Listening to Nathan Saunders makes me crazy

[Anonymous]

Saunders was removed because he was being deliberately insubordinate. The allegations about Candi Peterson are about abuse. Different issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That has always been the case for the WTU. They have more often than not been screwed by their own leadership. George Parker was the only one that was straight with them and they dumped him.

Parker negotiated a terrible contract for teachers, probably the worst in the U.S. When he was voted out he went to work for Michelle Rhee. Not much of an advocate for teachers.

[Anonymous]

When the two heads at the helm are fighting, what does that say for those who are at the tail-end? A former VP suspended for insubordination but has now become the Prez, who in turn suspends his VP for abuse. It it a guess that the suspended VP is destined to be the next Prez? Jokingly, is this the new version of social promotion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has always been the case for the WTU. They have more often than not been screwed by their own leadership. George Parker was the only one that was straight with them and they dumped him.

Parker negotiated a terrible contract for teachers, probably the worst in the U.S. When he was voted out he went to work for Michelle Rhee. Not much of an advocate for teachers.

Just to rephrase: Parker negotiated a contract that stipulated lavish bonuses for professional teachers, and accountability for bad teachers. For the subset of useless clock-punching teachers, it was "probably the worst in the U.S."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has always been the case for the WTU. They have more often than not been screwed by their own leadership. George Parker was the only one that was straight with them and they dumped him.

Parker negotiated a terrible contract for teachers, probably the worst in the U.S. When he was voted out he went to work for Michelle Rhee. Not much of an advocate for teachers.

Frankly, teachers need the support of the public. Otherwise you get the situation in WI where the governor wants to strip the right to collectively bargain. With a Parker at the helm, I'd be voting to prevent that from happening. After few years of Nathan Saunders at the helm, I'd be there cheering the union-busters on.

It's all about how you define "advocate for teachers." As much as you might wish it were not so, public perception is important.

[Anonymous]

Matt Yglesias writes on this topic today:

The average teacher is paid substantially more than the average American wage of slightly less than $41,000. But you need to staff schools with college graduates, who get paid more than that. But as I’ve said before, it’s important to try to look at this in less moralistic terms that aren’t about what people “deserve” but are instead about what we’re trying to achieve. Teacher pay—and especially starting salaries—is low relative to the earnings potential of college graduates. The worry you might have about this is that underpaying teachers may garner us an under-skilled teacher workforce and, indeed, the evidence suggests that relative to high performing countries this is exactly what we have.
The ambiguous policy upshot of this is precisely what makes intra-progressive fights over education policy so fraught. The exact same evidence which suggests that we should offer higher salaries to teachers also suggests that many of our current teachers are sub-par. It’s easy to assemble a “let’s spend less money on teachers” coalition, which is just conventional anti-tax politics. And it’s easy to assemble a “let’s give more money to the teachers we have” coalition, which is conventional service provider politics. What’s tricky is a “let’s spend more money precisely in order to get different people in this field” coalition. The best practical is probably what Adrian Fenty and Michelle Rhee did in Washington and offer raises to everyone in exchange for less job security. But that idea didn’t win any love from the national union leaders, and is very difficult to pull off in a climate of austerity budgets. And yet, unless some miracle reduces the rate of cost increase for Medicaid, just about every state government’s education budget is going to be in a semi-permanent state of austerity for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has always been the case for the WTU. They have more often than not been screwed by their own leadership. George Parker was the only one that was straight with them and they dumped him.

Parker negotiated a terrible contract for teachers, probably the worst in the U.S. When he was voted out he went to work for Michelle Rhee. Not much of an advocate for teachers.

Frankly, teachers need the support of the public. Otherwise you get the situation in WI where the governor wants to strip the right to collectively bargain. With a Parker at the helm, I'd be voting to prevent that from happening. After few years of Nathan Saunders at the helm, I'd be there cheering the union-busters on.

It's all about how you define "advocate for teachers." As much as you might wish it were not so, public perception is important.

You are so right. Look what happened to John Kerry. The so-called "education reformers" have done an excellent job of "swift-boating" teachers and teachers unions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Matt Yglesias writes on this topic today:

The average teacher is paid substantially more than the average American wage of slightly less than $41,000. But you need to staff schools with college graduates, who get paid more than that. But as I’ve said before, it’s important to try to look at this in less moralistic terms that aren’t about what people “deserve” but are instead about what we’re trying to achieve. Teacher pay—and especially starting salaries—is low relative to the earnings potential of college graduates. The worry you might have about this is that underpaying teachers may garner us an under-skilled teacher workforce and, indeed, the evidence suggests that relative to high performing countries this is exactly what we have.
The ambiguous policy upshot of this is precisely what makes intra-progressive fights over education policy so fraught. The exact same evidence which suggests that we should offer higher salaries to teachers also suggests that many of our current teachers are sub-par. It’s easy to assemble a “let’s spend less money on teachers” coalition, which is just conventional anti-tax politics. And it’s easy to assemble a “let’s give more money to the teachers we have” coalition, which is conventional service provider politics. What’s tricky is a “let’s spend more money precisely in order to get different people in this field” coalition. The best practical is probably what Adrian Fenty and Michelle Rhee did in Washington and offer raises to everyone in exchange for less job security. But that idea didn’t win any love from the national union leaders, and is very difficult to pull off in a climate of austerity budgets. And yet, unless some miracle reduces the rate of cost increase for Medicaid, just about every state government’s education budget is going to be in a semi-permanent state of austerity for a while.

OK, what is it that you are trying to achieve?

[Anonymous]

I follow John Merrow's blog on Education Issues. On his post today this stood out to me on the education debate in DC

On my blog last week the respected educator Grant Wiggins posted a long and thoughtful response that some of you may have missed. I hope you will jump back a week and read it in its entirety. Here’s one paragraph:

Until and unless school is defined as talent development and not a march through The Valued Past, we will fail. School is boring for many if not most. When was the last time you folks shadowed students for a day? It is a grim experience. It is endlessly easy to blame Others, those Outsider bad guys. But from where I sit, the problem is a Pogo problem: I have met the enemy; it is us. http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=5221

But this is statement from Wiggen's comments is the most important and the one that everyone ignores.

I think I know a few things about test prep. It is a FAILED response, a TIMID response, an UNIMAGINATIVE response to one’s obligations. It has nothing to do with what tests actually fdemand. I have seen no evidence that teaching must worsen for test scores to rise; I only know that mediocre teachers and principals BELIEVE this. In fact the best teaching occurs in good schools where teachers know what good teaching is and do it. Do you see the most or least test prep in the finest schools? The test prep argument is an utter red herring, showing the bankruptcy of educators. My work in curriculum and assessment reform has always shown that local control of learning and assessment is the determining factor in whether a school is good or not. Well, of course! In good schools there are people who know what good teaching, learning, and assessment looks like; and that strong leadership is needed to make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I follow John Merrow's blog on Education Issues. On his post today this stood out to me on the education debate in DC

On my blog last week the respected educator Grant Wiggins posted a long and thoughtful response that some of you may have missed. I hope you will jump back a week and read it in its entirety. Here’s one paragraph:

Until and unless school is defined as talent development and not a march through The Valued Past, we will fail. School is boring for many if not most. When was the last time you folks shadowed students for a day? It is a grim experience. It is endlessly easy to blame Others, those Outsider bad guys. But from where I sit, the problem is a Pogo problem: I have met the enemy; it is us. http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=5221

But this is statement from Wiggen's comments is the most important and the one that everyone ignores.

I think I know a few things about test prep. It is a FAILED response, a TIMID response, an UNIMAGINATIVE response to one’s obligations. It has nothing to do with what tests actually fdemand. I have seen no evidence that teaching must worsen for test scores to rise; I only know that mediocre teachers and principals BELIEVE this. In fact the best teaching occurs in good schools where teachers know what good teaching is and do it. Do you see the most or least test prep in the finest schools? The test prep argument is an utter red herring, showing the bankruptcy of educators. My work in curriculum and assessment reform has always shown that local control of learning and assessment is the determining factor in whether a school is good or not. Well, of course! In good schools there are people who know what good teaching, learning, and assessment looks like; and that strong leadership is needed to make it happen.

Grant, you silly old fool. Come and teach in DCPS and show us how its done. You wouldn't last a month.