Jeb Bush
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I just got back from a four-day-dash to D.C., and while in Washington got an earful from former Florida Gov. Jeb “I am not Running for President” Bush’s National Summit on Education Reform.
I caught only a portion of a radio broadcast of one session of the event, but it immediately became clear that teachers and their unions were in for a blasting.
I missed what Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith had to say; he was among dignitaries who attended and spoke.
But amid loud guffaws and chortles from moderator Michelle Bernard, president of the right leaning Independent Women’s Forum, several speakers such as Tony “Not The Singer” Bennett, Indiana’s superintendent of public instruction, nailed teachers and particularly their unions as the root of all education evil.
Thrasher
I understand from reading a St. Pete Times article that Sen. John “Thrasher” Thrasher, part of a large Florida contingent , told the group how he would deal with teacher unions. Thrasher was the man behind last spring’s infamous Senate Bill 6, which – had Gov. Charlie Crist not vetoed it- would have tied teacher tenure and pay to student test performance.
Scott
“So you either bring them to the table and tell them what you are going to do, or you run them over,” Thrasher was reported to have said, promising the same hard-edged bill would be back next spring and win the signature of new Gov. Rick “I Refuse to Talk about the Medicare Fraud Stuff” Scott.
Rhee (Getty Images)
Meanwhile,I see we reported that the recently unemployed Michelle “Will Reform Schools for Food” Rhee, former chancellor of Washington, D.C. schools, apparently hitched a ride to Florida as head of Scott’s new education team. Speculation is that the controversial school reformer whose success in Washington is debated may be replacing Smith as education commissioner when Scott takes office.
Our Graduates Earn up To $175 Per Hour After Graduation, Start Now!
Get In Depth Instruction In Digital Media/Technology. Sign Up Here.
A few specifics of MET you requested. Teachers are the single most importance asset in the education of our children. Pay should be based on:
1) Student achievement
2) Classroom observation
3) Pedagogical content
4) Student/parent input
5) Environment
6) Teacher inputs
As teacher pay is pending policy, your input is welcome. I suggest we take into consideration the latest research.
Posted by: Taxpayer | Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 11:58 AM
OK, so that’s still just an open ended list so I’ll just rank the order in which they should be incorporated into evaluation (keep in mind that the current plan being floated for the new SB 6 has 50% test scores)
1) PG 25%
2) CO 20%
3) SPI 20%
4) SA 20%
5) TI 15%
6) Env (depending on which definition one uses, I’m assuming the superficial physical env one) 10%
Posted by: hstorm | Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Score folks overall as you would a student’s test and then base raises on that score (Maybe have 3 tiers ex 90%+ full raise, 75% partial, <>
Posted by: hstorm | Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Real problem with this entire discussion is that because of the economy, this is the worst time to make sweeping changes (though it perfectly facilitates ‘lazy’, ‘un-fireable’ teacher image the reformers continue to promote).
_
Pragmatic souls might try to implement elements now and see how it goes, but there certainly wouldn’t be an emphasis on sending $900 million to test companies or trying to implement “merit” raises when there is no money (this obvious fact being the most damning in regard to an alternate agenda by those in our legislature).
_
Why not just find a few bucks and put something optional forth for LA and Math teachers, while all other subjects sit with the normal scheme for now? Then move forward further as the economy improves, perhaps offering a real reward scheme to those test ed subjects at that point?
_
More testing isn’t the answer anyway, and only serves to make the folks at Pearson wealthy. We certainly have enough ability to monitor data and progress. Not to mention that the testing seems to be a niche skill and isn’t bearing fruit in regard to the college track — and is likely detrimental.
_
These are just basic common sense ideas, very different from the course of action currently being undertaken.
Posted by: hstorm | Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 1:03 PM
sorry, I have been away. Hank, your comment about my anger because I haven’t done anything for myself was so far off base that if that is your process of developing assumptions about an issue or a particular post, I will always doubt your ability for rational thought. I am one of the fortunate ones that do not have to worry about folks like you or taxpayer interfering with my life with absolutely no credibility to defend their position.
-
Taxpayer as far as the MET 1-6 nothing new here. You make it out like this is some epiphany. too funny.
1)Student achievement (teachers have been screaming for this but not based on a single test)BTW, less than 40% of subject matter is tested today.
-
2)Class Observation (already being done ad-nauseum)
-
3)Pedagogical content (get the politician out of education and bawla, success)
-
4)Student/ parent (if these means involvement/accountability, then you haven’t been reading the teacher posts)
-
5)Environment (if you mean home, then what sort of social change are you going to implement. Certainly teacher bashing isn’t going to help)
-
6)Teacher Inputs (hstorm already pointed out Jeb Scott (no mistake here) doesn’t have a teacher or parent on the team)
-
bottom line, it appears you both have bought into the political rhetoric that the only thing wrong with public education is teachers. too bad
-
-
The true goal is to increase corporate profit. This will not lower your tax bill. What it will do is send more tax dollars out of the classroom into the pockets of those who only have the bottom line in mind.
Posted by: steve | Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM
We hear conservatives (including myself) say, “I want less government involvement in my life.”
Teachers are pretty much conservative when it comes to their classroom. They want less Tallahassee in their classrooms.
Posted by: kedfdj | Monday, December 6, 2010 at 6:49 PM
The scapegoating of educators is merely part of the corporate takeover. All these politicians represent corporations and the education budgets of the states are the target. Any discussion of academics, teacher quality, or student “gains” is diversionary. This whole thing is about handing education funds over to corporations. Invent a crisis using rigged data, then invite corporations to come to the rescue. This is education reform 101. It has little to do with learning and everything to do with another corporate con job. Just like the banks. Just like the war contractors. Just like the energy giants, big pharma, etc.
Posted by: Mike | Monday, December 6, 2010 at 10:00 PM
To those who cling to the myth that test scores should decide teacher pay: The random error rate (USDOE) is 26 percent. This whole bogus effort to make tests the driver, rather than real-world outcomes, is just another part of the sales pitch. The more we build schools around tests, the more tests they sell. We end up not only teaching to the test, but getting paid, hired, and fired by the test. Yet the tests we’re forced to worship don’t have a damn thing to do with whether a kid makes it in the world after high school. Why can’t we focus on tests that do matter, such as the SAT?
Posted by: Mike | Monday, December 6, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Steve –
You do have to defend yourself because your entire posting was a whining no win please have pity on my cry against the wealthy. And that is what I was commenting on. You might as well have cut and pasted (which you probably did) that entire post and just edited out the words “the man” in your railing.
You are one of those that point the finger at those who have (and who have because they have worked for it) and cry that the percentages do not work out in your favor.
Perfectly rational observations based on the inanity of your posting.
Posted by: Hank R | Monday, December 6, 2010 at 11:19 PM
By the way, to bring understanding, I have included here the post in question written by Steve that I was responding to – also known as the ongoing whining and railing against the wealthy while Steve sits back and pontificates on how the world should be and how others hold him down.
The fact is Steve is that if 20% of the population has earned that 85% of the wealth, then more power to them, and obviously less power to you as you sit and complain about it. I especially love the “How do they get it? They take from the rest of us.” immature spiel you throw out there – was a held breath and stomping foot included in your tantrum?
By the way IT ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC but is an amazing way to get your predetermined card carrying talking points out there. Sad really.
Steve’s original posting on Saturday Dec 4th, @ 11:33am
“85% of the wealth is owned by the top 20% of the population.
93% of the earnings are owned by the top 20% of the population.
The other 80% have 15% of the wealth and 7% of the cash.
The wealthy want more. How do they get it? They take from the rest of us.
They are not even hiding it. Extending the tax credit for the rich but freeze the federal workers wages for 2 years is as blatant as obvious can be.
The federal worker has been thrown to the wolfs so the rich can get richer”
Or a better way of phrasing it for those who don’t get it:
“The man took it all”
Posted by: Hank R | Monday, December 6, 2010 at 11:33 PM
Wow, another personal attack.
-
Just exactly what are you defending? Your total erroneous assumption from my post? No one with money could ever be that honest? Or are you one of those folks who can bully your way to correctness because the other person in the dialog just quits responding?
-
Actually, I like my post better the second time. It shows defendable data. It shows a shrinking pool of dollars to draw from. Makes much more sense that the billionaires are getting involved to divert tax dollars from hard working folks to their corporate pockets than the desire to help fix public education.
-
You did not like the post because it was not what you believe. I am okay with that. That is what these forums are for. It does give a better reason for their interest in education than what they profess. Do you honestly think Rick Scott spent 70 plus million of his own money because he thought he would be a good governor with absolutely no possibility of a return on his investment?
-
Do you honestly think all these billionaires who want to “fix education” are not looking for a payday?
-
The post was very pertinent to the discussion. In fact, if you take the time to read the trend of all the folks who post, you will find it very common. The rich are looking to take from the poor. At the very bottom of all their initiatives is the desire to divert salary dollars to “for profit” entities.
-
Also, if you do not think freezing government worker salaries and giving tax breaks to the wealthy isn’t as blatant as obvious can be, or the federal worker has not been thrown to the wolfs so the rich can get richer, well I guess that is what you believe.
-
If you want to think I am a poor man ranting, that is okay too. If you ever met me, you would be very disappointed. Our communication problem lies in the fact that I will not allow myself to be bullied.
-
Have a great holiday.
Posted by: steve | Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM
From Steve –
“The rich are looking to take from the poor”
And Atlas Shrugged. . . . .thank you for the proof of that.
Don’t confuse bullying with reality.
In your world the rich are the enemies who steal from the poor unfortunate.
In my world those with wealth are the ones who have built pretty much everything you rely on and the “poor unfortunate” demand from.
Posted by: Hank R | Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Actually Hank,
(hope you don’t mind my saying Steve) Steve is a very successful person and not a teacher. So he would not be whining. He is simply a successful, intelligent person making a point. If you don’t like or believe his point than good for you, but there is No need to personally attack someone because you disagree with them or they don’t share your point of view…different strokes for different folks!
Posted by: TheSpoon | Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM
The real essence is that the ed. budget is now the untapped market. Corporations are eyeballing as much of that pie as possible, and now have the folks in office to do the carving for them (obviously for a price).
There is no other read, as the rhetoric, policies, and stated motives just do not line up. It’s a transfer of public ‘wealth’ and subsequently a zero sum game between public workers and corporate balance sheets.
Posted by: hstorm | Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 5:27 PM
First of all Steve (and your friend The Spoon who leapt to your defense in such a way) it is not you, but the philosophy of the rich feed off the poor that I am finding a problem with. You might be a great guy, you might be poor, you might be rich – it little matters. Are there predatory rich? Of course there are, we have seen that of course. But more likely there are people who worked their proverbial a’s off either physically (or more likely with their intellects and business sense) to make that money. I know an awful lot who feel entitled to that money – money they did not make. On a recent blog an individual said that the rich needed to be taxed more because we needed to pay off the debt, and the blog entry ended with “Screw Fair” – and that is the issue I take with it. Flat tax is fair tax. But people do not like fair, they like someone else to pay.
-
As to the Federal Workers – do your research please.
-
First off – From the Washington Examiner on the current disparity/pay gap between federal and private workers:
“Data compiled by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis reveals the extent of the pay gap between federal and private workers. As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer. Add the value of benefits like health care and pensions, and the gap grows even bigger. The average federal employee’s benefits add $40,785 to his annual total compensation, whereas the average working taxpayer’s benefits increase his total compensation by only $9,881. In other words, federal workers are paid on average salaries that are twice as generous as those in the private sector, and they receive benefits that are four times greater.” – cited from an article posted December 7th, 2010 in the Washington Examiner.
-
In addition, understand that the “pay freeze” is a cleverly diverting title. In this plan, there is a retention of regular stepped pay increases which will continue during the two years of this supposed “Freeze”, to the tune of approximately 2.5 billion dollars.
Not what the general public expects when they hear “Pay Freeze” is it? No of course not. It is a misleading phrase to get the exact reaction you gave. And this proposed “freeze” does not even pertain to military or legislative branch employees. The “Pay Freeze” that is proposed applies only to cost of living increases.
Kind of puts a dent in that particular argument does it not?
And notice please, not one personal attack.
Just facts.