Obama-Ed: More $ to privatization, merit pay, longer school year.

[Hannah Bell]

In short, just what the corporatists want.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/obama-education-plan-spee_n_173405.html

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama called for tying teachers' pay to student performance and expanding innovative charter schools Tuesday, embracing ideas that have provoked hostility from members of teachers unions.

Van Roekel insisted that Obama's call for teacher performance pay does not necessarily mean raises or bonuses would be tied to student test scores. It could mean more pay for board-certified teachers or for those who work in high-poverty, hard-to-staff schools, he said.

However, administration officials said later they do mean higher pay based on student achievement, among other things.

His solutions include teacher pay and charter school proposals that have met resistance among members of teachers unions, which constitute an important segment of the Democratic Party. Obama acknowledged that conflict, saying, "Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom."

No, it doesn't, Mr. Pres.

What a Trojan Horse Mr. Change is turning out to be.

There, I said it.

[yurbud]

1. Arne Duncan is probably Obama's worst choice after his economic team, all of whom belong in prison

[DailyGrind51]

27. Arne Duncan never received his "Type 75" administrative certification in Illinois!

He was never qualified to be a principal in any Illinois public school, let alone teach in a classroom, but Richie Daley, who believes that City of Chicago government is a jobs program for the politically connected, made him superintendent! :mad:

[Hannah Bell]

48. He's a suit, & that's why he was selected, to do PRECISELY what he's doing.

and imo, it's why the current pres was annointed too.

no different from the previous one.

[yurbud]

55. Obama is different--just not enough

[DailyGrind51]

81. Duncan was like every other member of the Daley administration,

a "kiss-ass", doing anything to make "His Honor" look good by fudging stats to make a static situation appear dynamic. Chicago Public Schools are always out of money, yet Daley seems to find enough funds for his personal projects, like the 2016 Olympics.

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. That's the latest trend

We had a supt recently who had only a masters degree and never was certified in our state. He just talked a good game and milked the district for a bunch of money before he was finally let go. Now he is in CA playing the same games there. With a masters degree and no state certification.

We have principals who aren't certified.

Charter schools hire teachers who are not certified.

I guess their argument would be that we who are certified have done a terrible job so it's time to hire some non traditional folks. Pretty soon they will be hiring high school dropouts with GEDs to be principals and superintendents.

[Hannah Bell]

2. Assault on public education

By Tom Eley
25 July 2009

On Friday, President Barack Obama announced an assault on public education that would go beyond the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind” program. He outlined an education “reform” that would link teacher pay to the test performance of students and force state governments to shift funding from established public schools to so-called charter schools.

Obama spoke on Friday at the Department of Education, unveiling a $4.3 billion “competition” among the states for federal grants, named “Race to the Top.” ...Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan presented the $4.3 billion as if it were an extraordinary amount of money. But it is tens of billions less than has been doled out to individual banks, such as Goldman Sachs, in Obama’s bailout of the finance industry...

This relative pittance would do little even if it were distributed equitably. But that is not Obama’s intention, as he made clear. “Rather than divvying it up and handing it out, we are letting states and districts compete for it,” he said. “That’s how we can incentivize excellence and spur reform and launch a race for the top in America’s public schools.”

Like a master dropping a bone among his starving dogs, the Obama administration is openly provoking a bitter competition among states and school districts for paltry funding.

Obama outlined three “strategies” for so-called underperforming schools, all of them reactionary. “One strategy involves replacing the principal, replacing much of the staff, and giving the school a second chance,” he said. “Another strategy involves inviting a great nonprofit to help manage a troubled school. A third strategy involves converting a dropout factory into a successful charter school. These are public schools funded by parents, teachers, and civic or community organizations with broad leeway to innovate.” The second and third strategies—featuring “great nonprofit” groups and “community organizations”—indicate that Obama may see a role for religious groups in public education.

Duncan, speaking before Obama, said that Race to the Top would be used to encourage states and school districts to fire teachers. They “must be ready to institute far-reaching reforms, replace school staff, and change the school culture,” he said. “We cannot continue to tinker in terrible schools where students fall further and further behind, year after year.” Obama and Duncan implicitly laid the blame for the problems of public education at the feet of “bad” teachers.

Make no mistake, Obama has proposed a class-based system of education. For the children of workers and the poor—who will not perform as well on standardized tests as the children of the rich—there will be financially starved schools and overworked and underpaid teachers. This will, of course, only worsen the education of the students, which will be reflected once again in worsening test scores. They and their teachers will pay the price through the reallocation of resources to the better-performing “charter” schools, which, like private schools, have no obligation to accept all students who might wish to enroll, and which routinely dispense with old union work rules and dismissal practices for teachers.

Obama has promoted time and again the example of the Chicago public schools, touting the record of Duncan, who was the system’s “chief executive officer” beginning in 2001. This should be taken as a threat. Duncan in fact decimated public education in Chicago, shuttering dozens of schools, carrying out massive layoffs among teachers and staff, and undermining tenure. The results? In 2008, only 55 percent of Chicago high school students managed to graduate. Another telling statistic is 26, the number of Chicago students murdered in 2008, mostly as a result of finding themselves in hostile gang territory great distances from the old schools Duncan had axed.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/educ-j25.shtml

[Hannah Bell]

4. Detroit schools “financial czar” orders teachers to reapply for their jobs

2,600 Detroit Public School teachers, counselors and administrators from nearly 50 schools have been forced to reapply for their jobs at the schools where they teach. All of these supposedly “failed” schools are being “reconstituted” as mandated under the Bush administration’s 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

The punitive provisions of NCLB are being ruthlessly carried out by the Detroit Public Schools emergency financial manager, Robert Bobb, who enjoys the complete support of the Obama administration and its education secretary, Arne Duncan.

Bobb was appointed in March by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, to oversee the financial operations of the Detroit schools. Since his appointment, he has assumed dictatorial powers over every aspect of the district’s functioning; closing 29 schools, laying off thousands of teachers and support staff, and hiring private education management firms to impose their curricula and methods on schools slated for restructuring.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/bobb-j25.shtml

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. So there are a bunch of teachers waiting in the wings who want these jobs?

[YvonneCa]

67. That's funny...

...:7

[yurbud]

56. that makes sense--we are having trouble recruiting and retaining teachers, so kick them in the nuts

[Amos Moses]

3. Turn that frown upside down, Hannah.

You may see it as a Trojan Horse but it's really a pony! Try to think happy thoughts, OK? :hi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd9xU8cw1JE

[Hannah Bell]

5. Olaf (upon what were once knees)

does almost ceaselessly repeat
"there is some shit I will not eat"

[Amos Moses]

8. Well.... that's what I call stinkin' thinkin'!

Just listen to the beautiful music and enjoy the picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd9xU8cw1JE

[AdHocSolver]

6. The schools have already been overpoliticized.

This is like blaming the privates for the ill-conceived wars started by incompetent generals.

There is definitely a serious problem in education. The problem is not the fault of the teachers. The entire education system from the colleges of education, to the curricula, to the school boards, to the local politicians, to the vested interests of local political groups are all to blame.

These plans are all designed to take out frustrations with education in the U.S. on the least powerful constituents in the system: the teachers and the students.

President Obama, you are getting some seriously bad advice from your advisors.

[YvonneCa]

68. Agreed. Read some of the posts at Duncan's...

...website, ED.gov. He's getting teacher advice there, but isn't hearing us.

http://www.edgovblogs.org/duncan/2009/05/secretary-arne-duncan-takes-listening-tour-online-invites-comments-on-raising-standards/

[paulsby]

7. teachers unions

like ANY union do not advocate for anybody's good but their own members. some of their policies may improve the situation of students, etc. but that is not their goal. their goal is to advocate what is good for teachers, NOT what is good for students.

i'm a member of my union. i love my union. my union also advocates for its members, not the people we serve or the government, or the "corporatists". that's the nature of unions.

are you seriously claiming that "rewarding excellence" will not make a difference? i am referring to your "no, it doesn't Mr. Pres."

i know that my union protects a hell of a lot of mediocre members and would also fight merit pay. they fight many things that would benefit the people we serve, but that's the unions JOB. they fight for US, not the people we serve. all unions operate that way. i love unions. but reality is reality.

[Hannah Bell]

9. yes, i'm seriously suggesting that. furthermore, i have the studies to back it up.

the success of education policy is not, & never has been, a factor of the % of "excellent" teachers in the system.

[Hannah Bell]

10. dupe

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Teachers unions do indeed advocate for kids

In many districts, the union is doing more for the kids than the admins in the district.

[paulsby]

12. no more than cop unions advocate for crime victims

generally speaking, the job of the union is advocacy. sometimes advocacy for the members AND the people served intersect. i already conceded that. some of the stuff my union advocates for benefits crime victims, iow the people we serve. but that is not what unions DO. their design and mandate is to advocate for their members. my union advocates for all kinds of stuff that benefits US, while hurting the people we serve. that's sad but true. the same can be said for teacher;'s unions. teachers pay dues to their unions. the job of the union is to represent those due payers, NOT the kids. that the causes may intersect doesn't change the point. be honest about unions. they are a wonderful force for labor rights, but they necessarily advocate for their members. sometimes the good of the members is contrary to the good of others. that's the way it works in an adversarial system.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. That is not a good analogy at all

Teachers unions are not an adversarial system opposing what is best for kids.

I realize it may be difficult to understand that not all workers or their unions are only concerned about the interests of the workers.

It is also an incorrect assumption to assume teachers are more interested in their paycheck that their students. In fact, that assumption is downright offensive.

[paulsby]

15. you misunderstand the meaning of "adversarial"

they are adversarial in regards to the fact that they counter MANAGEMENT's position. there are basically two positions in the negotiations - labor (the union) and management. that's true for cop union, teacher,s unions, or autoworker unions. i also didn't say that teachers are more interested in their paycheck than their students. nor would i say cops are more interested in their paychecks than the citizens they serve. although there are certainly SOME cops and SOME teachers who think that way.

the point is this. adversarial

the union advocates for labor
management advocates for management

those two sides are adversarial.

in the case of teachers, the people the teachers serve are the students.

in the case of cops, the people the cops serve are the citizens.

while in both cases (cops and teachers), some of the positions advocated by labor (and by management) may benefit more or less, the citizenry/students, that is not necessarily true. and it sometimes is not true at all.

a cop union that argues for a higher standard of evidence before firing cops will necessarily mean that more guilty cops are retained. duh. same as a system that requires beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal convctions means more guilty people wil go free than a system that required a preponderance. duh

a teachers union is the adversary to management. they advocate for THEIR members. many of their advocacy positions will also benefit the students. many won't,. that's the nature of unions.

if unions only advocated positions that benefited students/citizens, tbey wouldn't be doing their job.

that's the reality. you can be pollyanna all you want, but if you think teachers unions necessarily advocate for students, you are being unrealistic, as well as not understanding the nature of a union - ANY union. the concept is always the same. as it should be.

[GoesTo11]

33. Teachers unions advocate for their leaders

At least where I live, they have gotten pretty crusty. They get better deals for the leaders and better deals for the older teachers, while screwing the younger and newer ones. Always crying poverty, while the ones who they really benefit have the sweetest deal of anyone I know. I don't know what the solution is, but some unions really do play into the RW stereotype of bad unions.

[Kid Dynamite]

39. Some liberals repeat RW stereotypes as well

[GoesTo11]

43. Name calling, but you don't know what you're talking about

I know unions vary from location to location. Our teachers unions here don't support untenured teachers, but the go to the mat to protect sexual predators. They focus on letting current and near retirees game the pension system but don't try to get the pension better funded for those who will be retiring much later. They get hugely graduate scales to obtain raises for the most senior teachers without raising entry level salaries. They oppose anything that will require additional work, even though they are always sanctimoniously couching this in terms of academic freedom. They don't oppose arbitrary requirements for qualification as long as older members are grandfathered in. The strongest unions have the memberships that most love social promotion. Some teachers are saintly but quite a few really are lazy hacks. My kids have had some of them.

I certainly don't think business should be calling the shots on schools, and I don't think schools are a business. But there's definitely good unions and bad unions. I used to think teachers unions were on the good side, but now I think they really aren't much good. Might be different in states like Iowa or Texas than in big cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago.

[Kid Dynamite]

45. Its not what I'm talking about but who I'm talking to

All you've produced is a rant about how the world sucks

[paulsby]

78. fwiw, i LOVE unions

and i love my union. i'm just not unrealistic about what their job is - advocacy for members NOT for the common good.

NO union advocates for the common good. it's not their job.

teachers unions would not be doing their JOB if they advocated based on what is best (even if they had the expertise to know what was best) for students.

their job, and they do it quite well, is to advocate for teachers.

any time my dept. tries to place additional restrrictions on cops, job requirements, etc. the union fights that. is that sometimes bad for the citizens we serve? of course.

let me give you two examples. physical fitness and mental fitness. personally, i support mandatory yearly physicals for cops (basic fitness test) and yearly mental health evaluations. and such tests would CLEARLY benefit citizens. physically unfit officers (i've read the DOJ stats) are much more likely to 1) use excessive force 2) abuse sick leave 3) require a higher level of force (because they can't physically handle themselves as well) etc. etc. if you get robbed and the guy takes off on foot, the 300 lb overweight cop aint gonna catch em. that's bad. mentally unfit officers are much more likely to use excessive force, commit suicide, abuse sick leave, commit ethical violation, etc. etc. but our union would NEVER agree to either type of test.

and the dept. probably wouldn't want the physical tests, because if an officer came in subpar, they'd be forced to PAY the officer on duty time to workout. dept's are often dollar foolish and pennywise.

simply put, any requirement (physical, mental etc.) is going to be fought by the union because it means officers will have to meet a higher standard, some people will lose their jobs, etc. no union is going to agree with that. despite the fact that it would greatly benefit the citizenry.

that's the nature of unions.

[Kid Dynamite]

82. Part of unionism is being in solidarity with your fellow workers

instead you depict workers as sort of leech class separate and apart from the "citizenry"; as those interested in gaming the system in their self-interest and nothing else.

This is like the Twilight Zone: intermixed amongst incessantly chanting the slogans of management you remind us that you LOVE Unions

You're as anit-labor as they come

[paulsby]

83. utter rubbish and typical of somebody with no argument - resort to ad hominems

i am pro-labor. i AM labor.

what i am not is a person who ignores facts, like you.

labor naturally wants more stuff for labor during bargaining. duh

management naturally wants more stuff that benefits management duh.

neither side is always right, all holy, etc.

evidence ignoring hacks like you (see, two can play the ad hominem game) in WHATEVER type of issue they are discussing tend to demonize the other. this is similar to what the military was trained to do in vietnam, call the other side "gooks" and dehumanize delegitimize them. it makes your bigotry understandable, but still unacceptable.

labor wants to improve conditions for labor. our union fights to get us more stuff, less requirements, better pay, etc. that's their JOB. much of what they bargain for is NOT in the public;'s interest. if our union argued based on PUBLIC interest they would not be doing their JOB.

a defense attorney argues similarly for his client, not for overall justice. that's their JOB.

you fail to recognize reality, and instead resort to ad hominems because you don't have the intellectual chops to actually address my points.

you only belittle yourself by doing so.

sad

[Kid Dynamite]

84. By definition you cannot be "pro-labor"

and then say "Labor has a point, but so does management"

If you think management has a point, fine. That makes you a supporter of management. It also makes you anti-labor in the extreme. Convoluted justifications don't change the simple facts.

[paulsby]

85. rubbish

i can be pro defendant rights while acknolwedging that the prosecution has a case, and should make it.

i can be pro labor and understand that everything we argue for is NOT necessarily in the public's interest. by nature, it often isn't, since unions job is to advocate for their client - LABOR.

it doesn't make me a supporter of management to understand that management often has a point, JUST LIKE LABOR. on balance, i tend to side much more frequently with labor, but even our most ardent labor advocates will admit (off the record) that we often argue very unrealistically because we know management will argue similarly unrealistically and that a compromise somewhere in the middle is both practical (obtainable) and fair to both sides.

many of my unions advocacy (and our rights) run CONTRARY to the benefit of citizens. tough for the citizens, but it's not labors job to argue for them. same goes for teachers and the students.

only an evidence ignoring ignoramus (you may apply for this position. you are doing well so far) think unions are ALWAYS correct, or always argue for the public good.

you are simply demonizing ONE side because you are more interested in your partisan hackery than you are in reality and fairness.

i;m not going to concede ANY of my rights under labor - 100% of our healthcare paid for by the dept, an excellent contract with mandatory raises for the next 5 years, generous vacation and sick leave, etc.

those are MY rights. i will advocate to keep MY rights. but i'm not deluded enough to think that all these rights were gotten w/o compromise in other areas (iow we ceded to management the right to citizen review boards, and other stuff), or that everything my union advocates for/against they do so because they are interested in the public good.

they aren't.

my union advocates for us, the working class heroes that it represents, NOT the citizens that we serve.

as they should.

[Kid Dynamite]

86. You're no working class hero

you're a cop

Labor is diametrically opposed to management. Sometimes concessions are made, but it is never conceded that management has a valid position. Only that labor is not in a position to win more at that moment in time.

[paulsby]

87. again with the ad hominems

proof yet again, that you got nothing to say except insults.

sad.

[Amos Moses]

14. Is your pay based on the performance of the people you serve?

Should cops in cities with high crime rates receive less pay?

[paulsby]

16. i;m not advocating for merit pay

i am saying that what teachers UNIONS advocate for is designed to benefit the MEMBERS, not the students. just like what my union fights for benefits US not neccessarily the citizens.

some union positions will be contrary to the benefit of students/citizens. that is NECEssARILY true or unions would not be doing their job.

[Amos Moses]

17. Maybe I read your post wrong or I have you confused with

someone else. I thought you said:

are you seriously claiming that "rewarding excellence" will not make a difference?

Maybe I shouldn't equate "merit pay" with "rewarding excellence". Sounds to me like an endorsement of merit pay. Do those terms mean two different things? :shrug:

[maryf]

90. The unions job is to protect the working conditions of the teachers...

As you say. Merit pay would impede the working conditions. It would set up a condition whereby administrators could favor teachers by giving them better situations in which it would be easier to gain merit. Teachers cannot be paid piece work, it is not like in a factory where each piece is identical and going through the process identically, the only difference being the speed and efficiency of each worker. Each piece a teacher works with is different.

[Hannah Bell]

21. yes, a merit system! let's have police depts across the country compete for funding on the basis of

their crime stats & their "innovative" plans to improve them.

the worse performers get their funds cut & get taken over by private companies like blackwater, or whatever its new brand name is.

i'm sure the country will soon be crime free!

[YvonneCa]

69. Or let's punish dentists when their patients...

...have too many cavities. :7 Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[FrenchieCat]

22. It would be more pay that cops would get in high crime areas....

not less, if you were using an analogy.

Van Roekel insisted that Obama's call for teacher performance pay does not necessarily mean raises or bonuses would be tied to student test scores. It could mean more pay for board-certified teachers or for those who work in high-poverty, hard-to-staff schools, he said.

[Hannah Bell]

24. you didn't read the rest. the administration says pay *will* be tied to student scores.

so i think the plan will work for police depts too.

don't kid yourself; poor districts *will* be defunded, de-unionized & privatized first. this is the programme nclb set up, & the "caring" dems will fulfill it.

a hundred little ineffective (because local & grassroots) district protests will be held, but the ruling class will get its agenda:

cheap public-funded prison schools for the poor with police presence
slightly better "trade" schools for the working class with combo public/private funding
private designer schools for the upper middle
& the usual sinecures for elites
lower taxes!

ramping back of opportunities for higher ed generally, defunding of public universities save for one flagship brand/state.

[FrenchieCat]

40. I am not a pessimistic skeptic ready to cash my chips in.....so I don't

take the words of an article in where
unnamed Administration officials are going to be given
more weight than an actual named source. I'll let you do that.

Far as I'm concerned, the status quo is unacceptable....
but I will look into what is really being said by going to the direct sources,
as opposed to doing a knee jerk based on what some are speculating
based on what they can gather....and then reaching conclusions
that will make them unhappy.

Far as I can see, this appears to be a work in progress,
and once I have a better fix on the proposed changes,
than I will work to make my voice heard on those changes
that I disagree with.

[Hannah Bell]

42. The source is Obama's Education czar, & is ID'd in the sentence following the one you quoted:

'"What you want to do is really identify the best and brightest by a range of metrics, including student achievement," Education Secretary Arne Duncan told The Associated Press in a brief interview.'

And from the change agent himself:

Obama outlined three “strategies” for so-called underperforming schools, all of them reactionary.

“One strategy involves replacing the principal, replacing much of the staff, and giving the school a second chance,” he said.

“Another strategy involves inviting a great nonprofit to help manage a troubled school.

A third strategy involves converting a dropout factory into a successful charter school."


Keep pretending it's about the "pessimism" of the messenger (me), & not the message. You'll go far in the brave new world.

[FrenchieCat]

44. I'm reading other sources,

in order to get more context.....as opposed to allowing the Naysayers to set the bar....

and I am finding them....and yes, unfortunately, many times the messenger bends the message, in order for those reading the message to get the impression that the messenger wants them to get. Happens all of the time in the brave new world.

There's facts, and then there's purpose driven speculations based on some morsel of some of the facts; and the two are not the same.

http://www.aft.org/news/2009/racetothetop.htm

[Hannah Bell]

46. Fact: student test results will be one of the metrics for determination of teacher merit.

Fact: the Obama administration's new education funding requires districts to compete for it.
Fact: the administration, Obama specifically, has announced that schools determined to be "failing" (by the metrics of bush's nclb, which eventually turns all schools into "failing" schools, & which the current admin KEPT IN PLACE) will be dealt with thusly:

1. Replace all management & instructors
2. Takeover by education management "non-profit"
3. Transformation to charter school


that's the official plan, stan.

Apologetics don't cut it in the 8th mo of the "change" presidency. The "change" is exactly the same as that prescribed by the Bush admin, just different rhetoric used to sell it.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Fact: July 20th marked the 6th month of this "change" presidency, not 8 months....

Fact: one (1) of the metrics for determination....

Fact: The 4.3 Billion is only for one (1) specific education program, and not the in-total education funding......as there was $100 billion for education programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act alone, which doesn't include budgeted money for education.
http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/StimulusPackage/default.aspx

the 4.3 Billion is a small slice of the Stimulus money.....
State Incentive Fund: ARRA allocates $4.35 billion for competitive grants for states to fund experimental school improvement programs. State Incentive programs along with Innovation Fund programs (described below) are collectively referred to as the “Race to the Top.”

in addition to this 4.3 Billion, there is 95.7 Billion remaining.....
of which some has been allocated as follows:

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF): This new program provides $48.3 billion for restoring state education funding. Washington is expected to receive about $1 billion in SFSF money between now and fiscal year 2010-11.

Student Achievement, ESEA, Title I, Part A: ARRA provides additional money for LEAs and schools with high numbers or high percentages of poor children who need help in meeting states’ challenging academic standards. Washington schools are expected to receive about $135 million in additional Title I funds.

Special Education, IDEA, Part B: ARRA provides additional money to help states and local schools insure that children with disabilities have access to a free, appropriate public education. Washington schools are expected to receive more than $221 million in additional funds for special education.

School Improvement: ARRA provides Washington approximately $44.5 million in additional funds to help schools that have failed to demonstrate adequate yearly progress (AYP) in meeting state academic goals.


Innovation Fund: ARRA allocates $650 million for competitive grants for a local education agency OR one or more schools in partnership with a non-profit organization. Innovation Fund programs along with State Incentive programs (described above) are collectively referred to as the “Race to the Top.”

Educational Technology, ESEA Title II, Part D: ARRA provides additional money to LEAs to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology. Washington schools are expected to receive an additional $8.7 million for technology.

Homeless Children and Youth, McKinney-Vento, Title II: ARRA provides additional money to ensure that homeless children and youth have access to a free, appropriate public education, including a public preschool education. Washington is expected to receive additional money for the education of homeless children and youth.

Child Nutrition Services: ARRA provides additional funds for improvements in program equipment distributed to the states. States must distribute these funds via competitive grants to local school food authorities, with priority given to those schools in which at least 50% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. The program is administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Pupil Transportation: The funding most directly associated with school transportation is through the National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Of the $90 million going directly to the states, Washington’s share is $1.7 million. The Department of Ecology will oversee the distribution of Washington’s $1.7 million.

School Facilities and Organization - ARRA School Bond Opportunities: ARRA has made available new and expanded bond opportunities for school districts to include Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs), Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs), Build America Bonds (BABs), and Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs). These programs can provide interest-free bonds to schools for construction, rehabilitation, repair, energy-saving renovations, teacher training and land acquisition.
http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/StimulusPackage/default.aspx

[Hannah Bell]

53. Fact: Obama ed budget for 2010: 46.7 billion. Bush ed budget 2008: 58 billion.

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/05/05072009a.html

http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/news-by-subject/budget-news/?i=51244

The state assistance you're so proud of is to keep state ed funding at 2006 levels.

The "$100 billion" in funding is spread over multiple years.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Facts: All budgets aren't equal.....

Facts: Bush's 2008 Education budget.....

LOSERS

Among the 44 education programs slated for elimination under Bush's 2008 budget plan are these:

•Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants: $770.6 million
•Enhancing Education Through Technology: $273.1 million
•Even Start: $111.6 million
•Tech-Prep Education State Grants: $104.8 million
•State Grants for Innovative Programs: $99.2 million
•Smaller Learning Communities: $90.4 million
•Physical Education: $72.7 million
•Federal Perkins Loans Cancellations: $65.5 million
•Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships: $64.5 million
•Teacher Quality Enhancement: $59.9 million
•Byrd Honors Scholarships: $40.6 million
•Parental Information and Research Centers: $39.6 million
•Arts in Education: $35.3 million
•Elementary and Secondary School Counseling: $34.7 million
•Civic Education: $29.1 million
•Star Schools: $14.9 million
•School Leadership: $14.7 million
•Ready to Teach: $10.9 million
•Comprehensive School Reform: $10.1 million
•Gifted and Talented Education: $9.6 million
•Demonstration Projects for Students with Disabilities: $6.9 million

New sources of funding would include:

WINNERS:
• $1.2 billion in additional funds for Title I, for a total of $13.9 billion. Bush wants to drive more federal Title I funding to high schools, so they have the resources to implement reforms.
• $500 million in first-time funding for Title I School Improvement Grants, a new program to support "strong and effective state leadership in helping to turn around low-performing schools and school districts."

• $411.6 million for State Assessment Grants to support strong state assessment systems and to develop and implement two years of high school assessments that would be required under Bush's plan to reauthorize Title I.

• $300 million to expand private-school choice and tutoring options. This would include $250 million for "Promise Scholarships," or vouchers, for low-income students in poor-performing schools to transfer to private schools or receive intensive tutoring; and $50 million in "Opportunity Scholarships" for competitive grants to cities, nonprofit organizations, and others to carry out innovative voucher programs.

• $365 million in additional funding for the president's American Competitiveness Initiative, which aims to strengthen math and science education. This would include $125 million for the Math Now for Elementary School Students program, modeled after Reading First; $125 million for a new Math Now for Middle School Students program, based on the principles of the Striving Readers program, to support research-based math interventions in middle schools; $90 million in additional Advanced Placement funds to encourage more students, especially in high-poverty schools, to take AP classes in math, science, and foreign languages; and $25 million for an Adjunct Teacher Corps to create opportunities for qualified professionals outside K-12 education to teach high school math and science.

• $68.4 million in additional funds for Striving Readers to implement research-based interventions to improve the skills of teens who are reading below grade level.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/news-by-subject/budget-news/index.cfm?i=44847

Bush Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Programs by $20 Billion In 2009
Many Cuts Come on Top of Sizable Reductions in Recent Years

The President’s 2009 budget would provide some $20.5 billion <1> less for domestic discretionary programs outside of homeland security — a broad category of programs that includes everything from child care to environmental protection to medical research — than the 2008 level, adjusted for inflation.<2>

The budget calls for reductions in a broad range of services, including some areas that have seen sizable cuts in recent years. For example, the budget would cut child care, environmental protection, and job training — all areas for which funding in 2008 is well below funding earlier in the decade, after adjusting for inflation.

In other areas, the budget does not call for large new cuts, but nor does it reverse sizable cuts that have been made in recent years. K-12 education is such an area. After the No Child Left Behind initiative was enacted, funding for K-12 education increased for several years. Since 2004, however, funding has failed to keep pace with inflation. In 2008, funding for K-12 education is 8.9 percent below the 2004 level, in inflation-adjusted dollars. The President’s proposed funding level falls just short of what would be needed to keep pace with inflation. As a result, under the President's budget, K- 12 funding in 2009 would fall 9.1 percent below the 2004 funding level, adjusted for inflation.

Head Start is another example. Head Start funding has essentially been frozen since 2002, without adjustment for inflation. As a result, when inflation is taken into account, funding in 2008 is 11 percent below the 2002 level. The President’s proposed 2009 funding level falls 12 percent below the 2002 inflation-adjusted level.

As a result, significant additional funding would be needed to restore many programs to the levels in place earlier this decade. For example, in K-12 education alone, an additional $3.7 billion above the President’s 2009 budget request would be needed to restore funding to 2004 levels (after adjustment for inflation). To restore child care and Head Start funding to 2002 inflation-adjusted levels would require an additional $1.4 billion above the President’s budget request.

Many of the proposed cuts in domestic discretionary programs would adversely affect state budgets. A large number of domestic discretionary programs provide funding to states for various types of services such as education, low-income energy assistance, environmental protection, and mass transit. The President’s budget would cut overall funding for domestic discretionary grants to state and local governments by $19.1 billion, as compared to 2008 funding levels adjusted for inflation. (Funding would be $15.1 billion below 2008 funding levels even without adjusting for inflation.)

It is important to note that despite some rhetoric to the contrary, these programs have not grown rapidly in recent years. In 2008, funding for domestic discretionary programs outside homeland security is lower as a share of the economy than it was in 2001. And, between 2002 and 2008, the overall funding level for domestic discretionary programs outside homeland security declined 2.6 percent in real per capita terms.<3> (See box on page 2 of the full report.)
http://www2.chccs.k12.nc.us/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=70723&

Obama's 2010 Education Budget in context when not looking through a wind tunnel

[anigbrowl]

62. Wait, what? When did critical thinking become acceptable on this thread?

You'd better save that shit for the classroom, FC, because critical thinking is for kids. round here we like rhetoric and reflexivity, not this namby-pamby examination of context and pragmatism!

[FrenchieCat]

64. I don't like the picture I am starting to see here in some of these posts.....

losta of Pavlov reflextionism based on shaky bait alone.

Almost like folks laying in wait for an excuse.

Quite scary actually, when context is now more important than ever.

Of course, I never expect the RW to deal with Context or facts so much,
which is why although I detest the "I'm scared of a government ran health care program" reaction
from the easily duped uninformed folks, I expect it. What I did not expect to see was the same exact same thing regarding education here at this site....
in particular on the issue of new President's proposals for some badly needed reform, as opposed to stepping back into time to pre Bush era education policies without regard to innovation or change. Seems like many liberals here don't really have an open mind, and therefore are not the true liberals they claim to be; just simply poseurs.

I'm utterly shocked to find someone actually attempting to hawk Bush as somehow being more willing to spend on education than would the current President..... cause that's just a plain lie.

Guess while others are expecting a great deal from this President,
and are ready to be disappointed as soon as possible,
I didn't think that it would have been too much to ask that folks consider context, nuance, and
facts.

Now I am starting to realize that I actually shouldn't have been expecting
much of anything more than this sad shit from Democratic Underground.

There's a debate to be had certainly, but folks starting with absolutes and digging in using partial information does not make for a informative debate.

[anigbrowl]

65. In times of political stress, I often find this a comforting reminder of how things work

[Hannah Bell]

88. got more straw?

"someone actually attempting to hawk Bush as somehow being more willing to spend on education than would the current President"

i listed the figures.

fact: obama cut the dept of ed budget 19%, spin it how you will.

[Hannah Bell]

79. Here's the context: Obama chose arne duncan as his education czar.

Mr. Charter Schools.

Yes, messengers bend messages.


Obama cut the dept of education budget 19%, reducing it to less than FY 2002 levels.


You point to the 100 billion ARRA money - which is spread over 2-3 years.


More than 1/2 is stabilization funds to states to allow them to maintain operations at about 2006 levels in recessionary conditions.

in order to get these funds, they have to meet certain conditions, one being to institute:

"pre-K-to college and career data systems that track progress and foster continuous improvement"

a trojan horse & a new cost, as are some of the other conditions, & the new reporting requirements:

"ARRA funds are subject to additional and more rigorous reporting requirements than normally apply to grant recipients."

& if a district doesn't make appropriate progress on the 'reforms,' they don't get the second half funding apparently.


If you look at the details, even some of this funding is to be distributed competitively, i.e. only selected schools will get it:

"Impact Aid Construction ($100 million: only 40 percent will be distributed by formula; 60 percent will be distributed through competitive grants at a later date).

Independent Living Services ($140 million: only $52.5 million will be distributed by formula; remaining $87.5 will be distributed by competitive grants at a later date)."


Besides these funds, there's:

17 billion = a ~$500 increase in maximum Pell grant levels: the extra $500 will be nice for those who get Pell grants, there's no increase in the number of grants, & most students who qualify for aid don't get pell grants.

$5 billion for competitive grants to be given only to selected districts.

3.6 billion in title 1 school improvement & tech grants (conditions for receipt not published yet)



So basically, dept of ed defunded 18% & states get emergency aid with strings - which i would bet, if one looked deeper, would be found to further the agendas of deunionization, privatization, charters.

[YvonneCa]

70. Do you realize that 2 states have laws PREVENTING...

...the linkage of teacher and student data systems? They won't qualify to even compete unless they change the state law...and teachers and unions may have a voice in that.

And that's assuming that one thinks such linkage is a good idea...I don't.

[Kid Dynamite]

38. Paulsby you cannot damn Unions with faint praise

and then fall back on the recourse of "I can say this because I love Unions". Obama is calling this "tough love" but there is already a more a propos word for it: rape.

You endorse a tiered structure that is sure to be heavily politicized. That extends not only to the teachers but also the students whose interest you say you place first and foremost. Yet, such a tiered system is ALREADY in place and plainly sucks. Obama announces that this is not actually rock bottom and that the job of digging an even deeper hole is "shovel-ready". And you rush to get that pick-axe singing "I love Unions except when they get in the way of progress.."

It is anti-union views like yours that have escalated this stiuation to the precipice..I don't think more of the same thinking is going to draw it back from the brink

[Selatius]

18. I have to disagree about merit pay based on children's performance.

It is different in the private sector than it is in the public sector.

Let's say you make donuts made out of potato bread. You want the best potatoes to ensure quality. That's a given. You forget about the potatoes that are sub-par.

You CAN'T do that with school kids. There are many children with learning disabilities and special needs.

If one's pay is tied to the performance of the children, then that means teachers will be penalized because special ed kids might not be performing as well as other students.

That's totally unfair to the teacher and demoralizing to the students.

[Amos Moses]

19. another thing

I'm no expert but it seems like there are a number of other factors, ones that teachers have no control over, that could affect a student's grades.

What if the kid has it bad at home? What if they're abused or neglected? Some don't have enough food to eat or their parents can't afford to take them to the doctor. What if they have an undiagnosed learning disability or substance abuse problems? There's bound to be a bunch more problems like that.

Should we penalize a teacher who has that kid in his/her classroom for five hours per week when it could be so many other things that cause them to have lower grades?

If the government is going to penalize teachers like that, I think the government should penalize the bankers when our investments not only lose money but also when they just don't perform as well as we had hoped.

[aikoaiko]

36. I support merit pay and longer school years.

Merit pay has to be conduct intelligently, but it can be done.

Longer school years makes sense now that we are not a agriculture based society. Plus there is a lot more to learn.

[anigbrowl]

63. Totally disagree

As I've pointed out many times, you can measure relative rather than absolute improvement; in that case, it doesn't matter whether you get the job of instructing the best and brightest or the weakest and dullest, your goal is to do what you can with the class you're given to teach. In such a circumstance, turning Fs into Ds is just as worthy of reward as turning Bs into As or As into A+s.

[Truth Talks]

20. Screw the Kids

Public education was effectively privatized under Bill Clinton. Then the Republicans drove the knife a little deeper under George W. Dumbass. Now the Democrats are back to torment children under Obama.

I can't speak for all teacher unions, the but the National Education Association is a sham. During my sixteen years in education, it did nothing but stab me and my colleagues (not to mention students and parents) in the back.

The sad things is that teachers and parents don't seem to have a clue about what's going on; they don't care. It looks like no one will challenge Bill Gates' status as de facto CEO of Public Education, Inc.

[Hannah Bell]

23. someone who gets it, including the anti-democratic & pernicious influence of Gates, Inc.

but both the "liberal" foundations & the "conservative" foundations are, in reality, pushing the same plate of steaming crap.

[G_j]

30. sad nt

[GoesTo11]

52. Nice job repeating RW stereotypes

Some liberals happen to like unions.

[Truth Talks]

58. No kidding.

Yes, I have a name for those people, people who sell out their own profession and even their students to unions.

Unions are like government - a necessary evil. That said, I'll support a good union but not a corrupt union.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

26. Well

at least he's consistent. "Hope"fully folks know what to expect by now.

K&R

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. "Change" you can MAKE BELIEVE IN!

:woohoo: :evilgrin:

[nightrain]

28. Rec. Another disappointing decision to continue privatization of the public commons.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. This was totally foresable, and I blame in large measure the NEA for this

Some form of teacher accountability has been coming for some time. The NEA had an opportunity to get out ahead of it but its head in the sand. Now its here and there will be some real pain over it.

[YvonneCa]

71. There already has been a lot of real...

...pain. Now there will be more, sadly.

[Doremus]

32. This is a huge disappointment.

Correction: *another* huge disappointment.

Why is what I want to know. I didn't have him pegged as a typical snake in the grass pol. But he's also not stupid.

So he either believes this crapola (in which case he's not as intelligent as I thought) or he's just lip synching it (which makes him nothing more than the aforementioned snake in the grass).

What am I not seeing here?

[glitch]

35. I think he believes the crap. :( nt

[mix]

57. Obama attended private schools from the 5 to 12 grades...

...public schools are an abstraction to him at best. He just doesn't get it.

[YvonneCa]

72. I think it's the first. He believes it...

...and on education is not as 'knowledgeable' as on other topics. I think he is honorable...just underinformed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. I agree

I also attended private schools and now teach in public schools. There is a culture gap I needed to cross. It took several years. Maybe Obama will also figure it out. But I am not sure we have years.

[Karmadillo]

34. This crap will stop as soon as the Democrats take back the White House and the Congress

nt

[nightrain]

37. oh my..... LOL!!! Thank you! nt

[Political Heretic]

61. LOL ouch.

[Curtland1015]

41. Am I missing something here? How is this any different than what he campaigned on?

*insert snarky 'you're missing a lot of things' response here*

That aside, it's not like he promised something wildly different than what he's delivering. Not that I could find anywhere, anyways.

Also, look at the wording in the article, part of which the OP used:


Van Roekel insisted that Obama's call for teacher performance pay does not necessarily mean raises or bonuses would be tied to student test scores. It could mean more pay for board-certified teachers or for those who work in high-poverty, hard-to-staff schools, he said.

However, administration officials said later they do mean higher pay based on student achievement, among other things.

It's worded to sound like there is some kind of bait and switch going on, when there ISN'T.

The first part says basically that test scores won't be THE deciding factor on who gets what though it could be a factor, the second says "even though they say that, test scores could be one of the things that helps decide it!"

It's the same damn thing!!!

[Hannah Bell]

47. it says scores WILL be one of those things.

"they do mean higher pay based on student achievement"

"What you want to do is really identify the best and brightest by a range of metrics, including student achievement," Education Secretary Arne Duncan told The Associated Press in a brief interview.


Extension of the logic of NCLB, which is inexorably detonating low-income districts.

[Curtland1015]

54. Oh certainly. I'm not denying that they're saying it will be a factor.

All I'm saying is, the piece is written to make it seem like the administration claimed it wouldn't be, the turned around and made it the OVERRIDING one. Which seems a bit disingenuous to me.

They never claimed it wasn't to be included in the consideration, but the article (to me anyway) seems to be shading it as some sort of bait and switch.

[YvonneCa]

73. It was without specifics during the campaign. Now, 'A Race...

...to the Top' sets actual state requirements to compete for the funds. States have to work on standards (easy), raise the cap on charter schools (harder), and set up data systems to link test scores and teacher data...which is illegal in two states.

The goal on the last one is to use student test data to evaluate teachers. In California and New York, there is a firewall in the law preventing that.

Obama and Duncan just made clear their plans.

[BlooInBloo]

76. Soooo Obama is dishonest because he was vague as candidate and specific as President?

for rlz?

[YvonneCa]

80. No. I still love President Obama. I'd vote for him...

...again. No regrets. He IS under-informed on the issue of public schools. Some things he plans are good. He is committed.

I just want him to do this right, for the country. As a citizen,it is my duty to join the debate.

[sutz12]

49. And I just love how all the righties call him "too liberal"

My irony meter just pegs when I hear that crap.

:shrug:

[eppur_se_muova]

51. KRB&H

That's kick, rec (for the post), boo, and hiss (for the policy).

[Political Heretic]

60. That is the biggest fucking bullshit I have ever heard.

Wow... un fucking believable.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

66. Bump

[EmilyAnne]

74. Thanks to Obama, we are getting money to start a program in Pittsburgh that mirrors Children's Zone

in Harlem.
Its an amazing program.
The Pittsburgh community that we will be based in has been desperate and hopeless for far too long.

http://www.hcz.org/

[maryf]

89. Kick

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Thanks Hannah, change for the worse, my "hope" is that it will wake up the union leadership...and get more teachers active...saying more than that might get me banned... ;)