NCLB, Obama, and Global Implications
Sunday, 30 November 2008 Clay Burell 
Print This Post
NCLB as a potential world epidemic
To riff off an old saw, “When America sneezes, the world catches a cold.” This is beyond obvious when we think of the Iraq invasion, the refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and countless other examples.
Less obvious, though, are the effects of American education policy on the world. The “standards and accountability” movement, exemplified most notoriously by No Child Left Behind, can appear to be a mostly domestic, purely American issue.
But that appearance is wrong.
For evidence, look no further than New York City Education Chancellor Joel Klein’s recent visit to Australia – at the invitation of Australia’s Education Minister. Klein’s visit is stirring the same controversies in Australia that his policies have caused in the USA: should teacher unions be crippled? Should Australia look to the likes of Rupert Murdoch to privatize public education in the same way some Americans are looking to Bill Gates?
(We could extend this discussion to the encroachment of good ol’ American creationism and “Intelligent” Design into Australian science classrooms as well, but will leave that depressing subject for another post. My own secular warfare, here in Korea, with creationism edu-evangelists requires a stronger stomach and sense of humor than I have right now.)
Obama as education epidemiologist?
All of this points to the global importance of the incoming Obama administration’s education policies. Where will he stand on NCLB, on Charter Schools, on equity and finance and teacher tenure?
Cagey as ever, Obama has so far sent mixed signals. Pro-union, anti-privatizing advocates are heartened by his selection of progressive NCLB critic Linda Darling-Hammond as his education transition team manager, and hope he’ll follow up by appointing her Secretary of Education. But anti-union advocates who favor the likes of Klein and Washington D.C. school chancellor Michelle Rhee take hope in Obama’s stated support for expanding federal charter schools.
A closer inspection of Obama/Biden’s official education plan on Change.gov, though, suggests that progressives have more reasons to hope than the Klein-Rhee types. It seems to lay out reforms aiming at a “kinder, gentler,” more holistic NCLB. From the site:
Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama and Biden will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama and Biden believe teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. They will improve the assessments used to track student progress . . . and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama and Biden will also improve NCLB’s accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
A heretical close?
The other elements of the plan are encouraging and well worth the read, but – heresy warning - nowhere in the plan do we see any mention of the one issue that, in my view, the anti-union camp rightly raises: how to remove inept teachers from schools. Let’s be honest: we teachers have all worked with “omigod” colleagues we’d never want to inflict on a child.
Corey Bower writes a nicely pragmatic post about the tensions between protecting unions and eliminating undesirable teachers, in which he speculates,
I don’t think any union, or any union member, would argue that we should protect bad teachers. My guess is that [unions could support] some sort of provision that allowed for the dismissal of the worst teachers.
Speculation is all well and good – but does anybody have concrete examples of such a thing in their unions?1
- How NCLB Could Look if America Looked Abroad
- Ed-reads of Note: Farren on Green Econ Textbooks, Horn on Obama Ed Policy
- Against McCain, Obama, and Other Bailout Fundamentalists
- Reply to Gary Stager’s HuffPo Post on Duncan
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: obama, TheIndyDebate Print This Post
No. 1 — November 30th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
@Clay
Another thought provoking post. It seems education is the usual catch-all whipping boy for anything wrong with society. It is probably easy to blame schools. Teachers are undervalued, kids can’t vote, it shifts blame away from our political leaders and our families.
I agree that finding ways to weed out ineffective teachers is truly valuable. I’ve fired my share over my few short years as a principal. I work in a private setting where there is no tenure and everyone is on a yearly employment agreement. This isn’t a perfect system but it does alow the axe of change to fall a little more swiftly.
Increased funding would be nice. I struggle with the expanse of charter schools. They certainly spur creativity but I worry that those who need them the most are the most likely to be left out as politically and socially savy parents stear their little einsteins into seats designed for children from poverty.
Increasing teacher continuing education requirments might be one way (albeit draconian) of weeding out those who don’t want to get better. I’ve always liked this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590PNSh6g_4
Charlie A. Roys last blog post..Employee Benefits and Staff Retention
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 4:57 am
Charlie, I like that video too. “I’m going to teach one year – for 25 years straight.” Great line!
Jim Horn wrote a post recently on a study with really damning findings about Charter Schools that confirm your fear of cagey parents.
It’ll be interesting to see how aggressively Obama pursues education reform. Let’s hope he doesn’t disappoint.
Reply
No. 2 — December 1st, 2008 at 12:02 am
I think as long as a teacher is paying dues to a union, there’s an agreement and expectation of representation and advocacy. I don’t see how unions and “weeding out the bad seeds” can coexist.
That being said, my choice for Secretary of Education is Gordon Ramsey. Not the profanity-wielding, shouting monster running Hell’s Kitchen, but the profanity-wielding, shouting monster from “Kitchen Nightmares” that can turn *any* cockroach infested, ineptly-managed, “bought in food” hell hole into a successful restaurant.
Seriously, he takes people that I would have fired long ago and makes them care about their performance and feel invested in the organization’s success. That’s probably a bigger problem in schools today than the occasional dolt who *really* is beyond rehabilitation.
Anyone in a position concerned about “bad eggs” among the staff or intolerable coworkers need only watch a few episodes of this show to see how the most dysfunctional workers (and management!) can be turned around. Watching this show has made me realize that there are probably fewer “bad teachers” than I think there are. There are probably a heck of a lot more teachers who are floundering under stress, lack of leadership and organizational dysfunction.
It’s not a painless process, though, and you can be sure the unions would be citing “hostile work environment” before Ramsey could work his magic.
Sarah Rainsbergers last blog post..Alfie Kohn speaking in Toronto tonight
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 4:58 am
Sarah, at the risk of sounding like the TV know-nothing I am, can you drop the name of the show? Thanks
Reply
Sarah Rainsberger Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am
Hey Clay,
“Kitchen Nightmares” is the name of the show. There’s an older British version of the series, and then for the past season or two he’s been filming in the U.S.
It should really be required viewing for any consultant, manager or team leader, as far as I’m concerned. Assuming that the show isn’t staged, it’s amazing to see the transformations in staff, leaders and the organization as a whole.
Sarah Rainsbergers last blog post..Alfie Kohn speaking in Toronto tonight
Reply
No. 3 — December 1st, 2008 at 12:31 am
Hi Clay,
Although this is not specifically about Union support, there is a current case in Scotland of a teacher who is about to be (probably) the first to be struck off the register of teachers for incompetence. There is certainly no Union call for her to be retained, per se. Our (Scottish) teacher unions are very good, and do fight for the rights of their members, so their relative silence on this matter is as close to an admission that they agree with the steps being taken as one is likely to get.
Full story here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5209494.ece and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7741247.stm
Neil Wintons last blog post..Blog Action Day 08: Free Rice
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 5:04 am
Neil, thanks for the links. That teacher is exactly the kind of case that should trouble us, from what I read. Support and second chances were given, but she still failed to meet the standard. I guess union silence on her dismissal can be seen as a responsible reaction….
Reply
No. 4 — December 1st, 2008 at 4:00 am
I always wonder if people really know that there are ways to “get rid” of bad teachers if they so chose. It takes a little work, but if they really wanted to “let them go,” there are ways for that (even in NYC, and I’ll look it up). Now, much of this has to do with 1) favoritism 2) a lack of standards for what a good teacher is 3) putting bodies in the classroom, and 4) sensationalism. Oftentimes, I find that the definition of a bad teacher varies greatly, and teachers are often the #1 scapegoat for what ails schools. We need to have a more holistic look at schools and raise everyone’s game up. For example, I’m all for making tenure more stringent (just not getting rid of it), and I’m also for more thorough pedagogy for all staff from the support staff to the principal and everyone in between.
Unfortunately, when I look at Bloomkleinrhee, I see a public campaign that lays little accountability on everyone else but teachers. I’m interesting in seeing what solutions people come up with more than anything.
Joses last blog post..Counting Your Blessings (Am I Not Human?)
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 5:08 am
Jose, good points. The definitions issue is particularly gnarly. It seems like Obama, if I read the runes rightly, comes down on the side of support and “rehab.” But he’s also talked about increasing pay for “good” teachers, which also raises the question of definitions, and the specter of rewarding teachers for teaching to tests. (I will say that his call to elevate science education to the current “reading and math” fetish is heartening.)
The stuff’ll give you migraines.
Reply
No. 5 — December 1st, 2008 at 4:36 am
Would we accuse public defenders of protecting criminals? Some people do. But unless you have enough money to fight back with your own lawyer, our understanding of fairness suggests that contract language (and the legal system in general) should apply to everyone regardless of their personal circumstances. Teachers’ rights advocates defend contract guarantees of due process for whoever might need such help.
I volunteered many years ago to work as a teachers’ rights advocate, uncompensated. I particpated in the grievance process, representing teachers who had gotten into jams of various sorts. The experience was enlightening for me. I saw tenured teachers fired by principals who read the contract, and knew how to do their job. And I also saw, more frequently, abuses of authority by principals hell-bent on railroading a teacher out of their building. I learned that incompetent administrators are at least as much of a problem as “bad” teachers. How do we get rid of them?
Doug Noons last blog post..Time for a Little Comprehension
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 5:10 am
Doug, that’s an interesting angle. How does admin job security work? Do they have their own unions? And how do we get rid of them?
Reply
No. 6 — December 1st, 2008 at 4:45 am
This is a tricky question. I was our union president (and yes, an independent school with a teachers’ association) for four years, and rarely is this an easy call. Our contract has a remediation clause; a tenured teacher can be placed on remediation, and if, over a mutually agreed upon time frame with mutually agreed upon measurable outcomes, the teacher is unable to make positive progress in their teaching, then they may not be offered a contract for the next year.
The teacher must have received timely and adequate written communication from their department chair and their division head that their teaching is unsatisfactory before they can be placed on remediation. This can’t be used as a lightning bolt to fire a teacher, and when it does happen, the school spends much time, energy, and resources to help the teacher respond and improve.
I agree with @Sarah R, above, that most of the teachers I know that are struggling are doing so because of “stress, lack of leadership and organizational dysfunction.”
But of course, there is that one teacher who, whenever their shadow crossed my door jamb, would make me cringe…
Kate Tabors last blog post..Remember
Reply
Sarah Rainsberger Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 4:51 am
Kate wrote:
“But of course, there is that one teacher who, whenever their shadow crossed my door jamb, would make me cringe…”
All too true! But there’s no way to put “. . . and won’t make my skin crawl” in an employment contract. Pity, since 9 times out of 10, that’s the person whose absence would brighten up the whole place.
Sarah Rainsbergers last blog post..Alfie Kohn speaking in Toronto tonight
Reply
Kate Tabor Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 5:09 am
Oh yes, Sarah! And why is it that same person will use 90% of your available time for their very personal, idiosyncratic employment issues, ask colleagues to accommodate for them, and then (because it is not required) not join the Association or pay dues. Please, can we find a way to add the “and won’t make my skin crawl” clause into the employment contract?
Kate Tabors last blog post..Remember
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 5:13 am
Kate and Sarah, I just want to thank you for the laughs.
There should be a provision that “skin-crawlers” have to wear speakers around their necks that boom sinister vampire movie music as early warnings to close our doors.
(Oh wait. Maybe I’m one of those teachers, and don’t know it.)
Reply
No. 7 — December 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
But what about us anti-union anti-privatization types?
I don’t think we should privatize public education, but I also think unions have far too much power – especially when it comes to keeping bad teachers in the classroom.
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Morgante, that’s what I was getting at in my close. You really should check out Stephen Downes’ reply in the trackback above your comment. And the other comments in this thread, too.
Reply
Morgante Pell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Yes, I’m with you there. Just making the point that the media/pols would have us divided into two camps: union-backers/public school backers and union-attackers/privatizers.
I do think unions can serve a purpose, but the current system in most districts is rather broken. The sad thing is people can be fired for entirely unfair reasons (see Downes), yet it is difficult to fire someone for real reasons.
What it comes down to is that the definition bad teachers is subjective (as other comments pointed out), and very hard to apply. It is easy to prove pornography was on a computer, but very difficult to “prove” a teacher is bad. In that regard, I think unions (and the public) need to give more discretionary power to fire or at least punish teachers. Most of all, periodic reviews should be done which take the students into account. We are the ones who actually know how a teacher is doing.
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Morgante: –and that’s a really good point about student input. While it, too, is messy – I make it a habit to have open, anonymous Moodle forums for student feedback on how I’m doing as a teacher, and there are always a few who just seem to have personality issues bordering on sociopathy – I do think it plausible that student input on teacher evaluations could work. Goodness knows, the admin evaluations are usually announced before-hand, giving teachers a chance to do for one lesson what they don’t do for all the others – prepare. That makes them dog-and-pony shows, and results in pencil-whipped evals from the boss.
Reply
Morgante Pell Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Yes, there are definitely many issues when it comes to student input. It’s definitely difficult to sort out the signal from the noise. Some students are going to complain about bad grades (that they deserve), but others will genuinely bring up problems. It’s a conundrum, but one that needs to be fixed.
Sometimes I think it would actually help if the system was made less anonymous. Many students will bad-mouth a good teacher who gave them poor grades in an anonymous survey, but a genuine conversation is much more honest. In some part, I think administrators should work to be more accessible to student complaints about specific teachers.
The administrator evaluation system certainly has its flaws. To start with, most systems give teachers the opportunity to be their best when what teachers really should be assessed on is the average or even worst.
Reply
No. 8 — December 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 am
Thanks for the mention. I don’t have time to do the research right now, but I know of many examples in which unions supported ways to remove certain teachers from the classroom. While I was teaching the union took a very strong stance on removing teachers who were accused of sexual abuse, etc. And I’ve heard of many plans in which teachers who receive low ratings are placed into a peer review/improvement plan where they are either helped or counseled out of the profession. I’m sure that a lot of people would like, and a lot of cases would merit, quicker action — but I think it’s fair to say that teachers and teachers’ unions would rather the truly incompetent teachers not be in the classroom.
Coreys last blog post..More on "Broken Windows" and Education
Reply
No. 9 — December 2nd, 2008 at 6:51 am
Trackbacks are slow, so I’ll link to Stephen Downes’ response to this post here. Well worth a read.
Reply
No. 10 — December 2nd, 2008 at 7:35 am
[...] to Clay Burrell.One of the myths prevalent in discussions about the education system is that union rule prohibit [...]
No. 11 — December 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 am
[...] post, Dean. I just wrote about how US education policies are threatening to infect other countries, and bam, you add Canada [...]
No. 12 — December 11th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
[...] burell addresses the surface of the idea at the end of this post as heretical close, as does this blog post by corey (i [...]
No. 13 — December 11th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
[...] burell addresses the surface of the idea at the end of this post as heretical close, as does this blog post by corey (i [...]
No. 14 — February 11th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
You said: “The other elements of the plan are encouraging and well worth the read, but – heresy warning – nowhere in the plan do we see any mention of the one issue that, in my view, the anti-union camp rightly raises: how to remove inept teachers from schools. Let’s be honest: we teachers have all worked with “omigod” colleagues we’d never want to inflict on a child.”
What do you think of his comment at the press conference, “Bad teachers need to be fired.”
How about Duncan?
Reply
No. 15 — February 18th, 2009 at 2:10 am
[...] there’s the rub, no? I wrote about the ‘dismissing unionized bad teachers’ question over on Beyond School here. Stephen Downes’ pingback to his long response is worth reading, as are all the comments. Many give [...]