MinnPost Thinking about switching career paths to become a teacher? It’s daunting, but might be getting easier
Historically the Teachers Union has worked hard to keep non-traditional candidates out of the classroom in MN. I mean they want to limit competition just like many other worker groups.
Maybe things will improve... Though I kind of doubt with the DEMs obtaining more control in the State. They do tend to support ED MN no matter how it harms the Unlucky kids. :-(
Historically the Teachers Union has worked hard to keep non-traditional candidates out of the classroom in MN. I mean they want to limit competition just like many other worker groups.
Maybe things will improve... Though I kind of doubt with the DEMs obtaining more control in the State. They do tend to support ED MN no matter how it harms the Unlucky kids. :-(
98 comments:
I think education Minnesota favors well-prepared teachers in the classroom.
I think Education Minnesota prefer dues paying Teachers with high job security in the classroom.
I think Minnesota Parents and Tax Payers would would prefer capable Teachers in the classroom, and questionable Teachers being removed ASAP.
I do agree that some Teacher Prep is required before a retired Engineer starts Teaching High School math... But probably a lot less than you think is required... Especially if the Principal is free to fire the questionable performers no matter their degrees, experience, etc.
We've had 25+ years of charter schools in this state. Very few of them produce results better than the traditional public schools. If the union is the problem, why is that case?
One reason is that they receive a lot less funding than the “union” schools.
Two: They also are required to have Teachers with the same State mandated qualifications. For better or worse.
Three: parenting is even more important and screwed up parents attend both??.
Some of the parents I know who attend alternative schools are kind of unique themselves.
"One reason is that they receive a lot less funding than the “union” schools."
But that is one of the points that is supposed to be in favor of charter schools, isn't it? Freed of the work rules and union labor, they're *supposed* to be cheaper, aren't they? Besides, they face a lot less accountability for their public funding.
One could argue that in Minneapolis that charter schools have actually made the achievement gap worse. Many of the charter schools are heavily segregated, and many of them produce truly dismal results. Even some programs, like the Hiawatha Academies, which were highly lauded a few years ago have seen their test scores nosedive.
Remember the 3 legged stool.
1. Cost
2. Quality
3. Time
If one reduces funding significantly, it is likely to have an adverse impact on quality even if you do improve processes, personnel, etc....
The better method was to improve processes, personnel, etc and keep funding fixed.
This could then lead to better quality and effectiveness.
That what the unlucky kids really need.
No, no, no, no. You don't get to rewrite the rules after the fact. One of the boons of charter schools was supposed to be an end to the "just thrown money at the public schools" mentality.
Thankfully they were not my rules, so I am free to critique them as desired.
If you truly believe that Unions, Work Contracts, Tenure, Staff Termination Processes and a lot of State Regs / Licensing are good for kids... You would set up a couple of schools with similar funding, similar children / families, etc and measure the results.
As it is Laurie's school probably gets ~60% of MSP student funding for some good and some bad reasons. Then folks like you claim a win when her kid's fail...
Very strange and somewhat disturbing...
I'm not claiming a "win". I'm claiming that charter schools haven't accomplished what charter school advocates promised that they would do. Charter schools were originally called "Outcome-based schools". Well, they aren't producing outcomes, so we can't call them that anymore.
What I am saying is that merely asserting that "Unions, Work Contracts, Tenure, Staff Termination Processes and a lot of State Regs / Licensing" are bad is just talk without evidence. And there's no evidence that the charter approach or neutering teacher's unions does anything in and of itself to produce improved educational outcomes. But you, and lots of other folks, just assert it as dogma.
We need to be a lot tougher on charter schools. There have been far too many that don't produce results that have been allowed to exist for too long.
Let me think about this...
You want to hold charter schools accountable, even though they only exist because Parent(s) happily take their children to them of their own free will because they think they are better than their neighborhood schools.
Maybe we should get rid of open enrollment, home schooling, magnets, and private schools while we are at it...
"YOU SHALL ATTEND YOUR LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOL and YOU WILL LIKE IT !!!"
And as you are advocating for Local Public School / Union Monopolies, will you continue to work hard to protect them from accountability measures?
Have you turned in to the "Anti-Jerry"?
He is pro-choice and you are anti-choice... :-)
Here is an interesting fact sheet on Charters in MN
"Maybe we should get rid of open enrollment, home schooling, magnets, and private schools while we are at it..."
Burn that strawman!
The only thing you've got is your usual blather and same tired tactic of putting words in my mouth. You're not challenging the essential point, which is that most charter schools suck at delivering educational outcomes, because it's not arguable. Again, get back to me when you've got something better to offer in the way of an argument.
Please provide something to back this opinion up.
"most charter schools suck at delivering educational outcomes"
Per my source 56,200 children are entrusted to those charter schools you are attacking. Why would engaged Parent(s) voluntarily do that if your opinion is true?
"Previous research from the Institute has shown that Twin Cities charter schools suffer from a high degree of racial and economic segregation, while producing mediocre academic performance. The new report demonstrates that both trends continue unabated: of the 50 most segregated schools in the region, 45 are charters. After controlling for demographic factors, academic proficiency in charter schools tends to be slightly lower than in traditional public schools.
But this new analysis also singles out a large group of charter schools for additional scrutiny. In this subset of schools, low-income children of color are almost completely isolated in homogeneous environments. The report dubs these schools “poverty academies,” noting that they have been intentionally created by charter school components as an alternative to racial and economic integration. In poverty academies, economic and racial concentration have been adopted as educational strategies, theoretically because they provide an avenue to target “compensatory” education toward historically disadvantaged groups.
However, analysis in the report suggests that the old-fashioned approach of integration would better serve disadvantaged groups than poverty academies. Data shows that students from historically disadvantaged groups perform better in schools that achieve even low or moderate levels of integration. "
Univ of MN: Report on Charter School Segregation and Performance
"Per my source 56,200 children are entrusted to those charter schools you are attacking. Why would engaged Parent(s) voluntarily do that if your opinion is true?"
The movie Tranformers: Dark of the Moon made over $1.1 billion at the box office. That doesn't mean it's a good movie.
The reality is that there are literally hundreds of millions of dollars from folks like Bill Gates and the Walton Family designed to tell people that charter schools are the future. That people try charter schools given the real problems some public schools have is not surprising. The data shows that different isn't necessarily better, though.
I'll read the report when I get home.
From their list of published research and presentations, they seem like the liberal elite personified... But I'll read more and see.
Actually if people paid out $1.1 of their hard earned money, it probably was a good movie for them. Even if the critics disliked it...
I'm trying to see the logic, here. Charters are underfunded and largely segregated. Public schools with large minority populations do less well despite more funding. So we give the charters less funding and more "unlucky" (minority) kids and they still do almost as well? Sounds like a winner to me. Now if you gave them the same money and even less State (and union) interference, eventually I would expect them to do better and you cannot condemn them until that is done. Face it, they were designed to fail, but haven't.
Sean,
Given their summary... It reminded me of reading one of Jerry's climate change denier links... I am always suspicious when a study is totally for or against the topic...
These folks really are looking for ways to bash Charters. I'll keep going though.
Unfortunately it did not seem to get any better.
I would have been more interested if they had gone beyond race and poverty factors.
It seems to me that there are a lot of charters for Hmongs, Somalis, Hispanics, etc...
My point is that having Parent(s) who have limited English capability or come from a different culture may be significant.
You may not like their ideology, but you haven't presented any data to refute their findings.
"My point is that having Parent(s) who have limited English capability or come from a different culture may be significant."
Sure, it does have an impact on their educational performance. But aren't charter schools supposed to be able to overcome that, because they can do things like a longer school day?
Remember the 3 legged stool.
1. Cost
2. Quality
3. Time
There are no miracles to be had, no matter what Jerry or yourself believe...
If you protect questionable parent(s) and cut the money / time at one school the kids will suffer...
If you protect questionable Teachers and/or pay some of them more than their fair share the kids will suffer...
And yet the pro-choice and pro-monopoly fight will continue as the unlucky kids suffer...
Jerry and I had continued over here long after others dropped off.
So the argument is that public schools today spend too much money today, so we should give that same amount of money to charter schools -- which have significantly less public accountability?
You will have to help me understand how traditional public schools have accountability when a significant number of the children they are responsible for are failing to learn to the basic acceptable level?
How can the Charters do worse than that?
And please remember that their customers are apparently happier there than they would were in there local public school. No one is forcing the 56,200 to attend, in fact sometimes it is much less convenient.
So if by some miracle we could set a voucher amount that was accurate for the child's needs, how many students would leave their local public school for something different?
It is an interesting topic.
"You will have to help me understand how traditional public schools have accountability when a significant number of the children they are responsible for are failing to learn to the basic acceptable level?"
Elections. I can vote for (or even run for) the school board.
I have no meaningful way to impose any accountability on the charter school I drive past to get to my kids' elementary school. They get my tax dollars, but I have no say over anything that happens there.
In fact, under state statute, a charter school can't lose its charter over poor academic performance. Accountable? Nonsense!
"No one is forcing the 56,200 to attend, in fact sometimes it is much less convenient."
Again, you're equating popularity with quality. There are lots of people who own stock in failing companies. That doesn't make it a good investment. 66 million people voted for Hillary Clinton, and you don't think she would have been a good President. Need I go on?
"How can the Charters do worse than that?"
I've posted the data. If you can't let it sink in, that's your problem, not mine. If you have better data, let's see it.
Seriously, you're an engineer. If the data shows you that something isn't working, do you ignore it and plow forward anyway?
"There are no miracles to be had, no matter what Jerry or yourself believe..."
Miracles are everywhere but you MUST be willing to look for them. By definition they cannot be explained, but there are lesser miracles that can be created intentionally-- like your own prime example of the Harlem Children's Zone, and mind of the little Baptist school near Shakopee. It's happening all over, in small public, charter, private and home-school environments where government has somehow been unable to come in and muck it up. Good people do not overcome a bad system. A system with no competition, and having half of the potential customers (in some schools) who need it the most unable to afford it, while vastly subsidizing one of the competitors, is a bad system.
"Laurie said...
I think education Minnesota favors well-prepared teachers in the classroom."
I think that is incorrect. EM favors UNION teachers in the classroom, and the more the better. That is why they keep pushing this nonsense about reducing class sizes – to get more dues-paying teachers. Then they manage to hold school board elections in the off years so they can dominate the voting and in effect control both sides of the negotiating table on Teacher salaries, benefits and work rules. As for well prepared, I noticed that the union highly favors seniority over quality, and goes to great lengths to protect even the poorest teachers (New York City's "rubber room" being the most infamous example). And a teachers certificate ought but does not guarantee competence in the state of Minnesota, as far as I know. When Louisiana passed a law requiring teachers to pass a test on the subject they were supposed to teach, something like 80% of those graduating from the State teachers College failed the test. And even those who might be good teachers often find themselves hamstrung by federal, state and local rules and regulations. I simply have to applaud those who do it and do it well.
Sean,
The accountability of Voting is apparently pretty weak. Since all those kids are still failing academically.
The accountability of Parents choosing schools that they believe meet the needs of their children does have a certain attraction. That is if:
- every Parent(s) was responsible, capable, engaged, etc,
- we could determine a cost for each child based on their needs
- good school performance data was available.
As for data... Please note that they are using averages to draw specific conclusions...
A very bad idea given the topic. If you look at the detail points. There are apparently some Charters that do much better and some that do much worse than the status quo schools.
They should be discussing what schools are working no matter their type.
Here are some interesting links regarding that idea.
The questions from my perspective then are:
How do we encourage and support this in our schools?
How do we kick people out of the school as quickly as possible who are unwilling or unable to support these ideals?
"Please note that they are using averages to draw specific conclusions..."
Oh, and you don't do this regarding public school performance? Give me a break!
"They should be discussing what schools are working no matter their type."
Says the guy who's spent years bashing schools of one type. Give me a break!
I think you are confusing me with Jerry...
My kids attend RDale Public Schools as you know...
What I bash are aspects of our Public Schools systems that put the wants of employees / unions over the needs of the kids....
"I think you are confusing me with Jerry..."
Nope.
"What I bash are aspects of our Public Schools systems that put the wants of employees / unions over the needs of the kids...."
What you have failed to demonstrate is that there is any connection between those "wants" and substandard student performance. Charter schools aren't supposed to have that problem, yet on the whole they don't deliver better performance (some do, but most don't). There's no correlation at the state level between "weak unions" and "strong student performance". So why don't we focus on the things that truly impact student performance?
Here is an interesting golden oldie...
What are those in your opinion?
"on the things that truly impact student performance"
G2A Causation
G2A Factors
"on the things that truly impact student performance"
Highly summarize, things like:
* the student's environment outside of school (parent support, poverty, health, etc.)
* student resiliency
* teacher training, evaluation, and development
* administrator training, evaluation, and development
* school climate (welcoming to all, relationship-building, clear communication, clear mission, vision, expectations)
Now... Isn't this what we have elected the school boards and given the public education and social service systems many billions of dollars a year to do?
Do you mean to say they are not focused on these?
Or... Are you saying that if we give them another billion a year... They will get focused on the right things?
On a more serious note....
How do intend to promote / drive these improvements when the current administrators and employees are protected by employment contracts?
My belief is that most employees, managers and people think they are doing the right thing even when they are not.
That is why employment at will and competition are so important... If you want to change an organization, change resistant people often need to be shown the door.
"Do you mean to say they are not focused on these?"
No. These problems are difficult. Nobody on the planet has solved them.
"That is why employment at will and competition are so important... If you want to change an organization, change resistant people often need to be shown the door."
That's a small way to look at the world, in my opinion. And one that hasn't been born out to be effective when it comes to education.
John, looking at your lists of "what makes a successful school" I am struck by the fact that none of these things define WHY any of these successful strategies would be adopted by any given school, other than an earnest DRIVE to do better and IN COMPETITION WITH some other alternative. How can I do better if the only competition I have is with myself? Do I not always "succeed" 100% of the time according to my own standards and by my own assessments? And if I get paid, or even paid more, regardless of my students' achievements, what is my incentive?
Sean,
So you are saying that we should stick with the status quo and let the kids keep failing? (ie no one is succeeding, normal organizational improvement theory does not work in education...)
Jerry,
It requires very special people to demand more and better of themselves year after year due to purely internal motivators. And even if you have hundreds of these very special people in your school, you can be assured that some of them will want to row the boat in a different direction.
I think schools are more likely staffed by a mix of normal people. And sometimes their beliefs, behaviors and energy will change over time. And that is why organizations have performance goals, training, incentives and without cause terminations.
Usually most people I know are very aware of their failures... They often just start to see them as normal and not worth making the effort to change.
Money isn't the primary motivator for some people... But you are correct that giving raises to luke warm performers is just terrible all the way around. At most they should get cost of living... And if their performance begins to slip they should be demoted or fired.
Remember that I was kicked off a "bus" about 6 years ago today...
The new Upper Mgrs determined that I was:
- not a yes man to their new ideas
- was highly compensated
I may not have liked their decision or enjoyed being terminated from my job after ~16 years, but it is something that needs to happen occasionally if an organization is going to change and improve...
The selected Leadership needs to be able to adjust the personnel as they see fit for the good of the customers, stakeholders, stock holders, etc.
I am not sure how Sean envisions driving significant change and improvement in Public Schools if every staff person is pretty much free to passively and actively resist the improvement plans of the Superintendent and the School Board?
"So you are saying that we should stick with the status quo and let the kids keep failing?"
Nope.
"I am not sure how Sean envisions driving significant change and improvement in Public Schools if every staff person is pretty much free to passively and actively resist the improvement plans of the Superintendent and the School Board?"
Teachers aren't free to do that, and if they are resisting, then the appropriate disciplinary action should be taken.
The notion that you can't change public schools because of unions is pretty absurd. I'm not super old, and public schools today operate a heckuva lot differently than they did back in my day.
After 20 years in our local schools...
I would say that the more things change, the more the stay the same.
There are a few great Teachers, a number of okay Teachers and a few really poor Teachers who involved Parents try to ensure their kids do not get...
This ProCon piece regarding Teacher Tenure is interesting.
I think the Pro side pretty much supports my opinion that Tenure can stymie or slow change / improvement.
Pro 1 Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons.
Pro 2 Tenure prohibits school districts from firing experienced teachers to hire less experienced and less expensive teachers.
Pro 3 Tenure protects teachers from being fired for teaching unpopular, controversial, or otherwise challenged curricula such as evolutionary biology and controversial literature.
Pro 4 The promise of a secure and stable job attracts many teachers to the teaching profession, and eliminating teacher tenure would hamper teacher recruitment
Pro 5 Tenure helps guarantee innovation in teaching.
Pro 6 Teacher tenure is a justifiable reward for several years of positive evaluations by school administrators
Pro 7 Tenure is a good system that has become a scapegoat for problems facing education.
Pro 8 Tenure allows teachers to advocate on behalf of students and disagree openly with school and district administrators.
Pro 9 Contrary to public perception, tenure does not guarantee a teacher a job for life
Pro 10 Tenure protects teachers from being prematurely fired after a student makes a false accusation or a parent threatens expensive legal action against the district
Pro 11 Tenure encourages the careful selection of qualified and effective teachers.
Pro 12 The formal dismissal process guaranteed by tenure protects teachers from punitive evaluation systems and premature dismissal.
Pro 13 Tenure allows teachers to work more effectively since they do not need to be in constant fear of losing their jobs.
Above Sean said... "Elections. I can vote for (or even run for) the school board."
As a benefit of the traditional public schools over the charters. And yet it seems to me that voters can have little influence on their local schools based on the above protections.
Here is an interesting piece
If you don't think flipping over half the school board in an election can't result in change in your schools, I don't know what to tell you.
How do you see it changing much?
Pretty much all the staff will keep doing roughly the same thing in the same way and they are protected against consequences as noted above...
That is unless they are really really incompetent... And the Supervisor has a lot of interest and time to build a case and run the process.
All I can tell you is that about a decade ago, voters changed six of the seven seats on our Board over two cycles, those people picked a new Superintendent, and things changed a lot. Competent, engaged administration makes a huge difference. The notion that tenured teachers are just going to sit there and do whatever they want is one that isn't born out by my experience.
Time for some research...
EC Board Endorsements
EC Board Results
Well 2 out of 4 is 50% :-)
Klein Interview
MN DOE RC Eastern Carver
Oh come now... No board can screw this one up... A growing district with 18% Free and Reduced Lunch, 4.4% ELL and No Homelessness...
You obviously didn't pass reading comprehension.
And it is even whiter than the Wayzata district which is saying something.
My comprehension is fine...
But at the rate your district is growing I am assume it is sucking in new young low paid Teachers at a rapid rate.
Where as stable and/or shrinking districts that fight real poverty, crime, seniority, etc like Mpls, St Paul, RDale, etc are a whole different world.
My buddy Kris just provided me this related piece.
It seems to be an opinion piece... Sorry...
I'll leave it to you, then. You've clearly got it handled. Best of luck!
Oh don't be that way...
Can't their be good and bad things about charters and traditional publics?
Why do you and Jerry have to be so Black and White?
"The battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but that's the way to bet." -- Damon Runyon
Trick in this instance is to find out what works, and do that. Monopolies don't.
I'm not black-and white on this issue, you're just making a caricature of my argument as such. You've done so on multiple occasions in this thread alone. I made a comment about election results 10 years ago, and you responded with election data from this year. You've completely lost the plot, and I'm sick of having to constantly correct you.
Sean,
And yet in this thread you have been adamant that Charters are bad and should be disbanded...
Even though I would argue that they are one of the best things that has happened to Public Schools in many decades.
As Jerry notes, monopolies are BAD for customers… (in this case parents, children and tax payers)
The Charters, Open Enrollment and Even Magnets have forced many other Public Schools to keep the eye on their customers. How can this be a bad thing?
Maybe Laurie could weigh in on something, here. It is my understanding that charters in Minneapolis are public schools, subject to most of the same rules and foolishness that plague all others, except with less funding. If that is correct, it is little wonder that results are not sterling. Add to that the only students going to charters are the ones parents believe are being failed by their "regular" school and start out behind. "No Child Left Behind" ought to mean real parental choice P-12, rather than after the public schools have had years to screw the kid up.
"And yet in this thread you have been adamant that Charters are bad and should be disbanded..."
No, I didn't say that.
You can't even go one freakin' sentence without putting words in my mouth!
I may be a little off on my paraphrasing... Here is the quote...
"We need to be a lot tougher on charter schools. There have been far too many that don't produce results that have been allowed to exist for too long.
And
"You're not challenging the essential point, which is that most charter schools suck at delivering educational outcomes, because it's not arguable"
What if I changed that to...
"We need to be a lot tougher on local public community schools. There have been far too many that don't produce results that have been allowed to exist for too long."
Is that a fair and accurate statement also?
What would tougher mean in either case?
Depending on the answer to my question, I think the answer to yours is "real choice." That would make life tough for schools that fail to meet parents' expectations, and good for those that do.
Might even do something about "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
I discussed the failures of your voucher dream up above...
"The accountability of Parents choosing schools that they believe meet the needs of their children does have a certain attraction. That is if:
- every Parent(s) was responsible, capable, engaged, etc,
- we could determine a cost for each child based on their needs
- good school performance data was available."
Without these in place we just get more cherry picking and even worse off really unlucky kids...
None of my quotes have suggested that we shut down all charter schools. Period.
So, no, you're not just "a little off". You're fundamentally mischaracterizing my argument.
When was the last time anyone talked to a teacher?
""The accountability of Parents choosing schools that they believe meet the needs of their children does have a certain attraction. That is if:..."
NO. It is if you want schools to be responsive to their customers, rather than to adults and bureaucracies. And I reiterate that handing a parent a $10,000 voucher will MAKE them "responsible and engaged." Determining the amount of the voucher and getting good school performance data, that's just mechanics, easily done with the will to do so, and absent the strong desire to hide such things. It isn't hard. Ask kids and parents who are the "good teachers," and they will tell you.
You really have a warped reason for NOT supporting vouchers. Allowing unlucky kids to stay unlucky in order to prevent kids that COULD be luckier from becoming so? Why?
Sean,
If you have no ideas for "What would tougher mean in either case?"... That is fine but you do not need to blame me for that.
Anon,
Whenever I try to talk to teachers about any of these topics... They say that "I can not understand because I am not a Teacher..." Like teaching is somehow different from every other job, organization, management system, etc in the world. Apparently they and their situation is different from us normal humans...
Jerry,
We have already given Parents a "free school voucher" worth about $10,000 in our charter schools, and it is not making much of a difference in many cases as Sean's charter evaluation source showed.
As I often note, 70% of the issue resides with the parent(s) and their local community. So changing the school system can help some, but there are few miracles.
It takes a very all inclusive system to force BIG change on a regular basis.
"If you have no ideas for "What would tougher mean in either case?""
I have thoughts, but it's pointless talking about them with you. Because I'll give my ideas, and since they don't fit your frame, then you'll make up some different version of them. So I'm done with this conversation.
Oh, dear. Seems we have another "global warming" type of argument. Sean's cite says that charters are segregated and, perhaps because of that, do not do as well academically. But there is NO DATA to support those statements! Every education theory says that we must be "culturally sensitive" to low-income and minorities, so that they can learn better, yet when a charter school does that, it is suddenly wrong? The state funding rules gives more money to public schools with high percentages of minority and low-income kids, but when they choose to go to a charter, we CUT that funding? And never mind aggregating the statistics (assuming you bothered to take actual data, which is not revealed), how did the individual kids do? Are they learning more in their choice school than they were in the public school left behind? Why else would the parents put their kids there, and keep them there? How about kids whose parents can afford to move to the suburbs and "better schools," do THEY see academic improvement? Simply having a choice matters. Why you would deny that to anyone is beyond me.
Sean,
That's fine with me and yet saying "we should be tough on failing schools" should come with some ideas...
Jerry,
Sean's charter eval link had some good information, though they did seem obsessed with "race" as a causal effect.
When I refuse to see race as the causal effect.
Now if they had wanted to focus on:
- charters tend to draw like communities
- some of those like communities (ie somalis, hmongs, etc) have cultural or parental issues that make learning / teaching harder (ie limited English speaking, atypical US classroom behaviors, parents have low academic capability, etc)
- some of those like communities are poor and have limited support systems... maybe a higher incidence of single parent households.
You know... All those things that you don't think matter...
The nice thing about forcing kids into very diverse schools with a lot of good traditional American students is that the atypical kids have a LOT of role models.
Kind of like language immersion schools work so well. You learn the language or you sit quietly by yourself.
You are suggesting two very different views of our education system. On the one hand, you say that we fail to adapt our education-- teaching, discipline, etc.-- to this or that demographic, and OTOH when somebody tries to do that-- a "community school"-- they cannot succeed because that community is just, well, inferior.
And let me rewrite that for you. The NASTY thing about FORCING kids into very diverse schools is that teachers cannot teach such wide disparities and have no incentive to try, since parents have no choice.
Let's think about Laurie's school...
A school of people who for the most part live, believe and think Somalian...
And yet success is measured by how well the kids learn to live, believe and think American...
- Speak and understand English fluently
- Answer test questions that are written in English by "normal" Americans
- meeting typical American behavioral and social expectations
So yes if the goal is to turn children into "successful educated American adults", then surrounding them with those type of children and adults will be very effective.
Keeping them surrounded with people who are not this way will encourage them to stay the same. Change is hard, that is why many first generation immigrants have limited English skills and associate mostly with people like themselves.
Why do you think the "successful charters" enforce wearing uniforms, following strict behavioral rules, etc?
They are working to weaken the social, cultural and behavioral norms / bad habits that limit the children of certain societies.
Surrounding them with those unlike themselves is a recipe for alienation and failure. They will get enough of that just living in our society. School is about giving them an education-- reading, writing, math, science, geography, civics. Leave the indoctrination and mind control at the door.
And again, if the parents CHOOSE a homogeneous school environment, who are you to say them nay so long as they learn the essentials? Shall we prohibit Catholic schools? Baptist schools and home schools? How about HCZ?
Choices choices choices...
And please remember that HCZ starts indoctrinating / training parent(s) and kids towards success oriented American beliefs and behaviors as soon as the Mother conceives...
Please feel free to continue supporting poor parenting... This America where everyone is free to believe what they wish.
Regardless of all the good stuff HCZ does, it is a highly segregated school environment of mostly very poor kids, and with their own "culture." Do you want to deny every kid in Minnesota the choice of what may be a better school, even as good as HCZ, just because it is better to FORCE every kid into a school that we know will fail them, despite every good intention?
Theory is fine, but results matter. If half the country picks iPhone and the other half picks Android, should we prohibit the sale of Android phones?
Jerry,
As Sean noted...
Many charters do worse than their local status quo public schools.
Should we allow parent(s) to squander our tax and limit their child’s education because they feel more comfortable avoiding real change and improvement?
I don't know. Should we force every parent to send their kids to a school that we KNOW for certain will cripple them for life, economically and perhaps socially?
Sorry, but I see no evidence that the charters do worse than the publics for any given child. And obviously, neither do the parents. How about the lucky kids whose parents "choose" to move them to a better school? Are they "avoiding real change and improvement" for /their/ kids? Why do you hate poor people?
Sorry but you are fixated on only one solution...
You will see only what you choose to see...
This is an interesting piece
That links to this CREDO Urban charter report
Which says what we have been discussing:
- there are some high performing Charters (ie due to school or families who choose them????)
- there are some low performing charters (ie due to school or families who choose them????)
Which brings us back to "How do we help every school / student / family to be successful?"
Very interesting. I quote:
"1. Our findings show urban charter schools in the aggregate provide significantly higher levels of annual growth in both math and reading compared to their TPS peers.
2. When learning gains for urban charter students are presented for individual urban
regions, regions with larger learning gains in charter schools outnumber those with
smaller learning gains two-to-one.
3. Learning gains for charter school students are larger by significant amounts for Black, Hispanic, low-income, and special education students in both math and reading."
So tell me again why you do not want parents to be able to choose this option for their kids?
If we cannot help all of them (an unproven assertion, since not all have such access and such choices), how about we help those we CAN help, who do better in these alternative school environments?
Oh, by the way, you do realize that one good way to raise the average achievement of a cohort is to raise the achievement of every member of the cohort?
Thank you for confirming that your confirmation bias is fully functional...
You seem to have avoided the last 2 points.
5. Compared to the charter school landscape as a whole, (see CREDO’s National Charter
School Study 2013), the 41 urban charter regions have improved results at both ends of
the quality spectrum: they have larger shares of schools that are better than TPS
alternatives and smaller shares of under-performing schools. Specifically, 43 percent of
urban charter schools deliver larger learning gains in math than the local TPS alternative, with 33 percent showing equivalent results and 24 percent posting smaller learning gains. In reading, 38 percent of urban charter schools outpace their TPS peers, 46 percent fare the same,and only 16 percent of urban charter schools have smaller gains each year.
6. Despite the overall positive learning impacts, there are urban communities in which the majority of the charter schools lag the learning gains of their TPS counterparts, some to distressingly large degrees. In some urban areas, cities have no schools that post better gains than their TPS alternatives and more than half the schools are significantly worse.
I thought 3 was enough. The last two say much the same, but acknowledge that those who do not show improvement by and large are as good and, if they're like MN, they do it for less money. But there are some cities and schools which do worse. They should be "fixed" or closed, replaced by others that work. If we aren't prepared to close failing public schools and let their students go elsewhere, we should not be closing failing charter schools, either.
I would like to flip that... Are you saying that we should:
- close failing schools of all types even if the Parent(s) like the school?
I mean people get real sensitive and outraged when you close their community school, no matter its results.
And 5 / 6 are totally different from 1, 2 & 3...:-)
The problem is solved by simply offering real choice to all parents. The ones who like a school will keep it open, and the failing ones will "go out of business." Dirt simple. Of course as it stands right now, upon the initial offering, some public schools would quickly see competition, lose "clients," and have a big building half full of kids that wanted to go there. My solution is to allow school districts to rent out, classroom by classroom or class by class, to charter or private "instructional teams." That way, you get all the advantages of size for co-curricular functions, while "farming out" college prep, or remedial ed, or chemistry and physics, or reading-- whatever. The kids don't have to "switch" schools to get a better education, they just divvy up their voucher.
I think you are now confusing "popular" with "successful"...
As a tax payer I do not want "happy parents", I want kids who are learning so they can become successful contributing citizens.
It seems that Laurie's school is popular with their clientele even as it is failing their children. So again:
Are you saying that we should close failing schools of all types even if the Parent(s) like the school?
I am saying the parents are the best judges of a failing school, given proper information. I believe you posted statistics a while back indicating that choice schools did as good or better, compared with EQUAL DEMOGRAPHICS in the non-choice schools, and only a few did worse, academically. As good or better should be good enough.
We should not be closing schools. We should give parents the information and let them choose-- a free market, what a crazy idea.
"As good" is definitely not good enough...
And I am not convinced we know what cause the variations in school performance.
And I sure have no desire to fund people's religious / social education...
I want the kid's to be academically capable, so let's close all school's that are "failing"... Now if we actually knew what that meant...
Post a Comment