I found something quite intriguing about Obama's speech yesterday on education reform. You can view this speech here:
Obama's position of being in favor of merit-based pay for teachers seems to me like a really bold, unorthodox move, particularly for a candidate of the party that traditionally gets the most support from unions like the National Educators Association (NEA). The NEA has fought hard against pay based on performance. I've seen them fighting quite a bit on my own streets - Rhode Island is almost infamous for the strength and tenacity of its public school teacher unions, and usually sets the bar for NEA locals across the country.
However, I have to ask the teachers and the unions, with all due respect and admiration for the work they do and the struggle they have in the union-hostile environment that has been growing ever since Reagan took office. Why is this not something that we can agree on? Why shouldn't teachers be encouraged to do the best job they can to prepare children for the world, and why shouldn't the best teachers be rewarded more for pushing the limits and their students - our children - to do their very best?
It's not going to break the NEA's collective power to agree to this sort of thing. Unions can still handle other important aspects of the labor movement - a fair baseline pay, comprehensive affordable health insurance for the worker and their family, workplace safety (for those adventurous science teachers who show how things can go BOOM!), and a fair retirement pension that shows respect for the service teachers do for our communities - but in this one case let's put the students first.
That way, we can focus our energy on our country's future leaders and teachers, and as a pleasant side effect get paid for that honor.