Here's a problem. Let's solve it.

This is an issue. It's not going away. It's also not an attack on Kerry. I'm voting for him, and I want him to win.

That doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to problems. And this is a problem. I'm hearing more and more frustration with Kerry every day. And I don't mean here at DU; I'm not talking about DU flame wars. I'm talking about my colleagues; the people at my site, the people on my state-wide and nation-wide professional discussion groups. Educators are increasingly upset with Kerry's rhetoric concerning public education.

My district has about 25,000 students, and about 900 teachers when you add in resource specialists, etc. Currently, they are in an uproar over the following set of emails:


"The National Education Association (NEA) applauds Senator John Kerry's emphasis on teacher quality, including compensation. Research shows that, after parental involvement, teacher quality is the most significant factor in student achievement.

"Throughout our history, addressing teacher quality has been the central mission of the National Education Association. We believe that children are best served by teachers who have an academic background in content and effective teaching methods, high entry level standards, and ongoing assistance and improvement through evaluation and professional development programs.

"We believe in the fundamental premise Senator Kerry proposes -- that we should raise standards for teachers and provide compensation to match those expectations. And we agree with his call to fund the No Child Left Behind Act and make needed changes to it.

"We look forward to discussing ways to help strengthen Senator Kerry's proposals in ways that will meet the needs of America's public school students."

Here are two of the responses to this statement by the NEA, from teachers on the front lines; they are representative of the rest of the responses in my district:

This is so bogus! So now, just because Kerry's the Democrat presidential contender, NEA and Reg Weaver are supporting his "stricter standards for teachers," merit pay, and rewarding/punishing teachers depending on whether students make achievement gains? Come on! And you can bet there is no funding for the higher pay, just for the higher standards full of more testing, paperwork, and beaurocracy.

and

Now this burns me....he sounds like another Bush....blame the teachers---let's hear someone use political clout for )1 parental support and involvement and 2) Articulation in curriculum from one grade to the next...... Kerry is not saying anything new....same old, same old.......

So let's solve it. What do we need to do? Educate Kerry about the corrupted tests and numbers? About the real consequences of using standardized tests to measure, not the test takers, but the test givers? Call him? Write him? Write off all of the angry teachers, and assume that you have a big pool of candidates to replace them with? Write off their support? Start sending in lists of better ways to make sure teachers are qualified and doing the job? Start focusing on the actual source/s of breakdown in public ed, instead of playing the blame game? What?

What are you doing?

Here's what I've done:

I've listened. And I've sent Kerry a letter detailing my concerns and my suggestions for alternative solutions. I got a letter back telling me how he appreciates my support, without ever having the issue addressed.

What's the next step?

I can understand Kerry's move toward the center, but this move was not needed. Blaming teachers is neither right nor popular. I'm not sure what to do about this.

It's not that teachers don't sincerely want to support Kerry; they sure don't want to support *! It's that we don't understand why his campaign is "leaving teachersbehind," and we're not sure how to successfully, and positively, get his attention.

It certainly doesn't help that the NEA got behind him. They should've withheld their endorsement pending better proposals from Kerry. I really with I had an answer as to how we're going to overcome this. :shrug:

the feeling must be that teachers have nowhere else to go so kerry can open up on them with rhetoric best mouthed by the busheviks.

political calculations of securing the center at the cost of ardent support from the rank and file of the teacher's union as well as other unions seems foolish and plays into the hands of bushevik propaganda that depicts kerry as an rank opportunist.

The popular culture in which we live has beaten the idea that teachers are to blame for the "state" of public education for the past 25 years or more. It's not right, but it's the difficulty we face.

is to publicly state, repeatedly, as long and often as it takes to enter the mainstream consciousness, the real conditions of public ed, the real sources, and the real solutions.

Which is why I want to hear the real deal coming from public figures; from all democrats, especially John Kerry! Lets tell it like it is. Let's address the real sources of failure. Let's let the truths about public ed become part of the popular American culture!

On edit: did I just say that? Popular American culture based on actual truths? <sigh>

I did. I am still a defiant idealist.

Look, I'm not saying this as a slam on John Kerry -- but do you REALLY think that a person who grew up in exclusive private schools, and whose kids have attended only exclusive public schools, can really have a CLUE as to what the real state of public education is?

It's pretty damned similar to Bush claiming to know what's needed to help the plight of the American poor -- except I at least tend to give Kerry credit for not being blatantly misleading and wholly self-serving.

Education is the subject in this country on which everybody assumes that they are MORE of an expert than those who actually spend all their time in the system. It's all quite surreal. Until that trend is broken, and we start to go to the SOURCE for recommendations and proposals rather than the unknowing periphery, the problems are destined to continue.

And I am willing and eager to give Kerry credit for anything he will actually do to support us in our efforts to educate all.

If nothing else, I know Kerry can't be as bad, for public ed as for everything else, as *. If you look at his whole, rather than his most recent record, it is admirable. That's where I went with a colleague this morning who went on a rant. I think it will buy Kerry votes, but what we really need is a surge of optimism and enthusiasm, which we aren't getting at this point.

and I fear that that is the sole reason for Kerry's approach.

Grima Wormtongue keeps coming to mind.
He desperately needs some new advisers.

:-(
edit to add pic:


sorry for this image, but I just can't help but feel he is getting some very bad advice..

Is there a campaign office in your area?

Go to a House Party (they are having one on May 22 that will include a conference call with the Senator himself)

Host a House Meeting, a local staffer will come to your house and address you and your guests.

Find out when there are community action meetings.

And remember, even when a group endorses a candidate, that doesn't mean every single member of the group agrees.

I have been less involved since last September 2, when the school year started with so many more mandates that I've worked 12 hours a day all year long; but I'll be jumping back in this summer.

Now...how will campaigning for Kerry change his stance on public ed?

If you campaign, you'll at least be in touch.

He must get so many letters per day, that's why he sends automatic responses. But, if you talk to paid staffers, there is a chance they will talk to him. And if you keep talking about your concerns, over and over in a nice and intelligent way, maybe it will sink in with them and the message will get passed to Kerry.

Or, if you work with them enough you could say something like, "I really like Kerry, but this concerns me..."

If they see your face at events helping they might be more receptive when you ask how to really get the candidate to hear your ideas.

just my theory.

NOT

Kanary

Campaigns listen to groups, not individuals (witness the response you got), which makes the NEA statement suck that much more. They have "the teachers" behind them now, and that's all that matters in an election year.

*Is* there a next step? I would really like to believe that there's something we could do to enlighten the Kerry campaign about testing, etc., but what? Write them off? Try "take them for granted".

and many of us are doing, is to send our reactions to the group that gave him an endorsement on our behalf, without requiring that he address this issue satisfactorily.

Not that I expect that to sway them; it's a little late to be closing the barn door now.

The other thing is to go to work on our reps in Congress. I wonder how many individual letters it takes before the pile becomes a group? Perhaps getting multiple signatures on every letter?

on both the local and district level.

Attend county and district Democratic Party meetings. Educate them. Educate your own colleagues. Write letters to your local newspapers. Create a committee to figure out what needs to be explained.


If you can... become a delegate to the National Convention. Once you become a delegate you will be wined and dined.

I've done the local and district level thing, and attended local dem meetings. Not a delegate, though.

The committee suggestion deserves more thought. :hi:

I'm not in the public schools, although I'm trying.

Attend county and district Democratic Party meetings. Educate them. Educate your own colleagues. Write letters to your local newspapers. Create a committee to figure out what needs to be explained.

Good points. Thanks.

Listen you are right. You cannot use a Repuke code word, accountability, for beating the shit out of teachers till they quit and we can privatize and destroy the public school system and not expect their to be a reaction.

He needs to get in front of a teacher's group quick and qualify that garbage in some way that does not piss on the Dem base.

On edit: This is coming from a Kerry supporter. I am not ABB but honestly like Kerry.
_

I've always liked Kerry, although he was not my first choice. This is an issue that weakens his natural support base. I don't think we can afford any weak spots heading into the battle this summer and fall.

And, as an educator, I am dismayed.

He said that he wanted accountability to mean more than just endless hours of more testing.

_

I'd like it to mean that we do away with the endless hours we already spend on useless, expensive testing. And I would like accountability to be disconnected entirely from assessing students. Assessing students is supposed to inform us and help drive instruction. Students' test scores should not be used to "grade" the instructor.

This is directly from the website:

Politicians can talk all they want, but at the end of the day the most important thing in a classroom is the people who work in it. Yet too often, teachers, most of whom are performing heroic work under difficult circumstances, take the blame. John Kerry wants to support teachers and paraprofessionals with better training and better pay, with more career opportunities, more empowerment and more mentors. What the public schools of America need is an advocate in the White House. As President, that’s what John Kerry will be.

and will not hear their objections to IWR. You think he cares what TEACHERS have to say?

If Dems wanted someone who actually listened to them, they wouldn't have chosen Senator Kerry. Obviously.

edit to add link:
http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=12625

accountable for student performance. But, I am willing to listen to teachers objections.

A question that is really important to me is - how, right now (or before NCLB) is a teacher's performance judged? What measures are used to determine whether a teacher is effective, ineffective or somewhere in between?

It usually translates three ways:

1. More testing. Suddenly the curriculum is chunked out the window and you have to teach everything for the year to the tests. SOL tests are this week for my wife btw.

2. More paperwork. Teachers drown in seas of paperwork right now. Unlike their propaganda Repuke "reforms" for accountability usually translate into large layers of paperwork and bureaucracy.

3. Punishing teachers. Despite the fact your school is tops in the district it gets punished with lessening funds because they fail to progress to some artificial point which is silly because the school you are in happens to already be a top tier 1 school. This translates into less money and lower pay to the teachers.

These if you look closely are part of self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuated by the Republicans. The plan is to make damn sure public schools fail so they can privatize the school systems with voucher programs and other market philosophy schemes.

Kerry using this word without heavy qualifiers sends up red flags for most rank and file teachers. Exactly, not the type of people to disenfranchise during an election.

I like Kerry. I do not see him as the second coming but I like him because he is a good first step away from the hardcore DLC Clinton lovers and back a little closer to the left. After all, at the very least, I can vote for a man who is left of Clinton and Lieberbush and the way the DLC ran Gore last time. This to me is good. However, comments like this unfortunately freak the base out and that is not good.

BTW, I seem to remember him saying he wanted accountability to mean more than just more testing. However, I cannot find this earlier quote.

_

what should be happening. What are the goals of a teacher at the beginning of the year and how is the teacher judged in his/her performance at the end of the year? Are they not held accountable in some way for their performance?

The curriculum shouldn't be suddenly chucked out the window - there should be a process for realigning the curriculum with the tests and incorporating new teaching techniques when needed. In MA. there was a curriculum frameworks in place 2 years before MCAS but there still needed to be adjustments locally. I don't see this as a bad thing. In any place in which you're going to implement standards, change is going to be required and the beginning is going to be hard.

I won't assume that funding under Kerry will be the same as funding under Bush - it seems you are basing your opinion on NCLB, a program that Kerry has already said is underfunded.

I did not say or, if I did I made a mistake as I posted, that he should never use the term.

However, understanding it is a code word, Kerry could have easily calmed the teachers with a sentence qualifying what he meant.

When accountability just means more tests and more paperwork then that is bad.

The problem with the SOL tests are the fact that due to staggered testing schedules teachers have to get through their entire base of SOLs (Standards of Learning) sometime up to almost a month ahead of when classes end.

This translates into a rushed schedule for both the teachers and the students. It also gives very little flexibility to add more material around the SOLs.

_

the criteria is for earning raises or how a determination is made that a teacher should be fired because he/she is not effective at his/her job? If a teacher transfers to another school department what do they put on their resumes when it comes to accomplishments?

I'm not putting this all on you, I've asked this question on other anti-testing threads.

I'm not feeling much sympathy here. Every day people's jobs change and they must work harder and are asked to meet new requirements, it looks like in this case there are financial rewards to go with it.

ACK is stuck on the notion of "accountability," but I spend my entire career being accountable.

Teachers are evaluated by administrators who visit their classroom (in a perfect world they visit multiple times, but alas the world isn't perfect). The evaluation criteria are usually set through negotiation between the district and the local teachers' association. The criteria are often also based on state mandates. NCLB added more criteria for the schools, such as increasing graduation rates annually, etc. Schools that already have high graduation rates are doomed to being called failed schools under NCLB because they won't improve at the mandated rate. NCLB holds school districts and states accountable, while the state and local districts hold individual teachers accountable.

Educators are leery of merit pay because then the honors teachers would be getting all the merit and those who teach special ed or English language learners would never get it... We don't choose our students. We can only hope to spark some fire inside them, motivate them to learn, help them to see the necessity of knowing the difference between an objective case personal pronoun and a subjective case personal pronoun.

The NEA and its affiliate organizations do want teachers to be accountable. All of the teachers I know want to be accountable. Just not the way Bush and his cronies mean it. Accountability should not be a device to punish teachers -- it should be a way to reflect and help teachers do better. It should be demonstrating that you, as a teacher, are performing your duties in a responsible manner. That students show some growth. That they meet certain benchmarks or content standards. This can be measured in ways other than standardized testing, such as student portfolios, projects, etc. The feds and the states just go for what they think is easy....

My sophomores are currently testing on the state tests. By the time they finish next week, they will have sat in 20 hours of testing this year, not including AP exams that some take. They spent seven hours on the High School Exit Exam in March (a full three months before the end of the year -- try cramming 9 months of instruction in 6)-- and now they are taking the state standards tests and achievement tests. What a racket. The testing companies are making a fortune at the expense of our children's time in the classroom. 20 hours is four whole days of school. Or 20 hours in my class alone equals four weeks of instruction time!

There is more to accountability than politicians will discuss. It's just a buzz word to them. It means a lot to us teachers. Districts, schools, teachers, and students are being "accountabilitied" to death while the governments at the state and federal level shun their accountability to us in the schools....

I hope this was helpful, HopeLives.

than I thought.

I have to digest this before responding. It was helpful.

but I need to clear up a couple of possible misconceptions.

It's important to realize that the various states all have different rules, and then the various local school systems have their own set of rules, many of which are the result of negotiations between those various entities and a teacher's union. What was described above may not be universally true.

In NYS, pay is mostly set by how many years of seniority you have, and how much education you have. I also think there might tests teachers can take which can get them a raise if they score well. In NYC, performance evaluations have little to do with how much a teacher makes.

Also, I think that explanation confused the issue of "accountability" with those of teacher's pay and dismissal. Though teachers and schools are evaluated regularly, and are burdened with paperwork, it is unusual for those evaluations to be used to set a teacher's pay or dismiss a teacher. Those evaluations are used for reporting purposes, and now with NCLB, to set funding for the school, which is a completely different issue from teacher's pay and job security.

Furthermore, as Kerry points out on his website, where he outlines this plan, in more than 35 states a finding of "inadequate performance" is not sufficient to dismiss a teacher. It sounds like the only job (aside from being an incumbent politician in NY) where doing a poor job is not grounds for dismissal.

And though this doesn't address the questions you asked, I would also like to point out that Kerry's uses the word "accountability" in his plan twice. He says:

1) " Kerry will also increase accountability for good preparation at colleges of education"

2) "Retain teachers through better preparation and support , including holding schools of education accountable for improved results, and offering more mentoring on the job; "

So the reality behind all the outrage over "accountability" boils down to "Kerry is going to hold schools of education, and not teachers accountable"

You can read the plan at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/agreatteacher.html

(You see the URL? "A great teacher" - that's what people are calling "teacher-bashing")

The criteria of raises vary by school district but are based on both seniority and the level of education attained by the teacher. Higher degree equals higher pay and longer seniority usually translates into higher pay.

Accountability comes in the form of reviews that many levels of administration and senior teachers perform in sitting in and reviewing classes and the necessary write ups on their students.

In addition another critieria of review comes with the dedication to continued learning that teachers must adhere to. Teachers are always having to take classes and seminars and different types of learning projects in addition to school, after hour activities, fund raisers and other types of work for the community and the school.

A teacher is usually fired by the administration when failing on the review of these criteria. The cowardly way some administrations do it is to let the kids suffer through a bad teacher for a year and then simply do not invite them back on contract next year. This is something in terms of accountability that vehemently despise.

They usually put in terms of accomplishments a number of things the very least of which are school wide programs they fostered, after school activities they worked on and what they did, learning projects and after hours learning projects they have created, varities of projects and types of higher education courses attended.

I am not against accountability and of course I like the idea of teachers being paid a decent wage.

I do not know why in this discussion otherwise civil and fun I have had to say that I am not against in almost each individual post.

I am disturbed that Kerry did not make his position clearer because they are a lot of teachers that know the perils of the bad accountability programs that the Repukes use.

_

sentence but I wasn't trying to characterize you.

As a non-teacher and a parent of 2 kids in school, it is important for me to understand how teachers are measured.

My husband is a firefighter and he is not judged by his performance when it comes to raise time. I understand that he doesn't get a raise based on how many fires he puts out and how quickly or how many medical calls he goes on and how many people survive.

I do believe in measuring people's performance and it is probably because I was always in the private sector and it was fairly easy to do. I despise systems in which people get rewarded because of personal connection rather than performance or just because it's expected.

Student performance measured via testing sounded like a good measure of teacher effectiveness but by your post and the one previous, I need to rethink that.

Most teachers don't have a problem with being "accountable." Or measured. And there are many ways to measure whether or not they are doing their jobs.

Here's the thing. Teachers are one part of the equation that adds up to a student's experience. They are not the whole show. There are many things they do not control. And many situations that affect student success that they can do nothing about. So using a test score as a "bottom line" is just wrong.

Doctors aren't considered "under qualified," or "incompetent," or "not meeting standards" every time a patient dies or makes only a partial recovery. If so, there would be no doctors, because they are not miracle workers. They can't cure every case or repair every injury. That doesn't mean that they give up and walk away. They do everything within their training and experience. And the health of their patients are also dependent on genetics, living habits, and whether or not their patient cooperates. We don't say the doctor "failed" someone who refused to follow the recommended treatment for their illness.

Teachers aren't doctors. But many of the same conditions apply. Teachers don't control any of those outside factors, and they don't control many things about the situation they work in, such as class size, mandated curriculum, text books, budget, etc. They don't control the experiences their students' had the first 5 years of life before they hit the schoolroom door; the years that neural connections were developing. They don't control the habits of mind and living that lead to intellectual development in people, and they don't control all the rules, the amount of space, the schedule, and many other things directly affecting their classrooms. They can just stay current on what we know about the brain and learning, and make sure they offer the best their training and experience allows given the current working conditions. Expecting them to make sure that every student is above average in such a situation is ludicrous.

Other posters mentioned many other ways to measure teacher performance. I don't think the administrator evaluations are effective; they don't come often, and they don't stay long. I prefer peer mentoring; that is where teachers...all of them, at all levels of experience and expertise, meet in small groups to discuss areas they need to grow in. The mentor visits the classroom regularly, conferences with them, plans with them, evaluates progress with them, etc. This doesn't report poor teaching so that you can fire them; it improves poor teaching and keeps the teacher growing, learning, and improving the way threats and punishments don't. It empowers teachers to be the best that they can be. Since a teacher that is "fired" is going to be replaced with a substitute with less experience and training, firing isn't a solution except for in extreme circumstances. And keeping teachers in the profession, improving their skills, is vital. Maybe there are some parts of the country with a surplus of teachers, but in my area there is always a shortage.

One of the best ways admins use to evaluate teachers has to do with parent contact. Teachers who get a high number of complaints registered vs teachers who are highly requested and sought after; those whose families return with younger siblings year after year. That doesn't mean that all the kids in a well-loved teacher's classroom are "meeting standards;" kids can still struggle, and some kids can fail to meet the standards. But they learned, loved learning while they were there, and want to be in school. The value of some things just can't be measured by numbers.

I have known a couple of teachers who were fired; there is a process, and there are safeguards in place to make sure it is not used unethically.

And I've been paid for higher test scores. My merit pay showed me what I was really worth to the state; my whole school, in fact. We exceeded our testing goals a few years back and were richly rewarded with a check for $1 and change. We laughed that off, because we know merit pay would be corrupted by school site politics, and the teachers teaching the neediest kids, doing the hardest job, would never earn it. But in case anyone needed to know what a good school merits, it's less than $2 per teacher.

that result in the serious injury or death of a patient. There are ways of pushing them out of the system. There is choice in a patient-doctor relationship. The patient can assess the doctor's skill and style/manner and rely on word of mouth to decide whether to go to that doctor or not.

Parents have no choice. If they did there would be a natural selection, those teachers that had a bad reputation would have no students and they would be out of the system. How many parents do you think would choose a teacher whose primary method of communication is yelling?

If schools used peer review, administration review and also input from students and teachers and there was actually improvement based on this info then I think it would be a fair way of judging a teacher's performance. But if parents see that teachers who are just going through the motions waiting for retirement are not held to account then there is little faith that the current system is working. More than anything else, that is why I look to some objective measure to determine whether a teacher can and will perform or not.

doctors are considered incompetent when they make mistakes that result in the injury or death of a patient. Every death of a patient is not, however, due to incompetence.

And every child that does not succeed academically is not due to teacher incompetence, either. There are too many factors involved to use student performance to measure teacher performance; it isn't a valid or reliable measure.

I am not against measuring teacher performance. I want weak teaching addressed; I want my kids to be prepared when they get to me, and to be able to continue thriving when they leave me. The teachers before and after me have to do the job for that to happen.

I don't know how to "measure" that, though. The kinds of things that tell me whether or not a teacher is "performing" or not aren't objective. When the kids are happy, enthusiastic, and confident; when they seem to have, not necessarily a level of skill mastery, but an understanding of concepts and the ability to make connections, to listen, and to discuss their ideas...then I know that they have spent quality time both in their homes and in their classrooms.

Several ideas occur to me, as I ponder this; but I don't want to post random brainstorming here. Because I can see potential problems with every idea, and I don't want to voice them if I haven't thought it through thoroughly.

I will say that parents do have some choice at my school and in my district. My district offers "schools of choice" as alternatives to the neighborhood school. Anyone in the district can attend a school of choice, if they like the offering better than their home school. The "schools of choice" tend to operate like magnet schools, with particular focuses; performing arts, dual language immersion, and others. I've always, except for my stint of student teaching, worked at "schools of choice," so I'm used to doing things a little differently from the norm, I guess.

My school offers parents choice. Choice of program, since we have more than one, or choice of teacher. Not both, because there is only one teacher per grade level per program. So parents choose which is more important to them, and their requests are filled on a first-come, first-served basis. I've worked at other schools in the past where classes were filled by lottery when more people requested them than there were slots to fill.

The choice thing has its drawbacks, of course. It truly should be more balanced, with the school making the effort to fill a request, but not to the extent of creating unbalanced classrooms. One year I had a classroom full of 3rd graders with one 4th grade boy; because the parent requested me. The last 3 years, 2/3 of my class are boys. Talk about extra energy! And this year, 24 of them are 5th graders and 6 of them are sixth graders. I think I could have done a better job with a more balanced class.

My school also has an open door policy. Any parent can show up and spend time in any room at any time; just sign in and get a name tag, so we know who all the adults wandering the campus are.

Do you think these kinds of things, choice of school, choice of teacher, frequent parent conferences, and an open-door policy, help the self-selection process?

There are ways to push teachers out of the system; I've seen them used. In the majority of cases, I'd rather see the teacher improve than lose the teacher!

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/agreatteacher.html

You seem to be getting all worked up over "accountability" and the prospect of teacher's being fired because they and/or their students fail tests, but Kerry's proposal says nothing like that.

For one thing, Kerry's plan uses the word "accountability" only twice:

1) " Kerry will also increase accountability for good preparation at colleges of education."

2) "Retain teachers through better preparation and support , including holding schools of education accountable for improved results, and offering more mentoring on the job; "

Kerry's plan is explicit on this point. The only ones being held "accountable" are schools of education. Not teachers

re: "testing teachers", here's what the plan says:

1) "Require Rigorous Tests for All New Teachers: Certification tests for new teachers are often too simple, and the bar for success is often too low. Kerry will invest in a national initiative to determine the right high standards for tests and require states receiving federal funds to implement tests with these standards.

2) "Require all new teachers to pass rigorous entry tests;

3) Create a New Teacher Corps with Scholarships and Loan Forgiveness. John Kerry will offer young people who excel in school a new deal: If you will spend at least four years teaching America's children at a high-need school, we will offer you scholarships or loan forgiveness that are enough to pay tuition at a public university. John Kerry will also provide comparable support for midcareer professionals, such as veterans or engineers, to join the Corps. In addition to traditional certification programs, Corps members will be able to become teachers through high-quality alternative certification, such as passing rigorous tests plus intensive student teaching and on-the-job mentoring by successful teachers.

4) "Great Teachers Fund. States will be eligible for a share of $15 billion in grants based on the number and percentage of high-need children. If States do not participate, school districts will be able to apply. States (or school districts) accepting these funds will be required to undertake the recruitment, retention, and parental involvement efforts outlined above (to the extent state activities), as well as requiring rigorous tests for all new teachers and ensuring fair, fast procedures for improving or removing teachers who do not perform. The major funding priority will be raising pay where we need teachers most. "

IMO, it's quite clear that the only tests he is talking about are the test teachers take to get certified. There is absolutely nothing about their salary being determined by tests.

wrt, firing teachers, here's what the plan actually says:

1) Ensure Schools Can Replace Teachers Who Perform Poorly: While teachers deserve protection from arbitrary dismissal, no teacher deserves a lock on a job. John Kerry will require states to develop or maintain fast, fair procedures for improving or replacing teachers who do not perform on the job, such as establishment of “inadequate performance” as a ground for dismissal.

2) Require fair, fast procedures for improving or replacing teachers who do not perform;

3) Ensure Schools Can Replace Teachers Who Perform Poorly. While every teacher should have protection from arbitrary dismissal, no teacher should have a lock on a job. This is a matter of fairness for children and for the great majority of teachers who do their work well. As Randi Weingarten, leader of New York City's teacher's union, recently said, “Teachers want to help struggling teachers improve, or if need be, help remove those who don't belong in the classroom. don't want to see incompetent or otherwise unqualified teachers in the classroom next door to them.” While protecting due process, John Kerry will require states to maintain fast, fair procedures for improving or replacing teachers who do not belong in the classroom. Although the appropriate approach will vary by state, examples of positive changes include:

Setting out “inadequate performance” or “failure to meet performance standards” as grounds for dismissal, as Massachusetts and fewer than 15 states have now done.

Shortening the amount of time for reviews of decisions to remove ineffective teachers

This one is not quite as clear, but I want to point that unlike his proposal on determining a national standard for certifying new teachers, this proposal isn't calling for a national standard. It merely requires that states have a formal process to remove incometent and unqualified teachers in a timely way.

It does NOT call for ANY testing of teachers. It does NOT even require that "inadequate performance" be considered grounds for dismissal. It only calls such a move a "positive change". States will be free to decide for themselves, as they always have, what constitutes sufficient grounds for dismissal. All Kerry is requiring them to do is to create a process. He doesn't specify any grounds for dismissal. It's left to the states, as it always has been.

If you were to read the actual plan, something I would have thought a teacher would do on their own, you'd see that the only other references to evaluating teachers performance relate to bonuses for teachers, and though I am aware of the concerns about the potential for abuse (it shouldn't be a "not what you know, but who you know" situation) I really don't see how giving teachers bonuses, training, mentoring, and raises can be considered "bashing teachers". IMO your fears have nothing to with what's been proposed.

Kerry's plan is explicit on this point. The only ones being held "accountable" are schools of education. Not teachers


Where are all these shitty schools of education?

Sure, it is not a bad point at all and I like Kerry and I post my life of why to vote for Kerry besides ABB every other day twice on Sunday. It still feels like he is taking a swipe at colleges on this one. Yes, flame me, because I am nitpicking.

But here comes the big thank you,

Require Rigorous Tests for All New Teachers

It sounded like from sound bites and his speech in general honestly that he might be going the way of repeated testing which if you look at the continuing education programs and after school requirements and hell every other requirement teachers have would be a huge burden on teachers. Thanks on that one.

I really needed to hear he is only talking about new teachers. Why?

Why am I not up in arms? Ok, in Ga where I got my teaching Certification, the test was the easiest bit of give away drivel. Now, on the other hand, in Va my wife took the new tests that are split into two parts and was pretty tough really.

Standardization for this would be a good thing.

Shortening the amount of time for reviews of decisions to remove ineffective teachers

Nobody wants incompetent teachers. I have to admit my knee jerk reaction is to be suspicious especially as a history teacher who has seen teachers purged that did not tow the line in terms of belief structures and such. History can be a very politically charged subject in a school system.

However, I have also seen bad teachers kept on for a whole year before the Principle decides at the end of the year not to invite the teacher back and not offer the person a contract.

Notice what I have said in other posts.

Sometimes it is not what you say in politics or life but how you say it.

You couch words that tick the base off with qualifiers and explanations.

You emphasize that accountability under your plan does not automatically mean more testing and more paperwork and punishing teachers.

I think that he can make this same speech in a way that would not have alarmed the base of teachers as much.

_

As far as the location of these so-called bad schools of education: I'll quote you, and then take an educated (by you) guess

Why am I not up in arms? Ok, in Ga where I got my teaching Certification, the test was the easiest bit of give away drivel. Now, on the other hand, in Va my wife took the new tests that are split into two parts and was pretty tough really.

Do you think it's possible that the easy accredidation tests in GA are, to some extent, a reflection of the poor job done by the schools of education in GA? After all, the people who graduate from those schools have to find jobs or else new students won't go there.

Nobody wants incompetent teachers. I have to admit my knee jerk reaction is to be suspicious especially as a history teacher who has seen teachers purged that did not tow the line in terms of belief structures and such. History can be a very politically charged subject in a school system.

However, I have also seen bad teachers kept on for a whole year before the Principle decides at the end of the year not to invite the teacher back and not offer the person a contract.

I have to agree with you there. The issue of job security is overwrought with politcal tensions, and for some very good reasons, which probably explains why Kerry explicitely mentions it. He says:

"While teachers deserve protection from arbitrary dismissal, no teacher deserves a lock on a job.' and "While protecting due process, John Kerry will require states to maintain fast, fair procedures for improving or replacing teachers who do not belong in the classroom."

If you do think that this is a problem big enough to have someone tackle it, wouldn't you want the most liberal Democrat in decades to be the one who does so? Don't you think it courageous of Kerry to wade into an issue that is so political?

Now look at what Kerry is proposing. He is merely proposing that states be required to have process to remove teachers. He doesn't even require that incompetence (or anything else, for that matter) be considered grounds for dismissal. Those will be left to the states, where they are now. The only change is to require states to have a process, and I don't see how that could have any effect other than to lessen politically motivated arbitrariness.

Sometimes it is not what you say in politics or life but how you say it.

Which is why I feel an obligation to read what the plan actually says, and explain it to others. I am surprised that people who are teachers, union members, and liberals, haven't done that for themselves.

I read all the candidate's plans more than a year ago, while deciding who to support in the primaries. I checked back in and reread it when it looked like Kerry would be the chosen one.

I, and many of my colleagues, have some issues with the plan. In addition to some of the specific language in the plan, we also have concerns about what Kerry isn'tsaying.

We have watched the republican takeover of public education going on for more than a decade in many states. GWB didn't do anything new with NCLB...he just extended philosophies and policies already in place in many states to every state. The standards and accountability movement got its start more than a decade ago. In my state, CA, with Pete Wilson. In Florida and TX with the Bush brothers. And in others, as well. Here's the first issue:

"Standards," "Accountability," "rigorous testing" have become republican talking points. It's not that teachers don't believe in standards or don't want to be accountable. It's that when we hear those words, we know, from hard experience, what lies underneath them. And we are dismayed to hear them coming from the Democrat's nominee.

If you were present and working when many of the state "standards" were written, you would know how corrupt that process was. If you were working with them every day, you would know that the laws and policies touting "standards" are misusing them, counting on the phrase "high standards" to keep everyone in line. Because if you disagree, you must be "dumbing down" education. You must not have "standards." Catch-22, works great for the conservative agenda. Which is to make public education so bad, or make it appear so bad, that America will welcome privatization.

If you thought about "accountability" and what it should mean, and looked at how it is currently used, you would see that it is republican-speak for "blame teachers for everything." Blaming the teachers furthers the agenda.

Am I against teachers passing tests? No. We already do. I passed a bunch. I also think my degrees ought to indicate something. Do I think we need teachers to pass more, or harder tests? No. Frankly, there are many people who can pass subject matter tests that can't teach. Knowledge of subject matter is separate from knowing how to foster learning. Trying to test the qualities that make a good teacher is a waste of time, IMO. I'm sure you could come up with a test that tried to measure empathy, creativity, commitment, organization, etc., but why? Do we really need people rushing around worried that they aren't empathetic enough, or do we need to step back and let their care for their students, rather than fear of reprisal, guide their professional conduct? We could make and give tests about instructional strategies, but that is a dangerous kind of test. Because teachers need to know all philosophies and many strategies; because students are individuals, not all kids learn the same way, and we need to pick and choose what instructional method each child in our room needs, and weave them all into the whole. Testing knowledge of instructional methodology can lead to one-size-fits-all methods. The political/instructional bias of the test maker and the politicians in power can use the test to drive the methods taught.

From a teacher's point of view, rhetoric about fast, fair ways to get rid of teachers sounds like a plan to weaken our union. No wonder we are leery. I've mentioned support for improving teacher performance a couple of times in this thread. Kerry's plan could be good, or bad. It all depends on how it is implemented. I need something that would keep it from being implemented poorly or wrongly.

Whether Kerry's plans are good for public ed or not, couching them in conservative, public-ed destroying rhetoric is no way to make supporters and influence voters among educators.

And, finally, our concerns with "testing" are not so much about testing teachers; they are about the abuse we are taking from standardized testing of students. Kerry's website says some positive things in this regard. He sometimes says other things when speaking in public, and supports conflicting legislation. Example? Addressing the dropout problem by backing legislation to withhold driver's licenses. This does absolutely nothing to address the reasons why someone drops out, or the fact that NCLB leads to greater dropout rates. It "punishes" the dropouts to make sure that they stay on board to take all the tests, so the schools can "fail" like they are supposed to. :eyes:

The best thing that Kerry could do to reassure educators, if he cared, would be to publicly declare that standardized tests would not be used as a measure of school accountability. That they would not be required of all schools and all students. We don't need to revise the definition of "Adequate Yearly Progress." We need to publicly admit that the AYP is mathematically corrupt. We need to publicly admit that public ed's responsibility is to provide opportunity and support for success, to partner with families to provide the best opportunities we can given the resources at hand, and the rest is up to the families and the students themselves. We need to publicly admit that public ed is not "accountable" for the choices, habits, and actions of said families and students.

Accountability and other Repug code words cannot be used in public addresses only pointing out what his plan is.

If Kerry co-opts their language, he has to qualify what he will NOT do. That was he highlights the difference between him and the Rethugs on the issue.

Like I said before and I do not think it is a huge stinging diss on Kerry is:

Sometimes it is not what you say in politics or life but how you say it.

You cannot couch words that tick the base off with qualifiers and explanations.

You emphasize that accountability under your plan does not automatically mean more testing and more paperwork and punishing teachers.

I think that he can make this same speech in a way that would not have alarmed the base of teachers as much.

That is all.

+

You say it much more concisely than I!

;-)

that's EXACTLY what Kerry does do, and still you complain.As I pointed out in my previous post (and you ignored the point) if you read Kerry's plan (and you couldn't possibly have read it a year ago. It's new) :

1) it says absolutely NOTHING about holding teachers "accountable". Kerry talks of making schools of education accountable

2) it says absolutely NOTHING about making it easier to fire teachers. It says he wants every state to have a process for terminating teachers. He doesn't even require that inadequate performance be grounds for dismissal. He only says that that would be "a good change"

3) it says absolutely NOTHING about testing teachers. It only calls for setting a standard for testing NEW teachers.

I consider it a sure sign of a weak argument when someone can't address the points I raised, and your response does not even address ANY ONE of the points I raised, or what Kerry has actually said.

Basically, you are criticizing Kerry for he HASN'T said and for what REPUKES have said. Keep distorting the Dems position, and eventually, people will get so fed up with the problems that it will be a Repuke who gets to make the changes. I bet you won't be too happy, even if your dire predictions are proven accurate by the Repukes.

Once again, the left circular firing squad is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

No. I am not talking about a circular firing squad. I like Kerry. I am going to vote for Kerry. I sent money to his campaign.

I am out there everyday being an influential trying to sway those ticked off with Bush that no very little about Kerry.

Don't go there.

I am just saying when he co-opts the language of the enemy. He cannot just say what he wants to do but he has to soothe the base by emphasizing what he what he will NOT do like what he has said in earlier campaign speeches or actually I think this came from one of the debates:

"I want to make sure that accountability does not mean simply more testing." Or something to that effect.

Or going through the Don't Blame the teachers talking point right there on his own website that reads,

"Politicians can talk all they want, but at the end of the day the most important thing in a classroom is the people who work in it. Yet too often, teachers, most of whom are performing heroic work under difficult circumstances, take the blame. John Kerry wants to support teachers and paraprofessionals with better training and better pay, with more career opportunities, more empowerment and more mentors. What the public schools of America need is an advocate in the White House. As President, that’s what John Kerry will be."

We are talking about a minor criticism really. One that hits at my heart I admit as the husband of a teacher but come on I am not talking all the defeatist stuff or trying to smear Kerry.

and her repition of fallacious arguments that are based on nothing more than her emotional reaction to the word "accountability". And while you have made a good point about the need to be careful about HOW Kerry presents his proposals, the FACT still remains that Kerry HAS NOT been using the word "accountability" on a regular basis.

IOW, he has NOT co-opted the language of the enemy. He used ONE WORD. One word does not a language make. This is nothing more than a demonstration of the sort of hyper-excited emotionalism some people depend on to form their opinions.

We are talking about a minor criticism really

Yes, it really is minor. So why is LWolf continuing to criticize Kerry for things he's never said, written or done? And why does LWolf continue to criticize Kerry for not proposing ideas that, in fact, he HAS proposed?

Is it unreasonable for me to think that a teacher who belongs to a teachers union, and has an interest in these proposals (and hopefully the education of our children) should be able to read Kerry's plan and criticize it for rational reasons (as you have done) instead of carrying on with an emotional over-reaction to Kerry's minor use of the word "accountable"?

I urge you to go back and read LWolf's post. She admits that there is nothing in Kerry's record to support her belief that Kerry is going to do the things LWolf thinks he will do. She admits that her reasons for saying these things is the result of what republicans have said and done.

Is that rational? Would it be OK if I criticized you for what LWolf has said?

Also, it is, IMO, just absurd to suggest that everytime Kerry makes a proposal he should explain what it's NOT. Kerry could spend his entire lifetime listing what his education is NOT.

Shouldn't teachers understand logic and reason?

:o

As I pointed out in my previous post...

...which, of course, were posted under the name sangha, not sangh0.

You've outed yourself as a double-poster. A lot of us suspected as much, and it's nice to see you've confirmed this.

Interesting. Do you post as more than two people, or are two identities all you need to gang up on posters?

You've outed yourself as a double-poster. A lot of us suspected as much, and it's nice to see you've confirmed this.

I've never denied it. But thanks for outlining the "conspiracy"

Do you post as more than two people, or are two identities all you need to gang up on posters?

Only two. One for home, and one for work. You'll never see the "two of us" posting simultaneously, so there's never any ganging up

of using student test performance of a measure of teacher performance.

Like you, I would prefer that we improve teacher performance rather than fire them - we have a very good school system in my town but with retirements we continue to lose teachers (some of this is good).

The problem is that the system doesn't work.

I would love parent choice, we don't have any. I know my daughter's learning style and I know what she needs to thrive, she is very different from my son who is a perfectionist and can perform in any situation. It doesn't necessarily mean that my daughter has had bad teachers, but she doesn't learn well in a straight lecture, non-interactive environment.

Is it fair for me to complain about a teacher because my daughter doesn't learn well from him/her? I think only if most of the students in the class are having the same problem. If everyone in the class was performing badly on standardized tests, wouldn't that be a red flag? I guess that's why using the tests was appealing to me, it seems objective and it would appear to provide concrete evidence when a problem exists.

In any case, thank you all for opening my mind about this.

It's fair, as long as you meet with the teacher to discuss your daughter's difficulties, and to make a plan to address them. It is important to take what you know about your daughter's learning styles to the teacher, and to expect that her needs will be accomodated.

The best outcomes occur when parents and teachers work together as a team for the good of the student.

If everyone in the class is performing badly on standardized tests, it might be a problem with the teacher. It might be a problem with the test, or with the standards being tested. Or it might be a problem with the way the test scores are crunched. Or, it might be a problem with them changing what constitutes an acceptable score every year. There is a huge chasm between what standardized tests were designed for, and how they are supposed to be scored, and the uses they are put to today, and the way they are scored. Two years ago, I was so flabbergasted by what they were doing with the scores to produce "AYP's," etc., that I dragged out my old psychological measurement textbook and went through the stuff on scores, and came away with the understanding that what they are doing with scores is statistically corrupt. I contacted my old professor, and he confirmed it. I took it to my principal, who patted me on the head and told me he couldn't explain why it was valid, but not to worry. "Those testing gurus know what they are doing." I've since spent time listening to statisticians and psychologists with phds in their fields arguing about what the test scores actually mean at this point; none of them agree on what they mean, but they all agree that they aren't scoring how much the kids are learning. It's not an objective measure if we don't know what the scores are concrete evidence of!

Good luck with your daughter, and your daughter's teacher.

You say that Kerry should be proposing some of the solutions that YOU feel are needed, and then suggest parent-teacher consultations to improve student performance. If you have read Kerry's plan, you'd see that that is EXACTLY what Kerry calls for.

In addition, unlike NCLB, Kerry's plan does NOT call for any punishment for teachers whose student do poorly on the test. He proposes the EXACT OPPOSITE. According to his plan, Kerry will increase funding for schools with poor test scores, mentoring and additional training for the teachers of those students, and EXTRA PAY for teachers who are highly qualified and agree to work in the poorly performing schools, which as you should know, are generally NOT the preferred career path for teachers.

And for some odd reason, you claim that Kerry is bashing teachers when he is proposing ideas that even you agree with. That might explain why you don't include even just one quote from Kerry's plan, and base your arguments on what Kerry has NOT said, and what repukes have said.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Lets hold parents responsible for student performance. If a parent doesn't read to their student for one hour a day, their taxes go up by 3%. If they don't see that their student gets 8 hours sleep before school, their taxes go up another 3%. If they fail to give their student a nutritious meal before school, yep, another 3%. And if their student doesn't do all his/her homework and turn in all assignments on time. . .3%. Of course this is absurd, but so is blaming a teacher for all of the things listed above.

Before I retired I made more money with a two year technical degree that most teachers make with their four year degree. How can we expect anyone to pursue a teaching degree when they will take it on the chin when they try to climb the pay scale ladder. And now comes the suggestion that their pay be CUT because of things that are out of their control.

I apologize that this is not constructive and directed to the topic, but sometimes I just have to rant.

daily in the staff lounge.

Last week, I was eating lunch with 6 other teachers. Two are approaching retirement, and were talking about how the only thing that keeps them showing up is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel; because they are tired, frustrated, and angered at what has happened to the profession. Not because they don't like their jobs or want to teach; not because they haven't loved it through long careers. They're talking about the way legislative changes have changed the climate and working conditions. They want out.

Three others, young teachers with just a couple of years under their belt, talked about what they are going to do instead of teach. In my state, you are a few classes short of a masters when you get your initial credential; most finish the masters during the first 5 years or so of teaching. All 3 of these teachers have changed their degree program; they are pursuing their masters in something else, and will leave education as soon as it is done. They want no more of it.

That left me. And one other woman. Both past the halfway mark in our careers, single, and teaching is our sole means of support. We were the only ones in the room sticking it out.

I must admit I had a much more textbook liberal sympathy for teachers until my daughter hit middle school, and I started seeing a lot of teachers in action. The problem is the amount of actual teaching her teachers do is nearly zero. They constantly have "working days" (i.e., days where parents have to scramble for day care because the teacher isn't available to actually teach). For assignments they assign kids to look things up on the internet and then don't follow up in any meaningful manner to see that the child is actually learning, rather than rote reporting. For classwork they assign movies or canned t.v. lectures.

To be fair, they also have some of their time wasted by politically-motivated and meaningless testing like the NCLB fiasco.

But all in all, there was a point at which I started to see teachers' low salaries as a consequence rather than a cause of teachers' low performance. Obviously there are exceptional teachers, but a lot seem to be solid B students who didn't make it into grad school and don't have the inclination for business. Summers off sounds pretty nice about this time of year.

Either way, of course, part of the solution is higher salaries, which will attract better candidates and lead to better teaching. Schools probably would take better teachers if they could find people willing to fill the role.

my kids hit high school. What I found there was a huge disconnect between teacher and student. There was less teaching going on than there should have been.

I think it is the institutionalized system that leads to this. A teacher with 5 sections of Algebra, for example, with 30-40 kids in each class, is dealing with 150 - 200 students a day. And only sees each student for 50 minutes. A teacher cannot get to know their individual students' needs in that system. And most of what my kids experienced in high school was a system of making sure that the kids taught themselves; testing them to make sure that they read the chapter or took notes on the lecture. It's a system of offering information, and then testing to make sure it was learned, with little time for teaching. In my oldest son's 9th grade algebra class, there were 45 students. Seated alphabetically, so those whose last names came at the end of the alphabet stood in back. Each day, the teacher had 50 minutes. She took attendance, they corrected the previous day's assignment, and then took questions about it. Three questions only, or there would be no time for that day's lecture. If you weren't one of the 3, your question couldn't be answered. Then the lecture, where you watched her solve equations. Then the assignment, and you were gone for the day. No time to work in class, ask questions, or get help with something you were struggling with.

If you want to get past this, you've got to restructure the system. Smaller schools, smaller classes, and fewer students per teacher in high school. More time for teaching, and for getting to know the people you are teaching. Just my take.

and increased pay for teachers, and bonuses for teachers who work in schools that have trouble attracting qualified teachers.

If you want to get past this, you've got to restructure the system. Smaller schools, smaller classes, and fewer students per teacher in high school. More time for teaching, and for getting to know the people you are teaching. Just my take.

You are really awesome. You just, with your three more responses posting Kerry's platform, which again, I've already read, more than once, most recently when he became the presumptive nominee, showed me the light. I never saw these things; never realized them until, in your zeal, you jumped aboard to make your point. Which is, if I'm not mistaken, that you like Kerry's plans for education. Good job.

I get it. I got it the first post. Now if only you would get several points:

I do not "supposedly" care about education. I do care about it. That's why I chose the profession. I have "actually read the plan." More than once. As I have reminded you. More than once.

A large block of educators do not agree with you. They don't trust Kerry's plan. They would like to see him oppose the Bush agenda for public ed, and they no longer trust generous promises without details to back it up. They are not happy with Kerry. Interestingly enough, what we've dealt with has been bad enough that teachers have flocked to read Kerry's plan, a click away, before you even decided to point it out to them. And they still feel this way. That is the point. And all the repeated posts throwing statements they've already heard at them over and over again doesn't change that point.

The purpose of this thread is not to bash Kerry. It is to propose positive solutions to the stated problems: plans with no details, lack of trust, anger, all centered on the standardized testing/accountability fiasco. Positive solutions. Because I want Kerry to win, and I also want my profession back. Fancy that.

The purpose of this thread is not to engage in battle with Kerry campaigners; we are supposed to be on the same side.

The purpose of this thread is to address the reasons why teachers are not unified behind Kerry. Inferring that they ought to be, they must not know anything about the plan, they must not know what they are talking about, they just need to read the website again, does not address any of the reasons. It just reiterates your idea that, if you like it, we all should. Because Sangh0 knows best; better than the profession itself, apparently.

This is a nice long recognition of your efforts. I'm done.



I've taken the constructive suggestions from people on this thread, and I greatly appreciate them. I welcome more constructive input.

A large block of educators do not agree with you.

I would not call the teacher's you've seen in the teacher's lounge "a large block (sic) of educators", and that's the only opposition to Kerry's plan that you've cited. Meanwhile, Ms Weingarten, president of the UFT approves of it.

Repeating your unsupported claims about teacher's opposition to this is as unpersuasive as your repeated claims to care. What I do find persuasive is your inability to back your claims up with quotes from Kerry's plan. But I'm not surprised, since you say your objections are based on what Repukes say. No wonder you're against having teacher's performance evaluated.

The purpose of this thread is to address the reasons why teachers are not unified behind Kerry.

No, the thread is meant to spread a lie about Kerry's plan. For example, you complain that Kerry uses Repuke language to bash teachers, but you have yet to quote Kerry.

This is a nice long recognition of your efforts. I'm done.

Not it wasn't. It was long, but without addressing the issues I raise, it can't be a recognition, and it's certainly not nice. Instead, it's nothing more than you claiming to care.

From the original post:

Educators are increasingly upset with Kerry's rhetoric concerning public education.

But you still haven't posted ONE quote from Kerry showing that his rhetoric is something that teachers should get upset about. Kerry's plan, which you claim to have read, is loaded with praise for teachers

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/agreatteacher.html

Every American is grateful that we have teachers who despite all the hardship sent their way, do their best to get our kids prepared for life. Whether it's a teacher who takes the time to sit with a child eating all alone in the cafeteria or a teacher who realizes that a child cannot read because the child's family never owned a book– teachers make a difference in America every single day.

Unfortunately, too many in Washington, D.C. and the states act like teachers do not matter. Despite research showing that good teachers are the single biggest contributor to good schools, teachers all too often do not get paid like professionals, do not get the support they need and do not get rewards for success.

John Kerry knows that good teachers are vital to building a stronger America, and that is why his “New Bargain for America's Children and Teachers” will recruit or retain 500,000 teachers over the next 4 years . Working together with parents, principals, and communities across America, John Kerry will offer teachers and children a new bargain. The new bargain will offer teachers more—providing better pay and preparation—and will ask for more in return—requiring high standards and rewarding results for our children.

That's exactly what I get (or don't get) from my reich-wing senators.......... reply thanking me for my suport (HA!), and NO reference to my concern.

Not listening, not responding is a BIG problem.

Kanary

Here is a thought I wish I had thought of earlier.

Find out who is on the resolutions or platform committee of you state's party convention. (Contact State Party Chair) Lobby them to put a plank in the platform or submit a resolution to ban linking teacher pay to student performance. Be sure to explain that Kerry's position is not acceptable for obvious reasons and only they can influence a change.

Who knows, It might work.

If he wants to win the general election, he must run for the middle.

You need to remind everyone you talk to that this is how people win national elections. Kerry is not running for president of the Democratic Party. He's running for the president of the United States of America. Remind your friends that this is how every president has won the presidency.

Bush went to Bob Jones University during the primaries, and then went to the middle for the general election.

Clinton went to the middle on race. Kennedy ran to the middle on national security. McGovern did not run for the middle. He lost.

You should be excited to see Kerry run for the middle, becuase it means he might win. People who get upset about this think too much about themselves and not enough about the big picture.

I'm wondering if Kerry has considered meeting with small-to-medium groups of public school teachers, and seeking THEIR input on education policy? I mean, what on earth could it hurt if he were to engage educators in a substansive dialogue.

It's quite all right for him to come into the game with some preconceived notions of what his education plan is. After serving over 20 years in the Senate, I would HOPE he would have some educational initiatives in mind. But just imagine if he were to approach the teachers and say, "I consider the education of our future generations to be one of my top priorities as a public servant, and I have dedicated much of my energy to doing what I believe is necessary toward that end. But, as a public servant, I am not one of the people working in a classroom -- you are. There is nobody out there who knows more about what our schools need in order to succeed than the educators who spend every day in those classrooms, teaching our kids. What I would like is for YOU to tell ME what I can do, as your President, to help you to better reach those kids."

Does this sound like an unreasonable proposition?

I'd like to see it televised. Bet it'd be an interesting discussion.

Why did you assume he hasn't?

It's quite all right for him to come into the game with some preconceived notions of what his education plan is

In that case, I think it's quite alright for YOU to come into the game with some preconceived notions of what Kerry's education plan is, but I still do think you ought to read his actual plan. It doesn't contain one word of teacher bashing. Kerry's plan is loaded with praise for teachers.

But just imagine if he were to approach the teachers and say, "I consider the education of our future generations to be one of my top priorities as a public servant, and I have dedicated much of my energy to doing what I believe is necessary toward that end. But, as a public servant, I am not one of the people working in a classroom -- you are. There is nobody out there who knows more about what our schools need in order to succeed than the educators who spend every day in those classrooms, teaching our kids. What I would like is for YOU to tell ME what I can do, as your President, to help you to better reach those kids."

You REALLY should read the plan. Kerry says something very similar to what you just posted

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/


Stop Blaming and Start Supporting Public School Educators

Politicians can talk all they want, but at the end of the day the most important thing in a classroom is the people who work in it. Yet too often, teachers, most of whom are performing heroic work under difficult circumstances, take the blame. John Kerry wants to support teachers and paraprofessionals with better training and better pay, with more career opportunities, more empowerment and more mentors. What the public schools of America need is an advocate in the White House. As President, that’s what John Kerry will be.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/agreatteacher.html

A Great Teacher for Every Child:
John Kerry's New Bargain for America's Children and Teachers

Every American is grateful that we have teachers who despite all the hardship sent their way, do their best to get our kids prepared for life. Whether it's a teacher who takes the time to sit with a child eating all alone in the cafeteria or a teacher who realizes that a child cannot read because the child's family never owned a book– teachers make a difference in America every single day.

Unfortunately, too many in Washington, D.C. and the states act like teachers do not matter. Despite research showing that good teachers are the single biggest contributor to good schools, teachers all too often do not get paid like professionals, do not get the support they need and do not get rewards for success.

John Kerry knows that good teachers are vital to building a stronger America, and that is why his “New Bargain for America's Children and Teachers” will recruit or retain 500,000 teachers over the next 4 years . Working together with parents, principals, and communities across America, John Kerry will offer teachers and children a new bargain. The new bargain will offer teachers more—providing better pay and preparation—and will ask for more in return—requiring high standards and rewarding results for our children.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0506.html

"...Kerry said we should make teachers a priority in America. Recounting the story of his sister Diana who was laid off from her teaching job because of budget cuts at her school, Kerry said we do not do enough to retain the teachers we have today or to recruit and prepare good teachers for tomorrow.

"The kids here today - and all our public school students - deserve better," Kerry said. "They deserve a President that values their education as much as their teachers do. And that means making our teachers a priority. It's time for a new bargain with America's teachers and children: I will offer teachers more, and I will ask for more in return.”

First, Kerry said he will offer increased pay of up to $5,000 to teachers in high-need areas or in shortage subjects like math or science. Second, Kerry said his plan will help retain good teachers by offering them the support they need through mentoring programs that link new teachers with someone who has overcome the same challenges. Third, Kerry said he will help parents become more involved in schools by using technology to setup teacher voicemail boxes and to post homework assignments on the Web. ..."

But no, Kerry never talks to teachers

Let's tell him so. A positive letter with positive suggestions can't do any harm.

The statement by the NEA sounds good to me. Nowhere does it say that Kerry intends to "punish" teachers. Nowhere does it say that Kerry does not intend to increase compensation. On the contrary, that statement says point blank that increased compensation will be given for meeting higher standards, and that the current No Child Left Behind program needs to be changed, in conjunction with discussions with the NEA.

Edwards addressed this issue, in particular. The program should focus on "rewards," rather than punishment. And other problems with the program. But the program is still sound, if tweaked and fully funded.

The NEA statement also says that parental involvement is the first thing that helps education.

What's wrong with that? I'm not a teacher so maybe I'm missing something. Is it that teachers don't want to have continuing education or meet higher standards, in return for higher wages? If someone offered me a raise if I'd take a night course, I'd grab that deal in a minute! But most of us don't get that chance. We must meet certain standards just to KEEP our jobs.

I have a sister who returned to evening and summer classes to get her Master's so that her salary would be increased. She didn't complain about it. What's wrong with that system?