Obama continues assault on education

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
26 May 2010

Last week high school teachers in Central Falls, Rhode Island—who were fired en masse last February for defying concession demands—were forced to accept an agreement in return for their jobs that will increase the school day by 25 minutes, compel them to tutor an hour each week, gut seniority rights and submit to a new evaluation system that will facilitate their termination.

The firing of the 74 teachers and 19 other staff members—hailed by President Obama for imposing a “sense of accountability” on teachers—was a blatant act of intimidation. Its aim was to break the resistance of teachers nationally to an assault on their working conditions and living standards and pave the way for the further privatization of the public school system.

The sackings were carried out under guidelines drafted by US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who is targeting 5,000 “low-performing schools” across the country for similar treatment. In the name of “turning around” such schools, the administration has encouraged school boards to fire teachers or close schools and reopen them as privately run charter schools or under the management of for-profit contractors.

Rather than overturning Bush’s reactionary education policy—embodied in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)—the Democratic president has spearheaded an assault on teachers and public education that his Republican predecessor could only have dreamed of.

At the center of this is the absurd claim that teachers are individually responsible for the problems caused by the chronic under-funding of the public schools and the academic challenges of young people facing poverty outside the classroom. In the case of Central Falls, nearly a third of the largely Hispanic population lives under the official poverty line and the former mill town is so economically distressed that it was put under receivership last week.

According to the administration’s twisted logic, education will be improved, not by increasing funding to the schools or addressing mass unemployment in the inner cities, but by firing teachers and destroying their working conditions!

In his assault on public education, Obama is reviving the free-market nostrums of economist Milton Friedman, who first advocated subsidizing private and parochial schools to break up what he called the “socialist” monopoly of the public schools and teachers unions.

The promotion of school vouchers, merit pay and test-based teacher evaluations by the Republican right, however, was repeatedly rebuffed by the American people, who correctly saw this as an effort to undermine the egalitarian principles of public education and create a class-based education system.

It has now been left to a Democratic president to scapegoat teachers and accelerate the assault on public education. Like all of Obama’s policies—the bailout of the Wall Street banks, the attack on auto workers, the health care overhaul and coming attacks on entitlements—school “reform” is aimed at drastically reducing costs for the financial elite. At the same time, the school system is being tailored ever more closely to the interests of big business, including multibillionaires like Bill Gates whose private foundations have funded the expansion of charter schools.

An article in Sunday’s New York Times magazine, entitled “The Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand,” grumbles about the cost of public school teachers versus their charter school counterparts. Describing a school building in upper Manhattan, which is shared by Public School 149 and a charter school, the Harlem Success Academy, author Stephen Brill bitterly complains, “Instead of matching pension contributions paid to charter teachers that cost the school $193 per student … the union contract provides a pension plan that is now costing the city $2,605 per year per pupil.” He continues, “The best estimate is that it costs at least $19,358 per year to educate each student on the public side of the building, or $980 more than on the charter side.”

It is well known that charters, which are run privately but funded publicly, have an incentive to drastically reduce costs in order to increase the profit for their investors. This has led to gross corruption and falsification of test scores. Meanwhile, they regularly exclude students with learning difficulties, foreign language speakers and the poorest students who require greater resources.

The Obama administration is also seeking to fundamentally change the formula for distributing so-called Title I federal funding for public school districts, from one based on the number of low-income students they teach, to one based on how many “reforms” the districts carry out.

As a first step it is inducing cash-starved school boards to gut the living standards and working conditions of teachers in order to qualify for a share of its $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund. The above-mentioned article notes the criteria districts must meet:

“The highest number of points—138 of the 500-point scale that Duncan and his staff created for the Race—would be awarded,” Brill wrote, on a commitment to eliminate “seniority-based compensation and permanent job security.” He continued, “To win the contest, the states had to present new laws, contracts and data systems making teachers individually responsible for what their students achieve, and demonstrating, for example, that budget-forced teacher layoffs will be based on the quality of the teacher, not simply based on seniority.”

Last month the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union agreed to the elimination of “tenure-based job security” in Washington DC, clearing the way for the district to fire so-called “ineffective” teachers in the nation’s capital, which was hit with millions in budget cuts last year. This is only one of many examples nationally of the unions imposing merit pay and other punitive “accountability” measures on their members to help states qualify for federal funds.

Whereas his Republican predecessors often clashed with the teachers unions, Obama has received the full support for the AFT and the National Education Association, which have promoted him as a “partner” in the White House. Having collaborated in the destruction of tens of thousands of teachers’ jobs, the AFT and NEA have concluded that the best way to defend the privileges of the union officialdom is by collaborating with the administration to impose its reactionary “reform” agenda.

The entire corporate and political establishment—from the Democrats and Republicans, to the news media and trade unions—is united in the claim that there is “no money” for public education, even as trillions are handed over to the Wall Street banks and squandered on overseas wars.

That is because public education—like every other basic democratic right—is incompatible with an economic and political system that serves, not the interests of society as a whole, but the insatiable demands of the financial aristocracy. America’s ruling elite and their bought-and-paid-for representatives in both big business parties consider expenditures for public education to be an unnecessary and unacceptable drain on their wealth, particularly since capitalism is condemning the majority of working class youth to a future of permanent unemployment, low-paying jobs and militarism.

The struggle to defend and vastly improve public education is above all a political struggle over the allocation of society’s resources. Trillions of dollars must be poured into the hiring and training of teachers—guaranteeing them a secure and decent standard of living—and the building of new schools and equipping them with state-of-the-art learning tools. Moreover, the miserable social conditions students face outside the classroom must be addressed through a massive public works program to hire the unemployed and put an end to poverty.

Jerry White
 
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
41
#3
I like the job Obama has done but he doesnt know what the fucks going on in education. There are a lot of factors you need to take into account when determining a students "success". Teachers are essentially at an extreme disadvantage if they teach minority students. You can hold them to the same "accountability" as teachers in wealthy districts.
 
May 2, 2002
1,131
6
0
52
#4
26 May 2010

gut seniority rights and submit to a new evaluation system that will facilitate their termination.

—hailed by President Obama for imposing a “sense of accountability” on teachers—
Bout time! There's no reason shitty 20-year vet teachers should make considerably more than a great 4-yr vet teachers.

Can we get this type of reform in Nursing too?!?!
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#5
some of you need to look at the bigger picture and what this will mean for teachers in general. not to mention they get shit for pay anyway. i'm sure you all have friends who teach......lol...

i know cold teaches so he's the only one here who could speak on it...my mom is a teacher, has been for 10+ years and still doesn't that much. hell i think i make more than she does and i been at my job for 2 years.

obama is fucking retard and so are just about all the people who voted for his chauncey ass. hope and change lol...yeah fucking right. hope gets you nowhere but left with disappointment...try transforming shit...maybe that would help.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#7
is that supposed to be a trick question? lol...they both suck. people need to wait up and realize we do not have a 2 party system. i talk to WAY too many people who think we have a 2 party system...i remind them of the independent party, green, libertarian, socialist, etc. they look at me like i'm nuts cause they're obviously rather ignorant to the subject.
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#8
Haven't posted anything on here in a really long time but I find this here to be utterly hilarious.

were forced to accept an agreement in return for their jobs that will increase the school day by 25 minutes, compel them to tutor an hour each week, gut seniority rights and submit to a new evaluation system that will facilitate their termination.
Oh, the horror!

I'd never feel sympathy for a teacher too lazy to commit an extra 25 minutes a day or hour a week to help students compete in society. I say if this is an issue for teachers, they should pick another profession. The priority is on the student. Compensation is an irrelevant side issue as 99% of teachers already know what they're signing up for as it is mainly passion which drives them. Anyone who chooses a shitty paying career must be doing it because of passion, if not I have no idea why they wasted a year in a teacher credential program after college. This article is ridiculous propaganda. LMAO @ increases in educational and tutoring resources being an "assault on education"..

The article only offers either-or options as opposed to an all of the above approach.

According to the administration’s twisted logic, education will be improved, not by increasing funding to the schools or addressing mass unemployment in the inner cities, but by firing teachers and destroying their working conditions!
Why not do them all?! Hold teachers more accountable, increase funding (as well as teacher pay) and address mass unemployment. These polarizing arguments make absolutely no sense and what is the source confirming that his plan is to simply "fire teachers"?
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#9
some of you need to look at the bigger picture and what this will mean for teachers in general. not to mention they get shit for pay anyway. i'm sure you all have friends who teach......lol...

I'm sorry to say this, but I do have many friends who teach (10+) and almost all of them choose that profession not because of their desire to teach children but rather because of the limited work year and their inability to compete for better jobs.

Of my friends who choose to become teachers, they were all at the bottom 25th percentile as far as intelligence.


As far as teachers not making that much;

Across the state, the average teacher's salary was about $54,000 in 2007. The average salary for other college graduates was $67,257.

But teachers work only an average of 10 months a year, so the report translates the average salary for other workers to a 10-month equivalent so they can compare apples to apples. If other college-educated workers worked the same 10-month schedule, their salaries would average $56,048, which is closer to the teacher average of $54,000.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008375771_teacherpay11m.html

54,000 base salary for 10 months is pretty darn good.

But check this out;

http://www.effwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=1067

The numbers on that seem to show the problem may really be in disparity of pay.

I see some teacher making 95,000 base with 20,000 in benefits while others in the same district are making 35,000 and 7,000. :confused:

::

IMO Teacher's Unions have created a system where tenure is more rewarded than performance or skill, and that is a system setup for failure.
 

Smile

Sicc OG
Apr 21, 2010
362
0
0
#11
Let's explain how financing for the public school system is done in the United States.
Contributors: from largest to smallest amount
1. State funding
2. Federal subsidies, national programs that pertain to the majority of the school
3. Local property tax
4. Sales tax (only Michigan bases the majority of their funding for education on this)
5. Bake Sales/volunteer work/donations

These all have nothing do with the teachers (except maybe the last one if they have enough extra-curricular time to be involved in those types of things), yet somehow they are blamed for the conditions and the learning experience children have from the public school system.

There are hundreds of books that clearly explain what needs to be done in order to make our educational system the most efficient and with the highest academic standards. But these are written by professors who actually spend their entire lives in the classrooms realizing the problems at hand, and recognizing the corruption within the school board, superintendent, and principals in the public schools.

If every single school was given the same amount of money per child, then, yes the focus should be put on the teachers and administrators in charge. But this is not even close to a matter of teachers in the wrong, there is a huge gap in the future success of our public schools and thats the inequality in school funding and overall morale of the community.

Btw, if anyone has questions about educational policies or any history of policies set in American Education since the beginning of the country, then please hit me up, I didn't read those books for nothing.
 
Apr 25, 2002
4,446
494
83
#12
I respect teachers and a good education, but my experience volunteering at two public schools in San Francisco were an amazing example of why Obama's policy should be praised, not explained as an "assault on education." I'll only explain my first one. The second one was not as bad, but still had similar themes.

The first time I met the teacher I volunteered with, she was dressed business casual at a school-wide meeting discussing the years and the programs. She made a favorable impression on me with her presentation and demeanor during the presentation. She listened actively and later came up with ideas as to how I could help her class. When school started in front of the children, I was surprised to see her appearance deteriorate almost week by week. She wore jeans and puffy snow jackets to school, sometimes she didn't comb her hair, and on several occasions she smelled like she didn't take a shower. At one point, I commented on this and how presentation can give one authority and separation from the students and how it might demonstrate some professionalism to the students. She stated she didn't need to dress up because no other teachers at the school did (this is true, but by far, she was the worst offender of all). When teaching her students, she went straight by the book, creating an aura of boredom among seventh and eigth graders who often made efforts to expand conversation on topics they cared about (i.e. the first ammendment when discussing the constitution) but were told they needed to stay on subject. When the students did their homework or were forced to answer questions in written form, one sentence or even a few words was considered acceptable. At least once a month she would be out from school and told me that she enjoyed leaving school promptly at 2:30p.m. so she could make it to her home without traffic. Rather than lend a hand at the school and interact with the students who were curious as to who I was or what I had to say about things, I was not introduced for the first two weeks. At the end of the two weeks I finally introduced myself and tried to help the children. Often the best thing she could assign me was data input on her brand new MacBook Pro.

I couldn't help but cringe at the poor children in this classroom who were being given absolutely no chance to learn and who had a teacher to look up to who was far from a role model. She was clearly there to collect a paycheck and didn't care one bit about her influence on youthful students.

Here we have a union bitching because they are rehired and have to work 25 minutes, have to tutor, and have to be held responsible for their performance. Putting more time in at work to improve the performance of your pupils and having your performance reviewed sounds like job conditions any job should have. They are lucky I was not the negotiator because I would have went out and hired a brand new staff and gave them a big fuck you.
 
Apr 21, 2010
362
0
0
#13
I respect teachers and a good education, but my experience volunteering at two public schools in San Francisco were an amazing example of why Obama's policy should be praised, not explained as an "assault on education." I'll only explain my first one. The second one was not as bad, but still had similar themes.

The first time I met the teacher I volunteered with, she was dressed business casual at a school-wide meeting discussing the years and the programs. She made a favorable impression on me with her presentation and demeanor during the presentation. She listened actively and later came up with ideas as to how I could help her class. When school started in front of the children, I was surprised to see her appearance deteriorate almost week by week. She wore jeans and puffy snow jackets to school, sometimes she didn't comb her hair, and on several occasions she smelled like she didn't take a shower. At one point, I commented on this and how presentation can give one authority and separation from the students and how it might demonstrate some professionalism to the students. She stated she didn't need to dress up because no other teachers at the school did (this is true, but by far, she was the worst offender of all). When teaching her students, she went straight by the book, creating an aura of boredom among seventh and eigth graders who often made efforts to expand conversation on topics they cared about (i.e. the first ammendment when discussing the constitution) but were told they needed to stay on subject. When the students did their homework or were forced to answer questions in written form, one sentence or even a few words was considered acceptable. At least once a month she would be out from school and told me that she enjoyed leaving school promptly at 2:30p.m. so she could make it to her home without traffic. Rather than lend a hand at the school and interact with the students who were curious as to who I was or what I had to say about things, I was not introduced for the first two weeks. At the end of the two weeks I finally introduced myself and tried to help the children. Often the best thing she could assign me was data input on her brand new MacBook Pro.

I couldn't help but cringe at the poor children in this classroom who were being given absolutely no chance to learn and who had a teacher to look up to who was far from a role model. She was clearly there to collect a paycheck and didn't care one bit about her influence on youthful students.

Here we have a union bitching because they are rehired and have to work 25 minutes, have to tutor, and have to be held responsible for their performance. Putting more time in at work to improve the performance of your pupils and having your performance reviewed sounds like job conditions any job should have. They are lucky I was not the negotiator because I would have went out and hired a brand new staff and gave them a big fuck you.
That is one side of the story, yes.

But what about teachers that are great at their job, work their asses off, but still are held unrighteously accountable for years of schooling the children had previous to that class?

Research, funding and innovative implementation are key components to how well a class will function within the school buildings. Unfortunately, only the school's with high property tax incomes are able to see the benefits of this process.

There are many issues with our public school system though. One example is the fact that private companies with 'for profit' intentions are in control of making, selling and distributing textbooks. This includes the formation of widely used textbooks that have history (and other subjects too) literally erased or misrepresented in it. The politics behind Houghton Mifflin and Glencoe and the few other (smaller) textbook publishers, is insane.

Straight from the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textbook

Please look up these authors named below for more information on this subject.

"Authors such as Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States), Gilbert T. Sewall (Textbooks: Where the Curriculum Meets the Child) and James W. Loewen (Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong), make the claim that U.S. history textbooks contain mythical untruths and omissions, which paint a whitewashed picture that bears little resemblance to what most students learn in universities. Inaccurately retelling history, through textbooks or other literature, has been practiced in many societies, from ancient Rome to the Soviet Union (USSR) and the People's Republic of China. The content of history textbooks is often determined by the political forces of state adoption boards and ideological pressure groups."
 
Apr 25, 2002
4,446
494
83
#14
I don't disagree whatsoever that I am only explaining one side of the story. I was lucky in life to benefit from 5 or 6 GREAT teachers through my years who helped me succeed and sometimes it only takes a couple good teachers throughout life to learn your lessons. For example, I was taught both books you speak of in both high school and college. The teachers who taught me those books understood the necessary evil of a "textbook" but also focused on other reading, documentaries, and various media to give a more fair portrayal of the topic at hand. They also were more attentive to their students, stayed after hours to discuss the topic and created thoughtful lesson plans to keep students attention. You're right, there are other problems when it comes to education, but ultimately when it comes to business good managers can work with what they have and still create growth. A teacher should be considered a Manager, not a union worker.