Obama knows teachers must try harder

The single most unfair allegation flung in Barack Obama's direction may be that he lacks political courage . Yesterday, the US president sent a blueprint for public education to Congress . Its most notable feature is Obama's willingness to take on one of the Democratic party's most reliable pillars of support: teachers' unions. The 41-page document aims to supplant No Child Left Behind , the act signed into law in 2002 by President Bush. No Child Left Behind had the now-deceased liberal icon Senator Ted Kennedy as one of its original sponsors, but it has proven unpopular in practice, especially on the left. Some of the changes Obama seeks are uncontroversial but necessary. Instead of a stripped-down process that assesses schools almost exclusively on their students' performance on reading and maths tests, for example, educators would also receive credit for having raised attendance and graduation rates. But the core of the plan is much more contentious – and admirable. It recommends strategies for dealing with failing schools, including closing them completely or firing at least half the staff; provides for serious and ongoing evaluation of the performance of teachers; and calls for the expansion of charter schools. (Charters are publicly-funded schools that are privately run, and often employ non-union staff.) Every one of these strategies has previously met with stern resistance from members of the main unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Responding to the blueprint, AFT president Randi Weingarten proclaimed herself "surprised and disappointed", while the NEA's Dennis Van Roekel bemoaned the use of "standardised tests to identify winners and losers". This is a sure sign that Obama is on the right track. The teaching unions have for years sullied their reputations by a willingness to defend almost every teacher in almost every circumstance – and by continually seeking to deflect any blame for underachievement away from their members. An article published last August in the New Yorker lifted the lid on the astonishingly cumbersome process that must be gone through if New York City schools are to fire useless teachers. It also noted that until mayor Michael Bloomberg managed to gain control over the city's schools in 2002, 97% of teachers were given tenure – a job for life, in effect – after just three years of teaching and 99% were evaluated as "satisfactory" every year. The absurdity of those figures was clear to just about every parent in the city. Obama has a history on this issue. He has supported charter schools since his days as a state legislator in Illinois. And, in 2007, when his presidential run was just beginning, he chose to state his support for merit-based pay in the inauspicious surroundings of an NEA conference. Obama's views are not rooted in any gratuitous desire to bash teachers. But in his most important speech on education as president, delivered to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce a year ago, he made his views crystal clear: "From the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is not the colour of their skin or the income of their parents, it's the person standing at the front of the classroom," he said. "Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement ... [But] let me be clear: if a teacher is given a chance or two chances or three chances but still does not improve, there's no excuse for that person to continue teaching." This clarity fed into the under-appreciated Race to the Top programme announced by Obama and his education secretary (and basketball-playing friend) Arne Duncan last year. The federal government made a pot of about $4bn available to states that show real educational progress. But the catch was that a points system will reward states that make genuine efforts to transform failing schools, recruit the best teachers and produce hard data about performance. Obama and Duncan displayed their willingness to offend traditional allies in even more explosive circumstances earlier this month. When all 93 staff members were fired from a school in Rhode Island – a school performing so dismally that only 7% of its 11th graders were coming up to standard on maths – the unions were outraged. But the move was praised as an example of "showing courage and doing the right thing for kids" by the education secretary. Obama said: "If a school continues to fail its students year after year after year; if it doesn't show signs of improvement, then there's got to be a sense of accountability. And that's what happened in Rhode Island last week." It is absurd that such statements seem radical. The American educational system has been deteriorating for years. Obama noted earlier this month that over 1 million high school students, almost one-in-three, drop out each year . The president is making a serious effort to turn the ship around. He should be applauded for his efforts – especially if, in the process, he jolts the teaching unions out of the complacency that has damaged the future of so many young people.