Duncan to push for teachers’ merit pay:

The Obama administration wades into potentially hostile territory Thursday, when Education Secretary Arne Duncan addresses the country’s largest teachers union on merit pay, a thorny issue for the powerful unions.
…
Duncan could face the same tough response from an NEA crowd in San Diego not entirely sold on some of the pay-for-performance models that have already been floated by Obama and Duncan, such as paying more to teachers who mentor peers or who teach math and science, and for improved student achievement.
…
Still, during the campaign, Obama didn’t shy away from taking on the unions, both on questions of merit pay and charter schools. Both Duncan and Obama have been full-throated supporters of charter schools, which aren’t always governed by union rules, a stance that has raised objections from the unions. It also wasn’t lost on the unions that the first school Duncan and Obama visited was a charter school.

Things continue to come out showing that the Obama Administration is more than willing to challenge the Teachers’ Unions.

like how Obama’s pet “card check” initiative

You think that the Employee Free Choice Act is Obama’s pet? That is funny, and not really remotely true. Unfortunately. If it were Obama’s pet, it would have a much better chance of passing.

The point: the article you quote is not the only source of information in the discussion.

So interesting that you say that, considering that you continue to claim things without one shred of evidence to support you.

Hmm… I just checked the link above, and it seems the story is now so old that the newspaper has moved it to archives, for which it charges a fee to retrieve. So even the Trib is bored with the discussion.

Huh? I just opened it without a problem.

Still waiting for you to tell me how a certified teacher is a unionized teacher. But again, I will be waiting for a long time, because it isn’t true.

Also still waiting for you to give me examples of Obama opposing charter schools and home schooling. But again, I will be waiting for a long time, because it isn’t true.

And oh… look here. More evidence (the article is a few months old) that contradicts your baseless assertions:

His solutions include teacher pay and charter school proposals that have met resistance among members of teachers unions, which constitute an important segment of the Democratic Party.

Obama acknowledged that conflict, saying, “Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom.”

But hey… don’t let facts get in the way. We wouldn’t want that to happen.

Your hate, and in turn baseless assertions in an attempt to discredit and attack President Obama, is kinda’ sad.

You two continue to claim that Obama will do whatever Labor tells him to do, which has already been proven to not be true. You two continue to claim that Obama is opposed to charter schools and home schooling, and will push policies that end these things, even though the evidence shows that this idea is simply untrue. You two continue to pretend that you know what happened in Springfield, IL in the negotiations over the charter school legislation, even though it that is clearly untrue. You two continue to pretend that you understand how the education system, and in turn the certification of teachers, is related to the unionization of teachers, even though your lack of understanding is very evident.

You two continue to claim these things, and refuse to back up your assertions with any evidence. We know why that is – it is because the evidence does not exist.

Again, don’t let facts get in the way. We wouldn’t want your readers to know the truth.

So I’m done with this one. I simply won’t respond to it again. But I do encourage any readers who care to actually read this article and form your own conclusions about who is using it fairly.

Hmm… I just checked the link above, and it seems the story is now so old that the newspaper has moved it to archives, for which it charges a fee to retrieve. So even the Trib is bored with the discussion.

Why pretend otherwise, by drawing a false distinction between “unionization” and “certification,” when the unions, in essence, control who gets certified, by controlling the procedures they must follow?

Because it isn’t a false distinction. The union has no control over who gets certified, and no control over whether or not certified teachers join a union. A certified teacher is simply not the same as a unionized teacher. At all. There are many school districts that are not union-shops, which means that you can be a certified teacher without belonging to the union, even if the union represents the teachers at your school. You seem to have a significant lack of understand of how unions work.

the connection of certification and union influence already being established

Right… because you say it is so, it must be true.

The union thinks so… which is why it didn’t fight the bill particularly, but just got those “poison pill” insertions into it.Except for the fact that the teachers DID fight this bill, and were able to win certain concessions because of their fight.

the article says that the new law allows charters to unionize,

Wrong. The article says that the new law allows charters to unionize under the Illinois Education Labor Relations Board rather than the National Labor Relations Board. Charter school teachers have always had the right to organize. But I don’t expect you to understand the difference.

That is NOT what the article says. If you are privy to other information on the subject please cite the source.

The article also doesn’t say that the Teachers Unions supported the bill, as you claim. As for “other information” that I may be privy to, I don’t have a specific news source that I can point you to. But I can say that I have talked to the policy and legislative folks with the teachers unions about their position on the bill.

If this is true, then why did you say Obama has nothing to do with it?

Because he didn’t. This bill was moving before Obama came into office. Obama supports the bill because he and his administration support increasing the number of charter schools.

I never said Obama opposes charter schools per se.

You didn’t? You said this:

Now, do you want to try and say Obama still supports charter schools, and home schooling, but not school vouchers?

You very clearly are saying that because Obama didn’t support school vouchers, that he also wouldn’t support charter schools. You can change what you mean now, but you clearly said it earlier in this discussion.

BTW – did you know the NEA has financially contributed to at least one organization whose stated purpose is to oppose charter schools?

Yes. Your point?

You are excellent at getting little digs in at me, even when they have nothing to do with the content that you are referring to.

That comment was not subject-specific. It is a general observation I made about you based on various replies you have submitted covering a number of topics.

Not necessarily. The teachers unions are not in favor of this bill. They just like this bill better than the alternative.

That is NOT what the article says. If you are privy to other information on the subject please cite the source.

Umm… no. Good try though. For the most part, any charter school that opens will take away students, and in turn teachers, out of already unionized public schools.

Again I must ask you to (re)read the article: “But the five schools re-enrolling high school dropouts will be able to open as many as 15 campuses with up to 165 students each.” Re-enrolling high school dropouts does not take away students, it adds students. It is therefore reasonable to expect it will require additional teachers as well.

Compare these two statements you wrote:

First of all, Obama had nothing to do with this legislation

If this is true, then why bother to mention this article in defense of your position about Obama and his support for charter schools? If this is true then your statement – “Oh look… the Obama Administration supports charter schools? Who would have thought?” – seems rather silly, doesn’t it?

The Obama administration is pushing for more charter schools

If this is true, then why did you say Obama has nothing to do with it?

I never said Obama opposes charter schools per se. What I have been saying repeatedly is that Obama is in bed with the organized labor, including and especially the NEA and AFT. And I believe when push comes to shove Obama will not oppose these unions in a substantive way. BTW – did you know the NEA has financially contributed to at least one organization whose stated purpose is to oppose charter schools?

I understand how badly you want to prove me wrong, I really do. I just don’t think it’s going to happen on this subject. And the article you have used as your authority here hasn’t helped you much. But don’t stop trying! Our president thinks highly of “robust debate”.

It really surprises me that you don’t see through the union’s “opposition” to the strategic thinking behind it.

If not, I hope to play poker with you someday.

And you think the teachers union didn’t like the bill because they cried big salt tears? Very convincing, I’m sure, if you want to be convinced.

Dave, you argue micro-points and miss the main point with great regularity. We’ll see how friendly the judges Obama appoints turn out to be to home school rights. Maybe a “latina with life experience” will love them… but somehow I doubt it.

especially the requirement that charters hire more unionized teachers over time

Huh? Nothing in that article, or the legislation, says anything of the sort. Certified teachers are not unionized teachers. At all.

There is not a chance in the world that in a Democrat blue state, the teachers union settles for ANYTHING from the legislature that it really doesn’t like. You’re naive if you think otherwise.

I live in the State. I know how it played out. And I know that this is not a bill that the teachers unions supported. It was a bill that they settled on, because the alternative was worse. But sure, go ahead and pretend that you know what you are talking about on this.

As always, I invite anyone reading this to actually READ the link DAVE and amuzikman are discussing, and draw your own conclusions about who is fairly using the source.

I am still waiting for either of you to give ANY evidence that Obama or his administration opposes charter schools. I am pretty sure that I will be waiting for a long time…