Random header image... Refresh for more!

teaching and choice

by E.D. Kain

booklet_for_schools_534px_wSo we’ve gone some rounds in the teaching/education debate – with Will, Freddie, John, Conor, Sonny and myself all chiming in to one degree or another – and I’d like to follow up a bit on Will’s post on Michelle Rhee.  What I think bothers me often in these schooling debates is that a lot of people think (or seem to think) we should dive headfirst into reforms, when in fact it seems that smaller steps are safer.  I think some conservatives really do have it out for the public school system.  Some voucher proponents would love to see the end of public schools as we know them.  Others don’t.

I don’t think John S. wants to see public schools fail for instance, and I think he’s guided by a sense that school choice and vouchers will create a competitive environment which will make all schools function better, and will eventually lead to better schools and opportunities for more kids.  Our goals, in many senses, are identical.  I disagree mainly due to my perception of the problems facing our schools, (and thus on the actual benefits competition would provide) but I think that local districts should obviously be allowed to give it a shot.  They should just do this with caution, and they also need to maintain some sort of oversight of the schools they are, essentially, subsidizing.  Same with charters.  [Read more →]

May 13, 2009   21 Comments

Teaching Moments

by Will

This depressing Los Angeles Times story inspired a pretty interesting debate on teacher unions over at the American Scene. In comments, Freddie mounts a persuasive defense of union-backed tenure for professional educators, arguing that job security is a major incentive behind recruitment and retention. This certainly makes sense to me, though it’s worth noting that a few proposed reforms replace tenure with a different incentive structure. Here, for example, is a good summary of DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s new program:

Rhee has proposed a two-track, green and red, system for D.C. teachers. Teachers who volunteer for the green track would give up all tenure rights and, in return, would get larger pay hikes and become eligible for performance bonuses that could put their annual income well above $100,000. Red track teachers would not give up tenure; they would receive a smaller pay increase; and would not be eligible for performance bonuses.

Rhee’s reforms have become something of a cause célèbre, garnering praise from Nicholas Kristof and a high-profile Time cover story. Her abrasive personality and take-no-prisoners approach hasn’t endeared her to the local teacher union, however, which is generally wary of performance-based reforms.

From what I understand (I have a few friends with the DC Teach for America program) the divide over Rhee’s reforms is mostly generational, with new teachers favorably disposed towards performance-based pay while older teachers are more concerned with job security. This may also reflect different career priorities, as a lot of DC’s Teach for America volunteers are not planning on staying with the DC school system.

To be perfectly honest, this is not an issue I pay close attention to, although I did get the chance to see Rhee speak last summer and was suitably impressed. The (younger) teachers I know in the DC system are almost uniformly enthusiastic about the proposed changes, and I think that replacing tenure with performance-based pay has the potential to incentivize better teaching. Having said all that, the environmental barriers to improving student achievement in DC are pretty overwhelming, and I’m sympathetic to teachers who feel that they’re being unfairly scapegoated for structural defects.

Good teaching does seem to be quantifiable, and DC’s public school system definitely needs a major overhaul, so I’d tentatively place myself in the reformist camp. What do you all think?

May 6, 2009   21 Comments

Page 1 of 11