I would like to step in here with a perspective different from that of Senator Barack Obama, and different from the right-wing propaganda tanks that have been touting these ideas for years.
I don't care if you love Obama or hate him. I don't like him, but I'm not here to talk about him, and if you love him, more power to you. I'm here to talk about the concepts of competition and merit pay as they relate to public education. My credentials to do so are, frankly, better than any of the presidential candidates'. I'm a teacher. I've worked in public education since 1983. I've been a classified employee, a school librarian, and have taught K-8th grades. I've taught in two states with 2 different licenses, at different school sites, and under a wide variety of administrators and school boards. I have numerous extra certifications, have done staff development for districts, written curriculum, and sat on various district committees focused on education-related issues. None of the Democratic candidates have my extensive background in the profession.
In every one of those scenarios, I have exemplary evaluations from admins, and strong peer, parent, and student support.
I'm also a product of public education, have raised two publicly-educated children, and now have a grandchild in the public ed system. I get to look at my profession from a parent's perspective, too.
I value the parent and student support most highly, as their opinions about my performance are the ones that count, at least to me. It's probable that political campaigners and spinners may not support what I have to say, but I know that the people who count, my "clients," so to speak, do.
On competition:
It is inevitable that competition is part of public education, since it is such a strongly embedded strand in American culture. Competition can lead to some limited, short-term gains in some cases. The key word there being "some." That's the sticking point, isn't it? "Some." Public education, by it's definition, is for ALL. Not some.
As educators, it is our job to offer opportunities for ALL to find success. We can't give it to them, we can't do it for them. That's not our job. We give them the opportunities, and they make the most of those opportunities, or not. That's the American way, is it not?
So what is the problem with competition among teachers? Let's take a practical, down-in-the-trenches look:
Competition, by it's very nature, RANKS people. If the goal is to offer equal opportunity to all, you are not going to get there by ranking those offering the opportunity. It can only be equal if teachers are equal.
Of course, in the real world, teachers are no more assembly-line machines than students are. There will be real differences. Is competition the way to address that reality? I don't think so. I don't think so because I think like a teacher. As a teacher, I would no more use competition in my classroom to rank students, to push them into lower, less valued ranks that offer fewer opportunities, than I would my colleagues.
That doesn't mean that I think anyone can teach, and that anyone with a license ought to be given free reign. I hold my colleagues to higher standards than any state board can. They do the same for me. If you want to be able to ensure that all teachers are "highly qualified," do these things:
1. Pay an appropriate professional salary that does not require investment of said salary in work to keep a license, in trainings, in supplies, etc..
2. Be realistic about the job so that those considering teaching as a profession don't think they are getting a short work day with lots of vacation. So that they understand what they are really getting into.
3. Offer alternate career choices for those who decide that teaching is not for them; career choices that don't require them to start over and invest more years and $$$ into separate education/training. Career choices that will take teachers at comparable pay into other professions.
4. Don't promote people who don't like teaching into administrative jobs, paying them more and giving them authority over those who do the job they couldn't, or didn't want, to do.
5. Provide for abundant peer observation, counseling, mentoring, and evaluating. The best way to get a teacher to improve practice is to make that teacher accountable to peers. End the isolation behind classroom doors.
Please note that teachers competing against each other for jobs, for evaluations, for "merit pay," will not be constructively engaged in #5 above. In this case, collaboration is a more powerful instrument of long-term improvement than competition will ever be.
Which is more likely to benefit students? Groups of teachers collaborating together to make sure that students have the best opportunities available to succeed, or teachers working against each other; teachers who will gain when other teachers' students don't? Teachers who are joined in the effort to help all succeed, or teachers who are motivated by incentives for "me?"
On "merit pay:"
First of all, it is more than obvious which scenario above merit pay will lead to. That alone should put an end to any efforts in that direction.
Secondly, just how will "merit" be measured to decide who is deserving? Talk about a swamp of corruption ready to suck down the most well- meaning. I see administrators using "merit" to advance those who support their agenda, and to hold back those who don't, regardless of benefit to actual students. Does the public really think that political manipulation doesn't happen at the school site level? Administrators quite regularly abolish all policies of their predecessors, no matter how beneficial, and institute sweeping policy and staffing changes, every time they are assigned to a new school. That's how they consolidate power. It has nothing to do with students. If a teacher has done nothing wrong to receive a "write up," or a poor evaluation, but continues to be a thorn in the side of a power-mongering agenda, admins can do things like reassign grade levels, duties, make up unbalanced class lists, etc.. to punish teachers already. You don't think assigning "merit" wouldn't become yet another tool of control and manipulation? Please know that I am not saying that all principals are unethical. I've worked for many good principals. Only 2 in my 25 years in public ed did not engage in some form of political manipulation of teachers.
As it stands right now, "merit" is based on student test scores. If you can't see that basing my "merit" on others' performance is not an ethical use of test scores, I'm not sure what to say. If you thought that what a teacher does in the classroom is the only, or even the most significant, factor in determining test scores, you need to learn some more. The most significant factor is outside of the teacher's, the school's, the public ed system's, control. It's parent ed and income level. We all know that. It's fine and dandy to say, "let's focus on what we CAN effect," as long as you are not going to pay me based on what we can't.
What if you had the best-case scenario in every classroom in a given school? A great admin, all superb, highly-qualified teachers, plenty of support, etc.. Guess what? Not all those kids will score the same.
So "merit pay" will be assigned to those who meet some pre-determined, politically decided goal. Fine. Guess what? We all know which kids have the best chance of reaching those goals before the first day of school ever happens. Does that mean we "give up" on the rest, and "leave them behind?" No. We work hard to bring them as far as we can. We celebrate their successes and go after their weak spots with passion and determination. Then we celebrate the progress we made, whether or not we met a politically-determined goal. Our goal was to move every student forward from where they began.
Now tell us that "merit pay" is determined by test scores. How many teachers will want to take on those kids who need them most? Now you'll see the competition. They'll be competing for the students most likely to make those gains. You wanted competition, right? What? That's not what you meant?
Do you want teachers who WANT the neediest kids, who want to take on the biggest challenge, even if they aren't in control of all the factors? Or do you want teachers who want the test scores? Make up your mind.
Are you thinking "Why can't we have both?" Because they are competing agendas. Competition fosters winners and losers. One agenda will win, and the other will lose. When there is a "winner," there is always a "loser." That's the nature of competition, and that's why it is not appropriate in public ed, where everyone is supposed to "win."
Do you think assigning students to teachers won't be affected by such a scenario? Please think again.
As someone who HAS worked in public ed for 25 years, I know that there are many, many areas that need improvement. I would love to dive right in and work on them. As a matter of fact, you can find some of my ideas here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=219x7314#7315More competition and merit pay are not on my list, as you will see.
If you really want to tout your favorite candidate's position on public education, how about giving us their position on those suggestions?