Students pay price for union's refusal to accept terms of a $13.2 million grant The teachers' union rejected the idea of merit pay when students pass Advanced Placement courses in math and science.
A good public education system should push students to achieve their potential.
That, of course, doesn't always happen because the resources aren't always available to allow students those opportunities.
And that's why it is extremely disappointing a wonderful opportunity to enhance learning was squandered. The state's teachers' union essentially put the kibosh on a $13.2 million grant that would have strengthened Advanced Placement courses at seven Washington state high schools.
Last year the National Math Science Initiative offered the grant to the schools, which all have a high percentage of low-income students. Three of the schools are in Spokane, two in Seattle and two in Vancouver.
A key component of the grant -- about 22 percent of the $13.2 million -- was merit pay for teachers.
At Seattle's Franklin High School, the principal was looking at giving $100 to teachers and students each time a student passed an Advanced Placement course in math or science, according to a column in The Seattle Times written by Danny Westneat. But the idea was nixed by the teachers' union.
"They said no because they felt it was too much like merit pay," Franklin Principal Jennifer Wiley told Westneat. "What I heard expressed is that in Seattle schools our values are more egalitarian and mutually supportive. They felt this grant would favor some teachers over others."
"Hoo boy," Westneat responded in his column. "Could we possibly be any more politically correct? Or self-defeating?"
It's puzzling.
School administrators and teachers have been hounding the Legislature for more money to accomplish the goal of boosting test scores. They make a valid point in saying that if we expect every student to meet the new, higher graduation standards that have been set then taxpayers need to provide appropriate funding.
Finding the cash has been difficult in the past few years as there's been a downturn in the state's economy. Lawmakers tell teachers and administrators they must do more with less -- or find other sources of funding.
This grant is exactly what's needed. It aims to provide students the opportunity to excel.
But that opportunity has now been squandered by those who refuse to look beyond their narrow political agenda to do what's best for students.
Comments:
This is your opportunity to speak out about the story you just read. We encourage all readers to participate in this forum.
Please follow our guidelines and do not post:
Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo, such as accusing somebody of a crime, defaming someone's character, or making statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment, or posting comments that incite violence.
Comments using another person's real name to disguise your identity.
Commercial product promotions.
Comments unrelated to the story.
Links to other Web sites.
While we do not edit comments, we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
If you feel someone has violated our posting guidelines please contact us immediately so we can remove the post. We appreciate your help in regulating our online community.
Your comment will be posted after it has been verified.
Jones wrote on May 13, 2008 10:22 AM:
" The teachers unions' bosses will not relinquish their control of the purse for teachers' salaries. When all compensation comes from the state, union fees are automatically deducted from paychecks. How would the unions get their cut if monies are paid directly to teachers that do not come through the state coffers? "
merit pay wrote on May 12, 2008 7:07 PM:
" Extra pay for doing what they are already getting paid for?? That only works for government employees. Unions are no longer needed. Unions and will bankrupt the country. "
Kenneth wrote on May 12, 2008 3:40 PM:
" Another option wooda been for those providing the grant to be flexible- just make a grant for 78% of the $13.2 million- maybe it just a control thing for the granter. "
Jones wrote on May 13, 2008 10:22 AM: