In a speech at an American Enterprise Institute forum on Wednesday, the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, said state and local governments should rethink their policies of giving pay raises to teachers who have master’s degrees because evidence suggests that the degree alone does not improve student achievement. The remark was part of a speech about ways lawmakers can use current budget shortfalls to make public schools more productive. Mr. Duncan has consistently advocated tying teacher pay to student performance, but he has rarely taken shots at credentialing programs.
- 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
- Washington, D.C. 20037
- Copyright © 2013 The Chronicle of Higher Education
That coming from someone who does not hold a master’s degree…
Nothing like another federal employee who is supposed to know something about education de-value education. So, you don’t need a Masters Degree to teach but you do need a PHD to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid!!!!!!
I hear your point, honorsusf2getche, but perhaps graduate Ed programs should if they are actually teaching teachers how to make better students.
Although either he or the article doesn’t give necessary details about “the evidence,” I wouldn’t be surprised if he is correct about research showing no correlation between M.A. degrees by teachers and student performance. His not having an M.A. degree in education is not really relevant. (Note: I’m a strong supporter of public school teachers; both of my parents were.)
Perhaps this broadside on graduate credentials is taken out of context, but ceretainly some masters’ degrees should be rewarded–even required. For example, masters’ degrees for teachers of high school math and science should be mandatory within the first several years of teaching.
My master’s degree (in English education) focused exclusively on better ways to teach content. My master’s in English enriched my knowledge base, which informed my teaching.
While he does suggest a possible exception for Masters in math and science, he does not distinguish if there is evidence for this in other substantive vs education fields.
Is there in fact evidence that linking teacher pay to student performance in fact improves student performance?
Perhaps the good secretary, with his extensive experience as an educator, can perhaps justify the required programs in the administration’s so-called “Race to the Top” (Race to the Precipice is more accurate), NONE of which are proven to be effective at “raising student achievement”. And be clear on this – when he says “raising student achievement”, he is really saying, but in code, “increased scores on standardized exams”. Duncan and the Billionaire Boys Club misuse of language is right out of Orwell’s “1984″.
And, since qualifications and credentials mean nothing, apparently, then perhaps I should be appointed Surgeon General, or head of the Joint Chiefs? I am certainly more qualified for either position than Duncan is to be Secretary of Ed.
All generalizations have weaknesses, including this one.
Mr. Duncan is wrong in his generalization. However, greater subject knowledge, instead of a concatenation of “methods” and “philosophy” courses in education might improve the quality of education. I can’t speak to the present, but in California a high percentage of those teaching science and math are minimally qualified (i.e. have neither majored nor minored in the subjects).
If as someone has said, a master’s degree barely gives one a reading knowledge of a discipline, Mr. Duncan’s proposal takes teaching back immeasurably.
Perhaps the fact that no measurable difference can be found in those with Master’s degrees is witness to the fact that measuring the educational impact of teachers is so complex. Education begins with families. With as many compromised family situations as American students come from, who would expect a difference?
@rmelton5: the correlation is between SES (i.e., antecedent variables) and ineffective teachers–regardless of whether they have a graduate degree. A “Secretary of Education” ought to encourage and promote life-long learning (and degree attainment as an accomplishment), not test score results. Then again, the speech was at an AEI forum.
An advanced degree does not guarantee better teaching, but unions have used this dubious assumption in negotiating teacher contracts. What about reasonable performance metrics to determine who gets pay raises? Pay for performance will generated a political fire storm but budget cuts need to begin somewhere.
I wonder if Duncan – who has never taught – can tell us lowly ineffectual yet over educated (and over paid) teachers what does improve student understanding — not scores on standardized tests.
I would really appreciate it. I’m tired of wasting tuition money when I could just sit at the feet of the master, who will share with us the secrets to educating the youth of this country.
And you thought that it was only the President and the Speaker of the House who were out of touch.
According to the Secretary:
state and local governments should rethink their policies of giving pay raises to teachers who have master’s degrees because evidence suggests that the degree alone does not improve student achievement.
This sentence only raises questions and provides no guidelines for policy. If the evidence merely “suggests” that the degree alone doesn’t improve student achievement, then where is study that shows more than vague negative correlations? And as others noted, why would you expect that the degree “alone” would mean anything? The presence of chairs “alone” for students in the classroom will likely be correlated with student achievement too, would the secretary say that chairs produce student achievement? There are so many contingent social, economic, historical, idiosyncratic family and genetic factors that produce student “achievement” (whatever that is supposed to mean,oh, yes a score on a standardized test)that make the Secretary’s statement completely ignorant yet so typical of a clueless bureaucrat who thinks a government title makes the drivel spilling from his mouth turn to gold.
Teachers who take a Masters degree in education must be rewarded with a higher salary BUT only if they already have a Bachelors degree in the very field they teach. (Like the European system) Just getting a Masters degree in education on top of a degree in education is Unproductive and should not be rewarded. Duncan is right.
The word “alone” in the secretary’s statement is the key to understanding the vacuousness of his understanding. Teaching and learning are far too complex to be influenced much by a single factor. Any Sec’ty of Ed. that thinks otherwise is clearly unqualified for the position.
Furthermore, defining achievement as nothing more than what can be measured by standardized tests clinches the case against him. Throw the bum out!
Remember, Mr. Science knows more than you do. He has a master’s degree–in *science!!*
Might be a good time to reread William James’ 1903 essay, “The Ph.D. Octopus” (1903) which values ability above credentials. The Obama administration’s main error – following in the misguided footsteps of the Bush administration – is its faulty notion that you can “measure” teachers’ abilities to help students learn through their students’ scores on standardized tests. But then, of course, if the real purpose of education is NOT to “help students learn” but to discipline them for the labor market, perhaps standardized testing is appropriate – at least for students who will be tracked into jobs on a Fordist assembly line.
I’m sure that Mr. Duncan considered the fact that some of our best and brightest teachers’ first professional degree and licensure as a teacher comes from a Master’s degree program. Surely we should not pay them any more for spending their own time and money to transition from one career path to another, raise the academic talent of the teaching pool, are serious about a career path and have something to offer their students other than all the real world experience that comes from a BA.
Suppose that less credentialed teachers get assigned more frequently to the lower SES schools, and the turbulence there correlates with poorer student “performance”. That gives a positive correlation between credentialing and student performance that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the teachers. Correlation is not causation!
Secretary Duncan did such a fine job as Superintendent of Public Schools in Chicago that the public school system there now turns out students who are reading at a college level, routinely scoring 5s on the AP Calculus Exam, and are fluent in several languages, European, African and Asian.
Oh wait,I was mistaken. The school system there routinely ranks in the bottom of national rankings, is notorious for a high drop-out rate, high crime rate, and very few students who go on to college. The children of public school teachers and administrators are generally to be found in the city’s parochial and private schools, where they receive a college preparatory education at a fraction of the cost the taxpayers are forking over for the Chicago Public School System.
The Secretary of Education did not get his credential for setting education policy in graduate school, he got it on the fifth floor of City Hall where his political patron, Mayor Dayley put him in charge of the schools and at the East Bank Club where he played basketball with the President at lunch time.
I am proud of my master’s degree which has taught me the value of public education in a democracy; advanced knowledge in my field (music); and a repertoire of approaches to teaching. Why would the Secretary of Education speak against education? Why was the Secretary of Education not promoting public education, rather than speaking at the American Enterprise Institute–an organization that favors privatizing public education?
Perhaps what Mr. Duncan aught to say is that teachers who don’t have a major in their fields, especially in science and mathematics, should not not be allowed to teach in that field. There are far too many people in our high schools with education degrees, BA in math education for example, who lack the necessary content knowledge teaching science and math courses. They are unable to motivate and inspire students and share their passion for that subject since they lack the basic understanding. The same is true of elementary school teachers who lack basic knowledge of math and sciences to inspire young learners to succeed in these subjects. Reform Colleges of Education or abolish them!
I recently spent over 8 years “giving back” in the guise of a public high school physics teacher. The issue, I believe, is that teacher’s pay scales are tied to getting ANYTHING resembling a master’s degree. Further, most teacher are required to take ~6 credits during every license renewal cycle to “keep current”.
The problem is that nobody has set any criteria on what is acceptable. Therefore, many, if not most public school teachers use their tuition reimbursement money to fund courses offered by “education” departments designed specifically to milk this cash cow. These courses are typically not quite on a par with graduate courses in other fields… but no matter, nobody cares. The teachers are getting their credit box checked for renewal, and the colleges are getting a steady supply of students required to take these courses. And with the tuition reimbursement, the taxpayers end up paying for this little charade.
Taking the whole situation squarely into the surreal, in their ignorance these same taxpayers are blissful about the “advanced degrees” that the teachers in their district have acquired.
Credentialed does not mean educated. The process of mandating graduate degrees for advancement inversely reduces the quality of the degrees.
In business Six Sigma has become a mandatory box to be checked by a company’s HR department before a person is advance/hired. This procedure now is simply a cottage industry of outside companies selling certified programs. What does it mean? A liberal arts student will be passed over for a business student and once hired, the new student will be sent to a Six Sigma program. But wait, wasn’t the BS student hired over the BA student because of the business degree and therefore wouldn’t need a booster course?
Despite a previous comment – “considered the fact that some of our best and brightest teachers’ first professional degree and licensure as a teacher comes from a Master’s degree program.” – my teachers and principal in elementary school did not have grad degrees. Oddly, they taught and administered very well.
Currently my daughter is in Kindergarten and her new principal listed her cv and it had a masters in leadership and a week certified educational program held in Ireland last year. Is she qualified or well travelled?
clearly does not value education.
In Massachusetts, no undergraduate college student may major in education alone. Double majors in a field of liberal arts/sciences and education have been the norm for years for those intending to teach after the bachelor’s degree. Fewer and fewer young people are choosing to cram all of this into their bachelor’s programming and opt instead for a bachelor’s degree in the field of their choice plus a fifth year in a master’s of arts in teaching program. The one at my college includes an entire year in a classroom as a teaching intern. Perhaps the problem with graduate studies in education around the country is that they build on a weak bachelor’s degree and are thus weakened in turn.
If Mr. Duncan can figure out a way to move some of the billions of dollars that are spent every week on teaching our military how to wage war, then perhaps young teachers won’t feel the need to further their education. In the meantime, if that is the only way outstanding teachers my daughter can get a raise — she has been teaching three years and waiting — then the current system must stay in place. In the meantime, she is massively in debt to end up getting to where she is, only to hear comments like Mr. Duncan’s indicate that her time and effort is not worth a dime.
Increases in dollars right except he does not measure the increades in students, how about inflation, and the number of support staff to keep underperforming students in school These students used to quit high school and work in the sweat shops we have sent overseas. Then they decide that they dont want to do slave labor for the rest of their lives and return to community colleges for an education – read write cipher. Now there are no production jobs and our system is trying for force everyone into the service economy which as you can see is not reliable in a recession. We need to look at other countries if we want to have a productive educational system. China graduates one million engineers every year.
TH
A person I know well struggled through a rigorous but moderately selective college in the 1960s and went on to become a truly gifted teacher in some of the worst Chicago elementary schools. She was not particularly rewarded for that. However, after she breezed through a master’s program in education with (literally)straight As without (literally) having to study, she was rewarded financially. I know this is not the master’s program with which YOU are associated, but such programs exist – and tend to be large. I submit this only as a single data point to be considered in the discussion.
The teacher should get a Master’s degree in an academic field not in educationology, leadershipology or policyology. Lets say History, English, Foreign Language, Math, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Geology. This will help the teacher broaden their horizons in their discipline rather than learning the right way to have students break up into groups and share their feelings. Sharing their feelings is for student parties, social events, encounter groups, religion and the bars if they are old enough or have a fake ID.
th
Dear TH.
You cannot do a decent Masters degree in the subjects you mention unless you have a degree in that field first. Therefore let us encourage (or require) those who plan to teach to first obtain a degree in the discipline of their choice (like History, Physics, Math etc) to be followed by a Masters degree in education.
Having worked in higher education both in teaching and administrative positions for approximately 30 years, I have observed one thing that I imagine would carry into K-12. Having a degree, or multiple degrees, does not necessarily make one a good teacher. I would imaging others have, as I have, encountered individuals teaching who have Masters degrees, even Ph.Ds, who although may be quite brilliant, are not very good teachers. It seems to me that it can take more than good or excellent knowledge of your discipline to be a good teacher. One does not preclude the other either. In the end, I would prefer to see good teachers rewarded. They have a tough job.
Duncan would not be where he is if Obama had not appointed him. I voted for Obama but his appointment of Duncan was a clear indication that he did not understand the problems of education. Let us criticize the appointer as much as we do the appointee. Obama’s knowledge of effective teaching is no greater than Duncan’s.
There are lots of things that happen with a person who has educational experiences after the Bachelor’s degree that can impact the individual’s teaching, career goals, and many other things that impact student development that are not measured by so called student achievement tests.
We need a President and Secretary of Education who will respect the fact that street corner knowledge of teaching effectiveness and of what is wrong and right with our schools is simply not going to bring about the improvement that are needed. We need them to support the professionals in the field who not only seek degrees but experience student development in the classroom.
The fact is that the single greatest factor in effective learning is “time on task”; a variable that has been eroded by all the additional garbage that legislators, lay boards, and other leaders have loaded on the school curriculum and classroom teacher; to say nothing of the students.
Arne Duncan has a doctorate in sociology, not education. He should not have been allowed to become a superintendent or secretary of education. His views on how to define student achievement are as narrow-minded as his views on graduate education for teachers. The idea that people aren’t better trained with more formal education is, well, stupid. It is ironic that a secretary of education would discount education. The fault in logic is the manner in which student achievement is assessed.
I have three university degrees in history — including a doctorate – and am now completing a certification program so that I can teach social studies in my local public school system. I simply do not understand why anyone, and least of all leaders within the Department of Education, would want to (in effect) say to someone in my position, “We place no particular value on the specialized knowledge that you might bring to teaching; with regard to a career as a pre-college educator, you have nothing especially compelling to bring to the table.” Without question, experienced and accomplished teachers should be regarded as the great masters of a difficult and invaluable art; and when I speak with them, I know that it is THEY who have much to teach ME, and not the reverse. Yet is it really possible that an advanced knowledge of content would NOT contribute to one’s ability to teach that content?
Oops! DEGREE in sociology.
“Yet is it really possible that an advanced knowledge of content would NOT contribute to one’s ability to teach that content?” Yes, unfortunately, Andrew, it IS possible, though not necessarily common. I say this having observed tenured teachers in graduate programs with Ph.D’s and many publications who are absolutely lousy teachers. But then, with “publish or perish” in the tenure race being SOP, it is not really surprising. On the other hand, clearly someone who IS a good teacher would most likely be an even better one with more knowledge of content.
Has this man ever seen the inside of a classroom as a teacher???
In the 40′s I directed a research project evaluating a military training school. We adopted the somewhat unusual position of thinking about just what it was that was the purpose of the training. We sent a research team to the battle front to evaluate end point performance. The results differed from end performance at the training school. How do we judge achievement–now or later? Referring to Chicago Schools, there was an interesting study out of the University of Illinois a few years ago which found a negative correlation between academic achievement and attendance in the Chicago School District. It is well established that there is a negative correlation between principals’ ratings of teacher performance and teacher IQ. It is not negative for parents. As for sociology degrees, there was a major but unsuccessful movement to eliminate sociology departments as having no base as a scholarly discipline about 20 years ago putting it a notch below education as a degree objective.
The Secretary if a master (pun intended) of evidence based personal opinions. This is supported strongly by the social sciences publishing “effects” without magnitudes or boundary conditions (unlike physical sciences). So psych has gotten away for decades with publishing effects in the same shallow way engineering has gotten away with publishing “new” designs.
People without judgement and with authority and large budgets are dangerous when not entirely evil. A Harvard MBA would enable the Secretary to steal, under the guise of maths (GRE 800s required) $13 trillion from all the old ladies of the world, as just actually ACTUALLY happened. Masters degrees when given to evil people and taught by evil faculty produce…..surprise….surprise….. trumpets…….EVIL RESULTS.
Having read most of these posts, I’m surprised no one questioned the need for having any kind of degree to teach (including a high school diploma). Degrees are assumed to measure a level of accomplishment and in and of themselves do not assure success in any given occupation, but if the programs standing behind them have standards (which sadly many education degree programs seem to lack), the winnowing out process alone will improve the odds of the recipient being of a higher caliber. If the Secretary has trouble with the idea of rewarding people for attainment of a Masters degree, he should be dumping on the lax standards characterizing a huge number of programs, which make the attainment a function of putting in the time rather than demonstrating talent. The problem is the generic credentialing that is used, which assumes a Masters in English, say from Iowa State (or a similar school), is fully comparable to the 6-month Masters in English that can be obtained on-line.
The only comment worth sharing is “Wow”….do you think a proctologist might be needed here for the obvious cognitive mismatch between what the Secretary exposuses and the real world of classroom teaching?
There seems to be a disjuncture between what was reported and what Sec. Duncan said. “Waste of money”? Hold on.
Duncan talked about the threat of shrinking budgets for public education, and a variety of ways in which school systems could respond. One possibility he mentioned was to rethink policies of higher salaries for Masters degree holding teachers, since the evidence appears to suggest that there is no measurable benefit of a Masters degree to teaching. I did not get the impression that Duncan regarded those higher salaries as a “waste of money” as much as one possible area for consideration if budgets get tight. There’s a difference: when bucks are shrinking, you may get more bang by redirecting some bucks to other areas.
Ad hominem attacks on Duncan or his qualifications don’t address the issue he raised. As for those qualifications, it is arguable that “education” is a complex system within which “teaching” takes place, and an individual with a degree in sociology, who wrote his undergraduate thesis on the urban poor, based on a year of first-hand research, is precisely the kind of person you want in his position. And he had plenty of on-the-job training as head of the Chicago school system.
Ah-h-h, a cascade of hysterical Chronicle responses—the sure sign of another sacred ox being gored. The proper response would be, “it is a plausible hypothesis; let’s examine the evidence in an effort to improve effectiveness and efficiency.” But the K-12 lobby, which has somehow expropriated tenure and advanced degrees as a nest feathering tactic again demonstrates its total bankruptcy in the area of critical thinking and objective analysis. Look no further for the explanation of our abysmal student performance in K-12.
Another view here could be that teacher’s should be responsible for their own preparation and should acquire preparation to improve their job performance and that job performance should be (well) rewarded. Perhaps Mr. Duncan is trying to shift the reward and the payment of salary to the job and job performance rather than the preparation where is now now be inappropriately placed as a result of functional autonomy;namely, encouraging teachers 50 years ago to get more education (which they were not doing) as a way to increase the probability that school would improve through improving the teachers’ knowledge and understanding) and making teachers more middle class in their educational attainments. We forget that 50 years ago training was more rigorous and not ed-lite and that there were not relatively large percentage of people gaming the training system and train raise. We see both of these same problems in many professions today including police and EMT where there are many scandals of people receiving no training and getting the masters and doing so “online.”
There has been a shift to “classroom productivity” not classroom preparation and if you want productivity if would seem logical to reward the productivity not the preparation (in many professions today you must keep up and renew AS A JOB REQUIREMENT or you perish). So shifting the reward (salary increase) from preparation to productivity would seem logical and reasonable (and teachers would seek the training that would make them more productive) except for one huge flaw: classroom productivity is not a function of the teacher alone or even within the control of the teacher and the best teacher in the world could have negative productivity in certain classrooms.
Mr Duncan’s and his proponents proposals and views (including the president) is to hold one atom in a molecule accountable for the behavior of the molecule and only reward the atom if the molecule is working correctly achieving a goal. It is insane logic and all of the growth models in the world will not compensate for the insane logic.
What Mr. Duncan should be proposing is parental fines or fees paid to teacher yearly for teaching their children as these parents were unproductive in the family room making success in the classroom extremely difficult.
If Mr Duncan wants to shift the reward of lack thereof to causal elements to increase classroom productivity then let him make the real shifts and advocate these kinds of shifts because as soon as bad and lax and ineffective parenting is going to eat up parents’ paychecks and so each year you are going to see their behaviors change radically before the kid gets to school and while the kid is in school.
If Mr. Duncan thinks that this is a crazy proposal then he should go spend some time at the Hyde School in bath Maine where effective parenting is required and “fined” if it doesn’t occur.
We can extend this idea to management also as well as the other responsible players in the ‘village” that is educating the child.
So Arne, as a teacher I am all for rewarding productivity when you are read to step up to the plate and shift the rewards and punishment to where they belong and advocate fees and fine charged by public schools to parents who children require more and extended service with those fees and fines going to teachers.
Let’s make the risks of educating a kid equal for parents, managers, policy makers and teachers: I guarantee you that you will see major changes on those achievement tests (whichever one’s there are).
The problem with this administration is that they do not have the intellectual fortitude to put the big chunk of the causal problem right where it belongs” with the many and unending failures of those voting parents who are their constituencies and getting them on message on the page and accountable members of the team rather than the victim view of them of the 60′s.
Behavior will adjust relative to how it is rewarded EXCEPT in an unfair, unjust and insane system in which case the best participants will either revolt of leave. I wonder which outcome Duncan is trying to facilitate as he understands neither teaching nor behavioral economics and management.
No disagreement with Secretary Duncan from me. I have seen far too many “credentialing” M.Ed. degrees being cranked out of the universities I’ve worked at. Quality control of these degrees is often abysmal. Many of my STEM colleagues (who *aren’t* in education) now are either not allowed (or refuse to work with) graduate education programs.
The school I now work at recently introduced a “quality, fully-online M.Ed.” degree. It is the butt of jokes too numerous to count.
The Federal Government has no constitutional role or civic purpose muddling in K-12 education, or the preparation of teachers for K-12 education.
Consider the context. Mr. Duncan is making nice with the crowd that wants to de-fund education, abolish his department and complete the corporate takeover of education in this country. His remarks are a tiny piece of the puzzle which, as the picture becomes clearer, indicates that we have been fooled again.
I was taken back by Mr. Duncan’s comment regarding M.Ed being a waste. It is apparent that not all teachers holding this degree are qualified teachers. I have taught in Title-I schools helping all students and parents push for the best. The degree does demand more compensation; however, if the teacher is not doing his/her job then accoutability come into play as well as evaluations. Making a blanket statement without knowing that great teacher push their students and themselves toward excellence. The minds a techer holds in their hands is and should be partly based upon their educational background.
So often, as it has been previously stated, many universities do not prepare a ‘teacher to teach’, which is the real issue. Lastly, it is outright stupidity for school districts to give a two-year teacher tenure. A seasoned teacher takes 10-years to get-it-right (teaching skills, etc).
Perhaps we should tie teacher retirement to student performance when we know that the students achieve in life. A year before retirement the teachers can report to bookkeepers who assess each and every child the teacher has had contact with and determine a percentage of credit or debit depending on whether the ex-student is in jail or is a college grad. Teachers who are afraid of the system can become the bookkeepers. We can call the program the Teacher Retirement Assessment Program or T.R.A.P.
Of course, credentials alone can’t make a good teacher. In fact, many–most?–courses in “education” are downright harmful to potential teachers. There are some appalling courses out there. But knowing one’s subject matter is an absolute necessity. For a history teacher, pursuing an advanced degree in history almost certainly makes more sense than either resting on one’s undergraduate laurels or pursuing an MEd.
The great irony that every comment has missed, is that Under the No Child Left Behind (Read Untested)Act the federal government requires a masters degree in field as one of the categories for a teacher to be considered “highly qualified”. Many of us who have taught for many years find that the left over policies of the Bush administration’s ESEA Act should be modified, however, the present congress and administration have ignored the changes suggested by the educational community. Neither political party can be proud of this misnamed attempt to improve the nation’s educational system. If is flawed and should be scraped. But more to the point, the Sec. of Education may be looking for a new job in NJ under our present governor who also belittles educators!
Would you listen to an passionate communist in order to obtain an objective history of capitalism? If not, then why should one listen to a member of the American Enterprise Institute education (or anything for that matter)?
This reminds me so much of when I had to read (decades ago) East Germans explain that their view of history was only legitimate if it supported the activities of the government. In other words, it wasn’t history at all, but information twisted in order to present a particular view. Similarly, the American Enterprise Institute is an primarily ideological organization devoted to undermining any institution that would speak with a non-liberal voice.
If the Chronicle doesn’t allow commentary by “scientists” who want to prove the world is flat, why do they give the American Enterprise Institute validity?
@11185500: Ok, you sound like a perfect volunteer. I am all for exploring evidence as a means of improving efficacy. You clearly have the discordant viewpoint in this discussion, and would seem to agree with the Secretary’s position. I would like to see the evidence presented in a clear and unbiased way. You have until the end of class on Friday…
A recommendation for Arne and all of the rest of us:
http://www.racetonowhere.com/.
Out with Duncan now!
I wonder if Obama knows he is losing the left because of appointments like Duncan. Duncan has no experience in education except his “heart felt” BS stories about growing up watching his mom run and after school program in Chicago. What a patronizing load.
Duncan is an avowed teacher basher just look at his major speeches. He belongs at AEI with the neoliberal and neocon human capital, privatizing bunch of corporate oligarchs who seek to destroy public education. We have decades of research that show the accountability tests or the performance part of pay for performance are corrupted by the high stakes testing regimes. Pay for performance is a lousy idea in education. Let the educational professionals run the show. Stop believing in the “manufactured crisis” of the right that makes the public believe that there are more than 3% bad apples in the teaching corps. They are trying to take our attention away from the fact that 80% of the corporate management workforce is corrupt and are robbing the country blind while the politicians help them. Write Obama and tell him to get rid of Duncan and out someone in who understands education like Linda Darling-Hammond.
To Obama, bipartisanship means giving up education to the right-wing nut jobs who want to privatize everything so he can look like he is compromising. Using education as a chit in his misguided political bargaining strategy is reprehensible. The problem with education is the corrupt political system that surrounds it. All politicians, Dem and Rep just want to get reelected and receive payoffs from the lobbies so they sell out education. Time for a new party or no parties or one party. All of this spectacle is starting to make me wish Obama was a real socialist.
Students, Parents and Teachers take back your schools. Run for school board, state political office. Throw out the bums who are anti-education. Professors, support your local teachers and get involved with helping the dispossessed in your communities. While you are at it, help make your own universities more democratic rather than corporations that pump out research in the corporate interest.
More and more kids are saying “we don’t want no education” of the kind promoted by high stakes testing, pay-for-performance, and charter schools. Politicians Leave those kids alone!
Ciceronow, you rock!
Get the feds out of our lives. Let’s focus on local democracy and education. Start by putting money back into the pockets of families who can properly care for their children, then support the professionals who teach them. STOP BLAMING TEACHERS!!!
Maybe the next time there is a Presidential election, those of us in the Education community won’t blindly vote for a person with no significant legislative track-record, and zero executive experience… simply because the person is a “Democrat” or can give a good speech (written by professional speechwriters and read off a teleprompter). Half of you complaining about Duncan… are in part responsible for his appointment!!!
… and I suppose that instead of paying for MS degrees in these trying economic times, school districts with pony-up funds to send teachers to conferences to hone their classroom skills? (yea, right…)
(“will” not “with” sorry…)
“Duncan attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools and later Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1987 with a bachelor’s degree in sociology. His senior thesis, for which he took a year’s leave to do research in Kenwood, in inner-city Chicago, was entitled “The Values, Aspirations and Opportunities of the Urban Underclass.” (Wikipedia)
The SECED is a typical socialist, do-gooder with your money, from the Chicago gang of Daley and Obama. Small wonder why he is talking about “redistributing” government funds! This guy is not for education but for government control. The NEA loves this guy, so figure that one out yourself.
Not only do we put our teachers into underfunded schools and expect them to use their own meagre salaries to stock their classrooms with essentials but now we’re going to take away any incentive to improve their skills or keep up with the changes in education? Shameful.
Yeah, right on! Let’s dumb down education even more than we have in the past 20 years. Why do college students need to be able to read or count?
Disturbing is how many comments in response to the article of Secretary of Education Duncan focus on “student performance,” rather than faculty knowledge. Insofar as “student performance” is either immeasurable except over the life of a student as manifested in informing the actions of the student, or measurable according to standardized tests. Standardized tests presupposing a limited body of knowledge, greater education than necessary for the standardized test is indeed a waste of resources. However, greater education to inform students of more than necessary for the standarized test makes for better students. Failure to recognize this by so many commentators to this article is troublesome.
After reading these comments, it is fairly clear that the majority of commenters did not actually read Sec. Duncan’s comments in context (even though the Chron provided a convenient link to it). My education, regardless of (despite?) my educational credentials, taught me to be informed before passing judgment.
Having read these comments: shame on (most of) you.
It’s completely ironic that we teachers hold high expectations of our students and our mantra has always been for them to attain the highest level of higher education once they leave 12th grade. Yet, in the same breath, Mr. Duncan and other power brokers are espousing the venomously hypocritical notion that a lower level college degree is all that’s needed to teach.
Mr. Duncan’s shiny new paradigm is that we are not preparing children to become supremely educated (the core of which critical thinking, character education, and reading, writing, and math), but, rather, to be good workers who will enter the job market and produce for companies. Yet, anyone with any morality and intellectual capacity knows that being a critical and cognitively mobile person OUTSIDE the realm of one’s job is equally indispensable for a society to be viable, sustainable, equitable, and democratic. Mr. Duncan’s and Mr. Obama’s orientation about what it really means to develop and have an educated mind is very frightening. Everything is geared to job readiness, but that thrust, while simplistic for corporations, is detrimental to generations of children who are being educated.
We need a completely new paradigm, a brand new narrative that will afford opportunity for everyone’s brain to be well developed. Playing down the importance of getting a masters degree for teaching, which is mandated in New York State, is dumbing down a segment of the educated workforce.
The so called “research” that shows that a masters degree does not make any difference compared to a bachelor’s degree is flawed. Looking at this one construct is like looking at a single construct that causes stocks to go up and down and concluding that such a construct is the primary cause of fluctuation. You simple can’t isolate one factor and highlight it as a primary catalyst. Teaching children and analyzing their performance, while greatly dependent on teacher quality and training, also depends on resources of staff and money, space, parent involvement, socio-economic and cultural backgrounds of students, local, state, and federal policies, and the linguistic status of each student.
It would not surprise me if Arne Duncan holds only a bachelors degree. But please keep in mind that this is all the agenda of the president as well.
How sad, when you analyze this as a system. If this mindset becomes actualized, it will dumb down an already intellectually compromised society, and that has widespread, chronic, and profound implications for the middle class and the accelerating stratification of America.
Ultimately, if you connect all the dots on a micro-level, I believe very strongly that very little of Mr. Duncan’s direction has anything to do with creating an informed and critically thinking population; rather, it has everything to do with class equality and who gets to gain and retain economic power. How disturbing indeed it has become for the business class to have permeated education to this extent. Who will become our great thinkers, writers, surgeons, orators, advocates, etc. be when Duncan and company are moving in this violent direction?
Robert Rendo
(The commentator teachers English language arts in the public schools and is also a published editorial illustrator with work in the New York TImes, the Chicacgo Tribune, and the Sacramento Bee).