On education policy, Obama is like Bush

[LWolf]

By Dana Milbank
Sunday, August 15, 2010

I hate for Dana Milbank to cause Gibbs any more "frustration," but he's right. He says that Obama and Duncan are the "biggest bullies on the block" when it comes to education, even as they speak up about the need to "break the cycle of bullying."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, in now-famous remarks, said that those who claim Obama is like George W. Bush should be "drug tested." In general, I have sympathy for Gibbs's frustration --liberals have an annoying tendency to eat their own -- and I often think Obama should be more forceful. But in education, the Bush-Obama comparison is spot on. If anything, Obama has taken the worst aspect of Bush's No Child Left Behind education law -- an obsession with testing -- and amplified it.

Obama has expanded the importance of standardized testing to determine how much teachers will be paid, which educators will be fired and which schools will be closed -- despite evidence that such practices are harmful. In the process, he's offended just about all the liberals involved in or advocating for education without gaining much support from conservatives.

Expanding failed, destructive policies from the Bush era, offending part of the Democratic base, and YES, TEACHERS ARE traditionally part of the Democratic base, and getting no points from conservatives for doing so, even though he said during his campaign he thought Republicans were better on Education than Democrats:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html

A coalition of 7 Civil Rights Groups spoke out opposing this policy on July 26th. I posted it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8818007

Milbank says:

The next day, the American Federation of Teachers issued a statement saying the administration was encouraging "bad teacher evaluation systems." And the day after that, a coalition of community organizing groups scolded the administration for continuing "rigid, top-down solutions that are not supported by research."

Obama's answer has been to accuse opposition of being "resistant to change." He forgot a word, though. He should have said we are resistant to BAD change. To change that hurts, rather than helps.

There's plenty of information to tell us that high-stakes testing is counter productive.

But try telling all this to the Obama administration. "There's an attitude that if you aren't with us, you are against us -- and therefore against children and reform," a Democratic friend of mine who runs an education advocacy group in Washington told me. The administration, she said, "tries to bully and condemn any opposition, even if it is from groups that should be their allies."

I have no doubt that this thread will piss some people off. Some will brook no opposition or criticism of the Obama administration. Oh, well. I think it's important to speak up when there are wrongs being done, and the current education policy is wrong. It's harmful. And it needs to end.

You can read the rest of the article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081303197.html

[RandomThoughts]

1. Because of some of the views of people planing the programs.

I think it could be wrong. If they apply money policies to the system they miss the point.

If teachers have to teach to a test, they can be controlled.

If there are some teachers not as good, but they can teach in many ways, the overall effect would be better, but not as structured.

Some believe schools are meant to train conformity to a system, and teachers not conforming by teaching to a test heh, are also not part of conformity and creating the hiarical world system.



I doubt the billionaires have the schooling to even understand concepts of education. Nor a full belly.

[fogonthelake]

3. Its the billionaires and millionaries who are funding many

of the changes and some of the charter schools.

[LWolf]

5. Good point. nt

[wtmusic]

19. Billionaires like the United Federation of Teachers?

"The charter school run by the local teachers’ union, the UFT Charter School, showed one of the most severe declines, to 13 percent of eighth graders proficient in math, from 79 percent.

'Clearly we have a great deal of work to do,' said Michael Mulgrew, the president of the teachers’ union."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/education/01schools.html?_r=1

It's refreshing to see a union rep admitting that testing does have its place.

[MadHound]

20. Do you really put much faith in standardized high stakes testing as an accurate measure?

You shouldn't. It has been shown time and again that a considerable percentage of students simply cannot be assessed properly using multiple choice standardized tests. Thus, if you are using an inadequate assessment you're going to wind up with an inaccurate picture of what is going on in any one school.

Furthermore, these tests lead to educators teaching to the test, which in itself gives an inaccurate picture of how well students are doing, and leaves out many vital areas that students aren't taught. Let me give you an example. Since these tests cover only reading, writing, math and science, social studies are left out to dry. In my state the GLE's specifically state that by the end of the fifth grade year, students will have studied American history from the colonial times to just after the Civil War. Yet due to the massive amount of prep work put in so that students will pass the test in April, American history isn't even broached until after the test, leaving out a huge swathe of history that isn't covered.

[wtmusic]

23. I've heard that from my kids' teachers too -

that important areas are left out in a mad rush to teach to the standards tests.

IMO the jury is still out with Obama on education. Even though it's somewhat of a mantra, he's actually not putting that much faith in standardized testing either - Race to the Top evaluates many factors:

"
* Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;
* Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
* Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
* Turning around our lowest-achieving schools."

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

I do think testing has a place, and that a certain amount of "teaching to the test" guarantees that some basics will be covered.

In terms of teacher evaluations it should have a place too. My kids' teachers have been all over the map - from the most dedicated and competent people you can imagine, to those who play on their computer the entire period and ding your kid's grade if you complain (for real). Why shouldn't teachers in the first group be rewarded? Why shouldn't teachers in the last be fired? It's not happening.

[tomp]

51. i'd like to hear about the rewards for effective teaching.

i don't believe they will be there. if you're really going to reward on effectiveness (and the criteria for that have to be and are
being debated) an "effective" teacher really ought to make a hell of a lot of money. you really think that's going to happen?

what would be the actual reward for a teacher whose students all achieved 90th percentile results?

what would be the actual reward for a teacher who increased scores by 10, 20, 30%, etc.

there surely won't be any limit to the rewards handed out to micorsoft, marvin bush, et all, selling products to schools.

[wtmusic]

55. Whether it will happen or not, it should

and evaluation should have a component of both improvement and hard results, with improvement weighted more heavily in traditionally-underperforming schools.

Right now (at least in CA) teacher compensation is based on seniority and education. Teachers who get a Masters degree are required to get a raise, by union contract (AFAIK, it's one of very few professions where a degree mandates a pay increase). It's a shame when bright-eyed, enthusiastic teachers with a fresh credential are the first to be let go after budget cuts - and crusty cardpunchers with attitudes are not only kept on, but given raises.

[tomp]

57. nurses frequently get contract-based raises for advanced education.

and the powers that be are currently instituting such brilliant ideas as to decide reimbursement
for health care costs based on patient "satisfaction" as determined by patient survey at discharge.
this is just more evidence of democrat and republican collusion in attacks on working people.

the point is not that there should not be standards of performance for every profession, but that if you're
going to use such standards they should apply to all and the profit derived from success should be shared by all
contributers. for instance, if students don't meet standards, does microsoft have to give back any money for its products
or does the computer contract go to another company?

it would seem, according to the obama/duncan brain trust, that good teachers are an extremely rare commodity. in our
economic system, scarcity commands a premium. but no teacher, no matter how skilled, is ever going to get
remunerated at the level of bill gates. that's why we have unions--to establish MINIMUM standards of remuneration--so that
capitalist mouthpieces like obama and duncan don't try to pay for foreign wars by attacking teachers.

the remuneration should fit the standard, based on commodity exchange. or, we can try another system.

[wtmusic]

58. Patients are working people too.

Why shouldn't their satisfaction be considered in determining reimbursement? Similarly, parents (like me) are working people who are entitled to demand quality education for their kids.

Linking student performance on basic standards with the computers they use is conceivable, but it's a stretch. If Windows never worked (it does, sometimes) then most districts would bail for another system. Some have.

If "the remuneration should fit the standard", then why have teachers' unions been fighting standards-based remuneration every step of the way?

[tomp]

59. the point is remuneration never fits the standard....

....because there are too many variables involved in outcomes, and in some areas of health care, subjective perceptions (i work in psychiatry. ever try to please someone with borderline personality disorder?). the complexities of learning and healing are extremely difficult to objectify. i go to work and work my butt off every day (and weekends and holidays and evenings). if my patients don't get "better" or aren't "satisfied" it's not for lack of expert professional care and attention.

unions have to establish minimums and career trajectories because otherwise no one would do the job. people need to know they and their families will be taken care of. however, if social safety nets were properly in place, people would have less to worry about. thanks for the public option, obama.

also, if a teacher could make a million $ a year for excellence in teaching, like a neurosurgeon or a ceo, or a salesman, or a basketball player, we would certainly be having a different discussion.

and you completely missed the point on my reference to microsoft. the suppliers to schools argue that their goods are necessary for quality education. who measures their role in ultimate learning (assuming the machines work)? singling out teachers is the capitalist way of maintaining profits for vendors to schools.

[wtmusic]

60. You are barking up the wrong tree about Gates.

There are plenty of reasons to hammer him on anticompetitive business practices, but the man has ponied up $26B of his own money to put computers in schools and for other philanthropic purposes. What's $26B to Gates? About 40% of his net worth. How many people do you know that have donated 1% of their net worth to charity?

I get your point about evaluation in psychiatry, obviously there are other factors involved. But if only 10% of a hypothetical psychiatrist's patients show improvement or are satisfied, could we really classify their care as expert? Probably not. The answer is we should base their performance relative to other psychiatrists, as best we can. And that's exactly the type of evaluation teachers' unions are fighting against.

[tomp]

65. it's not so hard when you have 50 billion left over.

but thanks. i didn't know that about gates. think that's true about marvin bush? how well are his products helping kids learn?

the point about this kind of evaluation is that there are so many variables. human beings' learning, just like their healing, doesn't fall into neat packages for easy evaluation.

and students don't necessarily benefit from learning based on testing like this. teaching should match the students preferred learning style.

just like you have to know your patient to help him/her heal, you have to know your student to help him/her learn.

the obama/duncan plan seems regressive, harkening back to the halcyon days of the three r's.

[wtmusic]

66. Heh...yeah I suppose. nt

[RandomThoughts]

33. That is how testing can be used to control what people learn

If you don't want people to learn how government works, or things in history, leaving that out of testing would accomplish that.

Teaching to the test is centralization of what children learn, instead of using many local and independent school boards making that decision.

[wtmusic]

35. Federal funding is also a centralization of how teachers are paid

so it's fair that the Dept of Education requires a benchmark level of instruction, even if it's minimal. But it absolutely should include history, and specifically Constitutional studies.

All Americans benefit from a well-educated electorate.

[Hannah Bell]

37. lol. mulgrew = lackey of randi weingarten, broad academy mole. he's no unionist.

no, $$$$ like forbes 100 members bill gates, eli broad, the walmart waltons, & others of the RICHEST PEOPLE IN THE FUCKING WORLD.

[RandomThoughts]

32. Are they funding the changes or buying the changes?

Do they require the changes to be the way they want things with the money they are using?


Basically they question is, are they buying being able to say who a good teacher is, and shouldn't that decision belong to the electorate?

A guy said the school boards are the problem, heard that on news.

Then a guy from MSNBC said that the program is to find what works for the children not any adult group like unions or school boards.

Will the financiers be deciding what is best for children, and aren't they an adult interest group?



For instance, MS financing or partially owning a news station, if they did that without any control over what news is spoken of, or method of news dispersal, then that would be them giving money to have a free press. If MS used MSNBC to have some influence on what news was broadcast, then it would be buying the ability to promote a point of view.

Although I like many of the points of view on MSNBC, and have seen what seems to be more of a free attitude on that news, so it seems less of managed news. Also by putting MS in the title it is full disclosure, so that is also good.

Going to have to see how it works out, but the concept that a billionaire has any ability to make choices for society does not have any reason to make sense.

[jaxx]

2. Dana Milbank is a male.

From there on the whole thing is on it's way down in content.

[LWolf]

4. You're right.

My god-daughter's name is Dana, and I attach "she" without thinking about it.

Content, though, is true.

It's true that Obama and Duncan are offending many of their allies with education policy.

It's true that expanding the use of high-stakes testing is a continuation of Bush administration policy, and that high-stakes testing causes long-term harm.

Truth isn't always comfortable, but it's truth, nonetheless.

[jaxx]

6. Why not give it a try before declaring it not good?

Education is important, it's the backbone of our future. Some of it has been failing for a long time and it needs revamped.

[LWolf]

7. Chicago already gave it a try. It wasn't good.

The "turnaround" bullshit that is the keystone of this administration's policies.

We already had 8 years of high-stakes testing under Bush. It wasn't good.

Some states had high-stakes testing programs at the state level BEFORE it went federal under Bush. That's almost 2 decades of "giving it a try," and it hasn't been good.

And, as the article pointed out, research doesn't support it.

[jaxx]

9. .I don't think you can broad brush this either.

If it works one place and not another, then find out why.

[LWolf]

10. Who said it worked one place? Not me.

Bad policy is bad policy. We don't advocate lynching because one victim out of many might actually have been guilty of something.

We don't, or at least, I don't, support ending poverty by encouraging the "boot strap" method, because one in a thousand manages a miracle.

When policy is designed to be harmful, in order to accomplish a harmful agenda, and has been proved over time to be harmful, there is really no defense.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Let's put it this way

Would you like to be constantly tested on part of your duties in your workplace?

Suppose you worked in an office that the higher-ups felt wasn't productive enough. Would you like to have constant testing of your typing speed and your calculator use speed?

Would that not interfere with your other duties and dampen morale?

Would it not be better to go to that office and find out what was wrong in that particular case? I mean, maybe it's not that the rank and file employees are typing too slowly. Maybe it's that the supervisor is a flake or that the interpersonal relationships in the office are toxic or that a certain number of employees are having huge personal problems.

Do you see what I mean?

One size does not fit all. You can test, test, test, but that doesn't account for factors that are beyond the teacher's control.

[MadHound]

12. This is not broad brush attacks, this is reality

In city after city, district after district, it has been shown over the past twenty years that high stakes testing is useless, worse than useless, it gives you false data and unreliable measurements of how students are doing.

The reason is simple, not all, perhaps not even a majority, of students do not do well using standardized, fill in the bubble tests as assessment instruments. Their brain simply doesn't function that way. These students do better writing essays, giving presentations, putting together a portfolio, etc. etc. Thus, while the teacher may know they're a genius, while their grades reflect that they are smart, the standardized test could very well come back saying that they're idiots. And let's not even get into test anxiety and such. Since in many cases standardized tests don't have consequences for the students, they don't study or even deliberately blow the test for a number of reasons

Yet both Obama and Bush put an abnormal amount of trust in standardized testing, making it more and more a part of our education system, even though virtually every expert says that it is the wrong path to take. So why should we continue to follow failed education policy? Oh, yeah, that's right, it gives us a convenient way of showing how "bad" schools are doing so that we can come in and privatize them.

I recognize that there are bad schools out there, but the fault doesn't lie with the teachers, but rather the surrounding structure. Schools need to be fully funded, and funding decisions need to be taken out of the direct hands of voters. Teachers need to be paid more in order to attract the best and the brightest to the profession. And above all, we need to have real education experts making education decisions rather than politicians who just want to use education as a political football.

[jaxx]

16. Thanks for the answer.

There are bad schools, and many more good ones. And yes, teachers need to be paid according to their abilities to teach, the best and brightest as you said. Are all charter schools privatized? I'm asking because I don't know. I always like the idea of kids learning at their pace instead of the curriculum pace, which was charter type schools. Some learn much faster, some slower, but all learn.

[MadHound]

18. There are profit and non-profit charter schools,

However no matter the set up, the school is, in the end, owned by a person or small group of people, a for profit or non-profit corporation. They are essentially private schools, despite the fact that they receive public money and have to follow a minimum (bare minimum in some cases) of public school rules.

We simply don't learn from what goes on in the rest of the world. The top two education systems in the world, Finland and Japan, provide answers as to what works. First, they fully fund their schools, insuring that each has the materials and facilities needed. Second, they treat teachers like we treat doctors instead of like dogs. Teachers get the equivalent of six figure salaries, with good benefits, and they are considered to be valued members of society rather than whipping posts for society's failures. I can't tell you how many students who were really bright, would have made great teachers went on to get a degree in something else besides education because of the money issue. Education degrees require the most hours from a student, and hours translate into money. Would you go into a field where you walk out of college with a $30,000 loan burden, looking at a job whose starting pay is $29,000?

Funding is, and always has been the key to education. While we talk a good game about education being priority one in our society, the reality is that we try to do it on the cheap, and then act all surprised when the results come back.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. In Japan, teaching is the best paying job that a four-year graduate can get

and high school teachers have to have a MAJOR in their subject area.

A former classmate of mine did a research project on math education in Japan. She first noticed that all the teachers she observed really knew their stuff and loved math, none of this staying one lesson ahead of the students. Second, throughout the school system, students were told that it was important to TRY, even if something seemed to hard at first. There was a lot of parental support (too much, at times). It was customary for parents to celebrate children's first day in first grade by buying them a desk, as if to show what an important occasion this was.

Americans might find it creepy the way schools and parents cooperate there. For example, schools sometimes set down rules about what students are allowed to do outside of class. I was visiting a family once and saw a notice tacked up on their refrigerator. It was a note from the school their younger daughter attended, asking parents to notify the school if they were going anywhere for summer vacation because there was going to be some required reading and maintenance homework during that period.

[LWolf]

21. To add to Madhounds exellent response:

We all know that kids don't all learn at the same pace. The reason why they are all pushed to learn, not only at the same pace but at a pace to fast for most, is BECAUSE of the standard and accountability movement, including high stakes tests.

Every state has a set of content standards that are supposed to be mastered. That's what the standardized tests are supposed to be testing. Under Obama, we're heading toward one national set of standards instead of 50 different sets. That's an issue of state's rights, which I won't address here except to note that there's still tension between federalists and anti-federalists in 2010, long after the ratification of our Constitution.

Robert Marzano helpfully pointed out several years ago that school would have to be extended to grade 21 to adequately teach all those standards.

http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/Standards/5982IR_AwashInASea.pdf

In other words, we've been set up to fail. It's not possible to adequately teach all the standards we're tested on, and the tests determine the fate of our schools, and now our careers.

As long as schools are under threat of take-over, re-structuring, and closure based on those standardized tests that test that overload of standards, I don't think you're going to see them allowing us to slow down for anyone.

The pace is a direct result of the standards and the tests.

[fogonthelake]

8. We have give NCLB a try for many years now and this administration

now expanded it, funded it and added the RTTT!

[LWolf]

27. After 8 years of holding on until Bush was gone,

I expected things to get better. Instead, the worst of Bush education policy is being expanded.

:grr:

[fogonthelake]

46. I hear yah. sad.

[femmocrat]

13. K&R

Glad to see that some of this criticism is (finally) trickling into the MSM. Obama's recent speech on his education policies did border on bullying, if not intransigence.

[villager]

14. So that makes education, torture, and domestic surveillance -- to name but three

and this "new" education policy is in fact tortuous!

[LWolf]

17. It is.

I find the whole thing...never mind. I don't have the right words.

Tragic. Infuriating. Hysterical. Bizarre. The world is upside down and inside out.

Change, indeed.

[tomp]

52. the shorter list will end up being how he is NOT like bush. nt

[Barack2theFuture]

15. 'On education policy, Obama is like Bush'

on steroids.

[LWolf]

24. Incredible, isn't it? nt

[Dinger]

22. Shit, I Wonder Is he's right of bu$h

K & R for truth-telling.:patriot:

[LWolf]

26. As an educator, do things seem any better

now? We still seem to be lurching ahead in the wrong direction. :(

[tomp]

53. what, you don't like change, comrade?

[LWolf]

54. Not Obama's brand of change.

:(

[tomp]

56. agreed. nt

[nashville_brook]

25. k n r -- truth.

[Blue_In_AK]

28. These sorts of one-size-fits-all policies are extremely dangerous.

I'd like to know how a small rural school in Bush Alaska, for instance, where it's almost impossible to lure teachers of ANY qualifications, much less highly qualified or whatever they're trying to say, can be expected to make "adequate yearly progress"?

Personally, I think states should handle education, and I wouldn't be sorry to see the USA out of it entirely.

[LWolf]

34. They are dangerous, and they harm students and schools. nt

[Mithreal]

29. Truth hurts. Ignorance kills. There is no "like" about it, on this he's worse.

[LWolf]

42. It's taken 18 months for those opposing his ed policy

to gain enough momentum to speak up and be heard. So far, all it's gotten us is the President calling us "resistant to change" and "comfortable with the status quo." That sounds to me like he's pretty determined that we're not going to influence policy.

[Mithreal]

48. Absolutely. And when unions want a seat at the table it is used against them

as if by asking for a voice is equal to fully supporting.

Gibbs has taught us only the radical left fringe is allowed to compare this and the former occupant. It's all about marginalizing and full steam ahead. Everyone knows this country's problems are because of students and teachers. The ones who need the highest accountability get NONE.

[LWolf]

49. The propaganda is ubiquitious, and truth no longer matters

The psychological state of the nation that enables this is troubling, at best.

[Mithreal]

61. The Big Chiefs want to see a more tangible profit from education

The middle class were always asking for more, now we'll have to do with less and the trick was to get us to enthusiastically ask for less.

It's all quite amazing what the enemies of this country have accomplished in the name of prosperity for the few.

I do think there are better days ahead so let's live to see them.

[LWolf]

63. I hope you are correct. nt

[Greyhound]

30. K&R for some truth. n/t

[ProSense]

31. So President Obama isn't funding education

and has a brother capitalizing on efforts to privatize education?

"If anything, Obama has taken the worst aspect of Bush's No Child Left Behind education law -- an obsession with testing -- and amplified it."

What a load of BS!

No Child Left Behind cemented as failed education legacy of President Bush

Promising new direction for public education around the corner with Obama and Duncan

WASHINGTON - January 08, 2009 - For seven years, educators have been living and working with the unintended and harmful consequences of No Child Left Behind, which judges schools and children based solely on standardized test scores at the expense of preparing them with 21st century skills. President-elect Obama is calling to fully fund the law and move away from the test, label and punish regime of the last seven years.

“No Child Left Behind is firmly cemented as President Bush’s failed education experiment,” said Dennis Van Roekel, NEA president. “Such overemphasis on standardized testing, combined with a lack of funding, has forced schools to narrow the curriculum and divert resources from art, music, social studies and physical education to teach to the test. The good news is that with President-elect Obama and Arne Duncan—his choice to head the Department of Education—at the helm, the beginning of a promising new direction for public education in this country is around the corner.”

President-elect Obama views children as citizens of the world, not just standardized test scores and wants to look beyond NCLB to strengthen public education. Obama’s preK initiative is a firm embrace of the importance of early childhood education. He’s also pledged to make college affordable for all Americans. And he plans to introduce the most sweeping effort to modernize school buildings as part of his Wall Street to Main Street economic recovery plan.

Obama and Duncan have called for more flexibility for states and school districts, better quality tests, multiple ways of measuring school quality and student learning, and recruiting and training more teachers. In his home state of Chicago, Duncan has worked to reduce the dropout rate, reduce school violence, and create successful new schools. If confirmed, Duncan would become the first education secretary with direct experience with the federal education law at the local level.

Obama and Duncan recognize that while our schools can and must improve, the federal government must also help support children through adequate health care, nutrition programs, safe and affordable housing, and other needed services. Duncan has been a strong proponent of increased parent and community engagement in schools, and linking schools and communities to ensure students get the services they need to succeed.

In addition to calling for a renewed commitment and role for the federal government in K–12 and higher education, NEA is advancing commonsense strategies that will help make college more affordable and ensure great public schools for every student, including quality early childhood education, improved teacher recruitment and retention, class size reduction, safe and modern facilities, and a real attempt to infuse 21st century skills into our schools.

“We look forward to working with the incoming Obama administration and Congress—as well as parents and community leaders—to put in place the right education vision for America,” Van Roekel said.

Obama is funding the program and is working with the unions: NCLB Funding: Annual Change in Appropriations Since Enactment, FY 2002-11

The diasagreements between the administration and unions do not make Obama the same as Bush.

[Mithreal]

36. Right, wtf do liberal teachers know anyway? If I had a wish to spend on DU

it would be for some to get a clue about what the President is doing to public education. Being that no one here keeps track of issues in public education here makes it really easy to miss what the President is doing, am I right.

Do I need blue links to madfloridian? There were others but some have been vapored, why paint a target on their back as if I could.

The folks saying everything is wrong are just as easy to dismiss as those saying everything is ++good.

Unsolicited advice, if you included in your pieces both the good and the bad I think your posts could be tremendously valuable. Not like education is that important an issue though, am I right again?

[LWolf]

39. The keystone to President Obama's education policy

is high-stakes testing, just as it was for GWB. The difference? Test scores matter MORE to Obama, because instead of using them to take over school districts, he's going to use them to close schools, take over schools, turn schools into charters, fire teachers, and pay teachers.

As a poster upthread said, NCLB on steroids.

Of course, you posted something more than 19 months old. What does the NEA think of Obama's ed policy today? From July 3, 2010:

Several new business items to be debated this afternoon by the National Education Association's Representative Assembly focus squarely on criticizing or opposing elements of the Obama administration's agenda.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2010/07/items_resolutions_push_back_on.html

From July 6:

Delegates to the National Education Association voted on Sunday to take a position of “no confidence” in the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top guidelines and in the use of competitive grants as a basis for the re-authorization of ESEA — the Elementary and Secondary Education Act formerly known as No Child Left Behind.

It was a notable slam on the Obama administration. ”Arne Duncan was not on the ballot. The policies of the Department of Education are the policies of the Obama administration,” one delegate said. “We have to step up and say that the policies of the Obama administration, we do not agree with those.”

NEA President Dennis Van Roekel was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “Today our members face the most anti-educator, anti-union, anti-student environment I have ever experienced.” No one from the Obama Administration was scheduled to speak at the convention.

As a matter of fact, the piece in the Washington Post that you think is a "load of BS" made the NEA's "must reads" page:

http://neatoday.org/2010/08/16/must-reads-obamas-education-policy/

[EFerrari]

43. Worse, I'd say. I don't remember Bush going on national teevee

and humiliating a schoolful of teachers gratuitously for political points. A schoolful of teachers who had just been praised by the state precisely for improving their school, at that.

[LWolf]

44. I don't remember that, either.

I know I feel less respected, and more under attack, under Obama than I did Bush.

I can't believe I'm really saying that, but it's true. :(

[EFerrari]

47. I can't believe it either.

:(

[YvonneCa]

64. That is old. Van Roekel and the NEA has spoken out...

...against the Duncan policy.

[zenj8]

40. I agree with you LWolf.

Obama took NCLB and made things worse with RTTT. He and Arnie are basically blackmailing (you only get their money if you make draconian changes) each state to change the way they use student testing data and deal with teachers. They eventually want all schools to be run for profit. They want teachers to be interchangeable and without any power. They don't want teachers to have a voice. They don't want teachers to point out the things that are going wrong. They don't really want us to be unionized. They are out to destroy our public educational system bit by bit. None of this is good for our kids. I voted for Obama, but his lack of regard for teachers means I won't vote for him again. I'm not sure what to do when it comes to voting this time around. I have to believe there are other dems out there who are like me. People who voted for the campaign promises and feel deceived by the reality.

[LWolf]

41. There are more out there.

And Obama needs to hear from them.

[Dappleganger]

62. You're both right.

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[nashville_brook]

45. kickee

[Eyerish]

50. K&R