Obama proposes $1B for science, math teachers

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20120718_ap_obamaproposes1bforsciencemathteachers.html

Posted: Wed, Jul. 18, 2012, 6:36 AM
Obama proposes $1B for science, math teachers
JOSH LEDERMAN

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration unveiled plans Wednesday to create an elite corps of master teachers, a $1 billion effort to boost U.S. students' achievement in science, technology, engineering and math.

The program to reward high-performing teachers with salary stipends is part of a long-term effort by President Barack Obama to encourage education in high-demand areas that hold the key to future economic growth , and to close the achievement gap between American students and their international peers.

Teachers selected for the Master Teacher Corps will be paid an additional $20,000 a year and must commit to participate multiple years. The goal is to create a multiplier effect in which expert educators share their knowledge and skills with other teachers, improving the quality of education for all students.

Speaking at a rally for his re-election campaign in San Antonio on Tuesday, Obama framed his emphasis on expanded education funding as a point of contrast with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, whom he accused of prioritizing tax cuts for the wealthy over reinvestment in the nation.

[MadHound]

1. We need to focus on far more than math and science,

Comm arts, art, music, the humanities, all are getting the short end of the stick, yet they are just as vital to our children's education as science and math are.

And if he wants to really improve education overall, let's start by raising every teacher's salary by twenty thousand, permanently. Forty thousand would be better.

Just like any other profession, if you want quality, you're going to have to pay for it.

[enlightenment]

2. Thank you for that.

The focus on the maths and sciences is not helping much - but the corollary lack of focus on basic reading, writing, and critical thinking skills is becoming a definite problem.

This constant push for maths and sciences is an easy 'point' to make, politically. People perceive those subjects as hard, so saying that we should push them more is perceived as making education as a whole more rigorous.

Yes, kids need to know maths and sciences, but even more, they need to know how to read and comprehend; to communicate coherently in speech and writing; to think critically about subjects that may have more than one right answer and more than one method to reach a decision; to be able to place themselves in the present through an understanding of the past; and to appreciate the value of the arts and music to human culture.

[HuckleB]

7. Unfortunately, there is little focus on actual math and science.

Certainly, no more, and usually less of a focus than on reading and writing.

Science is about critical thinking skills. Without knowledge of the scientific process, it's difficult to attain true critical thinking ability.

[enlightenment]

32. Really?

You have to understand the scientific process to develop true critical thinking skills?

hmm.

Legions of philosophers would disagree, I think. As would historians and sociologists and anthropologists . . .

[HuckleB]

39. They can disagree all they want.

Unfortunately, those who actually use the scientific process in those pursuits tend to be the most successful among those professions. They also tend to have the most influence.

[enlightenment]

48. You do know that

critical thinking was not initially discovered or developed by the hard sciences, right?

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-brief-history-of-the-idea-of-critical-thinking/408

You seem to be pretty insistent on giving credit to the sciences for something that was the idea of the philosophers.

[HuckleB]

8. Yes, teachers are underpaid.

On the other hand, this country now graduates 3,000 MFAs annually. Talk to an aging college English prof. This serves little purpose, as few can get jobs teaching. Even fewer have spent the time reading and understanding the canon to develop as writers. Yet, our universities spend huge resources on these folks.

Many pieces of the puzzle are out of whack.

[4th law of robotics]

18. Oddly enough we spend more per student than any other nation

although I think Switzerland is close.

We just don't spend it wisely.

[NNN0LHI]

33. I think a lot of that is graft. No proof. Just what I think

And not among the teachers either. I think it is done mostly if not all at the managerial level.

When they catch someone around here illegally enriching themselves from a school budget it is never a teacher. It is Superintendents, Deans, Principals and such who are caught using the schools money for personal gain.

Don

[4th law of robotics]

36. Yeah I would agree that a lot of it is being wasted at the managerial level

we have too many administrators who haven't seen the inside of a classroom in 20+ years.

[HuckleB]

40. That's not necessarily true.

We serve children with developmental disabilities via our school system, while many other countries serve them under other systems. Those children cost more to serve, and that's only one variable among many.

[hughee99]

17. I agree with what you say, but one argument has always bothered me.

I don't disagree that we should pay teachers more, but if we paid each teacher $1 million a year, how would it make students learn more?

[MadHound]

21. Well, first of all, we wouldn't have to pay teachers a million a year.

But putting them on a pay scale comparable with doctors would insure that the teaching profession gets some of the best and brightest people to become teachers. Having the best and brightest in teaching does mean that students will learn more.

This is what they do in the top school systems in the world, it should work just fine here.

[hughee99]

22. That certainly makes sense, but isn't that sort of the same thing as saying

the problem with education IS the teachers? We don't pay them enough so we have many people teaching who aren't good enough at it. We need to get rid of those people and bring in better people, and then education will improve.

[MadHound]

24. The overall quality of the teachers is indeed one of many problems with our education system

Other problems are the fact that we have non-educators in charge of making most of the big decisions for concerning education. From Arne Duncan on down to the local religious wingnut on your schoolboard, education is rife with people who are put in charge of education, but have no experience in it.

Another problem is how we fund education. Most of the funding for local schools comes from property taxes. Not only does this put funding at the mercy of the local real estate market, but it also puts school funding at the mercy of the voters. Worse yet, most school bond issues are handicapped, meaning that they have to get sixty, even sixty six percent of the vote in order to pass. We don't do this for fire and police departments, why do it for eduction. What this has resulted in is chronically underfunded schools.

Worse yet, as we see in inner cities, basing public education on property taxes means that poor areas, whose children need education the most, get the least.

I could go on, but those are the biggies.

[hughee99]

26. I agree with everything you say, I've just haven't seen an education discussion

in which the overall quality of teachers was discussed as something that needs to be addressed rather than taken as an attack against all teachers.

Another issue I see, and possibly one you've alluded to, is that many districts (certainly not all) do a poor job encouraging teachers to continue to improve professionally. Yes, most districts have some sort of "professional development" programs, but that usually consisted of a workshop or two and a 4pm get together at a local bar. Many don't put in the extra effort (and funding) to help teachers develop their skills, to pay for continuing education, etc... Many other professions spend tons of money to develop the employees they already have, for something as critical as teaching, it doesn't make sense not to fund this.

[MadHound]

28. Umm, by law in most states, teacher are required to get continuing education.

And in most states, they are required to pay for it themselves. Thus, poorly paid teachers are now forced to shell out big bucks for workshops, conferences, advanced degrees, etc.

As far as the programs go, you are showing your ignorance in regards to what goes on there. I'm a teacher, and have been to umpteen million of these, and while the quality of the presentation varies, it is always consistent that I come away with something I can use in my profession. Oh, and while some teachers may gather at the bar afterwards, what is wrong with that. Most professionals go to a bar with their colleagues at some point or another, so why are you coming down on teachers about doing the same?

[hughee99]

30. Yes, this is what I'm talking about.

Requiring continuing education and not paying for it is not encouraging continuing education. The teachers I've met usually had coursed they'd like to take, but couldn't afford, and those they could afford, but likely wouldn't get as much from. If we want teachers to get the most out of their development time, we should be willing to pay for the education (or at least pay some and reimburse the rest upon completion).

As for the professional development days, having lived with several teachers, they were often treated as a joke. Maybe our schools just got consistently bad presenters, maybe my friends were more apathetic than others, but the teachers I knew that were my age saw it as a day off and an early start on the weekend drinking (since they were usually held on Friday's).

Nothing wrong with going to the bar at all, but if you ask someone how their professional development day went and the only thing they recall was that pitchers of beer cost an extra buck, I'm thinking they didn't get a lot from the lecture. Certainly, I don't think all teachers are like this (even all young teachers), but my friends couldn't have been the only ones.

BTW, not all the teachers I know are my age, but those are the only ones I would talk with about the professional development days.

[Robb]

19. How many teachers will be forced from the profession, you think?

I mean an across the board salary increase means more people wanting to be teachers, and the bar going up, right?

That tells me instinctively a lot of current teachers will lose in the competitive rush. Not a bad thing, I think, unless you believe in the idea that there aren't any substandard teachers out there -- and believe me, when the standard is raised, a lot more become "substandard."

[Smarmie Doofus]

53. I vote for Logic, Economics and History. ( *real* History)

It'll never happen because separately they are dangerous. In combination they are *combustible*.

[exboyfil]

65. I think English teachers should

get a reduced load so that they can assign more essays and grade them completely with an eye towards improving writing. My older daughter's 7th and 8th grade teacher took absolutely no interest in writing feedback (he basically flipped to one page of a four page essay, made two corrections, and gave a letter grade). The essay was simply awful - full of grammar mistakes. It was so bad that I homeschooled my younger daughter in English and Social Studies for two years to avoid the situation. She wrote lots of essays for me which I tried to grade to the best of my ability.

The problem is if this teacher was given more time, I am not convinced he would be any more engaged in the process.

So as you emphasize math and science (which my school district does a pretty good job with - especially math), you are right that the other disciplines should be addressed. I think more creative block scheduling should occur. English and Social Studies should be taught together as an integrated whole for example.

[eppur_se_muova]

3. You can't build a livable society on science and math alone.

There's more to thinking than Boolean logic. To be a functioning part of society you need to know something about our shared (and unshared) history and values -- how we got where we are, where we want to go and why, and what we're going to do when we get there.

But I'm only a PhD scientist, what do I know.

[4th law of robotics]

5. A society can better function with a poor record in teaching humanities

than it could function with a poor record of math and science.

Ideally we'd do well at both. But lately we've fallen behind in the math and science fields particularly.
/in my opinion.

[n2doc]

6. +1 n/t

[HuckleB]

9. All true.

And yet few in our society understand even the most basic math and science. They don't understand the scientific process, logic, what a logical fallacy is, etc...

All of these leave the population extremely vulnerable to manipulation.

[Nevernose]

23. Logical fallacies are taught in HS English

Not in math or science courses. Especially with the new push to Cimmon Core. Just sayin'.

[HuckleB]

41. That would be VERY unusual.

And that's being kind. Oh, wait, are you saying that many HS English teachers use logical fallacies? Now that would be true.

And part of my point is that we need to teach this as a part of science, which is why such programs might be helpful.

[Nevernose]

50. Things are changing

In my state's backwards high school proficiency exam, for instance, either 10 or 12 percent of the latest exam is based on traditional fallacies (my wife says twelve, but I say ten. Of course, I'm an English teacher and therefore suck at simple arithmetic). Most of the HS school teachers I know spend a great deal of time teaching hngw like ad homonum or ad populum.

Liberal arts is the part of one's education that's supposed to teach argumentation and basic logic. In addition, it's the liberal arts teachers that teach people how to read their science or mathematics textbooks. As I mentioned before, with the latest Common Core people will see English teachers spend a lot more time with logic problems. Even then "word" problems that many students have problem with are, in the end, actually reading problems.

[4th law of robotics]

4. How about we just fund a college education

for anyone going in to teaching (and include some field of specialization: so education AND history. Or education AND child psychology).

And then pay them well.

That would attract more and more talented folks to the field.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. That is exactly how I afforded my college education

My loans were guaranteed by the federal government and forgiven when I became a teacher.

It was a wonderful program that Reagan did away with while he was president.

[4th law of robotics]

12. I think it would be a wise investment

to cover college costs for majors that are particularly valuable to the economy or those where we're suffering a major deficit in native talent (for instance if we're having to bring in engineers from India to keep businesses running perhaps we should set aside money for training engineers).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Why not Arts and Humanities? There's more to life than the rat race.

[4th law of robotics]

13. We have a finite amount of money

if you look at this as an investment you should put the money towards those fields that will offer the greatest return.

Spending 50k for someone to get an art-history major might make that person happy but it won't return as much to the economy as would putting that money towards training an engineer or scientist or doctor or . . .

[MadHound]

15. Wow, what a sad cold world you live in,

When you determine what is to be funded by how much money is returned to the economy.

How about this, why not fund all aspects of education, humanities, math and science. Gee, all we would have to do is cut the defense budget by twenty billion or so.

Psst, have you ever thought that forcing somebody who wants to be an art historian into a math/science program just might backfire?

[4th law of robotics]

16. Er yeah, that's how investments work

We should spend our ever more finite funds wisely.

Countries that don't do this go bankrupt.

Also saying that we shouldn't put any extra funds towards liberal-arts education (in addition to what we already spend) =/= banning liberal arts education.

Psst, have you ever thought that forcing somebody who wants to be an art historian into a math/science program just might backfire?

Psst have you ever thought that promoting one field over the other doesn't *force* anyone to do anything?


Philosophy, art, literature, etc are all possible even without an education.

I would read a book by a writer with no formal training in writing.

I would hesitate to drive across a bridge designed by an amateur with no schooling in civil engineering.

[MadHound]

20. Umm, we're not talking "investments", we're talking people

And again, it shows a lot about you that those are the terms in which you think, none of it good.

And frankly, if you think that you can tackle philosophy without any formal training, please, read Plato's Republic and then get back with me. It should be entertaining to hear your philosophical wisdom.

[4th law of robotics]

34. I suppose you've never heard of "investing in education"

And frankly, if you think that you can tackle philosophy without any formal training, please, read Plato's Republic and then get back with me. It should be entertaining to hear your philosophical wisdom.

Do you think Plato understood it?

If so which college did he go to under a federal education grant?

Also since Obama is essentially on the same page here (this was his idea) do you think he is likewise some horrible monster for choosing to invest in science and math over 13th century croatian poetry?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. "..will offer the greatest return." In what? And, for whom?

My suspicion is that it will offer "the greatest return" to the capitalists and the consumer class.

[4th law of robotics]

35. I thought that was pretty clear

in economic output.

A person without an education is useful for manual labor. Give them an education and they can earn far more (and pay more taxes).

Federal spending shouldn't be allocated based on some ill-defined metric of self-actualization.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. So, they are, or we are, to be reduced to useful tools, well educated in the art of making money.

But, little else.

"Federal spending shouldn't be allocated based on some ill-defined metric of self-actualization."

Does that mean that the monies spent are not for somebody's "self-actualization" to be found in bank accounts and BMW's?

"And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps." H.L. Mencken

[4th law of robotics]

43. Alright let's look at it another way

we have X amount of money. We could use that to build say transportation infrastructure which would help stimulate the economy, create jobs both in the construction and by improved economic conditions and generally make people's lives better.

Or we could spend it on art classes which would make those people feel good for a little while but wouldn't create jobs or stimulate the economy or lead to any lasting improvement.

Which should we do?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. The arts (art, music, literature) make people's lives better.

What you seem to be advocating is that the only things worthy of study are the things that materially contribute to the common good (or, perhaps to the good of the owners) of what science and math produce.

Whereas, art and the humanities are only idle wastes of time that only better the lives of those idle persons who don't bother with science and math and don't "produce".

What, in your opinion, makes "people's lives better"?

[4th law of robotics]

47. My goodness what a monster I am!

Advocating for things that contribute to the common good.

Terrible.

What you seem to be advocating is that the only things worthy of study are the things that materially contribute to the common good (or, perhaps to the good of the owners) of what science and math produce.

Where did I state that these are the only things worth studying?

Quotes please.

Whereas, art and the humanities are only idle wastes of time that only better the lives of those idle persons who don't bother with science and math and don't "produce".

I've never seen a person fed with art. Or clothed. Or kept warm. Yes, material needs ought to come first.

Also art can be produced by people with no formal training. Many artists throughout history did not go to art school.

Math and science are a bit harder to learn intuitively though. Meaning they require more training and thus more expense.

Consider my previous analogy: would you read a book by someone who never went to college? Probably. Would you drive on a bridge designed by someone who never went to college? Probably not.

What, in your opinion, makes "people's lives better"?

Access to plentiful and safe food, medicine, decent housing, a chance for advancement, etc.

[U4ikLefty]

52. engineer?

[4th law of robotics]

66. No.

But I have seen what they go through in college and what they can achieve so I have a great deal of respect for them.

/in general. There are as always some terrible ones who should be fired.

[Luminous Animal]

14. How about 1 billion to feed hungry children so that they can actually think

when they are in school.

[joshcryer]

51. How about $4.5 billion? Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy,_Hunger-Free_Kids_Act_of_2010

[Luminous Animal]

55. Reauthorization for an existing program.

[joshcryer]

57. It expanded an existing program.

Nice try though.

[Duer 157099]

25. Each?

[Zalatix]

27. +100,000,000!!!

GO BIG, OBAMA!!!

[HiPointDem]

31. "an elite corps of master teachers" = more divide & conquer education deform.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. I thought along the same lines

Certainly a well meaning idea, but it's almost like saying we have slug teachers now, which obviously isn't true.

[4th law of robotics]

44. " we have slug teachers now, which obviously isn't true."

Well, we do.

We have millions of teachers.

It's guaranteed that some of them shouldn't be doing that job.

That's true of any career.

I had some awful teachers who probably should have been fired. And some great ones that should have been given raises (regardless of seniority in both cases).

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. Sorry, I should have been clearer

I meant it makes it appear that all we have are slug teachers now, which is obviously not true.

And yes, any profession/occupation has its share of slugs.

[HiPointDem]

49. It's part of the merit pay strategy. Ranking teachers by test scores & paying "master" teachers

more. Or pulling people out of the sciences and paying them more than your regular teacher.

Either way, divide and conquer horseshit.

Not to mention -- where are the fucking jobs for all these stem people? There's no shortage of them now -- i posted something to that effect weeks ago.

[HuckleB]

42. How?

[Bonobo]

54. Wow, that's the same amount of money he wants to spend on his campaign.

Makes you think.

[Drunken Irishman]

56. Ah, spreading right-wing lies I see...

Obama never said he wanted to raise $1 billion or that he would even come close to that. But it's so easy to parrot right-wing lies, isn't it?



http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/12/29/obama_2012_jim_messina_says_billion_dollar_campaign_rumors_are_bullshit_.html

[Bonobo]

58. Umm, dude, he raised 750 million dollars in 2008.

And he wasn't even President then.

If you don't like to hear the truth, shove a kool-aid popsicle into your other ear.

[Drunken Irishman]

59. What truth?

Show me where Obama said he'd raise one-billion dollars in this campaign. You made the claim, so you back it up. What he did in '08 is not what you said - and even then, you're looking at $250 million less than the one-billion you said in your original post.

Here's a novel concept, tho: instead of lying and parroting right-wing bullshit on a liberal forum, how about just being honest? Or is that too hard for you?

[Bonobo]

60. Ha ha ha.

He raised 3/4 of a billion and you can't believe that 1 billion is a possibility?

Now you want to play word games? Talk about dishonest...

The fact remains that it is very likely that he WILL raise a billion or more for his campaign and YOU want to pretend that the important issue is that the campaign never said it.

What a weasel-like defense...

If it turns out to be 900 million, does that make my point less valid?

Here are some links to the 1 billion dollar claim that are NOT right-wing sites. So fuck off.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/05/obama-campaign-aims-to-collect-a-billion-while-gop-relies-on-superpacs.html
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/13/obamas-2012-campaign-fundraising-could-top-1-billion/

[Drunken Irishman]

61. Aww, someone a little grumpy tonight?

It's a right-wing talking point that is has been circulating around the internet since 2011. It's not true and if you Googled how much money Obama has raised this campaign season, instead of, you know, making an unneeded dig at him, you wouldn't have made an utter fool out of yourself. But instead, you wanted to quickly attack Obama on a right-wing talking point and that's exactly what you did - you embarrassed yourself and then retreated like a typical whiner by telling me to fuck off when proven wrong.

For the record, Obama has raised $255,162,109 ( http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?id=N00009638 ) to date. That would require him to raise over 750 million from here until November - or essentially his entire total from 2008. I'm sure, even with your anti-Obama induced rage, you'd concede that is hardly likely. When it's all said and done, Pres. Obama will have raised anywhere from 400 million to 500 million - well short of the billion you, and other right-wing sources, said he would raise.

So, maybe it's you who should fuck off - or at least do your research before you make an ass out of yourself. But since I know you're probably going to reply back with a few more fuck yous, I'll just put you on ignore. Good day.

[NNN0LHI]

64. I would say you handled that real well, Sir

[flyguyjake]

62. Education overhaul

We need a complete overhaul of our education system starting with firing all the top brass and bringing some some fresh ideas and more modern forward thinking ideals. When our kids play high tech video games at home and then go to school and learn from books and VHS videos.. There's something wrong with this picture. Curriculum should be on tablets, ipads and computer games.

[madrchsod]

63. what about a billion for the arts?

a billion for the trades? a billion for social studies? how about a billion to teach kids how to apply for a job?


i guess those disciplines don`t count in obama`s new brave world.

he`s been a failure when it comes to public education because he listens to his millionaire and billionaire friends who want to get rid of those pesky unionized teachers and public schools. obama`s biggest failure in his first 4 yrs is his policy of demonizing union and non union teachers teachers and gutting structure of public education.