Those who like to read between the lines should peruse the sheaf of letters printed today on the Times' editorial page in response to last week's profile-in-power of Chancellor Joel Klein. One has to wonder how many letters are rejected for every letter published and how the mix of pro and con -- and professional-academic writers versus plain citizens -- is decided.
Also worth noting is David Brooks' column, praising President Obama's recent education address. But it's funny how parenthetical phrases can reveal an essential difference in understanding. Here's what Brooks writes, in the context of Obama's proposal to scale up merit pay:
"...t would increase merit pay for good teachers (the ones who develop emotional bonds with children) and dismiss bad teachers (the ones who treat students like cattle to be processed)."
Brooks' definition of good and bad teachers is not what's rewarded by Klein and the accountability crowd at DOE, where merit is correlated with academic progress, as measured by test scores, and reflected in annual progress reports. Teachers and schools get high grades and cash for raising achievement, how they do it isn't the issue. While one would like to believe that building strong personal relationships helps kids make academic progress, it is by no means the DOE's yardstick or criteria for merit pay. (Learning environment surveys touch on teaching -- and contribute only slightly to a school's progress report grade.)
Does David Brooks believe that the teachers who the kids love get DOE love, too? "No picnic" is right.
Please post comments