Global Strategies: Oregonian slams Portland Association of ...

?But the frustration expressed by many bond opponents is entirely reasonable, and the Portland Association of Teachers has amplified it this fall by snubbing an opportunity to ask for up to $40 million in federal funds. ? ? Oregonian Editorial Board

In my blog post ?Portland Association of Teachers lets down it students and taxpayers? (here), I have already criticized the PAT for vetoing submission of a federal grant proposal for development of personalized education plan. In its editorial ?Portland teachers say ?no? to federal money, accountability,? the Oregonian joins me in that criticism (here):

?. In other words, Portland's union is doing everything it can to ensure that its members are evaluated using information that they control, which would eliminate the value to parents and taxpayers of an evaluation system that incorporates student progress. That's what you'd call lowering the accountability bar, in this case all the way to the floor.

Given the union's refusal to apply for tens of millions of dollars in federal funds -- even as the district asks taxpayers for half a billion dollars -- plenty of legitimately frustrated Portland residents will be eagerly following the development of the state-mandated evaluation system the district will implement next year. And they'll remember the details, as they should, when the district asks them for more money.?

(1)?? The Oregonian writes as if the PAT objected only to the use of student test data for teacher evaluations. Not so. There was reported disagreement between the school district and the union over what to do in developing personalized education plans. I do not know specifics but this could be a more serious issue than teacher evaluations. Personalized education usually involves computers, the internet, and various forms of online learning, and can allow students to learn at their own individual pace. Teacher unions are the Luddites of online learning. They only approve of the forms of online learning that are teacher intensive. To them, it jobs and union membership. Yet technology can make teachers more cost effective. Online learning and providing high school students with laptops, pads or tablets, can, in some cases, substitute for classroom teachers. Perhaps the PAT wanted their union members and the public to think the primary, or only, issue was teacher evaluations, thus hoping to avoid a public discussion of how far behind PPS is in online learning.

(2)?? The primary way for the public to deal with the PAT is through the PPS Board and its contract with the PAT. The current contract is up next July. I do not know when formal negotiations begin. But, to me, this grant proposal veto by the PAT was the opening issue in the next contract. The?union took a non-negotiable stand, rolled over PPS administration and Board, and vetoed the grant proposal. In exchange, I would take 1% off any future salary increase proposal and support the PPS Board if PAT decided to strike over the issues.

(3)?? In the editorial, the Oregonian further says:

We've endorsed the Portland Public Schools' $482 million bond request and don't intend to change our minds. The city's kids deserve to learn in safe buildings whose roofs don't leak, and the district has devised a credible plan to maintain the improvements taxpayers are poised to approve. But the frustration expressed by many bond opponents is entirely reasonable, and the Portland Association of Teachers has amplified it this fall by snubbing an opportunity to ask for up to $40 million in federal funds.

Voters, some argue, should refuse to cough up more money for city schools until the district makes various changes, ranging from improved student outcomes to greater accountability for teachers. Those who make this argument know perfectly well that construction funding is an imperfect lever for moving instructional and personnel policies. But what else do they have? There simply aren't many ways for voters to hold the people who run and work in public schools accountable for what they do.

Right. I am one of those opposing the current facilities bond measure (see here, for example). I appreciate the Oregonian saying my opposition is ?entirely reasonable.? I would be more impressed if the Oregonian editorial board just once expressed some interest in expanding Mandarin immersion programs, creating paid high school study abroad programs, and expanding online learning opportunities.

Source: http://daveporter.typepad.com/global_strategies/2012/11/oregonian-slams-portland-association-of-teachers-on-vetoing-federal-grant-proposal.html

millennial media nit championship transcendentalism bells palsy channel 5 news uc berkeley harrison barnes