The Smart Kid Speaks Up!

Like the shy smart kid in school who knows the answers but keeps quiet for fear of being taunted, Candidate Obama instinctively knew the best answers to improving our nation's broken school system, but avoided calling them out for fear of antagonizing the powerful education establishment, especially the unions. Yesterday, fifty days after taking the oath of office, President Obama finally raised his hand.

In his first education policy address, delivered at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, President Obama outlined an ambitious and truly reform-oriented education plan. The details of his plan include all three of the policies that the Strong American Schools' ED in '08 campaign advocated for during and after the campaign.

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Obama straddled the divide between education reformer and defender of the status quo. Like so many Democrats, he needed to appeal to the education union bullies sitting in the back of the room. Most reformers believed, and were cautiously optimistic, that if elected Obama would prove that he had the right answers all along.

Yesterday's speech showed he did have the answers. As Strong American Schools (SAS) had urged during the campaign, and as my partner, former Colorado Governor Roy Romer, has stated repeatedly, President Obama said the need for higher standards is directly related to America's lagging international competitiveness. Obama spoke about the peril of an education system with 50 different standards, eight of which are so low that they align with the bottom 40 percent of the world. "That's why I'm calling on states that are setting their standards far below where they ought to be to stop low-balling expectations for our kids. The solution to low test scores is not lowering standards -- it's tougher, clearer standards."

President Obama even reminded the audience that he had already slipped one past the bullies with a stimulus package provision that allocates $5 billion to state incentive and innovation grants; Secretary Duncan, the other smart kid in the class, has made it clear that he will use that money to help states raise their academic standards.

In the speech, President Obama also unveiled a new teacher quality initiative that will provide mentoring and performance pay for teachers in over 150 school districts. Although he did not describe the details of the program, the President did say that "good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement."

During the campaign, this was one issue that Candidate Obama worried would cause friction among his constituents--he was famously booed at the 2007 NEA convention for muttering the words "merit pay". To avoid it, he sidestepped the notion that teacher bonuses should be linked to student achievement. For its part, SAS has criticized watered down performance pay plans that ignore fundamental indicators like student achievement. Now, with the security of his election, President Obama seems intent on tackling this issue head on. "Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom."

President Obama specifically lauded the South Carolina Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), which SAS has repeatedly pointed to as a model of an effective performance pay system. The president also supports rewarding teachers who work in hard-to-staff schools and teach hard-to-staff subjects. Finally, he recognized the urgent need to infuse new blood into the teaching profession: "And so today, I'm calling on a new generation of Americans to step forward and serve our country in our classrooms."

The president then picked up on a theme likely to earn him the enmity of school kids everywhere, at least until they're working adults: Extended Learning Time. President Obama echoed a SAS message about the need to get away from the archaic school calendar and to build more time into the school day. "That's why I'm calling for us not only to expand effective after-school programs, but to rethink the school day to incorporate more time -- whether during the summer or through expanded-day programs for children who need it." Like SAS, the President compared the U.S. school calendar to South Korea's, calculating that Americans spend a month less in school, which has real economic consequences.

The president's language -- end the use of "off-the-shelf" student testing, "We have let our grades slip, our schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short, and other nations outpace us. What is at stake is nothing less than the American dream." - strongly echoes the SAS reform playbook.

The plan outlined by the President outlines all the right answers and display an uncommon form of leadership. His commitment to improving our schools is an example of leadership that rises above ideology and partisanship and squarely places the interest of children above that of the adults who work and run our nation's schools. It is a substantial step forward in the ongoing fight to improve our nation's schools. And it's a very good showing from the shy student we always thought might just have the right answers if only he had the courage to speak up.

Comments

[AmeriGus]

Inner-city teacher here - let me tell you what merit pay will do in my school. The classes will all become gerrymandered with teachers fighting for the most studious kids. Then teachers will cheat to ensure test results start booming. And worst of all, the money incentive will overshadow any ethical incentive to teach kids well because it's just the right thing to do.

Hopefully Obama is talking about a totally different kind of merit pay - where teachers recommend other teachers because they see demonstrated success. Those teachers then become mentor teachers to share their innovative practices with others. They are rewarded for their extra time and effort to teach teachers, not because of anything her students did that others didn't.

There are many factors affecting education today, but almost all educators, parents and students agree high stakes standardized tests haven't helped at all.

[TheDieHard]

I have one short phrase for merit pay, but it can't be printed here. That's the stupidest idea ever. Teachers can't be held responsible for the home lives of the kids they get.

The single overriding factor is smaller class sizes. More teachers. I can teach five kids calculus in a week. Thirty would drive me absolutely bat crazy in a week.

Teachers HAVE to know their subjects. I don't care if you have a doctorate in education -- if you don't know the chemical formula for sugar, then stick to teaching first grade. PhysEd coaches teaching math is how we end up with bushvoters.

You CAN'T expect all kids to learn at the same speed or level. "Mainstreaming" DOES NOT WORK. When one second-grader is reading a newspaper, and another is still sounding out letters, it frustrates both of them to be held to the same standard. As many fast learners drop out of school from sheer boredom as slower learners drop out to join gangs.

And finally, can anyone explain any use at all of a school board?

[springsm]

I think that we have too many spoiled kids, too many depressed and hungry kids, too much crime from poverty and too many who think hs is a social order. We are not hungry enough as a nation so we don't and can't compete with those who want to get ahead, come to America and all of that. NOW that may change with this upheaval in the economy...but I wouldn't bet on it. Hard work is foreign to our kids these days. I hope that changes.

[angiemomma]

Use the factory worker analogy. Two factory workers are making hand bags. The first factory worker is provided the finest raw materials...silk, fine leather, etc...The second worker is provided rough canvas, old faded material, etc...They're paid not based on their effort, but on the end product. Who makes more? We all know that answer.
Any teacher can tell you that the child arrives at their classroom in a predetermined state. Some arrive from homes where there is a tremendous amount of literacy, enriching experiences, good nutrition, adequate sleep, stable relationships, educated parents. These kids learn in spite of what the teacher does. Some arrive having spent the first five years of their life in front of the TV. They've never been read to, never told about the world around them. They live transient lives, full of chaos and crisis. They're malnourished, sleep deprived, exposed to drug/alcohol abuse by ever-changing people in their homes. Will this child's teacher be able to get this child to perform at the level the first child's teacher will? The most devastating blow comes when the best teachers only want to teach in schools where the first child attends, to command the higher merit pay. The second child is taught by the less experienced/capable teacher who is less marketable. The achievement gap will then widen.
In a nut shell, when the variable of the student cannot be controlled, teachers cannot be compared to one another when the issue is pay.

[KillTheMessenger]

True.

But teachers also know that when the parents and the environment have failed the child THEY are the only barrier between it and a life in misery.

Or at least I hope they know that.

[springsm]

Okay..then all teachers should get accelerated students. They are the ones who want to excel and move on, they are the ones who have parents that are involved, they are the ones who generally come from middle class homes. (well that may be different now) and they often are the ones who have other activities and people in their lives to encourage them. So the teachers will be successful. An average classroom has all levels of abilities, parent support, encouragement and sometimes are not able to enjoy the school activities. Angiemomma is right, there is a division of students in all schools. How and who decides? PUBLIC school can not kick a student out because of poor grades, behavior problems, lack of parental support, poverty or any of the other drawbacks. I do agree tho that teachers need to be 'vetted' as they begin that educational plan in college. Colleges need to boost what they teach and how they teach prospective teachers, also. And students need to be expected to do more...because they are not challenged today, they don't push hard and parents want their student to "have a good time".

[Bethab]

Everybody loves to talk about poor teachers. Nobody ever talks about poor administrators. The best teachers in the world will not succeed in a school with a bad or abusive administration. Until this is dealt with, nothing else will work. By the way, merit pay is almost always decided by administrators, whether it is due to administrators giving teachers they dislike difficult groups of kids or choosing mentor teachers based on their personal preferences.

[Myshkin57]

I agree. And there are way too many administrators. Schools need to be streamlined so as to be teacher-heavy with the resource allocation.

[springsm]

And don't forget the parents. Very often the parents are the ones doing the pushing for no homework, my poor child is not able to play sports because he/she has to study...blah blah and blah. And very often the administration gives in to the bullying parent too. You are right..adm­inistrator­s make a big difference.

[arvay]

At the risk of repeating myself:

My mother was an elementary school teacher in Paterson, NJ. She detested the union and "teacher education" requirements, which included lessons on how to line children up alphabetically. She saw the union as a private club that protected incompetence and hurt students.

One example she gave me: she was able to teach some of her second-grade students algebra. Some of the other teachers got the union to complain to the school administration that she was messing up the system, because these students were being sent to the next grade with knowledge "ahead of plan." They simply did not to expend the extra initiative necessary to keep them going with their advanced studies.

She was instructed not to repeat her initiative. These were minority children, and the union, in effect, was squashing their progress to accommodate their own laziness and incompetence. The widespread success of parochial schools with the same kinds of students exposes teacher union racism and laziness.

Go Obama!

[springsm]

I have to laugh at this. My first born taught himself cursive in the first grade, in the second he was writing and the teacher said "you can not do that yet, it hasn't been taught". He had several different experiences like that until 8th grade. My Mom was a hs English teacher and a very good one in a small isolated school district..she flunked 3 football players one quarter. The principal took her grade book, changed the Fs to Bs and she quit. Right then. They went to college, flunked english and Mom tutored all three of them all summer. They eventually graduated and went on to be successful men, but that still goes on. Somehow, the educational system seems to need reform from the very beginning.

[arvay]

Not surprised.

And yep, this "system" needs reform and I hope Obama follows through.

It's outrageous that the teachers' union opposes merit pay. This is obviously an organization that's highly influenced by its slacker element that wants a free ride on the efforts of the best teachers.

Tenure -- that's something for Supreme Court judges, not teachers who need to have their performance measured and reviewed like anyone else. Teaching is not a mystical activity, it's success and failure can be measured.

[Ohioan730]

Oops! My comment disappeared. Sorry if it double-posts.

I was a student of the 2nd worst school system in the nation--The Cleveland Municipal Schools. Critical thinking? I was a great student and one of the top 3 and I never had that "critical thinking" lesson. I had never heard of such a thing. I got to college and in one freshman English class, critical thinking was introduced to me and my mind was unlocked to a level of comprehension I'd never had before.

Yes, improve our public schools so that kids may be prepared for what awaits them in college. My bff and college roommate came from the same school system and was considered "smart", too. She used me as a spell-check for the most simple words when we wrote our papers. It was so annoying. (the days before windows and spell check) I could scarcely believe they allowed her to graduate high school with her level of writing/re­ading/spel­ling skills, which were IMO, at the 4th grade level at best. That's outrageous.

[PlaceboStudman]

Bonuses for teachers who perform well? Kind of like the CEO bonuses of big business?? Isn't that Capitalism??? (watching another Republican mantra go down the drain)

[LADawson]

And if you notice, no one really cared about CEOs getting big bonuses when they were doing well with their companies... it's only when their companies tanked that people started to complain that they didn't deserve bonuses. :)

[PlaceboStudman]

Oddly enough, that is a similar argument as the one I use to argue the health care debate. We SHOULD pay more for better quality health care (medicine and technology) and not let those be the victims when it is the insurance industry that needs to be reformed. One of the reasons that education has gone down so far is the snowball effect of people believing everyone should be included, therefore standards were lowered, and people were less willing to pay for education that didn't benefit them, when many of them weren't inclined to take the benefits of their education in the first place. The same thing goes for health care. People are willing to pay more if the product is at its highest standards, AND there is the realization that not everyone should be covered because not everyone needs or wants it (how many people have dental coverage but never go to the dentist, how many people get the flu and endure through flu season without getting a flu shot?)

[SWissouri]

There is a foundational issue that we need to address to get our educational system right. Surely bolstering good teachers and removing not good one's is a good start but it won't fix our education problem. The problem that we have is that we are stuck in an Age-Grade system. We should be using a curriculum system with pass or fail regardless of age.

In the current system...we hold kids back who can accomplish more and throw kids into special education who are struggling. In a curriculum based education system...all children regardless of age would be required to pass certain thresholds to move from novice to expert in subjects. Math, reading, Science, Social Studies, etc. The more knowledgeable children in the class help the younger until they move onto the next level.

[CaptainFailmore]

Indeed. Throwing money and time into an educational system that is inherently broken is not going to solve our problems any more than rolling out cram school programs will. (Programs which are notorious for giving students anxiety disorders and generally robbing them of their youth.) I performed best both on and off the grade sheet during my junior year of high school, the reason being that I was highly motivated - motivated because the classes I was in were engaging, interesting, and taught by very helpful and skillful teachers.

The bulk of the dead weight in our education system comes from poor teachers, programs that advance students by age instead of competency, and an emphasis on standardized testing instead of lasting apprehension. No small part of underachievement in American schools also comes from unmotivated students, and motivating them - not rewarding them for failure or laziness nor explicitly punishing them for failure, but by giving them an appreciation for learning like my best teachers did with my fellow students and I - should be paramount.

[houstonobserver]

Is this a little like going back to the system of the one room schoolhouse of years past? Is there any empirical evidence that it would work in a multiple classroom setting?

A curriculum based system where kids move from class to class would tend to confuse kids at lower grade levels, and may not be the best for social development. I suppose it *could* work at mid to higher grades.

Of couse, implementing this would be an honest admission that the system is broken. Internationally, one would only see significant numbers of older children in lower grades because of disruption due to economic factors, war or other natural disasters.

[SWissouri]

The only empirical evidence that I know of...is Universities and Colleges. They certainly don't hold Physics 101 for 18-19 year old only. If you are older then that then you should be in Physics 201 or we'll place you in special education. That sort of system would be ridiculous in College yet...we do exactly that in lower education.

Let's face it MOST Universities are having to give MOST kids entering them the educational foundation that they didn't get in grade and high school. We have record numbers of kids being thrown into special education...and no one is counting those being held back. All of this because we have a "industry" that was designed primarily in the 1950's to shuttle large numbers of kids through a system...hopefully teach them something along the way.

I also disagree that it would affect the lower grade levels. Certainly there won;t be 18 year old paired up with 5 year old in Science. There would more likely be 5-8 year old children in a basic science class as at some point the kids are going to comprehend.

But the current system certainly doesn't account for the fact that all people learn different subject at their own speed. Instead we label them as retarded or autistic or, if they are advanced we hold them back from advancing further. The whole system is nuts.

[KillTheMessenger]

None of the nations which have well performing schools uses a system that even begins to resemble what you suggest. Your argument that education needs an experimental makeover is therefor nonsense.

[SWissouri]

I disagree with that. The better performing nations have education system modeled more along college format then our institutional system. (1) they have well paid educators that "know" the curriculum they are teaching so that advanced children are not held back. (2) They do educate on a subject format (basic, intermediate, advanced, etc) a lot more then we do (since we don't at all). (3) Children are driven more to their natural talents instead of fitting a defined mediocre bracket.

And as I'm talking about educating the way Colleges and Universities do...I'd hardly call it experimental.