significant loss of information. Generalizations are the bread and butter of the feeble minded fodder for the identity politics cannons.

As a realist, I think this program is a step in the right direction, incentivizing good, young teachers to excel and actually TEACH their students, rather than just read out of a book. ON the other hand, nothing the federal government ever does ONLY costs a billion dollars.

I agree. I think there will be significant problems, and unfortunately the current GOP leadership that panders to the far right will cry havock just because the plan was proposed by dark-skinned-socialist-with-muslim-sounding-name-who-of-course-is-a-manchurian-candidates-for-the-chinese-and-satan. There will also be elements in teacher unions

No plan is ever perfect, which is why there should always be opposition, negotiation, compromise and reconciliation. But one cannot wait forever for the perfect plan. We pick one and we move from there. We fix, keep or drop pieces accordingly.

However imperfect this might be, and regardless of the problems that will occur (and they will), at least in spirit, this is a move in the right direction.

Re:critical thinking

[Riceballsan]

I don't know about your parenting style if you are a parent, but if I tell my son to do something and he asks why, that is encouraged and a reason is given, things are explained. I don't subject to the "because I said so" mentality of parenting. Sometimes you let them do stupid things to learn and see the consequences. If a parent can't give a good reason for why something can or can't be done, perhaps that isn't a rule that needs to be enforced. Now there are time and places where asking questions isn't a good idea, but those are not as common. IMO if you explain to a child the reasoning behind something, he will make better decisions when no-one is around to tell him not to do something, and while I have his best interests at heart, sometime in his life he will find an authority figure that does not, maybe a crappy boss trying to take advantage of him, maybe a teacher is actually teaching incorrect facts, maybe I'm actually wrong about something. If my son can present me a solid case for why a rule I have is unneeded or wrong I will look over what he gives discuss with him any errors in his logic and possibly adjust the rule. He's allowed to "question" whether I am right all he wants, and if he finds a reason I am not right, then things are adjusted fairly.

Re:No national governmental role in education

[stevegee58]

I expected this counterargument. Suffrage is not related to the issue of the separation of Federal and State powers.

More Public Union Employees = Higher Taxes

[AnalogDiehard]

Obama has been catering to public unions his entire term and this is just another example of it. His solutions to high unemployment over the years has been to expand the public sector. Besides the political deception that he is "creating jobs", that translates to higher taxes for the rest of us which we can ill afford.

I live in New York state and the reason we have the highest state taxes is public unions. They hold too much influence in state government and there are too many lawmakers sympathetic to the public unions. Fifteen years ago there were 10 private sector jobs paying for every 1 public sector job, now it is 4 to 1 which has been pushing up taxes. This worsening ratio continues because 1)businesses are leaving the state taking jobs with them and 2) the state keeps expanding the public sector at the expense of the taxpayer. State pensions is another driving force behind high taxes (state employees don't even pay income tax on their PENSIONS). Many state citizens are leaving and soon I will join the exodus. In the last twenty years, only one new business has set up shop in New York state. One!

There are too many parallels between NYS and Obama's public sector policies. Obama has proven that he is hostile to the private sector by broadening regulations, and the reason businesses are reluctant to hire is because they have had to employ resources just to ensure compliance with the new regulations! Four more years of Obama and businesses will be leaving the country. Obama just doesn't get it and he never will.

The solution is not to throw $$$ at the problem. The solution is to get the parents involved in their childrens' education.

More Wasted Tax Dollars

[Lawrence_Bird]

But gee. .what's another billion or two down the sinkhole that is edukation in the US? More money is thrown at and wasted upon schools, teachers and ....gasp... yes the children and what is there to show for it? NOTHING. 60 years of NOTHING. Class sizes are up to 50% smaller, many in the low teens. Effect? ZERO. Electronic teaching 'aides', internet, laptops, tablets... Effect? ZERO. Teacher salaries and benefits into six figures? Effect? Richer teachers.

Test scores are flatline and have been since the 1960s. But yeah, just keep tossing money at it because there is clearly a 'problem'. If I had the dough I would open a school with a curriculum and teaching practices based upon that used in the 1920s to 1940s. Shocking how the grups can actually do simple math in their heads, write a coherent sentence, are well read and even know quite a bit of world history.

Re:Feh. Obama buys more votes with taxpayer $$

[FhnuZoag]

If you look at the debt breakdown by the CBO, you can see that almost all of it came from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and Bush's tax cuts.

Re:critical thinking

[wisty]

Basically, there's a lot of people who want to use education as a way to brainwash children under the guise of "critical thinking" or "education".

Left-wingers were forced out of economics departments, because Marx and Keynes are evil (just ask Senator McCarthy). They switched to education and english, where they came up with stuff like Postmodernism and Outcomes Based Education. They became masters of obscurism and sophistry, because they couldn't publicly say what they meant without enraging the anti-socialist lobby (which is still pretty powerful).

There's right-wing education movements too, but they come from other quarters than mainstream academia.

So basically, students get told to learn weird cryptic left-wing stuff (which is designed to be incoherent enough to fly under the radar), and a bit of right-wing propaganda which gets forced in by the right (i.e. intelligent design).

Re:Eh - Re:How about the low hanging fruit first?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I had a similar incident, but I was hit first while sitting down and was going to be hit again when I punched him as hard as I could with 1 uppercut. My attacker ended up unconscious with a broken jaw and the fight ended with that. Unfortunately my school had a zero tolerance policy and any party who threw punches the school would file 5 degree assault charges on behalf of the party on the receiving end as well as being suspended for 5 days. I ended up missing 7 days of school, 5 for suspension, 1 for having to go to court to clear my name, and a 1 to go to court for the proper prosecution of my attacker. At the time I was 17 and my attacker was 18 so I filed my own charges as legally this was an adult attacking a minor which made it worse for him. For me the worst part was the letter of "apology" I got from the fucker while he was rotting in the county jail for 3 moths where he basically tried to state that is wasn't his fucking fault for deciding to pick a fight with me and that is wasn't his fault for hitting me first. After reading that I wanted to go beat the piss out of him but this time not relent once he was subdued. Apparently this individual has been a problem for society ever since as every couple of years I get a letter requesting I provide a deposition or something like that as a former victim.

Re:critical thinking

[jellomizer]

(Yes I am focusing on Monotheistic religions here)
1 We have radical religious folks who choose to disbelieve science.
2 We have religious folk who can deal with science and religion, they take the bible more in terms of stories to teach a lesson and less about it being fact
3 We have religious folk who believe in a higher being but can attest that they could be wrong.
4 We have the people who are agnostic.
5 We have atheist who do not believe in a higher being but attest that they could be wrong.
6 We have atheist who choose not to believe in a higher being. (But respect religious people)
7 We have radical atheist who choose not to believe in a higher being, and seem to make a point to discredit all beliefs based on lack of evidence.

Now group 1 and group 7 are often the most vocal. Their fighting tends to urge people with closer numbers to radicalize too.
Both tend to give very week arguments.
Group 1. the Bible Thumpers who whole argument is based on a book that has been compiled from thousands of years of vocal tradition, then translated multiple times. Then use circular logic to explain its accuracy. Aka. This book proves God exists and is correct because God will keep it that way.
Group 7. The Angry Atheists discredit a supernatural entity based on lack of natural evidence. There cannot be a God who created the universe and its rules, because by following the rules of the universe it doesn't show an entity the breaks the rules.

Now there are a lot more religious people then atheists. The more they try to discredit religion, the more protective religious people are going to get, so they will more likely side with the extreme.

If you let the more moderate groups use science to disprove something, then you give more credit to the idea. So for example the Catholic church (Bla Bla Sex abuse Scandal , jokes about alter-boys... ), actually uses science to discredit a lot of proposed Miracles that happens all the time, now the Catholic church motives for this are varied, mainly because they don't want people faking Miracles so they can get attention and distract from the churches teachings. The Catholic Church is actually a rather moderate religious entity (The left wing, things it is too right wing, the Right wing thinks it is to leftist) but if they show with science and debunk something, it isn't viewed as an attempt to abolish faith or an attempt to ignore science. Thus you keep the moderates well in the moderate span.

 

Re:critical thinking

[Curunir_wolf]

As international test scores indicate, America's children are the recipients of an increasingly rotten education. Meanwhile, the focus of their education becomes a football between elite establishment groups.

America's families and children are becoming pawns and worker bees to be manipulated through social engineering. The goal is to manufacture peaceful, docile citizens of a world corporate state. The individual is to be subsumed into the collective.

The same two ostensibly state government-associated groups (NGA and CCSSO) developed Obama's "Race to the Top" (RTTT ), as well as America 2000 under the Bush 41 administration that morphed into Goals 2000 in 1994 under President Clinton. Goals 2000 and that year's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act combined for the first time to require that states and school districts comply with federal standards listed in Goals 2000 in order to receive federal education dollars. Those standards include expanding government schooling into the preschool years and a much greater emphasis on the mental health or social and emotional aspects. Many would rightly deem this psychosocial meddling indoctrination, instead of what parents want and expect as the traditional academic aspects of education - reading, math, history and civics.

Grassroots education activists were told that local control of education would be improved by George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind", that the hated Goals 2000 would be repealed. The summary of the bill states: "The proposal would remove all references to Goals 2000, outcome-based education, School-to-Work, Workforce Investment Act, and higher order thinking skills."

What is Goals 2000, you ask? It is an education dumbing-down package passed in 1994 during the Clinton administration after it failed to pass under former President Bush in 1991. It was supposed to "harmonize" the relationship between government and education by mandating watered-down, dumbed-down education standards that included a national curriculum, national test and national teacher's license.

Passed at the same time as Goals 2000 was HR 6. That bill stated that "voluntary" stipulations of Goals 2000 were mandatory if states wanted federal money. Thus, in essence, the feds would control education in all states.

While current politicians talk a good game, the fact is every Goals 2000 mandate was reauthorized in "No Child Left Behind," then reauthorized and strengthened in RTTT under the Obama administration.

The only things these bills improve are the power of the establishment and the disempowering of the states and individuals and the dumbing-down of American children.

Education grassroots activist, mother of three and physician Dr. Karen Effrem of MREC stated recently that "Goals 2000 has nothing to do with academics." She believes that eventually the federal leviathan will control the entire education system, which will include private and home schooling.

From Professor Allen Quist:

American schools used to teach the fundamental values of the United States--including the inalienable, God-given rights of life, liberty and property, as guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Not any more. Now our students will be indoctrinated in the UN's definition of human rights. As clarified by the UN's UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights], our rights now may not "be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" (Art 29:3). Our children will be taught that they have only those rights the UN says they have.

The UNESCO standards also include the UN's Earth Charter, which further defines internationally benchmarked standards. The Charter says these standards must entail what it calls "sustainability education" (Art 14:b). The Charter explains that "sustainability education" entails the "promotion of the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations" (Art. 10:a), nuclear disarmament (Art. 16

Re:critical thinking

[dfenstrate]

And all that is fine, for an adequately sophisticated parent.
Unfortunately, we also have a great deal of parents who aren't terribly articulate.
These are decent people who lead good lives, but in terms of raw intellect, or being able to explain rules in a way that children will appreciate, well, they fall short.
These people lead decent lives because they live by a vast cultural heritage, with thousands of unspoken mores and customs, that allowed the creation of the nation we have today, and enabled them to succeed to the extent that they do.
Their children need to learn these same lessons, and be imbued with the same general cultural practices and mores, until they are independant and mature enough to reflect on them.
That is why "Because I said so" needs to remain a valid option, and why parents (and teachers) need to be able to impose discipline on children.
No, the results of effective parental authority will not always be perfect. They will not measure up against some imaginary flawless standard method of child-rearing (that exists nowhere). Mistakes will be made. Feelings will be hurt. A minority with especially depraved parents will come out worse for the matter.
On the balance, though, society benefits from parental authority, and using 'because I said so' as a necessary method.

The rules of society are not built for those with 80+ percentile knowledge and verbal skills. They're built for everyone.

Re:Reward good behavior?

[uniquename72]

I'm not sure if you're actually a conservative, or merely a Republican. So don't take any of this as a specific criticism of you -- it sounds like we agree on a number of things.

Please. As a conservative, methinks you're talking out your ass. We have no problem with public school teachers. What we have a problem with is unions that continue to protect teachers that are poor performers or don't adapt to new teaching techniques, which is exactly the reason why we're in the sad state we are, these days.

As a conservative also, I notice that there hasn't been a single proposal from the Republican party on how to hold teachers accountable, or how to fix the problem. We know that privatization hasn't produced the promised outcomes, so what now?

... incentivizing good, young teachers to excel and actually TEACH their students, rather than just read out of a book. ON the other hand, nothing the federal government ever does ONLY costs a billion dollars.

Smart, competent people are in demand. You incentivize those people to become teachers by paying them what they'd make elsewhere, plus a little more. A conservative would see good pay as a required first step for fixing the system. Republicans do not. From their perspective, government employees should be paid as little as possible, so that they'll go out and find real jobs in the private sector and shrink government even further. The well-being of the country takes a backseat to realizing some bizarre fantasy that a country can be strong without decent education as its cornerstone.

So as conservative, I like this Obama plan. It's not much, but it's something, which is more than we've seen in my lifetime on the education front.

Re:Feh. Obama buys more votes with taxpayer $$

[LynnwoodRooster]

Now be honest, the Democrats in Congress voted - UNANIMOUSLY - against the President's budget as well. The House (who is supposed to originate spending bills) has passed several budgets - and the Senate, led by Harry Reid (D) has refused to even allow debate, let alone a vote, on the budget.

Re:critical thinking

[KhabaLox]

if I tell my son to do something and he asks why, that is encouraged and a reason is given, things are explained. I don't subject to the "because I said so" mentality of parenting. Sometimes you let them do stupid things to learn and see the consequences. If a parent can't give a good reason for why something can or can't be done, perhaps that isn't a rule that needs to be enforced.

I really try to do this to, but it is so hard.

Me: Get in the car.
Child: Why?
M: Because we have to go to school?
C: Why?
M: Because you need to learn things and play with other kids, and Daddy has to go to work?
C: Why?
M: Well, social development is important and I have to make money so we have a house and food to eat?
C: Why?
M: Why what?
C: Why we need food to eat?
M: If we don't eat we will die.
C: Why? ........

And this doesn't end. He will keep going until I either say, "I don't know" or "Just because. That's the way it is." I hate saying it, but I don't know how to break the cycle. I'm trying out other options such as, "I don't know, why do you think we will die if we don't eat?"