tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post1685830694273064202..comments2024-03-28T11:57:21.902-04:00Comments on CURMUDGUCATION: MA: How To Gut a School DistrictPeter Greenehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16511193640285760299noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-42691578250093921182015-11-28T16:40:07.536-05:002015-11-28T16:40:07.536-05:00Again, you do the same thing ! "All the plumb...Again, you do the same thing ! "All the plumbers I know are union." Do you even recognize the difference between your personal experience and a broader set of data. "About 30 percent of plumbers and pipe fitters belong to unions, according to unionstats.com, a website that estimates union membership based on federal data."<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/sweet-smell-of-money-for-plumbers.html?_r=0<br /><br />- Politics vs Economy - You just don't get it, do you ? There is a difference between politics and economics. When was the last time that you received a car because more people voted for you to receive one than someone else ? That's a definition of cronyism. Yes, in a representative democracy, we elect based on a majority. But that's not how economics works. I fear that you've been around the contrived and despotic environment of your union halls, that you don't realize we live a free society. <br /><br />- Teacher Wages - <br />Teachers do get premium wages - at least relative to the free market wages of charter schools teachers. See link. I know. I know. You are going to say something along the lines of - "you don't know any charter teachers who make less than you do". Of course, since the world revolves around you, such observations must be all that exist.<br /><br />http://nypost.com/2013/10/03/study-charter-schools-actually-cheaper-than-public-schools/<br /><br />"Teaching is very difficult -- you try it sometime -- and teachers work hard and deserve a decent middle class wage." Again, you don't get it. Teachers are just like anyone else. They "deserve" what the market will tolerate - no more and no less. But from my perspective, I'd only be willing to spend more for teachers to educate my kids if they demonstrate an ability to improve their educational performance. <br /><br />- Same old, same old <br />"Paying teachers decent wages doesn't hurt poor kids. " - It DOES hurt poor kids when more money is spent outside the classroom in union bureaucracy and when the teacher's compensation is entirely divorced from their performance. <br /><br />"What hurts poor kids is poverty" - If you read my prior posts, you'd see my acknowledgement that poverty affects education. But WITHIN the category of poor children, some teachers and some schools do a better job. Why is that so hard for you to understand ? alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-37533624412989219762015-11-28T15:36:17.118-05:002015-11-28T15:36:17.118-05:00- Rules - "unions do not run school districts...- Rules - "unions do not run school districts." And the UAW doesn't run the auto companies. But by setting the rules that inhibit educational performance and reward longevity rather than merit, the teachers unions create an environment for failure. The quote from Al Shanker, former head of the largest teachers union, says it all:<br />""When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children."<br /><br />- Reforms - The fact that your union led school tried to implement some of these reforms and failed is not surprising. Consider merit pay. Some schools in IL tried merit pay for Algebra teachers. However, the test was simply whether the students had increased their understanding of Algebra by 10% over the year. As you can imagine, this was easily achieved meaning that all teachers received the bonus. But this wasn't really a test of merit given the ease of reaching the desired level. <br /><br />Of course, children are not cars or robots. But market oriented reforms have been demonstrated in a variety of service fields such as healthcare. *<br /><br />And yes, I exist. How dare I as a father of four want a better life for my children which is often achieved through education. How dare I think about the welfare of poor families who likewise seek the American Dream ? Shouldn't we all bow at the altar of unions and their monopolistic practices ? If plaintiffs win in Friedrich's (which you haven't addressed), then you might find yourself wanting to learn more about market practices ... since this is the only way unions will survive - by offering a compelling product for an attractive price (dues). When you figure that out, let me know.alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-69889026251851364042015-11-28T13:00:00.836-05:002015-11-28T13:00:00.836-05:00All the plumbers I know are union.
Corporations c...All the plumbers I know are union.<br /><br />Corporations collude all the time. They only catch them sometimes. <br /><br />If the majority votes for a union, you can't insist you should get a different union, the same way if the majority votes for a certain candidate, you can't insist you be represented by the losing candidate or someone who's not running. And if you don't like the candidate that's elected, you still have to pay their salary with your tax dollars.<br /><br />Please, don't be naive. Politics and government are not separate entities from the economy, they're intertwined like all other parts of society, and there are public/private collaborations all the time. Study some basic political science and sociology. Believing in Ayn Randian economics is like believing in unicorns.<br /><br />Teachers nowhere get "premium" wages. Teachers in, I think it was a district in Pennsylvania, were going without pay at the beginning of the year because there was no money to pay them because the state couldn't get the budget together and they didn't want to quit and look for work elsewhere because they didn't want to abandon the kids. Teaching is very difficult -- you try it sometime -- and teachers work hard and deserve a decent middle class wage. Paying teachers decent wages doesn't hurt poor kids. What hurts poor kids is poverty, and policies that don't make children and education enough of a priority, instead prioritizing things like subsidies to Enron (What's that about "Government is not part of the economic marketplace"?), among a myriad of other things. Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-72636580684692444922015-11-28T12:20:47.650-05:002015-11-28T12:20:47.650-05:00In spite of what you think, unions do not run scho...In spite of what you think, unions do not run school districts.<br /><br />Starting years and years ago, my union worked in collaboration with administration to adopt reforms that you state work for charters, such as longer school days in poor areas, besides creating magnet and alternative schools. They also created merit pay in the form of a highly-lauded "career ladder," which did not create the anticipated results. Your accusations are false.<br /><br />Children are not cars or robots.<br /><br />Unions are not bad for the economy. See IMF reference.<br /><br />I didn't want to believe it, because it's so depressing to believe people like you<br />exist, but from everything you've said, the only conclusions to be drawn are that you understand nothing about teaching and learning and care less; you don't believe in our representative form of democracy; money is your religion; you don't believe government should exist; you think corporations should own everything; you're an anarcho-corporatist.<br />Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-64483616822704073362015-11-28T11:34:36.190-05:002015-11-28T11:34:36.190-05:00- Success
Of course, I'd send my kids to Succe...- Success<br />Of course, I'd send my kids to Success Academy - especially if it were a choice between PS 123 (where only 4% of kids pass the state math tests) and Success (where 96% of kids pass). The fact that you wouldn't do so is ONLY relevant for YOUR kids. I've noticed a common theme in your comments that if you wouldn't choose X, then it must be bad and no one should be able to choose X. That's not the way freedom works. <br /><br />- Competition <br />""Competition" is not effective or magical. The deregulation of phone companies did not bring better service or lower rates." Are you serious ? The fact that you would state this seriously calls into question your credentials as a teacher. See link below showing data on long distance telephone rates from the FCC. See Table 1.2 where from 1984 (when AT&T was forced to breakup) rates on long distance declined from 5.24 c/min to .07 c/min in 2001. That's a decline of 98%. I'd say that's pretty magical<br /><br />https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf<br /><br />- Unions in general <br />Sounds like you are pretty uninformed how unions work in the marketplace to constrain supply and drive up prices. The resulting loss of production (from artificially high prices reducing supply and demand) is a loss to the economy in general. I wanted to make this easy for you so I found a video explaining it. I would have provided a cartoon version if I could have found one.<br /><br />https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/perfect-competition-topic/monopolies-tutorial/v/monopoly-basics<br /><br />- Teacher Contracts<br />I understand how teacher contracts are negotiated. As I've already stated, most teachers union spending is on local school boards. Those boards pick the superintendent and must approve union contracts. So the incest between teachers unions and their purported bosses who both negotiate contracts with and depend on campaign contributions from teachers unions is pretty clear. As an example, see the $450,000 that the AFT donated in New Orleans school board elections.<br /><br />http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2014/10/national_teachers_unions_pouri.html<br /><br />- Teachers for Poor kids <br />It's not enough (not nearly enough) for teachers unions to avoid saying, ""That's okay, you can suck as a teacher because we don't have to do any better with disadvantaged kids." Doing nothing is just as bad as condoning failure. If I bring my car which is having engine problems to a mechanic ... who then returns it to me unrepaired, he is NOT doing his job just because he didn't create the engine problem in the first place. It is his job to fix the issue. Teachers unions have had decades (not years, decades) to try to improve public education and have failed our poorest children miserably. They (and you) should be ashamed.<br /><br />I'd actually have some respect for teachers unions if they stood up, accepted responsibility for student performance and adopted the reforms which have worked for charters ... but insisted on higher compensation for teachers AND transition money for teachers displaced by reforms. But that's not what teachers do. Instead, they rely on excuses and the politicians that they purchase to keep their cushy monopoly as long as possible. Well, that day is coming to an end. If unions lose in Friedrich's, you'll likely see teachers unions start to weaken from within their own ranks. Combine this with the growth of non-union charters (already up to 6,500 schools) and you and your union buddies may look back and regret the time you were so intransigent. If you think it can't happen, just look at the UAW.alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-46216966010882482782015-11-28T10:33:13.322-05:002015-11-28T10:33:13.322-05:00First of all, most plumbers that serve residential...First of all, most plumbers that serve residential customers are not part of any union. And corporations that collude or form cartel are subject to litigation by the Justice Department. <br /><br />And if you say "I don't believe in representative form of democracy", then you obviously haven't read my posts. You have a Constitutional right to assemble. That means that you can form or join a union thereby seeking collective representation. Nothing wrong with that. Again, your choosing representation is a voluntary choice. <br /><br />But you cannot prohibit someone else from choosing other representation including themselves.<br /><br />And your analogy to government representatives is just wrong. We're talking about unfettered choice in the supply and demand for goods and services. Government is not part of the economic marketplace. There is no suppy and demand. <br /><br />Just admit it. You want a monopoly because this gives you premium wages and benefits. And if this hurts poor kids, well, that's just too bad, right ? alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-3622866493566609402015-11-28T09:02:19.278-05:002015-11-28T09:02:19.278-05:00Plumbers have unions. Corporations have cartels.
...Plumbers have unions. Corporations have cartels.<br /><br />You obviously don't believe in our representative form of democracy. You can't elect your very own representative to congress. Although it sounds like you think you ought to be able to buy them. But only you, not other people.Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-88058312635199903412015-11-28T07:12:29.385-05:002015-11-28T07:12:29.385-05:00Would you send your child to a Success Academy? If...Would you send your child to a Success Academy? If you don't see that these charters don't offer good choices there's something wrong with you.<br /><br />"Competition" is not effective or magical. The deregulation of phone companies did not bring better service or lower rates.<br /><br />The quote about unions and the economy was obviously about the economy in general, not teachers' unions, so you are being deliberately disingenuous, i.e. dishonest.<br /><br />The only person who negotiates teachers' contracts with the union is the superintendent. The board gives approval and can be involved but usually is not very much. Nobody at the state level has anything to do with it. Either you are so ignorant about the process that you should not be discussing the topic, or you are being deliberately dishonest.<br /><br />I don't know what's wrong with other places, but I've taught in every high school in my urban district in my city in Ohio. I've taught lowest level freshman English classes in the most disadvantaged school. I've also successfully taught foreign language to students with cognitive disabilities. I've never had a student who was "functionally illiterate", as Dean says he saw in 2008 in New Orleans. I've never seen teachers decide not to do their best because they were in a high poverty school. I've never seen union leaders tell teachers in high poverty schools, "That's okay, you can suck as a teacher because we don't have to do any better with disadvantaged kids." <br /><br />I mistakenly thought you could have good intentions, but your dishonesty shows you must be a shill after all. Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-61095653316134425992015-11-28T03:40:40.788-05:002015-11-28T03:40:40.788-05:00Who decides what is a "poor choice" ? Yo...Who decides what is a "poor choice" ? You ? Do you not see how presumptuous this is ? Isn't it more reasonable that you choose for yourself (both as a parent and a teacher) and allow others to choose for themselves ? Regarding "why do you think charters are the only way to improve education for low income families" - there is nothing "magic" about charters. But there is something quite effective about competition for a family's children. Without this, traditional union-led schools have had - not years - but decades of failure for our disadvantaged kids - for the simple reason that they didn't have to do any better.<br /><br />"Where have unions "paid off" politicians" ? Are you serious ? I already showed a link showing that the NEA and the AFT are both top 10 donors to the Democratic Party giving $50 mm in 2014 cycle alone. See link.<br /><br />http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=2014<br /><br />And most of that is state and local races. "But the National Education Association, which plans to spend about $40 million during this election cycle, is aiming to direct a record-setting 70 percent of that amount—or $28 million—to state and local races."<br /><br />http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/21/10campaignfinance.h34.html<br /><br />Why are they spending all this money on state and local elections ? Because these are the same people that are negotiating with these teachers unions on new contracts. And they get their money's worth. <br /><br />I am not surprised by your last quote - ""States with higher levels of union membership tend to have higher median incomes[9] and standards of living." Again, monopolies do, in fact, yield higher incomes and benefits for teachers. No doubt. It was also true for AT&T when they had a monopoly. But it also produced very high costs and poor service - since the monopoly doesn't need to do any better. <br /><br />I don't expect that either of us will convince the other. But let me leave you with a quote of Howard Dean who represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party". His son is a teacher and Dean said this after speaking with his son about the state of public education in America: <br /><br />"I was enraged. I was in college during the civil rights struggle, and now 40 years later it was obvious to me that all of us—Republicans and Democrats; whites, Hispanics and African Americans; school boards and politicians at every level—we’d all broken our promises of equal opportunity under the law to two generations of poor kids. Right there, I vowed that whatever we did, we could not continue to do what we had been doing for the previous four decades. There could be no more excuses – not poverty, not money, not union rights, not political deals on school boards. Everything with real, reasonable potential had to be tried, and everything had to change."<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/2015/02/02/neoliberal_corporate_education_reform_howard_dean_on_teach_for_america_teachers_unions_and_the_politics_of_false_choices/alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-36849934080571393972015-11-28T02:54:05.907-05:002015-11-28T02:54:05.907-05:00With all due respect, euphemism is often the cloak...With all due respect, euphemism is often the cloak for disreputable beliefs. "And all the workers in one place have to have the same union represent them or there's no point because there's only strength in numbers and unity." This is a clear euphemism for a monopoly. Would you also support the plumbers you use or the car companies you buy from likewise forming a cartel that hiked the prices that were charged to you, provide poor service ... and you had no choice because the monopoly forbade any new entrants from offering more favorable wages and service ? <br /><br />And by the way, you contradict yourself - "I wouldn't be against people getting together to start a brand new union." Again and again, you have a constitutional right to assemble. And that group can be as large as others agree with you on choice of representation and willingness to pay for it. But, you cannot prohibit someone else who may disagree with you from choosing different representation or sole representation. Your will may not over-ride theirs. Can you understand this ? You have said that you don't know anyone who would prefer to leave the union. And that's fine. But your freedom to choose may not interfere from someone else who has that same right. To do otherwise is a monopoly in direct contradiction to the Sherman Antitrust Act. <br /><br />Can you understand that ? Moreover, can you also understand that your reluctance to accept that you support a monopoly is evidence of self-interest and holds very little weight. alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-41135466930494235602015-11-27T21:59:05.870-05:002015-11-27T21:59:05.870-05:00Poor choices are not better than no choice and you...Poor choices are not better than no choice and you still have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to have access to good public schools. Why do you think charters are the only way to improve education for low income families? <br /><br />Where have unions "paid off" politicians and hurt you or anyone? The Jimmy Hoffa era is long over with. Wikipedia: "States with higher levels of union membership tend to have higher median incomes[9] and standards of living.[10] It has been asserted by scholars and the International Monetary Fund that rising income inequality in the United States is directly attributable to the decline of the labor movement and union membership."Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-69651385146237919212015-11-27T21:29:45.684-05:002015-11-27T21:29:45.684-05:00I have never thought my union dues aren't wort...I have never thought my union dues aren't worth what I receive. And all the workers in one place have to have the same union represent them or there's no point because there's only strength in numbers and unity. But I think there should be a vote of confidence or new elections periodically, just like we vote for town council people and senators and representatives to represent us. But in the larger democracy as well, I'm an advocate of putting many more issues to a referendum vote. Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-18384884249769583682015-11-27T20:20:00.964-05:002015-11-27T20:20:00.964-05:001. Teachers Leaving - OK. Can we agree that the d...1. Teachers Leaving - OK. Can we agree that the data is not conclusive on this one ?<br /><br />2. Effect of Education Reforms on Aggregate Scores - Again, I contend that the most significant part of educational reform (charters) are just too small at this point to see aggregate improvement. But just looking at the effect of the charters themselves suggest that the reforms are working.<br /><br />2a. Effect of Merit Pay - So you raised the question of the effect of merit pay on educational achievement in traditional schools. There actually doesn't appear to be a lot of data on the question - in the U.S.. But I'd also point out that there's almost no relationship between the things that unions use to increase pay (e.g. seniority) and educational achievement. <br /><br />The data that is available is fairly positive including "gold-standard" experiments in TN and IL. Also, the data from countries where merit pay have been used more extensively (e.g. Israel, India) are even more persuasive.<br /><br />Edward Glaeser of Harvard -<br /><br />http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/the-uncertain-impact-of-merit-pay-for-teachers/?_r=0<br /><br />Tennessee<br />http://home.uchicago.edu/~benkeys/Research_files/dee_keys_ednext.pdf<br />"Despite widespread pessimism among educators about whether merit pay systems can effectively reward good teachers, most of the limited<br />empirical evidence has been surprisingly positive."<br /><br />Illinois<br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/23/does-teacher-merit-pay-work-a-new-study-says-yes/<br /><br />5. Charters - You are correct that charters were originally envisioned as "pilot programs for innovative ideas". But the problem is that there is strong resistance from teachers unions to any of the practices found to be successful in charters. You suggest that "No innovations have come out of these charters." Perhaps it depends on what you define as an innovation. Charters are certainly different from one another but generally share some common characteristics - longer school days and school years, merit pay, focus on discipline, etc. One of the most pervasive characteristics is the freedom from unions themselves. So you can see why teachers unions would be afraid of charters. <br /><br />5b. Choice - You state - "If I lived in a high poverty area with an under-resourced school, sure I'd like a choice. But no way would I want my child in a military style school learning to be submissive." That's fine. No one is compelling you to send your children to such schools. But that's not really the question is it ? A style of teaching may not be appropriate for you or your kids. But does that mean that you and your union friends (and the politicians which they pay off) should be able to inhibit other families from having the same degree of choice that you have ? There are over 700,000 families in New York City alone who are on waiting lists for charter schools. They want their kids to attend such schools. No one is forcing them. What right do teachers unions or their poltician buddies have to restrict the supply of charters and force families to attend failing public schools ???<br />alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-36121289139257262972015-11-27T19:15:27.940-05:002015-11-27T19:15:27.940-05:00You are getting there. Just continue that line of...You are getting there. Just continue that line of thought and you'll reach something we call freedom. "I wouldn't want to represent myself. " That's fine. You don't need to represent yourself. But neither are you compelled to join a union and pay dues when you believe that such dues aren't worth what you receive (the same way you can decline any other service). " I wouldn't be against people getting together to start a brand new union." Again, you are getting closer to free choice. <br /><br />The idea is that each person has a Constitutional right to assemble. You can join one group and that group can represent. Other teachers may prefer another union and choose to pay their dues. Yet, others may prefer to represent themselves. But in no case can any group have a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as prohibiting anyone from choosing different representation (including sole representation) from someone else. alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-55767952075643377372015-11-26T23:44:27.630-05:002015-11-26T23:44:27.630-05:00(1) There is no firm data, but at least I have ane...(1) There is no firm data, but at least I have anecdotes.<br /><br />(2) Big stakes tests grading schools and tying funding withholding or extra compensation for all school staff has been around since NCLB and it has not had a positive effect. Tying individual teacher compensation to student test scores won't either. The ASA is the highest authority on this and they explain clearly why this is an invalid and counterproductive use of metrics. And merit pay won't work because teachers, although they need to make a decent living for their family, are not in it for the money. For good teachers (which is most), teaching is a calling.There are many things I think could be done to improve public education, but none of them has to do with standardized testing, which does not tell you how to improve learning.<br /><br />(5) I am not obsessed with unions.(Although when there were strong private sector unions, there was a strong middle class and a lot less poverty, and there's no reason not to go back to that, since society worked much better.) <br /><br />Community wrap-arounds have nothing to do with unions. We're talking about putting community programs like medical services and nutrition and parenting classes done by community organizations into the schools. The only reason I'm advocating for them in high poverty areas is that research has shown that this is what is most helpful, because the biggest obstacle to learning is the effects of poverty on parents and children of not having the access to needed support for the health and well-being of their family. <br /><br />I am not against charter schools per se. The original idea of charter schools came from the AFT union president Albert Shanker. The idea was for them to be pilot programs for innovative ideas, or programs to serve student populations that are difficult for a traditional school to serve. For example, there are three schools for autistic children in my town, and two of them are charters, which is good, so that not only the affluent can get the help they need. Shanker's idea was not for for-profit charter operators to enrich themselves on the taxpayer dollar, or to close down schools and take away local democratic control from communities. No innovations have come out of these charters.<br /><br />If I lived in a high poverty area with an under-resourced school, sure I'd like a choice. But no way would I want my child in a military style school learning to be submissive. A poor choice is not better than no choice.<br /><br />Montessori or Waldorf schools would be a good choice for me. They've both been around for over a hundred years, but in Ohio the only Montessori schools are private, and there are no Waldorf schools at all. I was able to observe a Montessori school, and I was very impressed. I think it would have been particularly good for my son, and certainly wouldn't have hurt my daughters. From what I know about Montessori and Waldorf, I think they're the best kind of schools for all kids, and I think all public schools should use Montessori and/or Waldorf principles.Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-53381953704010055922015-11-26T22:01:00.695-05:002015-11-26T22:01:00.695-05:00I'm totally for unions. I don't understand...I'm totally for unions. I don't understand why we can't change our minds by a majority vote over which one we have. I wouldn't want to represent myself. One person has no leverage and I don't trust principals to know what they're doing because most of the ones I've known you could say are failed teachers. I don't like to say it because it sounds mean, but they quit teaching after very few years because they didn't like it and didn't know how to do it very well, so they don't know how to give you advice on how to teach better. One way I would change the system would be to require principals to have 15 years teaching experience. So I wouldn't want to represent myself, but I wouldn't be against people getting together to start a brand new union.Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-64832406967959502212015-11-26T21:24:45.857-05:002015-11-26T21:24:45.857-05:00First, Happy Thanksgiving.
1. Teachers leaving - ...First, Happy Thanksgiving.<br /><br />1. Teachers leaving - Fair point. In fairness, you didn't offer data either.<br /><br />2. Tests - I disagree that we would expect "improvement" soley due to increased use of tests. They are necessary but not sufficient. It's like questioning why a patient didn't get better because you took their temperature. Taking their temperature is necessary but that tells what where the problem exists and its extent. But you still need to fix it (medicine). And the medicine (such as teacher compensation tied to test scores and charters) are still too new and too small to see in aggregate NAEP.<br /><br />3. Teacher Quality - I'll look for more studies but the Mckinsey study is pretty well regarded.<br /><br />4. Thanks.<br /><br />5. Choice - I'm not saying that private schools are identical to charters. The similarity is the choice the families have rather than the school itself. Let's make it a practical choice. Let's say you are poor parent (typically single mother) living in the Bronx. Your kid is zoned to attend PS 123 which is a terrible school where 4 percent of kids passed the state mandated math tests. Again, you are too poor to move to a neighborhood with better schools or to send your kid to private school. There are magnet schools but your kid is not strong enough to gain admission to them. But you want to give your kid a chance at an education. So what do you do ? I mean this literally. What do you do ? And please don't give me the non-sense about taking a more active role in your kid's education (e.g. joining PTA, etc.) I'm saying what do you do right now for your kid ? <br /><br />But now the family has a choice. Success Academy draws from the same students (poor, minority) and is even housed in the same building. By contrast with PS 123, 96% of students passed the math test. That's better than the affluent schools. Now you can blame test prep and strict rules all you want. But you cannot ignore that if 96% of the kids passed the math test, it's a pretty good likelihood that they know something about math !! Again, the family isn't forced to send their kids to Success (or any charter). The CHOOSE to do so. And again, please don't tell me about cherry picking and suspension or whatever. You can't cherry pick or suspend enough kids out of a group where 4% pass a test to get to a group where 96% pass the same test. <br /><br />Obviously, you favor "wrap-around" community schools. And I have no issue with this being a choice for families. But the idea here really seems to be expanding the services offered (health care, meals, counseling) when such schools can't even get their primary job done right (academics). Again, schools like Success offer almost none of these wrap-around services and yet do very well. Of course, your preference for wrap-around schools wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that such additional services would call for additional union employees, would it ? Nahhh ... Here's the links if you want to read for yourself.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/nyregion/at-success-academy-charter-schools-polarizing-methods-and-superior-results.html?_r=0<br /><br />http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/03/24/visiting-a-troubled-school-farina-mixes-praise-with-pointed-advice/#.Vle8J3arTIUalanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-87672491400609966552015-11-26T17:34:06.344-05:002015-11-26T17:34:06.344-05:00Mr. Backman:
(1) You offered no data on why teach...Mr. Backman:<br /><br />(1) You offered no data on why teachers are leaving, not even anecdotal, only speculation.<br /><br />(2) They are not up significantly. The key reform that was supposed to have the most effect on "improvement" and is everywhere because of NCLB and Race to the Top is the high stakes standardized testing and accountability formula. This has obviously not had a positive effect.<br /><br />(3) I was talking about the study saying teaching candidates are low tier. <br /><br />(4) I'm glad your daughter was able to attend a good public high school.<br /><br />(5) In regards to your comment to Helene: charter schools are nothing like private schools. Therefore, calling them a "choice" equivalent to a private school an affluent family has access to is not accurate. Poor choice is not better than no choice. In Ohio, as I said, before charters we had very good district schools in Ohio, with district magnet schools, immersion schools, tech schools, good urban comprehensive schools, and alternative schools. It sounds like you do also where you live, though I have not read good things about New Jersey in general.. Big cities like New York and Chicago are where there is the most poverty and therefore the most problems. What has been shown to be most helpful in these areas are wrap-around community schools.Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-23992518565288745982015-11-26T16:09:44.408-05:002015-11-26T16:09:44.408-05:00@ Rebeca deCoca
1. Why Teachers Leave - You make ...@ Rebeca deCoca<br /><br />1. Why Teachers Leave - You make a fair point. But with about 90,000 schools out there, wouldn't you agree that comprehensive data would be more reliable than your anecdotes (e.g. your daughter) ?<br /><br />2. Market Based Reforms - Wouldn't you agree that it's a bit tough to argue about the effect of market based reforms in aggregate when one of the chief examples of such reforms (charters) only supply about 6,500 out of 90,000 schools ? But if you look more narrowly at those charters vs their peers, the NAEP and other standardized scores are mostly up particularly for the largest charters (e.g KIPP, Success).<br /><br />3. Studies - Actually, I provided two studies (not one) that demonstrate charter outperformance over traditional schools - Mathematica and CREDO. Also, keep in mind that Mathematica was commissioned by the Dept of Education. <br /><br />4. My Daughter - She was actually bored through much of K-12 attending a school where we had little choice (Shrewsbury Borough Schools). In high school, however she had a choice of which school to attend. After looking at a number of schools, she chose High Tech High, a magnet school in NJ which was ranked as one of the 22 "public elite" high schools in the country by Newsweek and #31 in the country by US News. See links below.<br /><br />http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/27/america-s-top-high-schools.html<br /><br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/top-performing-schools-with-elite-students/2015/04/14/a41149bc-e30c-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.htmlalanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-83927178098842576782015-11-26T15:54:41.957-05:002015-11-26T15:54:41.957-05:00@ Helene Dauerty - Pretty strong connection betwee...@ Helene Dauerty - Pretty strong connection between students who are "first rate" in high school and those who attend top colleges. <br /><br />I recognize that you don't like (or understand) the consumer oriented idea. And hey, I might not want consumers to have a choice either if I was selling a product that people were forced to buy and where they had no choice where to buy it (education from union led schools). But can you not understand how families might want a choice ? Can you not understand how unfair it is that affluent families already have a choice (to send their kids to private schools or move to better schools in the suburbs) but that poor children don't have this choice ? And lastly, can you not understand that suppliers where the consumer has no choice often provide poor service (because they don't need to do any better). As evidence of the last point, when was the last time you received good service from the DMV ? <br /><br />In terms of teacher qualification, do you not see the flaw in your argument ? "To me, the greatest honor I can receive is that my students exceed me." By this logic, we should recruit the weakest students to be teachers since this improves the odds that a kid will surpass the teacher. Doesn't make much sense, does it ? Look, I certainly agree that there is more to teaching than subject matter expertise. But does it really make sense that a teacher should have weaker reasoning skills, background knowledge, academic curiosity, theoretical understanding, etc. ? That makes no sense. And by the way, some of the best NBA coaches were former top players (Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, Lenny Wilkens, etc.). alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-44721968587034611712015-11-26T14:22:20.330-05:002015-11-26T14:22:20.330-05:00It's not hard to understand. You can pick a u...It's not hard to understand. You can pick a union (hopefully more than one choice) or you can choose to represent yourself. It's your choice. And I've heard people on this board complain about their representation not being zealous enough. Well, if one union doensn't have a monopoly, then hopefully, they will provide better service to earn your loyalty instead of the union simply knowing that you've got no choice. Isn't that better both for you (the teacher) and certainly for the student ?alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-88215316434361726532015-11-26T14:00:35.468-05:002015-11-26T14:00:35.468-05:00Mr. Backman:
(1) As you are not a teacher (obviou...Mr. Backman:<br /><br />(1) As you are not a teacher (obviously, even without knowing what your job is), I have a much better idea than you do of why teachers are leaving the profession.<br /><br />(2) Your market-based "reforms" of the last 15 years have not proven to be effective; with them, NAEP scores have gone down for the first time ever, so I don't see how you can defend these practices, since they have been proven ineffective using your own metrics. <br /><br />(3) One study does not a scientific proof make.<br /><br />(4) Congratulations on your child graduating Princeton. What kind of K-12 schools did he or she go to?<br />Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-58968923095674776422015-11-26T13:40:20.765-05:002015-11-26T13:40:20.765-05:00What do you mean by "a choice of representati...What do you mean by "a choice of representation"? Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-53002208468887643092015-11-26T09:41:54.881-05:002015-11-26T09:41:54.881-05:00I was talking exclusively about colleges as "...I was talking exclusively about colleges as "first-rate" and said nothing about high school ratings except to note that I am surrounded by highly accomplished teachers with solid backgrounds in their disciplines. I think Peter has spoken eloquently and often on why the marketplace/business model of education is a bad idea. And I apologize to the rest of the blog readership for encouraging Mr. Backman. In a moment of weakness I decided to offer up a counter-narrative to the stupid union thug teacher noise. <br /><br />I cannot resist a final statement on teacher qualification. In sports, how many great coaches were first great players? There are many, but coaching s not the exclusive domain of top practitioners of the sport. I have taught a number of students who began to far exceed me with their accomplishments in music and physics even as they were studying with me. I was smart enough to ask questions, guide them and to and let them go. To me, the greatest honor I can receive is that my students exceed me. Mr. Backman, you and I do not share a common understanding of great teaching, and I'm willing to bet it is because you have not he faintest idea of what it looks like.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168566567751854277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-87573432009424904702015-11-26T05:24:20.517-05:002015-11-26T05:24:20.517-05:00@ Helene Dauerty - Allow me to assume that your qu...@ Helene Dauerty - Allow me to assume that your question was not rhetorical. "Mr. Backman, whatever determines what is a first-rate school?" The answer is the effectiveness with which they improve the education of the students in their care. Obviously, this is measured in different ways by different families. But the key is to allow the consumer to make the decision what is best for their kids. Other than preserving a monopoly, can you not see the arrogance in teachers unions resisting this basic freedom ? Moreover, it is a freedom that is already enjoyed by affluent families who either send their kids to private school or move to affluent towns with strong schools. (Anticipating your counter-point that such affluent towns have better schools because they get more money, this is not always the case. In fact, the most expensive public schools in the nation are in places where barely half the students graduate. See link.)<br /><br />http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/06/School-Budgets-The-Worst-Education-Money-Can-Buy<br /><br />Regarding your highly nuanced question, "what the hell difference does it make what college a teacher comes from?", it does make a difference. As the Mckinsey study states, "We are now recruiting our teachers from the bottom third of high school students going to college ... it is simply not possible for students to graduate with the skills they will need unless their teachers have the knowledge and skills we want our children to have." Let me put it another way. I could try to teach a class in Spanish. But I likely wouldn't do a very good job. I simply lack the skills. How well could you teach music and physics without an educational background in each ? My point is that just as there are distinctions in subject matter expertise, there are likewise differences in someone's academic caliber. I do not deny that there are other necessary traits including an ability to explain and idea and motivate a student to learn it. But I hope you would agree that such soft skills are similarly insufficient if a teacher does not have the same acumen that they wish to impart to their students. To quote a Middle Eastern proverb (used in the Mckinsey Study), "faakid ashay la yua'tee" - "One cannot give what one does not have."alanbackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16174033131550945945noreply@blogger.com