I was reading an article over the weekend on ABC News online that detailed a report that States are struggling to keep top teachers - the study was conducted by the National Council on Teacher Quality, which describes how states are sticking with policies that protect "incompetent teachers" and that offer poor training programs. On the face of it, I find little to argue with. It's quite obvious that teaching and education, like any other career/industry/job will have it's share of good and exceptional quality people and poor, doing it for a paycheck people.
Of course, teacher's unions have come out against the report - assuming, primarily because it's intent is to be used as a basis for reform. The gist of the report from what I gather (and mind, I did not read the report - just the article) is that states hold firm to policies that do not give leeway in firing bad teachers - which in turn hurts the communities they are serving. I tend to agree with that view - I believe teachers should have to continuously earn their "Tenure" - there are many instances where a teacher has earned tenure after three years, and now they're in their 10th year and you can tell they just should not be doing this job. A system that provides for continuous review, with job protections, would be in the best interests of the local community and teaching community.
My problem though with the report is that it's being published just as the "Race To the Top" program is deadline is approaching. That program is a $4 Billion "lottery" of sorts for states to receive grants which requires states applying for those grants to show how they are strong in certain areas of education - such as openness to Charter schools to options for performance pay. This smells to me to be another way for business/business leaders to get their hands into the public funds geared for education. Education reform that entails these types of programs (i.e., Charters and performance pay) have been being pushed as the best way to challenge the local districts. But, from my experience in a Charter school, they are just a chance for local business people to get into the Education Business - receiving public funds for their "business". Making public-private collaborations is not necessarily a bad thing, but when controls and operations are moved from a not-for-profit model to those of a for-profit model (that is, private business model) I believe too many conflicts arise. Again, performance/merit pay, is another business model of "rewarding" workers. As a counselor, I'd like to know how this would work, would I get raises on the number of students I counsel? Or will I not be in the merit pay pool, because there isn't enough "data" to track to see how effective I'm being? Many states are looking to give performance pay to teachers based on student test scores - can you just envision where that will lead? It's not too crazy to picture the elaborate cheating that will occur when that happens.
I believe in the "Free Market" so-to-speak, but I believe in it in the strictly business sense. By that I mean, when individuals or companies engage in business for profit, they do so in a market that provides for the best chances of making a profit. But I don't believe you can take that model and overlay it on public entities and expect the same outcomes. Just because you're a successful businessperson doesn't mean you will be a successful public servant. This is my biggest issue with the way we look at education reform nowadays, instead of looking at ways to protect taxpayers interests and student's needs we (read: politicians) paint the picture as woefully inadequate and broken and have shifted it the private-sector to come up with ways to fix it. PUBLIC EDUCATION MUST REMAIN PUBLIC!
No comments:
Post a Comment