I don't know where you are, but where I am it's hot. Hot in the Carnival, uh, today. Yeah. Anyhow, welcome to the newest installment of the Carnival of Education. Summertime is all about the one-liners, and so are my versions of the Carnival. Enjoy!
Matthew Tabor comments on the sad state of British education.
EdWonk confesses to Rush Limbaugh perhaps...being...on to something?
Having the drive is great, says Joanne Jacobs, but you've gotta know how to write a research paper.
Junie B. Jones: good example or scourge of America's parents?
Ryan compares Junie B. Jones as a "gateway book" to Walter the Farting Dog.
Take a sneak peak at Mister Teacher's To Do List.
Learn to use a computer, says Mamacita to her fellow teachers.
Mat tackles the ramifications of a recent court decision requiring equal funding of public and charter schools in Maryland.
EdNotes posits what a good contract for Joel Klein would be.
Bad weather cancelling your outside time isn't a problem when you follow these homeschooling indoor phys-ed ideas.
History Is Elementary masterfully points out that state history allows the teaching of the country's history from your neighbor's viewpoint-- not being a "tack on" activity.
New Year's Eve is more than four months away, but it sounds like Joel's already making resolutions for the upcoming school year.
Not being an English teacher, I am literally (not figuratively) confused as to the exact corundum within this post.
NYC Educator weighs in on universal health care; the anti-UHC folks are selling Pravda on the corner, but are people buying it?
Jose Vilson waxes poetic (or at least the poet does in the book he owns) and shares an ode to the first year teacher.
Ed Notes (no, I did not repeat myself) calls foul on the Weingarten-sanctioned dual unionism UFT/ Green Dot under construction in NYC.
Mike in Texas learns when not to send stuff home with a student.
The role of grades as a gatekeeper when it comes to chemistry is explored by the Science Goddess.
By taking local papers to task over the accuracy of charts like "Metro Math Losers", IB A Math Teacher proves why they're my favorite math teacher blogger.
Darren painstakingly backs up his theory as to why the NEA is not a democratic organization.
In North Carolina, charters are authorized by the members of the "established system" which causes them to not be as innovative or as groundbreaking as they could be, says Bret.
Stuck between a teen and a prize place, Shay's daughter spurned the summer reading program.
Self-described conservative and libertarian Chanman got something he's been looking forward to in the mail.
This post on math was more complicated than I expected, even though I expected it to be more complicated than I expected.
Patrick takes on the NCLB reauthorization debates and does so quite voluminously, I might add.
Janine takes on the history section of the NY Regent's exam while asking a pertinent question, inquiring into the color of George Washington's white horse.
Limey Old Andrew delves into the "F&%$ Off Factor", but fails to answer whether his students say "Guv'nah" at the end of their classroom invective.
This post is about a book, and it truly seems quite lovely but it is late as I write this and I'd like to get to bed. :)
Thanks to all who contributed. Next week's carnival will be hosted by Mike at Education In Texas. Submissions should be sent to mikea3_98 (at)yahoo.com no later than 9 P.M. EST on Tuesday, August 7th, or you can use this handy submission form.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
In the business world....
...you get paid for the hours you work.
Good thing that education isn't a business (unless you're going to invoke the unregulated "free market reform" mantra for school choice) because in Oklahoma, state legislators want teachers to work five extra days a year, and they won't go for pay increases unless merit pay is on the table.
Good thing that education isn't a business (unless you're going to invoke the unregulated "free market reform" mantra for school choice) because in Oklahoma, state legislators want teachers to work five extra days a year, and they won't go for pay increases unless merit pay is on the table.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Good Carnival this week!
I took a few minutes and did some cyber-browsing through this week's Carnival of Education, hosted graciously by Mike in Texas. I'd tell you the stuff that I liked, but then you'd miss out on all the other good stuff you'd miss by me just linking to what I liked. So go Carnival!
Friday, July 20, 2007
Smoke and mirrors from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
NAPCS recently released an issue brief entitled "The Bottom Line: Six Myths About the Financial Impact of Charter Schools". Within this brief, the NAPCS decided to explain how charter schools actually help large urban districts. My reaction follows; excerpts from the report are italicized.
Myth #1: Charter Schools Rob Money from the Public Schools.
NAPCS argues that because CS are public, that the money still stays in public education; it simply just transfers from one organization to another. They then go on to state that they actually bring in more resources to public ed through grants and private fundraising. They state "So instead of robbing funds from public schools, the presence of charter schools actually increases the total spent on public education for a community’s children."
Response:
I'll play the semantics game with you. When I move money from my savings account to my checking and then spend that money, I transfer the money-- however, once I use it, I'll never be able to get it back. Also, when a fellow teacher earns their doctorate and moves up on the step scale, it increases how much money is being spent on teacher compensation in my district, but I'll never see a penny of it. So from now on, I'll just say "Charter Schools transfer money from public school districts and make it impossible for them to spend it on their students."
Myth #2: Every Dollar a Charter School Receives is a Dollar’s Worth of Fiscal Pain for the School District.
In this myth, NAPCS argues that districts lose state funding per pupil to CS but gets to keep their local funding. This is true. They also argue that some states have adjusted funding models on a sliding scale over time to compensate public school districts to give them some breathing room to adjust to CS losses. This is also true. They also say that with the "transfer" of funds, districts end up spending more money per pupil then they did before the fund "transfer".
The brief states "Because charter schools typically receive less than full funding,6 districts are
actually left with more money per pupil when a student moves to a charter. Suppose a school district with 5,000 students has per-pupil funding of $10,000 (for a total of $50 million in district funds), and no charter schools. Two charter schools open in the district, serving a total of 500 students. The charter schools receive $9,000 per pupil for total funding of $4.5 million – money that the district would otherwise receive. The district now serves 4,500 students, with total funding of $45.5 million – less than before. But per-pupil funding now totals $10,111 – an extra $111 to spend on each remaining student, thanks to the new charters.
They also argue that charters that take high-cost students (ESL/ LEP, low-income and students with IEP's) help public districts in the long run by assuming those costs.
Response:
While per-pupil funding will increase, the overall budget for a district goes down. This results in layoffs of teachers and a reduction in services for current students. No BOE member in any district will say "Thank God for those charters, now we can spend more money on each of our students!". At least I've never heard any say that. The cold reality is simply that high-end programs, the length of the school day, busing (to a degree), sports and extracurricular activities are the line-item victims due to the "transfer" of these funds. In my state, many charters do not accept IEP students; they are left to the public schools because most of the charters are not willing to educate them because they do not have the resources or the ability (read: qualified teachers). Please ask any of my colleagues who have been laid off since the charter trainwreck has begun in my state if they are thankful that our district can now spend more on each student.
Myth #3: Districts Cannot Reduce Expenses.
NAPCS argues that public districts are too slow to reduce expenses and adapt their budget and that the scale of large public districts restrict their ability to reduce their costs in a truly responsive way.
Response:
Surprisingly, I agree with some of this. Many districts are slow in their response to the "transfer" of students and funds to CS. One of those reasons is that the BOE makes the ultimate decisions on school closures; they in turn are responsible to the community of voters that elected them. Should they act too quickly or act without taking into account community views and sentiment, they will loose their seat on the BOE in the next election.
In contrast, CS board members are not voted in, they are appointed. They do not have to deal with property owners within their district or voters since they do not get local funding; indeed, their baseline funding is a simple multiplication formula, Number of students (N) * State Funding (S) = Budget (B). School districts in my state cannot operate in the red; therefore they must adjust their budgets in response to the "transfer" that is being caused by CS. They don't do it they way they always should; but you're never going to make everyone happy all the time.
Myth #4: Charter Schools Cause Teachers to be Fired.
NAPCS argues that jobs are created for teachers when charters open "often producing a
net gain in teaching opportunities in the community"; they also add that public districts are already overstaffed and that CS offer the option for districts to lessen their hiring needs through attrition, saving them the $8,000 cost of hiring and training each new teacher.
Response:
I agree that CS do not cause teachers to be fired; they cause them to be laid off. While the opening of charters does add to the overall number of teaching jobs in a community, I cannot agree that it increases the number of teaching jobs availible. Indeed, so-called "Virtual" charter schools give those CS teachers larger student loads than traditional brick and mortar schools; effectively reducing the number of teachers needed for those institutions. If charter schools receive less funding per student than do their local district competitors, how could they possibly create a net gain in teaching positions, even with the substandard wages that are paid to those teachers?
Public districts may be overstaffed-- I think this is a case by case basis, and I have neither facts nor figures to support this position. I will say that an inventive program of teacher buyouts (offering a bonus for retirement) can alleviate some of the financial hardships created by the "transfer" of monies to CS, reducing the number of teachers at the highest salary steps and allowing the district to hold on to as many teachers as possible without adversely affecting the students who continue to attend the district.
Myth #5: Without Charters, Districts Would Be Much More Stable.
The report states that "high student mobility rates swamp any impact of charter-driven mobility." They cite a study in the Detroit Public Schools that of 9,500 students that left the district, only 37% left for charters; the rest left for other reasons. Charter school mobility, they posit, is not the major cause for mobility instablity in public districts, especially large urban ones.
Response:
I teach in a district that has high mobility; many students attend multiple schools at the same level during their stay in our district. Our district has formulated a response to intra-district student mobility, and it has had a positive response. We can't do anything for students that leave our district to go to charters; even if they are a public school. Without Charter Schools, Districts would be MORE stable.
Myth #6: The Whole Story of Charter Impact is Found in the District’s Budget.
Debates about charter schools’ fiscal impact almost always center on their effect on the budget of local school districts. While this is one part of the picture, it makes sense to back up a step and ask: what is the long-term fiscal impact of charter schools on a community as a whole? From the perspective of mayors, citizens, and others with a community-wide view, this question is the most important one.
Response:
It is an important question; I don't think that the answer can be obtained yet.
Myth #1: Charter Schools Rob Money from the Public Schools.
NAPCS argues that because CS are public, that the money still stays in public education; it simply just transfers from one organization to another. They then go on to state that they actually bring in more resources to public ed through grants and private fundraising. They state "So instead of robbing funds from public schools, the presence of charter schools actually increases the total spent on public education for a community’s children."
Response:
I'll play the semantics game with you. When I move money from my savings account to my checking and then spend that money, I transfer the money-- however, once I use it, I'll never be able to get it back. Also, when a fellow teacher earns their doctorate and moves up on the step scale, it increases how much money is being spent on teacher compensation in my district, but I'll never see a penny of it. So from now on, I'll just say "Charter Schools transfer money from public school districts and make it impossible for them to spend it on their students."
Myth #2: Every Dollar a Charter School Receives is a Dollar’s Worth of Fiscal Pain for the School District.
In this myth, NAPCS argues that districts lose state funding per pupil to CS but gets to keep their local funding. This is true. They also argue that some states have adjusted funding models on a sliding scale over time to compensate public school districts to give them some breathing room to adjust to CS losses. This is also true. They also say that with the "transfer" of funds, districts end up spending more money per pupil then they did before the fund "transfer".
The brief states "Because charter schools typically receive less than full funding,6 districts are
actually left with more money per pupil when a student moves to a charter. Suppose a school district with 5,000 students has per-pupil funding of $10,000 (for a total of $50 million in district funds), and no charter schools. Two charter schools open in the district, serving a total of 500 students. The charter schools receive $9,000 per pupil for total funding of $4.5 million – money that the district would otherwise receive. The district now serves 4,500 students, with total funding of $45.5 million – less than before. But per-pupil funding now totals $10,111 – an extra $111 to spend on each remaining student, thanks to the new charters.
They also argue that charters that take high-cost students (ESL/ LEP, low-income and students with IEP's) help public districts in the long run by assuming those costs.
Response:
While per-pupil funding will increase, the overall budget for a district goes down. This results in layoffs of teachers and a reduction in services for current students. No BOE member in any district will say "Thank God for those charters, now we can spend more money on each of our students!". At least I've never heard any say that. The cold reality is simply that high-end programs, the length of the school day, busing (to a degree), sports and extracurricular activities are the line-item victims due to the "transfer" of these funds. In my state, many charters do not accept IEP students; they are left to the public schools because most of the charters are not willing to educate them because they do not have the resources or the ability (read: qualified teachers). Please ask any of my colleagues who have been laid off since the charter trainwreck has begun in my state if they are thankful that our district can now spend more on each student.
Myth #3: Districts Cannot Reduce Expenses.
NAPCS argues that public districts are too slow to reduce expenses and adapt their budget and that the scale of large public districts restrict their ability to reduce their costs in a truly responsive way.
Response:
Surprisingly, I agree with some of this. Many districts are slow in their response to the "transfer" of students and funds to CS. One of those reasons is that the BOE makes the ultimate decisions on school closures; they in turn are responsible to the community of voters that elected them. Should they act too quickly or act without taking into account community views and sentiment, they will loose their seat on the BOE in the next election.
In contrast, CS board members are not voted in, they are appointed. They do not have to deal with property owners within their district or voters since they do not get local funding; indeed, their baseline funding is a simple multiplication formula, Number of students (N) * State Funding (S) = Budget (B). School districts in my state cannot operate in the red; therefore they must adjust their budgets in response to the "transfer" that is being caused by CS. They don't do it they way they always should; but you're never going to make everyone happy all the time.
Myth #4: Charter Schools Cause Teachers to be Fired.
NAPCS argues that jobs are created for teachers when charters open "often producing a
net gain in teaching opportunities in the community"; they also add that public districts are already overstaffed and that CS offer the option for districts to lessen their hiring needs through attrition, saving them the $8,000 cost of hiring and training each new teacher.
Response:
I agree that CS do not cause teachers to be fired; they cause them to be laid off. While the opening of charters does add to the overall number of teaching jobs in a community, I cannot agree that it increases the number of teaching jobs availible. Indeed, so-called "Virtual" charter schools give those CS teachers larger student loads than traditional brick and mortar schools; effectively reducing the number of teachers needed for those institutions. If charter schools receive less funding per student than do their local district competitors, how could they possibly create a net gain in teaching positions, even with the substandard wages that are paid to those teachers?
Public districts may be overstaffed-- I think this is a case by case basis, and I have neither facts nor figures to support this position. I will say that an inventive program of teacher buyouts (offering a bonus for retirement) can alleviate some of the financial hardships created by the "transfer" of monies to CS, reducing the number of teachers at the highest salary steps and allowing the district to hold on to as many teachers as possible without adversely affecting the students who continue to attend the district.
Myth #5: Without Charters, Districts Would Be Much More Stable.
The report states that "high student mobility rates swamp any impact of charter-driven mobility." They cite a study in the Detroit Public Schools that of 9,500 students that left the district, only 37% left for charters; the rest left for other reasons. Charter school mobility, they posit, is not the major cause for mobility instablity in public districts, especially large urban ones.
Response:
I teach in a district that has high mobility; many students attend multiple schools at the same level during their stay in our district. Our district has formulated a response to intra-district student mobility, and it has had a positive response. We can't do anything for students that leave our district to go to charters; even if they are a public school. Without Charter Schools, Districts would be MORE stable.
Myth #6: The Whole Story of Charter Impact is Found in the District’s Budget.
Debates about charter schools’ fiscal impact almost always center on their effect on the budget of local school districts. While this is one part of the picture, it makes sense to back up a step and ask: what is the long-term fiscal impact of charter schools on a community as a whole? From the perspective of mayors, citizens, and others with a community-wide view, this question is the most important one.
Response:
It is an important question; I don't think that the answer can be obtained yet.
What will $17 million buy you?
377 grievances in Chicago. That's approximately $45,000 per grievance.
The reason?
Chicago Public Schools switched to a new payroll system. There are hundreds of teachers who haven't been paid fully. Read about it here.
The reason?
Chicago Public Schools switched to a new payroll system. There are hundreds of teachers who haven't been paid fully. Read about it here.
Steve Barr's outreach to the blogosphere...
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The exhaust port on the KIPP Death Star.
Every organization has a weakness. So does KIPP.
I mean, besides the fact that they work their teachers 85 hours a week in the buildings and then cut off their home life until 8 PM at night, running through teachers faster than my students go through a box of school Kleenex.
The Edgewater clone of KIPP (KIPP Harbor Academy) closed because their Principal resigned. Well, kind of. KIPPsters in Cali said that after the Principal resigned (he was on Oprah, don't ya know!) the school was closing and the teachers then found other jobs. Then the KIPPsters reversed course and stated the academy would stay open, but by then most of the staff had found jobs elsewhere, making the situation more difficult. I'm sure the KIPPsters could have scoured local colleges for graduates who were desperate to find a job and then worked them to death in place of the other teachers. A factual accounting of those events in the Baltimore Sun is here.
Complicating the situation was the fact that KIPPsters needed more space. They looked at 25 different sites over two years; none were suitable. Among them was a middle school at 38% capacity-- Anne Arundel schools (the county school system) refused to rent the school to the KIPP program. What's interesting is WaPo then comes out in an editorial and blames the county and the Superintendent of the county school system for killing KIPP.
The Superintendent didn't budge or feel sorry for the KIPPsters, saying "It's not my responsibility. It's not my school" which is exactly how he should have responded. I doubt if the publisher of the WaPo would make it easier for other papers to be distributed or sold within the WaPo's territory.
What amazes me is the free-market types who say that charter schools are needed, that competition and choice is a healthy thing that allows change and reform to flourish for the benefit of both students and teachers. Then, when the public education system doesn't obligate itself to go out of its way to help charter schools in a way that no competing businesses ever would, those same-free market types cry foul. Why would I let my school district lease space to KIPP? Those classrooms should be filled with public school students taught by public school teachers.
That said, KIPP's weakness is space. If it can't find it, it can't grow. They seem to be picky. Remember that. However, I've noticed KIPPsters spending time on this blog; they are like the Borg and will adapt in an effort to assimilate your students. Beware!
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
NJ Union Charter Ratifies Performance Pay Contract
It took 'em the better part of three years to get this contract; a LEAPer with three years of experience STILL makes almost $2k less than an average first year teacher in New Jersey.
---
Located in downtown Camden, LEAP is the only one among Camden's six charter schools to unionize its 55 teachers.
LEAP, its teachers achieve a contract It's believed to be the first charter pact tying salaries to performance.
By Melanie Burney
Inquirer Staff Writer
Three years after organizing, teachers at Camden's first charter school have settled their first contract: a three-year pact with performance incentives.
The agreement ends lengthy and sometimes contentious negotiations that began during the 2004-05 school year between teachers at the LEAP Academy University Charter and the board of directors.
In addition to retroactive raises, teachers will get raises based mostly on performance, such as improving standardized test scores and getting grants, said Gloria Hancock, chief school administrator. A teacher hitting all goals could get a 3.5 percent annual increase.
"You're trying to recognize where there is excellence in teaching, where teachers are going above and beyond," Hancock said yesterday.
Both sides ratified the agreement last week. The agreement also adds a half-hour to the instructional day.
It is believed to be the first agreement negotiated between a New Jersey charter and a collective bargaining unit tying salary to performance, according to Jessani Gordon, executive director of the New Jersey Charter Public Schools Association.
"The idea of pay for performance is something that resonates with our schools," Gordon said. "The whole charter school movement is about accountability."
Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, expressed doubt that teachers would fare well under a performance pay system based on annual evaluations.
"That makes it totally subjective, and totally a function of administrative favoritism," Wollmer said.
The association, the state's largest teachers union, represents teachers and support staff at eight of the state's 53 charter schools.
Located in downtown Camden, LEAP is the only one among Camden's six charter schools to unionize its 55 teachers. Jack Smultkis, LEAP Academy Association president, declined comment yesterday.
LEAP, which opened in 1997, has long had a merit-pay system. Teachers formed a union in 2004 seeking job security, better working conditions, and more competitive salaries. Under the agreement, teachers are guaranteed at least one third of the 3.5 annual increase, about 1.17 percent. Their annual evaluation will determine whether they receive any of the remaining two-thirds.
The agreement runs through the 2009-10 school year. The median salary for a LEAP teacher with three years of experience was $38,000 in the 2005-06 school year, according to the state Department of Education.
The average starting salary for a first-year public school teacher in New Jersey is $40,307, and the average teacher earns $57,707, according to the National Education Association.
LEAP, which stands for Leadership, Education And Partnership, was among the first charter schools in New Jersey. It emphasizes science, math and technology, and enrolls about 600 students.
Charter schools are funded by the state and run by parents, teachers and community leaders without oversight by the school district. They are given greater flexibility in curriculum and instruction.
---
Located in downtown Camden, LEAP is the only one among Camden's six charter schools to unionize its 55 teachers.
LEAP, its teachers achieve a contract It's believed to be the first charter pact tying salaries to performance.
By Melanie Burney
Inquirer Staff Writer
Three years after organizing, teachers at Camden's first charter school have settled their first contract: a three-year pact with performance incentives.
The agreement ends lengthy and sometimes contentious negotiations that began during the 2004-05 school year between teachers at the LEAP Academy University Charter and the board of directors.
In addition to retroactive raises, teachers will get raises based mostly on performance, such as improving standardized test scores and getting grants, said Gloria Hancock, chief school administrator. A teacher hitting all goals could get a 3.5 percent annual increase.
"You're trying to recognize where there is excellence in teaching, where teachers are going above and beyond," Hancock said yesterday.
Both sides ratified the agreement last week. The agreement also adds a half-hour to the instructional day.
It is believed to be the first agreement negotiated between a New Jersey charter and a collective bargaining unit tying salary to performance, according to Jessani Gordon, executive director of the New Jersey Charter Public Schools Association.
"The idea of pay for performance is something that resonates with our schools," Gordon said. "The whole charter school movement is about accountability."
Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, expressed doubt that teachers would fare well under a performance pay system based on annual evaluations.
"That makes it totally subjective, and totally a function of administrative favoritism," Wollmer said.
The association, the state's largest teachers union, represents teachers and support staff at eight of the state's 53 charter schools.
Located in downtown Camden, LEAP is the only one among Camden's six charter schools to unionize its 55 teachers. Jack Smultkis, LEAP Academy Association president, declined comment yesterday.
LEAP, which opened in 1997, has long had a merit-pay system. Teachers formed a union in 2004 seeking job security, better working conditions, and more competitive salaries. Under the agreement, teachers are guaranteed at least one third of the 3.5 annual increase, about 1.17 percent. Their annual evaluation will determine whether they receive any of the remaining two-thirds.
The agreement runs through the 2009-10 school year. The median salary for a LEAP teacher with three years of experience was $38,000 in the 2005-06 school year, according to the state Department of Education.
The average starting salary for a first-year public school teacher in New Jersey is $40,307, and the average teacher earns $57,707, according to the National Education Association.
LEAP, which stands for Leadership, Education And Partnership, was among the first charter schools in New Jersey. It emphasizes science, math and technology, and enrolls about 600 students.
Charter schools are funded by the state and run by parents, teachers and community leaders without oversight by the school district. They are given greater flexibility in curriculum and instruction.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Green Dot Contract Highlight!
As you know, Green Dot and the UFT have recently announced plans of their partnership to open a school together. I've stayed out of this one simply because I'm still in catch-up mode; I need to do more reading about it before I form a public opinion.
I was looking through their 2003-2006 contract (PDF) made availible on the EdWize website a few weeks ago, and found this nugget:
Personal property, which is to be used within the classroom for instructional
purposes, must be registered in the school office and authorized by the administrator
in charge before being brought onto the campus. All such items must be insured by
the unit member. The Board will be responsible for damages or theft to said items up
to the amount of the insurance deductible.
It brings to mind the possible permutations that could happen. Picture it, at the beginning of the school year, Dr. Homeslice is now teaching in a Green Dot school. He is setting up his room, as the Principal walks by with Green Dot founder Steve Barr on a surprise inspection.
"Dr. Homeslice, can I have a word with you?"
"Yes?"
"I noticed that you have some Garfield posters on your wall."
"Yes?"
"Did you fill out the requisite triplicate form for them in the school office?"
"Uh, no."
Steve Barr frowns.
"I see, Dr. Homeslice. You do have proof that these posters are insured, don't you?"
"Um...my insurance agent's been outta town."
"Dr. Homeslice, please report to my office immediatley and bring everything in your desk with you. You may have an AMU representative accompany you to this meeting."
I was looking through their 2003-2006 contract (PDF) made availible on the EdWize website a few weeks ago, and found this nugget:
Personal property, which is to be used within the classroom for instructional
purposes, must be registered in the school office and authorized by the administrator
in charge before being brought onto the campus. All such items must be insured by
the unit member. The Board will be responsible for damages or theft to said items up
to the amount of the insurance deductible.
It brings to mind the possible permutations that could happen. Picture it, at the beginning of the school year, Dr. Homeslice is now teaching in a Green Dot school. He is setting up his room, as the Principal walks by with Green Dot founder Steve Barr on a surprise inspection.
"Dr. Homeslice, can I have a word with you?"
"Yes?"
"I noticed that you have some Garfield posters on your wall."
"Yes?"
"Did you fill out the requisite triplicate form for them in the school office?"
"Uh, no."
Steve Barr frowns.
"I see, Dr. Homeslice. You do have proof that these posters are insured, don't you?"
"Um...my insurance agent's been outta town."
"Dr. Homeslice, please report to my office immediatley and bring everything in your desk with you. You may have an AMU representative accompany you to this meeting."
New AFT Report...read it!
The AFT released a report this past Friday called "Meeting the Challenge: Recruiting and Retaining Teachers In Hard To Staff Schools". You can read the abstract, or just dive in and read the whole thing here (PDF). I'll be blogging about it later...after I read the whole thing myself.
On an interesting note, the NEA has some data on teacher stats. Mike Antonucci has already gone on the record as slightly disagreeing.
On an interesting note, the NEA has some data on teacher stats. Mike Antonucci has already gone on the record as slightly disagreeing.
Teacher Union Contract as Public Policy?
To be honest, I'd never thought of it that way before. That is what Myron Lieberman posits in "Avoiding the Ratification Trap", a recent article in School Reform News (PDF download). Beware, it is a pro-school choice publication put out by the Heartland Institute.
His contention is that at best, school boards are third-party bargainers at the table when representing the interests of students, parents and the greater school community. Contract ratification (on both sides of the table) is done at a breakneck speed, he says, to squelch opposition to any of the provisions from the community or groups within the teacher's union that could delay or derail what in essence is a "signed, sealed and delivered" contract.
His solution?
"...a state law mandating an interim period for interested parties to react to proposed contracts. This solution could also be a winning issue in school board elections. Activists at the local level would achieve some surprising victories, despite the inevitable opposition from public employee unions and their allies in government."
Interesting!
His contention is that at best, school boards are third-party bargainers at the table when representing the interests of students, parents and the greater school community. Contract ratification (on both sides of the table) is done at a breakneck speed, he says, to squelch opposition to any of the provisions from the community or groups within the teacher's union that could delay or derail what in essence is a "signed, sealed and delivered" contract.
His solution?
"...a state law mandating an interim period for interested parties to react to proposed contracts. This solution could also be a winning issue in school board elections. Activists at the local level would achieve some surprising victories, despite the inevitable opposition from public employee unions and their allies in government."
Interesting!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Back from the great blogger beyond....
Apologies to those reading in blogger-ville, I sank into a post- RA melancholia and really saw nothing worthy of blogging about. While at the RA, I received an email from a fellow who stumbled upon my blog, and he asked me a pretty good question. I told him that I would respond when I got back and promptly forgot to do so. He sent me an email a few days ago and rekindled my desire for blogging.
In his email, Stephen asks:
In his email, Stephen asks:
I have read a few blogs that lambaste Teacher's Unions and I'm trying toWell, first let me give you the traditional anti-teacher's union argument, so that I can debunk it. (Note: this is not something that I truly believe in, I'm just summing up everything I've heard.)
understand the pro-union side of the topic. It seems important to me that
teachers' rights be protected, and it also seems that unions are
consistently demonized - these portrayals seem unrealistic and
oversimplified. But I'm having a hard time finding a comprehensive,
well-articulated pro-union argument, but I know it's out there.
- Teacher unions are simply parasites that live off of the lifeblood of their membership, providing enormous salaries, perks and benefits for a privileged few.
- While the need for labor unions during the industrial revolution was very real, that was quite a long time ago. Union membership has been declining for almost thirty years; only 12% of America's workers are currently unionized now.
- They alienate their membership by using dues money for political purposes, causes and candidates that their rank and file may or may not endorse or even vote for.
- They protect the jobs of bad teachers who are either incompetent, evil or both. They protect and entrench layoff policies and procedures that leave the older, less motivated teachers within a schools system while amputating the newest, youngest most vital teachers.
- On the national level, they manipulate statistics to make the public believe that the country is in a midst of a teacher shortage; if only teachers were paid more, they say, then we'd have to beat them off with a stick.
- Indeed, teachers' unions and their ilk are quite possibly one of the biggest impediments to change within the American educational system, hurting the very people they are supposed to protect-- their students.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
8 Random Facts...
Ahh.... memes. Got this one from Educator on the Edge.
8 random facts, you say? Ok.
PREA Prez
Mike Klonsky
Ms. Whatsit
Pissed Off Teacher
Round Deux
That's it...I'm too lazy to do more. Good luck!
8 random facts, you say? Ok.
- I can't eat raw apples. If I bite into an apple (whole or cut), it sends shivers up my spine of the worst kind. Apples are to Dr. Homeslice as garlic is to vampires.
- I am a sucker for most reality shows, unless there's singing involved in which case then I can't stand it and refuse to watch them.
- I have met both Fred and Mike Klonsky.
- I have met three former Presidents: Nixon, Ford and G.H.W Bush. Ironically enough, I do not count myself among the uh, Republican crowd.
- I was deathly afraid of those ear-burrowing creatures from Ceti Alpha Five when I was a kid after seeing Star Trek II.
- I saved money from my first job to buy a black leather motorcycle jacket; I still have the jacket, but no motorcycle.
- Based on the amount of amateur fireworks going off right now, apparently my neighbors think that it's still the 4th of July...4 days later. Idiots.
- At the NEA RA in Philly I totally meant to hit up a raw bar and slurp down some oysters, but never made it. Doh!
PREA Prez
Mike Klonsky
Ms. Whatsit
Pissed Off Teacher
Round Deux
That's it...I'm too lazy to do more. Good luck!
Friday, July 06, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
A rare typed blog post...
Debate is raging on NBI B, the pro-withdrawal one I had mentioned earlier. It's quite interesting. I will do a gabcast post shortly; NBI's are stacking up here.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)