POLITICS MARCH 31, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In my article, I wrote that Professor Darling-Hammond had "emphasized to the Concord Monitor that [Senator Obama's] teacher-compensation plan...wasn't really a performance-pay scheme." The Concord Monitor article shows that she was explicitly contrasting a performance-pay approach with Obama's: "Usually, merit pay meant some kind of bonuses for teachers at the end of the school year," she told the Monitor. "[Obama's plan] is more like what you would see with lawyers who move from associate to partner at a law firm." I am puzzled by her charge that I seem unaware that Obama cites the Denver teacher-compensation scheme as a model for national reform. My article noted his frequent references to Denver and explained that they are part of the reason education-reform advocates are warm to his candidacy. Finally, my article did not "[paint] as absent from the debate" the other aspects of Obama's education platform Darling-Hammond mentions. I acknowledged that the platform contains a number of innovative ideas. The reformers I interviewed for the article, though, were unanimous in their sentiment that Obama's education plan, while encouraging in places, does not go as far as they would like.
Josh Patashnik
is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.
2 comments
Josh Patashnik wrote: "The reformers I interviewed for the article, though, were unanimous in their sentiment that Obama's education plan, while encouraging in places, does not go as far as they would like." And what exactly makes these self-appointed "reformers" the arbiters of anything? What is their track record and evidence of THEIR expertise? Why should anyone care what they think?
- Harris
April 4, 2008 at 3:20pm
Harris is right. Does Patashnik have any knowledge of education that allows him to characterize his sources as reformers? Has he checked the methodology of the Education Trust (which by the way has been largely discredited by research) or whether Joe Williams or Whitney Tilson have any basis for claiming to be "reformers?" Has read the research that shows the underwhelming effects of NCLB (it may have produced marginal gains or it may have caused actual damage)or asked why the law largely failed? The status quo is an expensive law that encourages destructive test prep, curriculum narrowing, and probably an increased drop out rate, not to mention damage to the teaching profession. In my book, opposing NCLB should be called "reform." Of course its up to an editor to referee, so I have got to ask TNR a question. Do you require your education reporters to demonstrate the expertise as your world affairs or national reporters? Or did you allow national political sources, who have very little knowledge of high poverty schools, to define the terms of the debate? Perhaps you should ask them a question. Do your pro-NCLB sources have EDUCATIONAL reasons to be such accountability hawks, or have they adopted the mantle of data driven accountability so they can just SOUND TOUGH? If education isn't important enough to require journalists to evaluate evidence, perhaps your editors could consider this analogy. So many progressive supporters of NCLB are stuck in the nineties, and attacking teachers is just their version of executing a mentally retarded inmate or attacking Sista Soldja or incarcerating so many nonviolent drug offenders to prove that Democrats aren't wimps.
- john thompson
April 17, 2008 at 4:46pm