I still have to take issue with your contention that teacher tenure is "easily-attained". What do you base that contention on?

As for "rigid limitations on differential pay", I think this is a canard. A school district trying to impose differential pay on its unionized teaching force is primarily running afoul of one thing: collective bargaining. And the union is right to fight it.

Now, if a school district were to come forward and say, "During the next contract negotiation, we want to re-examine the current pay scale based on seniority, and replace it with one based on merit pay," the district might meet opposition but at least they would be approaching it using the game rules of collective bargaining; at least they would be respecting the process.

Another approach would be for the district to propose keeping the current seniority-based pay scale, scaling back the percentage increase in pay and substituting merit bonuses.

But districts don't do that sort of thing -- they try to ram differential pay down the teaching force's throats -- is it any wonder that the idea is resisted?

---------

Your point that Ganesh's post made some insightful criticisms of NCLB is certainly well taken, and I was wrong in my responses to his post not to acknowledge those points. But both you and he are arguing for a "new approach" that is going to require some sacrifice on the parts of all. But who else are you asking to sacrifice besides teachers? What is new about legislation that has the side effect, and possibly the primary intention, of weakening teachers unions by weakening the framework and foundation of collective bargaining?

And to phrase the point that "teachers unions are ... insisting that pay raises and increased per pupil spending are panaceas" is misleading. You acknowledge that "there is no question that they are, as a profession, undercompensated for the tremendous work they do." That is the only point that the teachers unions themselves are making.

If this is what passes for a "liberal" posting I'm afraid to see what the conservatives think.

Unions are not the problem, underfunding of the schools is. In NY, as Mr. Spitalnick probably knows quite well, the poorest districts get about $9,000 per pupil while the richest get $18,000. When you provide the $18K to the poorest areas and then still have problems we can start to discuss the negative effect of unions.

NCLB is everything to do with discrediting the public school system so that government payments to sectarian schools can be promoted. Just the simplest premise that all students need to reach various milestones at the same age contradicts a century of educational research. The substitution of authoritarian, top-down, rigid requirements for the goals of progressive education as developed by people like Montessori and John Dewey fits in perfectly with the overall trend in the past 40 years toward a hierarchical social structure led by leaders who can't be questioned.

If any of these self-proclaimed pundits would take the time to actually talk to the teachers in the field they would find that salary is not the biggest issue. What is for all but the highest ranked suburban schools, is better equipment, smaller class sizes, support for students living in troubled circumstances and flexibility to adapt teaching to local circumstances.

Once again the common trick of blaming the problems of society on the schools is raised as well. When the working class is falling behind and the home environment is poor it is unrealistic to expect schools to be able to fix things.

Let me know when one of these "liberals" proposes taking even a fraction of the $640+ billion military budget and applying to social improvement.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

I don't want to make this too personal, but Jason Spitalnick went to school in one of the almost all white, top-rated, $18K per year districts that I mentioned.

He then went to a nice, almost all white, conservative, Ivy school and is now at Harvard. Where in this does his first-hand knowledge of what is going on in the school systems of most of the country come from? Working on the neo-con NCLB for the Bloomberg administration doesn't qualify, neither does working on the campaigns of some (unspecified) candidates.

Perhaps Josh Marshall is just trying to create a bit of buzz by inviting someone like this to be a featured writer. If he really wanted to promote meaningful discussion he might try some actual teachers instead.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

I see. We're not really innovative if we try to give everyone health care or education. What's really innovative is, well, ... that part's not stated, beyond a vague hint that somehow teachers are getting away with murder and that educational philosophy going back to Dewey is what's needed. And presumably in health care the innovation is some kind of competition that will force new philosophical ideas that will bring health cheaply to everyone, perhaps the laying on of hands. 

Seems like the Warren Report has too many kids right out of college already buying the GOP system that is giving them a leg up on a nice career. Ok, they've reservations about how Bush did it, but why sabotage a budding establishment position by staking it all on so obvious a loser politically? Meanwhile, though, we can focus on derailing liberalism.

At least a principled conservative like Diane Ravitch had the good sense to put front and center precisely a well-researched shooting down of new ideas going back to Dewey. Someone in the political sector should try to read her account of constant searches for the magic teaching method that will do it all. Having lived myself through everything from New Math to the current conservative fad for all phonics all the time, I have to agree. Or rather, I have to prefer laying on of hands. Heck if we break the power of unions, teachers might have to try it.  

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Most teachers are intensely creative people, earnest in what they do...

statements like this are why I don't really support the current way that education is approached.

the problem I see is that while teachers claim to reach everybody, they can only do it very superficially.

the space shuttle flys itself using a computer and, in the same light, i'm not sure that lecture based teaching accomplishes much.

=== most "classroom teachers," in my mind, are implementers and not creators because they're "implementing a curriculum" or "getting you through a book" with little interaction because that ruins the flow. ===

Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comment here - are you being sarcastic to make a point? Because if you are serious I have to say you have very little understanding of what K-8 teachers (at least) do on a daily basis.

Take a state with a good and usable curriculum guide (not all have them) and a school district that has chosen good implementation guides and textbooks (many have not, forcing the teachers to write their own). Now consider a typical suburban classroom with 18 students. Of those students 2 are very smart (but might have behavior problems as a result), 12 are within some distribution of average but vary in their likes, dislikes, strengths, and weaknesses, 3 are diagnosed ADHD and are truely hyperactive (which isn't to say they are or are not intelligent), and one is at a disability level where she is accompanied full-time by an emotional counseler. Now, tell me how you develop and carry out a school year that helps these kids work together, learn, and grow.

Or are you seriously suggesting that they could be put in front of a computer monitor and told to "learn"?

sPh

Please check the Carnegie foundation link above, spend at least a half hour there, and see if your conclusions remain the same.

since I'm a pretty independent learner, I wasn't that impressed with the "carnegie foundation" website. I'm not all that certain that teachers make that much difference since students have to spend a lot of energy conforming to their expectations.

in college, for example, I spent most of my energy keeping the teacher happy by doing their assignments and tests, rather than learning.

I suppose that some people like "teacher led environments" more than others and believe that teachers can improve their chances of learning something.

I went through a teaching curriculum and did student teaching and learned:

1: most "A students" forget what they learned in a semester or two;

2: you remember 10% of what you hear and 90% of what you teach;

the carnigie stuff is cute but after studying stuff like that in the past, everything really came down to command and control anyway-- regardless of the path.

if the teacher is charasmatic, and everyone gets along, it wasn't the teacher's cleverness that helped but simply an environment that worked for everybody.

Or are you seriously suggesting that they could be put in front of a computer monitor and told to "learn"?

absolutely. I've done that to learn piano and my results have been much better than I had with human intervention.

for example, my computer is willing to play a song over and over again without getting tired. I can also change the song's tempo to my skill level. and, most importantly, my computer is willing to play my keyboard at any time of the day! oh! I can also make it sound like an organ, piano, trumpets, etc... just like that!

the best part might be that I can scan music into my computer and have it played! with a teacher, we'd probably have to negotiate what was played because "the class" would last only 30 minutes whereas my computer can do better than that w/o needing any breaks.

in my mind, you've actually emphasized why teachers don't reach k/8 students-- because they put way too many labels on their students that may or may not mean anything outside the requirement to "command and control" the classroom.

an elderly professor once told me: "IQ tests are only able to measure the IQ of the person who wrote the test!"

I believe that labels are often used to improperly predict the performance of non-related issues.

As an example, I've watched EBD kids do math problems, which were designed for much older kids, just because they were curious and the computer based instruction program saw they could handle it.

thus, it could be said that computers are better than curriculums because curriculums try to define age appropriate learning whereas a computer can ramp instruction based on measured comprehension.

can you imagine how pissed off people would be if eye glasses were handed out based on age?

as you know, our students in the US start dying in their middle school years and then take a dive during their high school years.

I truly think that computers and computer networks will give our kids an unprecented way to find people that they want to create things with and, perhaps, even work with professionally in the future.

the method of teachers giving students the "recipe for success" is over.

Why would progressives try to find anything "good" in it?

because the kids are stuck in the middle of a gangbang over money and power.

the star tribune, here in minneapolis, noted that if student athletes switched schools, they'd be inelegible to compete for one year.

I don't know why they have these rules but shouldn't students have the freedom of being able to play for the best team possible if their skills are good?

The only flaw of NCLB is that it has the same flaws as before: students are told what to do, it didn't expand their rights and I think that's what should happen.

Here, in minnesota, they've put a freeze on charter schools because there was too much capacity and the budgets couldn't support it.

I think it's time to stop putting the economic interests of adults over the economnic interests of children.

To me, that's the progressive cause.

First and foremost, nowhere in his post does Ganesh attack teachers.

I'm sorry, but I called bullshit before, and I have to call Bullshit now.

In fact, first and foremost in his post, Ganesh did attack teachers, he did it in a dishonest but unequivocal way. He engaged in rhetorical subterfuge doing it. And not just me, but several people called him out on it. I believed one person's comment was "warmed over Republican talking points." And he did it pretty much at the outset of his post.

Let me quote the offending paragraph and deconstruct it, and you, the gentle reader, can decide for himself or herself.

On the one hand are those liberals who think too much testing is bad. The broader philosophy underlying testing is the need for accountability – some metric to use to measure the success or failure of programs. As the Times story reports, teachers unions don’t like NCLB, and this might be because they’re afraid of legitimizing the principle of accountability in education. Accountability and evaluation could lead to differential pay for better and worse teachers or even to removing teacher tenure – and the unions fear both. The trouble with this position is that measuring performance is necessary. Everyone wants better public education, but the only way to know what works and what doesn’t is to evaluate; and one way to spark change is to hold people accountable for their actions.

Now, it might be that this passage is okay with you. Or it might be that it smells and you can't put your finger on why. Or it might be that you know why its offensive. But read along...

On the one hand are those liberals who think too much testing is bad.

Okay, so here we start off, Ganesh identifies what he sees as the Liberal position. 'Testing is bad.' Liberals are identified with anti-testing, touchy feely, nonjudgmental education. In fact, the entire thrust of his post is going to be attacking that position and putting forth the 'pro-testing' argument.

Note that Ganesh employs weasel wording to avoid taking responsibility for attacking. He uses the phrase "those liberals" to distinguish the liberals he's attacking from other liberals. Presumably the Pro-Ganesh, or pro-testing liberals.

This is so that if Ganesh is challenged, he can say "I didn't mean *you.* I meant some *other* liberals." This is sort of what Spitalnick tries to do, though not articulately.

The other weasel is "too much" testing. It's an adjectival modifier that the reader will overlook. Of course "too much testing" is bad, any idiot would agree with that. The contention is so obvious as to not be worth discussing.

But Ganesh is not actually claiming that the Liberal POV is that overtesting has adverse consequences, which no one could contest. Rather, its meant that the casual reader will not pick up on it that way, but shorthand that "Liberals believe testing is bad." Or at least that Liberals will have unreasonable views over what "too much" testing is.

Maybe I'm oversensitive. But in this day and age, passive-aggression is well defined and well understood, and this seems to be pretty textbook.

But let's go on:

As the Times story reports, teachers unions don’t like NCLB,

We've abandoned "those liberals" for "teachers unions." Notice?

And consider the Times reference. Another classic smear tactic. Attributing your position to an outside authoritative source.

As an example of the species "I didn't say Ganesh was a fool, the New York Times said it. I only relay what they said..."

But now, here's where Ganesh gets ugly:

...and this might be because they’re afraid of legitimizing the principle of accountability in education.

Or it might be because they're afraid that cameras will steal their souls.

Now, this is a very important example of rhetorical dishonesty, because Ganesh is imputing a motive.

Notice that he says "might", so its speculative. That "might" is his safety valve, just in case he gets into trouble. He can say that he didn't say it outright, only offered it as a possibility.

But note that it is the *only* possibility that he offers. In the absence of alternatives, he takes us from speculation to allegation, notwithstanding his evasive little "might."

What's this possibility based on, anyway? Ganesh doesn't make that clear. He started off by referring to the Time's story. But it's not clear from his own writing whether this speculation is the Times or whether its his own.

Indeed, I'd say that the way its written is designed to give us the impression that this is the Times position, without actually tieing himself down. Perhaps its Ganesh's own position, and he's merely trading on the authenticity of the Times article.

Or perhaps trading selectively on the authenticity of the Times, cherry picking a notion that suits him, without acknowledging other things that the Times might say that undercuts that notion. Perhaps we should have a look at the Times article.

In fact, having laid out the possibility, having ignored every other alternative, and having failed to assert a basis for it, and having borrowed authenticity from the Times, Ganesh will now move forward taking his speculation as the gospel fact and treating it, not as a speculation, but a conclusion.

That's both shifty and deliberate. You don't pull shtick like that by accident.

Anyway, moving on, Ganesh does nothing to present alternatives or to support his speculation. But what he does do is attribute motive to his speculation:

Accountability and evaluation could lead to differential pay for better and worse teachers or even to removing teacher tenure –

Note the weasel word "could", Ganesh has built himself another escape hatch into his language. But the sentence is not complete:

...and the unions fear both.

Note how speculation has turned to certainty in his concluding clause.

So, Ganesh talks of the possibility that some things could happen, but then transmutes that into the certainty of the unions position. Good trick.

Notice, by the way, how Ganesh has moved from talking about "some Liberals" to "the unions"? Getting all slippery and lubricated with your terminology is a sign that someone's trying to slip something somewhere.

The trouble with this position is that measuring performance is necessary.

What??? Whose position is this? Ganesh has added another layer of certainty to his speculation, by finding not just a fear, but a concrete position.

".... and one way to spark change is to hold people accountable for their actions."

And now the response or battle strategy to meet the problem! We've gone from "those Liberals" to "Teachers Unions," we've gone from might and could over to "they fear" and "their position."

And now, having wandered from speculations to certainties, we have an action plan. Note the exciting buzzwords "spark" "change" "accountable"!

Are we following along? The chain is as follows:

"those liberals" -> "who think too much testing is bad" -> "The Times reports" -> "might be because they're afraid" -> "teachers unions" -> "the trouble with this position" -> "one way to spark change."

Or, rendered in abstract terms:

*indefinite group* -> *attributed quality* -> *authority invoked* -> *speculation* -> *more speculation* -> *motive imputed* -> *group redefined* -> *groups position defined* -> *need to attack.*

It's worth noting that this is not the position that the teachers union or those liberals articulate for themselves. This is the position that he attributes to them.

Interestingly, in his next paragraph, Ganesh gives us 'on the other hand' the Conservative position, and attempts to articulate how the adherents to that position describe themselves.

Well, liberals have their motives attributed to them, and conservatives get to attribute their own motives to themselves. Yeah, that's fair. Not!

Anyway, the point is, that I think I've got good reason to be pretty offended right at the outset by Ganesh. Someone begins a conversation with a smack in the mouth, I assume it doesn't get gentle after that.

Mr. Spitalnick is in the position of arguing that what is clearly a bowl of shit is actually a bowl of ice cream, and encourages us to dig in. Sorry.

Mr. Spitalnick, by the way, is not without his own dollop of passive-aggressive rhetoric on the subject. I'll avoid detailed deconstruction and just highlight the misleadingly used positive and negative buzzwords:

What he does do is raise the possibility (good buzzword) that the status quo (bad buzzword) – including easily-attained teacher tenure (bad buzzprhase) and rigid limitations (bad buzzwords) on differential pay – should be reexamined. (good buzzword)

Actually, Ganesh didn't do that. But who is counting?

I support organized labor (good buzzphrase)and I understand that the NEA and AFT and their local chapters have to represent(bad buzzphrase) their members zealously, (bad buzzword) but I think we mustn’t lose sight (bad/caution buzzword)...

After that, a couple of paragraphs over, Spitalnick comes out with a genuine attack:

Right now, teachers unions are letting the progressive movement down – or at least holding it back – by insisting that pay raises and increased per pupil spending are panaceas.

Is that true? Are teachers unions really proclaiming that pay raises and increased pupil spending are panaceas? The cure all, be all end all? The only panacea?

Mr. Spitolnick feels that pay raises are not a solution. But didn't he previously say:

Moreover, there is no question that they are, as a profession, undercompenstated for the tremendous work they do.

So, his position is that they're not paid enough. But then again, why bother, because it's not a panacea? His implication is, perhaps, that although they're not paid enough, there's no need to address that issue? Or perhaps that we might be able to pay them less? I don't know. I just think that there's a bit of cognitive dissonance here.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, there's this little gem:

all but the most avid anti-testing advocates agree that it is useful to introduce additional degrees of systemic accountability,

Is that true? I dunno. About only the most avid anti-testing advocates...? Don't know. Or how about 'additional degrees of systemic accountability' being useful?

Strikes me that a lot of businesses would argue that the introduction of additional degrees of systemic accountability can be counterproductive in that they waste time and resources, slow the system down, and reduce productivity and efficiency. Additional degrees of systemic accountability can in fact be disastrous or at least adverse.

I work for Indian bands in Canada. An average Band in Canada must submit over 800 reports a year to the Federal government on every conceivable subject or transaction. We hire additional people just to write the reports. Sent to Ottawa, many reports simply go unread and unrecognized. Other reports result in delays, as the process of reading them and approving them slows down the administration we need to work for people. Additional degrees of systemic accountability can be quite a bad thing, I tell you this from personal knowledge.

But for Spitalnick, it's a good thing. It's such a good thing that only complete lunatics, "avid anti-testing advocates..." could oppose it.

But in the same sentence, Spitolnick writes:

but nobody can tell a convincing story about how that will fix problems over the long term...

So.... Well... What do we make of that? So, it's testing for the ... sake of testing? We'll just go ahead and test up the wazoo... and then we'll figure it out later? We'll test with no idea what we're trying to measure or how to apply the tests... but it'll all work out? As long as we keep testing more and more?

Anyway, sorry to have bothered you all with this.

For the record, I highly recommend Amike's posts on both threads which raise serious questions about education practice and theory and actually suggest that someone knows something about the subject.

I would strongly suggest that Amike be given a feature heading so that he can raise and guide these issues in a coherent and useful fashion. I'll readily admit I'm basically a 'blunt object and brutality' guy, but amike seems to have enough grasp that he could actually advance a conversation and teach us all something.

So there.

I only consider myself highly opinionated, not intelligent, but the studies do show, and the university I went to agreed, that teacher led classroom instruction is highly ineffective.

In my eyes, and based on my research, self led instruction would undovetail things to the point where people would have their own space again.

My interpretation of the research is that when teachers read the literature, and boil it down for their students, they essentially "dumb down" the learning process to make it a "safe, predictible learning experience."

When I started to teach myself piano, for example, I no longer assumed that someone else would be predicting my weaknesses so I started being more aware of them and tried to figure out how to overcome them.

To think that there is a magic pill-- which makes learning easy, is something I don't believe in any more and the school system should cast that fairy tale off.

I'm not sure what you're implying about the Gilded age but, if you're referring to the concentration of wealth, that's not my point.

I'm very optimistic about New York City's efforts to incent parents and their kids to do certain things, like do well on tests together.

If that movement flourishes, the economic well-being of the poorer folks might improve and validate the studies which suggest that socioeconomic factors are the most important ones.

As a student teacher, I decided that it was impossible to take on the burden of my 200 students. Thus, I tend to appreciate the socioeconomic argument that a good family base is key because of the one-on-one.

I knew that some teachers would claimed "to reach" kids, but the kids would tell me otherwise with their questions and test results.

b) On the main page, two squares to the right of the TPMCafe logo, is a square that says Reader Blogs. Therein you can peruse others' unmoderated posts, and/or create your own.

b1) You can also recommend others' blog posts. If a blog gets more than 10-15 recommendations, someone (Andrew?) takes it under consideration for moving to the front page.

c) If you add an introductory sentence and links to the two main page articles it will be perfectly understandable in my not-so-humble opinion.

d) Whereas I would say that such deconstruction of those who have been chosen for the front page is something that is badly needed

e) A risk we all take, but based on the average rating of your comments I doubt it ;-)

f) Agreed; I think I have.

sPh

"If he really wanted to promote meaningful discussion he might try some actual teachers instead."

or others that are on the front lines of education: principals , superintendents, schoolboard members, state education administrators and even those nasty teachers unions;-0. The education system in the US is complex and there are dedicated individuals at all levels that could help us better understand it.

Jack
who tried teaching for a couple of years and found he interacted better with a hammer and saw.

you are misinterpretting what I wrote and seemingly getting all dreamy and sentimental.

I used to be more dreamy eyed and idealistic about going to school, but then I met students who were at the top of their games and I realized just how low the bar was set and just how mediocre the role models that I watched were.

as you know, the literacy rate is falling in America and fewer and fewer people are reading difficult things these days.

thus, dreamy eyed talk in my book is cheap.

when I see the koreans doing statistics and american companies claiming that americans don't have the background for that work, it's sobering.

i'm neutral about teachers but very negative about a system which everyone knows doesn't place very well internationally.

apologizing for such a system is immoral, I think, because without adjustments, our kids become economically irrelevant.

to emphasize my reading/watching comment: it's easy to watch and discuss a book about piano playing, it's much more difficult to read and play music.

out of the 8 people in my office, I'm the only one who reads and analyzes the 401k mutual fund information-- the rest just trust the investment advisor and, of the non-executive workers, I'm the only one debt free.

I wish more people took the time to do hard core reading but our schools just don't push it-- they let kids read fiction for way too long.

my argument isn't against teachers, per say, but a system which doesn't model the good habits.

So, I guess the answer is to give every poor family a laptop and internet connections and load up the web with all sorts of enlightening self-directed educational stuff?