I think Michelle Rhee's daughters go to a DC public school. Surely the Obamas cannot be expected to throw their daughters into a poor academic environment (or, infinitely worse, a dangerous environment), but if there's a school good enough for the Chancellor's daughters, might that school also be worth considering? Imagine the message of support it would send to teachers, parents, and students in the DC public schools!
Sadly, this probably isn't an option. Real life isn't the West Wing, and there are too many risks and variables associated with gambling on a public school.
What a commentary on the sorry state of American education.
PS -- thanks to Amy for the correction re: number of Rhee's daughters.
Which School Will Pass the Obamas' Test? - washingtonpost.com
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Rhee's DC tenure fight
Today's NYT has a good article about Michelle Rhee's efforts to revive DC's flagging school system. It focuses largely on her plan to phase out the tenure system. The quotation below sums up the intellectually honest reasons for tenure (in my view, the real reasons are far less noble):
Teachers first won tenure rights across much of the United States early in the 20th century as a safeguard against patronage firings in big cities and interference by narrow-minded school boards in small towns, said Jeffrey Mirel, a professor of history and education at the University of Michigan.
“And the historical rationale remains good,” Dr. Mirel said, pointing to the case of a renowned high school biology teacher in Kansas who was forced to retire nine years ago because he refused to teach creationism.
“Without tenure,” Dr. Mirel said, “teachers can still face arbitrary firing because of religious views, or simply because of the highly politicized nature of American society.”
These are important considerations. But they're not arguments for tenure. They're really arguments for greater first amendment protections for teachers and other public employees.
The SCOTUS has not been kind to public employees in this regard. Most recently, in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) (free summary here), the Court held that an employee could be fired for disparaging comments he made, largely because the subject matter of those comments was in the scope of his job description.
Public employees should be protected from arbitrary dismissal when they speak out on issues relating to their jobs. This is because the public has a right to know insiders' views with respect to the operations of the system (and the physical plants, and the cafeteria food, etc.).
Address the legitimate union concerns by granting greater first amendment protections against aribtrary firings. Create causes of action that will allow for damage awards when a teacher is fired, e.g., for refusing to teach Creationism in Kansas. But don't just make it automatic that a teacher can't get fired.
Rhee is right: schools need to be able to get rid of crappy teachers (and, much more importantly, to reward those who are good at their jobs). Merit pay is the only way to do this.
Teachers first won tenure rights across much of the United States early in the 20th century as a safeguard against patronage firings in big cities and interference by narrow-minded school boards in small towns, said Jeffrey Mirel, a professor of history and education at the University of Michigan.
“And the historical rationale remains good,” Dr. Mirel said, pointing to the case of a renowned high school biology teacher in Kansas who was forced to retire nine years ago because he refused to teach creationism.
“Without tenure,” Dr. Mirel said, “teachers can still face arbitrary firing because of religious views, or simply because of the highly politicized nature of American society.”
These are important considerations. But they're not arguments for tenure. They're really arguments for greater first amendment protections for teachers and other public employees.
The SCOTUS has not been kind to public employees in this regard. Most recently, in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) (free summary here), the Court held that an employee could be fired for disparaging comments he made, largely because the subject matter of those comments was in the scope of his job description.
Public employees should be protected from arbitrary dismissal when they speak out on issues relating to their jobs. This is because the public has a right to know insiders' views with respect to the operations of the system (and the physical plants, and the cafeteria food, etc.).
Address the legitimate union concerns by granting greater first amendment protections against aribtrary firings. Create causes of action that will allow for damage awards when a teacher is fired, e.g., for refusing to teach Creationism in Kansas. But don't just make it automatic that a teacher can't get fired.
Rhee is right: schools need to be able to get rid of crappy teachers (and, much more importantly, to reward those who are good at their jobs). Merit pay is the only way to do this.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Obama's Educ. Sec.?
Please, oh please, don't pick Linda Darling-Hamilton. That rabid anti-TFA Stanford education prof is precisely the type of person we DON'T need as Sec. Educ.
Of course, since Obama said education is his fifth priority, a new Sec. Educ. might not be able to do much. But regardless, someone else needs to be in that important role.
See also this entry from the Huffington Post. Highlights:
Who Will Obama Pick as Secretary of Education? - TIME
Of course, since Obama said education is his fifth priority, a new Sec. Educ. might not be able to do much. But regardless, someone else needs to be in that important role.
See also this entry from the Huffington Post. Highlights:
Yes, Darling-Hammond is an ed school professor who talks in nuanced, academic terms--not scripted talking points (see her debate here). Yes, she was among the first and most prominent critics of Teach For America--and still favors a more intensive, residency-based approach to training new teachers.
But she also has authored a recent study that acknowledged T.F.A. teachers were in some ways better than traditional teachers. And she has helped start several charter schools in California. Darling-Hammond says there's no real daylight between her positions and Obama's policy proposals, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence to contradict that claim.
So what's going on then? Part of it is just a knee-jerk response against someone who dared criticize T.F.A., the reformistas' most cherished accomplishment to date. Another part of it may be the desire for a younger, fresher name picked from their own ranks--D.C. superintendent Michelle Rhee, or New Leaders founder Jon Schnur.
Who Will Obama Pick as Secretary of Education? - TIME
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
