A Tip of the Hat to the Washington Policy Center

Careful readers of this website will no doubt be confused. I had taken umbrage at the Washington Policy Center, but later realized that my comments were more petulance than righteousness. I apologize for the claim that they had dropped by comments from their blog.

In fact, they have been proactive in identifying the issue as a technical glitch and have asked me to resubmit the comments. I salute their meticulous commitment to a free exchange of ideas.

I am particularly embarrassed by my failure to consider the possibility of a technical glitch in this case. Of all people, I should be attuned to that. My tech savvy is so limited I thought "Wired" was a magazine about coffee.

The Washington Policy Center is a Seattle outfit that promises to "improve lives through market solutions." Even if you are sure you wouldn't agree with their issue analysis, I encourage you to drop by their blog and give it a read.

And in the future, I will try to restrict my false umbrage to dinner table conversation - where it properly belongs.

Here's the post I read on their blog - an entry by Liv Finne, a lawyer who directs their Center for Education - and then my comments follow.

May 10, 2010

High school student in Tacoma declares that he wants effective teachers

Today, in the Tacoma News Tribune, Mount Tahoma High School students eloquently speak out against teacher seniority assignment rules. Student Derrick Reinhardt observes that these rules mean that "ineffective teachers stay and effective teachers leave" his school.

These union-driven rules allow teachers unions, not school principals, decide who teaches at Mount Tahoma High. Teachers are assigned to schools on the basis of how long they have taught in the district, not because their school principal has chosen them or wishes to retain them based on their ability to teach students. For the unions, whether or not a school's teachers are effective at educating students appears to be a lower priority than imposing districtwide mandates which serve their interests.

Ronnie Gordon, 27, an AP English teacher in Mount Tahoma High School, is being transferred to another school because his school principal does not have the power to keep him on staff. Instead, the school principal must retain less effective teachers because seniority rules protect them from being reassigned.

Mr. Gordon has forged deep connections with the students at Mount Tahoma High. Mr. Gordon understands that students crave and need the attention and support of their teachers, and that the payoff to this adult attention is a rich reward: motivated students willing to work hard and stay in school.

Mr. Gordon not only teaches English, but he is the faculty adviser to three after-school student groups, the Key Club, the Latino club, and the junior class. He mentors students at First Creek Middle School. This week he is organizing a blood drive, and will emcee the spring sports pep rally, where he will also be named the most inspirational male teacher.

Students are tearfully pleading with the school board to allow Gordon and other teachers to remain at their school.

Board members say their hands are tied by the seniority assignment rules in the collective bargaining agreement with the district.

Here is what the students say:

"Mr. Gordon is the type of person who can basically change your whole state of mind," said junior class senator Lacy Delacruz-Agor. "He's the type of person who cares about you. It's like the heart is missing from a lot of teachers now days - that's something Mr. Gordon still has."

Derrick Reinhardt, senior class senator at Mount Tahoma. "I think it's really wrong for ineffective teachers to stay and for effective teachers to leave."

Some school board members are indicating their willingness to revisit this policy in the next round of negotiations with the union, when the current agreement expires in August of 2011.

Improving education in Tacoma and elsewhere requires just this sort of clear-eyed shift in priorities: student learning, not the appeasement of powerful unions, must be the top priority of every school leader. Allowing school principals to decide which teachers will serve on each school teaching team is the first step towards improving education in Washington.


Here’s my comment:

With all due respect to the students at Mount Tahoma High School, Mr. Gordon is not being prevented from teaching and inspiring public high school students in Washington State. Declining enrolments at Mount Tahoma High are requiring him to move to another school in the system, with high school students who will benefit from his gifts and dedication. Letting a school principal block his transfer, as favored by Liv Finne, would not increase the number of students inspired by Mr. Gordon.

To claim that teachers unions are preventing students from having high quality teachers is not supported by the facts of this case. Teachers unions are doing exactly what they should be doing- working to enable dedicated teachers to devote their career to teaching and still be able to provide for their own families and retirement.

I can understand why some high school kids are taking a self-centered, narrowminded view of this case. I can understand why the students at Mr. Gordon’s next school are of no concern to them. But why is the Washington Policy Center taking a myopic view?



The link to the Washington Policy Center is given in the text above. You should check out their blog, which they keep percolating despite not having a large team of analysts, and their other analysis.

George F. Will & Muddled Thinking About Education

George F. Will’s recent Sunday column neatly captures the muddled thinking of conservatives about education. Halfway through the column, Will states flat out that the overwhelmingly dominant factors behind different education outcomes are the characteristics of the households where the students live. The most important of those factors is family income.

If that point is correct, then the charter school movement and criticisms of teachers unions have nothing to do with improving education outcomes and closing achievement gaps. We would also not expect wholesale firing of the teachers at particular schools to be a solution. None of those changes affect family income or other key household characteristics.

For a conservative, it is important to make that point about the vital link between family incomes and education outcomes. When progressive “do-gooders” advocate government programs, conservatives attack them as out of touch with reality. For conservatives, education is all about personal responsibility at the family level, not at the neighborhood or community level. Progressives say it takes a village to raise a child, while conservatives seem to think it takes an idiot to support a village.

So, at the halfway point of the column, Will is on familiar ground with conservative thinking.

By the end of Will’s column, he pivots and labels Education Secretary Arne Duncan a “Mrs. Jellyby” for blocking a school voucher program in Washington, DC. Will states flat out that Democrats are to blame for preventing children from low-income households being able to escape “execrable” schools. Will is certain that those children, regardless of their household characteristics, would achieve academic success by simply changing schools.

For a conservative, it is important to argue that incompetent teachers and administrators are the predominant cause of low test scores. When progressives defend public schools and teachers unions, conservatives attack them as oppressive special interests.

Income inequality is the villain of paragraph five, while institutionally bad schools are the villain of paragraph 9 in Will’s column. It is worth remembering that these contrary ideas are not espoused by rival camps within the conservative movement. They are contradictory ideas put forth by the same individuals, at the same time, without any awareness of the irony.

Will and many conservatives support charter schools and oppose government programs and teachers unions on the basis of their political principles. It is a shame that their principles themselves fail to adhere to any principle of logical consistency. Whether we should blame their muddled thinking on the poor quality of their education or on their family income level, I will leave for others to determine.