The comments NEA submitted to the U.S. Department of Education regarding the Race to the Top fund eligibility criteria. NEA has finally noticed that the Obama administration's proposed education reforms are in direct conflict with the union's agenda.
At Flypaper, Jamie Davies O'Leary calls this the "least surprising news ever" (emphasis in original) and who can argue? But stating it so flatly underplays the unceasing cloud of swamp gas that emanated from NEA headquarters ever since candidate Obama first mentioned performance pay in front of union delegates in 2007.
Obama had more than two years of opportunities to pull a John Kerry and back off from his statements. I, for one, expected him to. But he hasn't, and he continues to repeat exactly what reforms he has in mind. NEA, for its part, emphasized how the union and Obama were essentially in agreement and how such differences were inevitable and unimportant.
The day before the 2008 election, I wrote: "As we have seen with Gray Davis and various other Democratic governors across the country, NEA and AFT may not react well when the time comes for Obama to say 'no,' when they see his primary job as saying 'yes.'"
I kept beating that drum this year.
March 11: "I think President Obama's notion of performance pay falls well short of replacing the traditional salary schedule. But after hearing him speak on the issue several times, I am persuaded he does actually mean performance pay, and he is in fact at odds with NEA on the matter. Despite the union's public statements that they're all on the same page ('He means national certification. No, really!'), either the President or the NEA will be forced to blink on this one."
March 16: "Now we have President Obama, and in his first major education policy speech last week, he once again mentioned performance pay, plus supported lifting charter school caps, decried America's 'educational decline,' demanded accountability, and called for getting 'bad teachers out of the classroom.' NEA issued talking points on the speech the same day, and they emphasize that 'President Obama's plan calls for proposals we've been advocating for quite some time.' This will come as news to former President Bush."
March 23: "Subject matter differential pay has the potential of causing more divisiveness between NEA and the Obama administration than does performance pay. A lot of school districts may talk about performance pay, but most will be happy to continue without the bother of creating a new system. Districts everywhere would like the freedom to pay more to hire teachers in shortage areas, which would require very little change."
July 2: "It's hard not to root for Obama and Duncan, who continue to pitch the 'let's collaborate and come up with something that works' message. The problem, it hardly needs repeating, is that we don't all agree about 'what works.' And some people don't care if it works or not, as long as the checks keep coming.... The real test will come when there aren't enough carrots and NEA files suit against the sticks. Being Democrats buys Obama and Duncan time and the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't buy them invulnerability."
That's an awful lot of restating the obvious, but NEA's only response was to claim the press was distorting the issue. At the very least, the union owes Education Week's Stephen Sawchuk an apology for hammering him after he wrote about NEA's spin...
On this, the NEA finds itself blowing hot air on the right side for its members (much to everyone's surprise) with regard to Obama's thinly veiled extension of the real purpose of NCLB through his project RTTP. (Race To Topple Progress) for disadvantaged children.
Though the goals espoused by Obama and Duncan are noble and tantamount toward getting the best education possible for all our children per tax dollar spent. Here’s the problem that nullifies the intention. NOBODY has yet to offer a valid, reliable and empirically sound way to use these test scores to measure teacher performance. We are forever complaining about the system, some can even identify what needs to change BUT WHERE are the blue prints to the solution? Not in RTTP. Each year a teacher has an entirely different set of kids with different backgrounds, temperaments, abilities, and disabilities. This Proposal insists that all children are the same and learn the same. Unfortuneatly for Obama, the very nature of a child (for whom public education is supposed to exist) muddies the waters of what all American’s expect: a fast simple solution. 8/30/09 9:30pm Praetorian
On this, the NEA finds itself blowing hot air on the right side for its members (much to everyone's surprise) with regard to Obama's thinly veiled extension of the real purpose of NCLB through his project RTTP. (Race To Topple Progress) for disadvantaged children.
Though the goals espoused by Obama and Duncan are noble and tantamount toward getting the best education possible for all our children per tax dollar spent. Here’s the problem that nullifies the intention. NOBODY has yet to offer a valid, reliable and empirically sound way to use these test scores to measure teacher performance. We are forever complaining about the system, some can even identify what needs to change BUT WHERE are the blue prints to the solution? Not in RTTP. Each year a teacher has an entirely different set of kids with different backgrounds, temperaments, abilities, and disabilities. This Proposal insists that all children are the same and learn the same. Unfortuneatly for Obama, the very nature of a child (for whom public education is supposed to exist) muddies the waters of what all American’s expect: a fast simple solution. 8/30/09 9:30pm Praetorian