By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, May 18, 2007 at 3:01 AM
JEFFERSON CITY — The freshman senator who once proclaimed on campaign literature that if the Republican leadership was for something, he was probably against it, has now found more support on the other side of the aisle than his own. Labels: State_Senate
State Senator Jeff Smith spent much of the night lobbying members of the State House to support his education legislation, which, among other things, implements mandatory testing for public school teachers and creates a system of voluntary merit pay to reward successful teachers who opt out of traditional tenure.
The measure passed the House as an amendment to a larger education bill with strong support from House Republicans who cut off Democrats wishing to debate the amendment.
Several St. Louis Democrats told PubDef.net that they felt betrayed by Smith, who often bills himself as a "progressive" Democrat. But Smith has found the progress of many of his proposals opposed by members of his own St. Louis delegation.
However, Smith did receive some support for his bill from some fellow St. Louisans, including State Representatives Ted Hoskins, Rodney Hubbard, Talibdin El-Amin, Tom Villa, and Fred Kratky. But it was only with strong Republican support that the amendment passed the House.
Most St. Louis area Democrats voted against the amendment, including State Reps. Jamilah Nasheed, Rachel Storch, Jeanette Mott Oxford, Mike Daus, Robin Wright Jones, and Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who was the only Democrat allowed to speak against the bill before debate was cut off.
UPDATE: Though it passed the House, Smith's measure never made it to the Senate floor.
21 Comments:
What a shock! Sen. Jeff Smith sounding and acting like a neocon republican bushie! Now if the Democratic party leaders wake up; they will come to the same conclusion concerning Slay and Schoemehl. As Lincoln once said..."you can fool some of the people..."
Smith has been a corporate shill for the Bushies from the beginning. He's a product of Ladue Schools, yet he 'packaged' himself as a 'progressive.' He knew the pols, local 420, and most of the voters were asleep at the wheel. Some of us were NEVER fooled by his little act. What can I say; the 'veneer' was thin. Like junk food; the packaging is engaging, but the product is poison.
Looks like the time is ripe for a ballot initiative authorizing the public's right to recall any public official--legislators included. It's amazing how these legislators (Smith included), who claim to be SOO progressive and 'open minded,' yet they had no problem DISENFRANCHISING AN ENTIRE CITY OF VOTERS. THIS IS THE REAL CRIME. WHILE SMITH HIDES BEHIND HIS SO CALLED CONCERN FOR THE CHILDREN--HE COOPERATES WITH THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF THEIR PARENTS. SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY. WE DON'T NEED PROFESSIONAL LEGISLATORS--WE NEED ACCOUNTABLE AND DEMOCRATIC ONES. TIME TO THROW THESE 'SLICK WILLIES' OUT OF OFFICE. MORE IMPORTANT--TIME TO PROSECUTE ALL OF THEM WHO WILLINGLY COOPERATED WITH THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF CITIZENS.
SIGN ME,
A REAL TEACHER
5/18/2007 9:10 AM
Wonder if his staff will comment?
http://johncombestblog.com/2007/01/29/blogger-relations-101-the-wrong-way/
5/18/2007 10:09 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
5/18/2007 10:30 AM
This is what happens when an area becomes so predictable about what party will win elections that people just join that party so they can win, even if their ideals don't match the party. If the urban areas weren't a given for Democrats, then these closet Republicans like Slay and Smith would have been truthful and joined the Republican party.
5/18/2007 12:28 PM
What is wrong with testing teachers? We test our doctors, accountants, counselors, etc. Shouldn't we test the people who teach our children to ensure a quality education?
Why pay based on merit so bad? If you are a damn good teacher with proven results in the classroom, don't you deserve damn good pay? They should be paid more than someone who is just milking their years at our children's expense.
What I don't understand is why democrats, in the midst of our failing schools, aren't asking teachers to be accountable along with everyone else.
I don't care for Jeff Smith but we have got to do something other than oppose everything that is brought to the table. So far, that is all I see most the majority of democrats doing.
They fight anything that offers choice. They fight teacher accountablity and reward. They fight anything by republicans and even progressive democrats.
They say that they are for public schools, but few of them have proposed ways to improve them. Non of them have introduced legislation that limits classroom size. Non of them have sought to improve funding through legislation. They are good at hype to get their names out their, but not real solutions.
5/18/2007 6:35 PM
Have the MAP test be a pre-test at the beginning of the year and a post test at the end of the year. That would be a start to a less stupid system.
If this country really cared about children it would fund education to a level that would allow for smaller class sizes. That would make a huge difference.
We know enough to be able to educate all children. The country is too cheap to pay for it.
Parent
5/18/2007 7:44 PM
Sure we should make sure teachers are qualified. But it doesn't matter how good the teacher is if the student isn't doing his or her share and doing the work. Everyone is so ready to blame the teachers that no one is willing to suggest that the lack of initiative on the part of the student could be a problem. And no, I'm not a teacher. I'm a parent who expects my kids to do their work and learn regardless of whose classroom they are in. Don't blather on at me about the poor kids whose parents don't care about them, unlike my kids. It's harder for kids without good roll models at home and that's not fair, no doubt, but they could still do the work if they put their mind to it.
5/18/2007 7:55 PM
I agree let's start a recall of Jeff Smith. I voted for him. I feel betrayed. He does not support public schools unless you call charter schools such. Charter schools are untested and an attempt at fixing a problem without addressing the real issues. What's wrong with charter schools? They suck funding from public schools. Why bother? Fix public.
5/18/2007 11:35 PM
Jesus fucking christ. Give the man the benefit of the doubt. Recall Jeff Smith? You people are insane.
How about we prevent Paul McKee from bulldozing the North Side. Jeff Smith is doing what he feels is right for St. Louis. It takes Republicans to make this happen. This is not a Democratic State!
5/19/2007 12:45 AM
Teacher pay hooked to student performance is a bad idea. It leaves the whole thing open to a lot of elevated scores. Instead, let trained teachers teach. Cut class sizes and require parents to attend parent conferences and donate time to the school in order to claim the children on taxes. It is the lack of parent accountability that hurts learning the most. Let's hold parent's accountable.
5/19/2007 1:54 AM
I'm not exactly sure what the anti-Smith people are so shocked about. Last summer, Smith campaigned on his support for charter schools. He campaigned on public school reform. Realizing this is probably the one and only issue he can work with the majority on, and because of its immediate importance, Smith made education his legislative priority. Sounds to me like Sen. Smith is more concerned about getting things done instead of being partisan. Besides, I can tell you that, as a SLPS teacher, many of these proposed reforms (including charter schools) are needed. Don't be fooled by the loud minority that is Local 420. I know many teachers supportive of these reforms.
5/19/2007 10:15 AM
Jeff Smith does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt any more. He is a liar and a hypocrit. He is Slay, Callow, and Rainford's tool and not a friend of black people. As a matter of fact, not one black state representative or senator likes him. He's a joke.
5/19/2007 11:22 AM
Given quite a few black legislators don't mind bulldozing their own neighborhoods, I don't really care if they dislike Smith.
They are taking money from Paul McKee while we have Rick Sullivan as Matt Blunt's proposed head of the SLPS. What about those obvious implications?
Pay for performance is what St. Louis needs for about every bureaucratic agency, especially the LRA!
5/19/2007 11:37 AM
frustrated democrat...Nothing wrong with holding teachers accountable. I am in favor of that. Testing does not always prove to be the most effective way (I would prefer testing in combination with objective observations and conversations with the teacher and his/her administrators) but if testing is the best we can do, fine.
Basing teacher pay on student performance is where the bigger problems arise. This completely ignores the VAST differences in the rates of learning and learning potential of students. Lets not ignore the differences in students. Some students will show great increases in test scores, others much slower. Some of this is completely out of the teacher's control so I don't believe it should be a determining factor in pay. You could lose some of your most committed teachers simply because they are assigned, or voluntarily take, the most challenging students.
Perhaps Mr. Smith should have pushed for holding teachers accountable and left the merit pay alone. In theory, you wouldn't need merit-based pay once the "bad" teachers were identified and eliminated. Wouldn't all of those who remain be worthy of good pay?
One more thought...someone please tell me where you are going to find all of these people just waiting to be teachers in the SLPS? This is all based on the assumption (false assumption) that there are other teachers willing to take on the challenge.
Working conditions are a MUCH bigger determining factor in the decision of many teachers to remain or leave the SLPS.
For many it is not about money.
5/19/2007 11:56 AM
" Doug Duckworth said... Jesus fucking christ."
HIGHLY OFFENSIVE AND UNNECESSARY! Would Doug Duckworth say the same about Mohammed or Buddha?
Such filthy thoughts and language diminish any credibility of the writer.
5/19/2007 1:45 PM
Doug, how many pieces of land in north St. Louis have you bought and rehabbed? None, I bet.
Why? You can get one for as little as $500 from the LRA. Is it because you think it's someone else's job to rebuild that section of town? But then when someone does buy these abandoned run down properties you complain about some "conspiracy".
It is so easy to say "no" to everything. It is hard to actually DO SOMETHING.
5/19/2007 3:40 PM
Re--Testing teachers--
Isn't looking at the students' test scores a report card, in part, on the teacher?
Some kids are harder to teach than others, agreed, but, OVER TIME, IF some teacher's students' do consistently better than another teacher's class of like students, than the teacher with the consistently better performing students should be better compensated. Those with consistently relatively poor performing students should be 'otherwise deployed.'
It will take years to gather the data on individual teachers and teachers will come and go for many reasons. However, I don't see a reason not to start immediately.
RE: Vouchers being something only Republicans like
The very Democratic city of Washington D.C., with a large African-American population, loves vouchers. The Republican party must be making significant in roads in the African-American population, or not.
5/20/2007 3:43 PM
Anon...
You said "IF some teacher's students' do consistently better than another teacher's class of like students, than the teacher with the consistently better performing students should be better compensated. Those with consistently relatively poor performing students should be 'otherwise deployed.'"
No...No...No! This won't work. There are wide varieties of classrooms...very few classes of "like students". Some teachers may get more students with discipline problems year after year because the administration feels they can handle them. Some teachers may be given slower learning students because the administration may feel the teacher can get through to them a little better. Some teachers may be called on to take more responsibility, others less.
Naturally a class with more disruptive students will consistently score lower. Likewise for a classroom with more struggling students.
The teachers called on to carry the most burden will be punished while those given "lighter" burdens will be rewarded. Exactly the opposite result of what you are trying for.
(One reason) principals are forced to do this is because the schools are under staffed in nearly all areas.
Also, some schools have higher percentages of struggling students than others (for lots of reasons). How can you compare unlike populations?
I wish there WAS a more just way of compensating teachers, but I honestly cannot see how this system could possibly be fair.
5/20/2007 4:28 PM
The LRA does not market their properties. They transitioned only 23 to the private sector during FY06. At that rate, it would take them about 500 years to get rid of all their holdings.
Why so poor?
If they got rid of their holdings then they would be out of the job!
5/20/2007 10:24 PM
Jim H. wrote--
Some teachers may be called on to take more responsibility, others less.
And yet they will be paid the same salary. Hmm. Equal pay for equal work? Maybe--maybe not.
As the previous anon., what I was thinking of is that, as we live in the information age, we gather information on the students and discover variables that make the students more or less likely to 'succeed' in school. Single parent home? Probably tends toward the negative. Moved more than once in the last twenty four months, probably negative as well. College educated parent(s)? Probably positive.
I can't put a number behind those factors, but examining reams of data would provide general, reasonable expectations of that child with certain attributes.
At the classroom level, that is a tough one. If principals can 'dump' many 'problems' into one class, does that help those not in the student body enough to balance out the lack of gains in the 'problem' class. Is it fair, to a 'problem', to get placed in with students that are also disproportionately 'problems'? I don't have an answer for that. Random distribution would solve the issue of more work for same pay, but I don't think it serves the students very well. Some teachers can deal with difficult students better. I just think they should be compensated for it.
5/21/2007 8:55 AM
I can't speak for Doug Duckworth's ability to rehab 75 acres of north St. Louis. Perhaps if he could get a $100 million tax credit program for the project, he could do it. Perhaps is he refused to keep over 650 properties up to the buidling and property codes (laws) of the city, he could do it. Perhaps if he could get the silence of elected officials, he could do it. You get the point -- *everyone* wants someone else to do the job, even Mr. Blairmont.
5/21/2007 1:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home