March 29, 2006
YA PAYS YOUR MONEY AND YA MAKES YOUR CHOICES (via The Mother Judd):
Taking on the teachers unions (Frederick M. Hess and Martin R. West, March 29, 2006, Boston Globe)
IT IS RARE -- and risky -- for a governor and national political aspirant to put the interests of children above those of a constituency that has as much electoral clout as the teachers unions. Yet Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has done just that with the education reform package he proposed last September and is touting nationwide.The governor's bill seeks to upend the status quo in teacher pay and evaluation that has been written into collective bargaining agreements across the Commonwealth. Specifically, it would offer annual bonuses for teachers with a math or science degree who pass the teacher test in their subject, forgo tenure, and receive a satisfactory year-end evaluation. It would also make teachers in all subjects eligible for a bonus upon receiving an exemplary evaluation and empower superintendents to reward teachers who work in low-performing schools. Crucially, the bill would remove teacher evaluation from the collective bargaining process and establish statewide criteria for assessing each teacher's ''contribution to student learning."
While several states and districts nationwide are experimenting with differential pay for teachers, Romney's proposals are noteworthy for their breadth and the size of the proposed bonuses. All told, an effective math or science teacher could receive up to $15,000 a year in three bonuses.
Catherine Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, predictably criticized Romney's proposals as ''inequitable, divisive, and ineffective."
Democrats are pro-union. Republicans are pro-student. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2006 9:45 AM
Now if only they could figure out what it means to be "pro student."
Posted by: Dorothy Judd at March 29, 2006 10:04 AMCatherine Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, predictably criticized Romney's proposals as ''inequitable, divisive, and ineffective."
"Inequitable" because some teachers might get more than others.
"Divisive" because it separates the MTA from the tax money.
"Ineffective" because anything that does not serve to perpetuate and expand the peculiar institution of public education in its present form is not effective to advance the interests of the MTA.
Posted by: Mike Morley at March 29, 2006 11:41 AMSeconding Dorothy, until these reforms are actually in place somewhere and shown to work better than the status quo, Republicans can only be called anti-union.
Posted by: Brandon at March 29, 2006 11:45 AMAs creating a good wedge issue goes, it works, as does NCLB to some degree. The real answer of course, is...
1. Abolish the "District" and convert every public school to an independent charter managed by a principal and teacher team elected by the parents that choose the school.
2. Abolish the local Property tax that goes toward education. Swap that for whatever increase allows for 100% State level funding (Throw Federal into that pot)
3. End "Education Aparteid" by having the state fund 100% of a "fully funded" scholarship of around $6500 to $8000/ student, redeemable at any charter or private school. This makes all education 100% "locally controled" while 100% fully "state" funded.
4. Allow for Education Savings accounts, where any overage above the (now dropping) education costs can be saved for tutoring or college.
__
There are transition issues that need to be addressed, but once someone puts the funding behind advertising/promoting this system (and simultaneously attacking the current system as broken and corrupt), it will gain popular support.
Soccer moms get more control PLUS something that helps pays for college while grandma & gandpa get big cuts in property taxes (60-75% in IL)
Everything else simply nibbles at the edges. If the promoters of choice went for 'fully funded' right out of the box, it would be universal by now.
Posted by: Bruno at March 29, 2006 4:05 PM