Obama's Teacher Toldja....

There's a... merit badge ... to be given to a Democratic presidential candidate who endorses the concept of merit pay before an audience of teachers, as Sen. Barack Obama did today in Philadelphia.

The Philly Inquirer puts it this way:

It was a measure of Democrat Obama's rock-star appeal that he did not draw any hisses with the pronouncement, and even got scattered applause. Obama's endorsement of merit pay for teachers was the first note deviating from the promise-anything tenor of visits by several presidential candidates to the union this week.

That's fair, to a point. But the devil will be in the lessons plans.

The teachers unions know that merit pay is a very popular idea among non-teachers, and so it makes sense that the union would embrace the concept rhetorically. Eduwonks will want to know how Obama will base his pay-for-performance schema -- whether tests will determine a level of merit (he says no) or whether some other standard will be used. Will that standard be objective? (complaints received, grade point averages) or subjective (reports from students, reports from other teachers, reports from parents?) Will there be teeth to Obama's merit pay proposal, or will it be a populist adornment to an otherwise traditionally liberal education policy program?

BTW: Obama got great coverage when he criticized automakers while giving an economic speech in Detroit. We'll see if the press picks up on this, too.

Update: guess what's missing from this NEA official wrap-up?

Comments

I'm thrilled about this, yet another non-pandering, Speak Truth to Power moment. This quality of Obama's is why he is always, always going to have trouble outshining Hillary in the debates. More than the fact that he speaks with a lot of nuance, 30-second, 60-second and even 2-minute answers almost demand a pandering response. It's sad that it is more effective to say "Teacher pay must never be held hostage to test scores" than to say what Obama did today in a debate format. The line she received a standing O for during the PBS debate was a classic example - not hard to make a room full of blacks feel like the situation would be different if the problem were white women. Meanwhile, Obama has actually spent time in Africa trying to make a difference with AIDS and his response was by far the more thoughtful of the two. Our debates do not reward thoughtfulness, they reward pandering. And Clinton has that down cold.

Posted by cms | July 5, 2007 5:44 PM

I'm a teacher. The ONLY thing that will raise academic standards in this country--and the only thing, consequently, that "merit pay" should be based upon--would be essay tests such as are prescribed for IB diplomas or the French baccalaureate. These tests have rubrics, they are externally assessed and they measure LITERACY, FLUENCY and and ability to REASON in certain disciplines. Stupid, dumbed-down "standardized tests" are contributing to the DECLINE of educational standards and are being used by the Republican Right-wing to DEFUND the public schools--which is their long-term objective of "privatization" anyway. Of course, if we were to go in the direction I'm suggesting we'd have to agree to LEAVE SOME CHILDREN "BEHIND"--as well as to build decent, well-funded polytechnics in this country--which, of course, we'll never do, because, God forbid, that'd be too much like those pinko European social-democrats (who are leaving us behind in terms of cultural literacy, language skills and competence in technical trades).

Posted by digbydolben | July 5, 2007 9:44 PM

Merit pay works. Its what keeps the vast majority of us working hard. The objection teachers often cite, referenced in the blog, is that test scores aren't a fair measure and if not by those objective quantifies, than it will be a subjective measure.

Well... how many of us aren't in a position where we are working hard to advance, within the context of trying for someone else's subjective affirmation of our effort and results?

The objection doesn't hold water with me, and I really do appreciate a candidate who won't simply smile and accept such arguments for the sake of pandering.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've often wondered why presidents and presidential candidates in films play to a desire all of us have for moral courage when actual flesh-and-blood individuals don't. Politicians are in the habit of giving people what they want. These film versions exist for a reason - they portray qualities we want in our elected leaders. Yet in practice, we so often get far less. Obama might just be the guy who breaks that trend.

Posted by PLM | July 6, 2007 8:01 AM

Teachers often resist merit pay for very good reasons. Until administrators can show that they possess any subtlety at all about evaluating teaching (and studenting, for that matter), even the best teachers will remain wary about official definitions of "merit." At the college level, Jim Slevin warned against the administrator fascination with "outcomes" and argued that we should replace that concept with "consequences," a far richer word that begins to hint at the complex and far-reaching dimensions of a good education. Sorry, PLM, teaching is not cooking hamburgers, and the company bottom line should not come first. I'm tired of corporate types acting as though they have the high moral ground because they have performance reviews (and bonuses). Your company has a profit to make; our schools have a much, much greater responsibility. And, so far, no one has found a merit plan that really rewards what needs rewarding. But I'm listening, Obama.

Posted by SCH | July 6, 2007 9:49 AM

The rest of us deal with the consequences of other people evaluating us, and oftentimes without any subtlety. Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water with me.

You do have an important job, SCH. No argument here. But my company's profits are used in part to compensate us employees, which allows me to feed my family. That seems pretty important from my perspective.

You seem to have an elitist attitude toward your responsibilities as a teacher, which comes across as insular. Apologize if that sounds like a personal attack, but that's the way your post sounded to me. There's a lot of important jobs out there. And outside of the government, the vast majority of them have merit systems.

Posted by PLM | July 6, 2007 11:20 AM

Sorry if I sound elitist. But I am only trying to underscore the differences between those who choose to work for for-profit industries and those who do not. A company can and should do what it pleases to protect its bottom line. Schools have a far less tangible "product." What passes for "evaluation" of educatees and educators today looks a lot like a surrender of schools to textbook and testing companies (often one company providing both!) and pressure from corporate types. But market ideology is just that, an ideology, and it doesn't really work in places like schools and hospitals and, really, government.

Call me a commie or something else to reduce the argument, but it is plain-as-day clear that administrative control of classrooms, curriculum, and faculty promotion doesn't work.

Posted by SCH | July 6, 2007 1:52 PM

Let me understand this...teachers are constantly decrying low pay for teachers, but want to turn down extra money? Now that's new!

Posted by Dee of VA | July 6, 2007 2:26 PM

SCH - not trying to reduce the argument, but simply get a better fix on it. You say administrative control of classrooms, curriculum and faculty promotion doesn't work. Who controls those things now?

Obviously we all hope that teachers can control their classrooms. But who control the curriculum? Isn't that standardized within a school system, which would require administrative control?

Which brings us to faculty promotion (and the one of three specifics you cited which pertains to merit pay, I believe). If administrators aren't controlling this, then who is? What's the alternative? Simply giving out compensation based on how long someone has been there? In other words, once hired, a teacher has little reason to fear failure nor to give it any extra effort, other than his or her own conscience?

Seems to me that your job is important, as you said above. Far too important to remove all incentives from the faculty.

What if the administrators (whose judgment you seem so concerned about when it comes to determining merit and pay) make a wrong decision when hiring a new teacher? I'm not talking about anything really bad - anything criminal, etc. But what if the person hired simply can't teach very well. Are the kids of that school district then stuck with this teacher until he or she retires, to avoid the prospect of administrators judging performance?

Posted by PLM | July 6, 2007 3:53 PM

Mentor pay was a nightmare in California. 'Popular,fast-talking,I have a new program' teachers were right out there in front. Blah, blah, the whole
four years. One glitzy program with a new buzz word every year. Classes were assigned to favor the Mentor.
We can repair old schools built next to new jails, but until there is respect for the teacher in front of the room we will flounder for years to come.

Posted by nancy lawrence | February 25, 2008 1:46 AM

Unfortunately we live in a culture which in general does not respect the teacher in front of the room. Somehow it must our fault. If the teacher were just this way or that...students would learn . How about this...Little Johnny goofs off...the parents have to pay a fine.

Posted by nancy lawrence | February 25, 2008 1:58 AM

kxgm fdjgwzcp utwqeronk bpkrjzuax uxnypaeg hsawlfkp tgdcrk

Posted by aqlcbdpe omrquy | June 3, 2008 5:57 AM

kxgm fdjgwzcp utwqeronk bpkrjzuax uxnypaeg hsawlfkp tgdcrk

Posted by aqlcbdpe omrquy | June 3, 2008 5:59 AM