Pete is a friend of ours who is helping us work for education reform. Pete has spent many decades working in municipal and school finance. Below is his perspective on Representative Mike Tyron’s Bill for schools to truly report the impact of school referenda and a number of other issues.
"Dan Johnson is a partner in the largest firm of Municipal Bond attorneys in Chicago. His opinions and his testimony to the legislature have formed the basis for many of the nooks and crannies we have found to exist in Illinois school financing law. In other words, he makes money -- hundreds of thousands of dollars -- creating and approving these nooks and crannies.
Many of these have come from the aberration we call PTELL, which I am afraid most FOCF members believe in. This proposal is just another cranny. Why have separate Funds at all?
The underlying concept in having Funds is to provide the taxpayer with some control over how his money is spent. That control, common to most states, says that the elected body and its employees have an allowance, actually a set of allowances for the several Funds. This set is called a Budget.
Separately, in acquiring debt or paying pensions, different allowances are set. With respect to debt, the parent (alias the taxpayer) must usually approve the purchase of the capital asset which it will be required to pay for. Even this right of approval has been eliminated by persons such as Mr. Johnson opining that some debt financings need not be approved by the parent.
Further, and more recently, the schools and other taxing bodies have been given the right to acquire additional debt as long as the old debt was paid off and the parent's obligation was not increased. The parent is in debt -- forever. This is the handiwork of such as Mr. Johnson.
Is it any wonder that the taxpayers reject referenda these days? They no longer trust their elected representatives to be stewards of their money.
Now comes a proposal which in effect has the taxing body say: "Trust us." We have failed to deliver a quality education, we have funded teacher early retirement as a reward for this failure, we have built schools when none were needed, we have not been transparent in our financial disclosures to the public -- but trust us.
This legislation is not needed. If more money is allegedly required in a Fund, referendum questions can easily be framed to so state. Trust is earned over time, but as Reagan said to Gorbachev: Trust, but verify."
And now two words to all who believed that PTELL was the answer, who believe that that solved the problem of wasteful spending in the schools. You fools. You thought the State was protecting you. You useful idiots, as Lenin used to say. To quote the famous writer Samuel Clemens: no man's purse is safe while the legislature is in session.
You were rightfully concerned when property values (your built in but unrealized wealth) inflated faster than your income. That gave taxing bodies greater access to your strained purse. Instead or organizing and getting elected at the local level, you went to the State. Unorganized as you were, you were no match for the NEA unions and the local boards who were elected by the PTA. You may have been right, but you were no match for the countable voters, and for the contributions the teachers were able to slide into the campaign funds of the elected.
Like the convicted one able to select the method of capital punishment, your only benefit was to choose the type of screwdriver being used.
Well, the NEA has just about squared the circle. They control not only entrance into the profession, the salary schedules, the early retirement programs; they also control the testing systems. They control complaisant legislators in one party and useful idiots like Mr. Tryon. Indirectly they control their fellow Ed School graduates the Administrators who have their own highly expensive niche.
And through the PTA, they control the parent voter, who is the source of all their political power. "It's for the Kids" means no more, no less than all power to the teachers. Busting this unholy alliance should be the main goal of the people.
The NEA's objections to the No Child Left Behind testing and their persuading school districts to reject the money, is temporary. When they get control of the testing mechanism as they have of the state tests, the ACT and the SAT -- as they will under a Democrat administration -- they will corrupt that as well. Their objective quire clearly is "No Teacher Left Behind."
Today, though, the national test will reveal the dirty little non secret. It will validate the results now coming to the fore of the low quality of our primary and secondary education systems.
NEA persuades the Districts that they do not have the money to correct the weaknesses which such a test will reveal. Districts do not, they say, have the money to conduct such tests. Yet Districts can find $40K to pay for referendum assistance from specialist groups.
It is an Alice in Wonderland existence. It is time to recover our sanity."
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
Failing Teachers EQUALS Failing Students
This great piece appears on EagleForum.org . Although the piece is old the problem persists today. Research has found those who come from an educated and stable family tend to do well in school while those who come from an uneducated poor family tend to do poorly in school. School should break the cycle of poverty but with the quality of teachers today and poor curricula the cycle will be hard to break. This is why education reform is necessary. We must get rid of the very useless teacher certificate and get rid of tenure. Schools should be able to hire those who will best educate students. Tenure obstructs schools from being able to do just that.
Failing Teachers Equal Failing Students
CHICAGO, IL - A statewide investigation of teacher competency by the Chicago Sun-Times found that 5,243 teachers currently teaching in Illinois public schools have failed at least one certification test. The newspaper analyzed the test scores of 67,000 teachers on both basic skills and subject matter tests taken since Illinois began teacher certification testing in 1988. Test data were available on only half the teachers, since those hired prior to 1988 may never have been required to take a test.
The state's biggest flunker was a teacher of learning-disabled students in Chicago who failed 24 of 25 teacher tests, including 12 of 12 tests on how to teach children with learning disabilities. Another teacher failed 19 of 19 tests, including 13 of 13 basic skills tests. One bilingual teacher flunked five of five basic skills tests and three of three elementary school subject matter tests. This teacher was working on a "transitional" bilingual certificate that waives certification testing in Illinois for up to eight years.
How tough is Illinois' basic skills test? According to some experts, it's so easy that an 8th- or 9th-grader should be able to pass it. Yet one of every 10 public school teachers in Chicago has flunked the test at least once. Most of these failing teachers teach in schools with the highest number of failing students, which supports national research indicating a strong link between weak teachers and failing students.
Studies Show Link
A 1986 Texas study showed a significant correlation between low teacher test scores and low student test scores. A Tennessee study 10 years later found that elementary math students who were taught by low-scoring teachers for several years in a row ended up 50 percentile points behind their peers.
Other research shows that full certification also makes a difference. A 1997 study by the University of Texas found that students scored higher on state tests when taught by fully-licensed teachers. In 1999, researcher Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University, who is the executive director of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, reviewed teacher quality and student achievement. She found that teacher quality is "more strongly related to student achievement than class size, overall spending levels, [and] teacher salaries . . . ." Her research also showed that "the percentage of teachers with full certification and a major in the field is a more powerful predictor of student achievement than teachers' education levels (e.g., master's degrees)."
Hearings Scheduled
After the Sun-Times analysis became public last month, state Sen. Daniel Cronin, chairman of the Illinois Senate Education Committee, called the findings "appalling" and announced plans to convene hearings in November to tackle the problem of failing teachers. Members of his committee will consider requiring that teachers be retested with a new, tougher basic skills tests introduced on Sept. 15. Also on the table are plans to give parents more information about teacher certification and to offer financial incentives to good teachers willing to teach in failing schools.
Many of Illinois' flunking teachers eventually passed their certification tests, but hundreds did not. Yet they remain in the classroom under a "Chicago-only loophole" which allows substitute teachers to teach indefinitely without passing any certification tests. Although other states call such waivers "emergency" or "temporary" permits, Illinois calls them "certificates."
"That's misleading and convoluted and it doesn't accurately reflect what people expect," Sen. Cronin told the Sun-Times. "We're learning that a certificate doesn't mean much [in Illinois]."
Root of Problem
Some educators point to the education colleges as the source of the problem of failing teachers. "There has to be something wrong if you go to college and get B's and C's and then can't pass these exams," observed Superintendent Willie Davis of the Ford Heights School District near Chicago. Other critics say teacher training includes "too much theory and not enough practice, mediocre subject-area training and low admissions standards." It's a vicious cycle, they say: "Graduates of weak public high schools go to weak education colleges and then return, poorly prepared, to teach in the public schools."
With a lack of qualified teachers already plaguing California and growing shortages in many other states, parents and educators worry that testing requirements may be relaxed still further or waived altogether.
Failing Teachers Equal Failing Students
CHICAGO, IL - A statewide investigation of teacher competency by the Chicago Sun-Times found that 5,243 teachers currently teaching in Illinois public schools have failed at least one certification test. The newspaper analyzed the test scores of 67,000 teachers on both basic skills and subject matter tests taken since Illinois began teacher certification testing in 1988. Test data were available on only half the teachers, since those hired prior to 1988 may never have been required to take a test.
The state's biggest flunker was a teacher of learning-disabled students in Chicago who failed 24 of 25 teacher tests, including 12 of 12 tests on how to teach children with learning disabilities. Another teacher failed 19 of 19 tests, including 13 of 13 basic skills tests. One bilingual teacher flunked five of five basic skills tests and three of three elementary school subject matter tests. This teacher was working on a "transitional" bilingual certificate that waives certification testing in Illinois for up to eight years.
How tough is Illinois' basic skills test? According to some experts, it's so easy that an 8th- or 9th-grader should be able to pass it. Yet one of every 10 public school teachers in Chicago has flunked the test at least once. Most of these failing teachers teach in schools with the highest number of failing students, which supports national research indicating a strong link between weak teachers and failing students.
Studies Show Link
A 1986 Texas study showed a significant correlation between low teacher test scores and low student test scores. A Tennessee study 10 years later found that elementary math students who were taught by low-scoring teachers for several years in a row ended up 50 percentile points behind their peers.
Other research shows that full certification also makes a difference. A 1997 study by the University of Texas found that students scored higher on state tests when taught by fully-licensed teachers. In 1999, researcher Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University, who is the executive director of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, reviewed teacher quality and student achievement. She found that teacher quality is "more strongly related to student achievement than class size, overall spending levels, [and] teacher salaries . . . ." Her research also showed that "the percentage of teachers with full certification and a major in the field is a more powerful predictor of student achievement than teachers' education levels (e.g., master's degrees)."
Hearings Scheduled
After the Sun-Times analysis became public last month, state Sen. Daniel Cronin, chairman of the Illinois Senate Education Committee, called the findings "appalling" and announced plans to convene hearings in November to tackle the problem of failing teachers. Members of his committee will consider requiring that teachers be retested with a new, tougher basic skills tests introduced on Sept. 15. Also on the table are plans to give parents more information about teacher certification and to offer financial incentives to good teachers willing to teach in failing schools.
Many of Illinois' flunking teachers eventually passed their certification tests, but hundreds did not. Yet they remain in the classroom under a "Chicago-only loophole" which allows substitute teachers to teach indefinitely without passing any certification tests. Although other states call such waivers "emergency" or "temporary" permits, Illinois calls them "certificates."
"That's misleading and convoluted and it doesn't accurately reflect what people expect," Sen. Cronin told the Sun-Times. "We're learning that a certificate doesn't mean much [in Illinois]."
Root of Problem
Some educators point to the education colleges as the source of the problem of failing teachers. "There has to be something wrong if you go to college and get B's and C's and then can't pass these exams," observed Superintendent Willie Davis of the Ford Heights School District near Chicago. Other critics say teacher training includes "too much theory and not enough practice, mediocre subject-area training and low admissions standards." It's a vicious cycle, they say: "Graduates of weak public high schools go to weak education colleges and then return, poorly prepared, to teach in the public schools."
With a lack of qualified teachers already plaguing California and growing shortages in many other states, parents and educators worry that testing requirements may be relaxed still further or waived altogether.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
No to Tax Increases
In yesterday's post I talked about a Bill to better explain referenda increases. Today Eric Olson an Editor in the Northwest Herald has a great piece about the Bill. Our favorite line is "Until they can know for sure, they should be voting no to tax increases."
Tax bill would erase lots of confusion
Our local legislators are working during this week's veto session to win approval of a bill that would simplify school tax referendums and how they affect taxpayers.
I wouldn't advise anyone to vote for another school tax-increase referendum until the measure is approved.
State Rep. Mike Tryon, a Crystal Lake Republican, said he went to Springfield early to work on the bill this week, though all our local state legislators are sponsoring Senate Bill 1682.
The measure has arisen from the troubles that have befallen taxpayers in Huntley School District 158, who in November 2004 approved a tax increase that allowed more than double the rate increase that was advertised. Now that district officials are trying to keep the increase to what originally was intended, they are finding that the district will lose millions in state aid as a result.
Tryon puts the chance of it getting approved during the Legislature's veto session, which ends Friday, at 50-50.
The way the system works now, voters cannot know for certain how large a tax increase they are approving, nor can they tell how much their district will benefit from the increased taxes.
The current law requires tax-increase referendums to ask voters to approve increasing the maximum allowable tax rate. However, tax-cap laws limit the amount of new money schools can collect each year to 5 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. The result is that tax rates tend to decline a little bit every year.
Usually by the time a school district asks for a rate increase, the actual tax rate is less than the maximum allowable rate, which can result in a hidden increase that is difficult to predict.
This new legislation would allow voters to decide on how much to raise their actual tax rate, from what it is at the time to what it would be the next year.
"This problem will go away in all future referendums, but the problem will not go away in tax-cap districts where [a] referendum was already approved," Tryon said. "We're trying to provide a mechanism for a district to be able to manage its tax rate."
The bill also allows our local school boards to propose lowering their maximum allowable tax rates.
This is needed because the state takes the maximum allowable tax rate into account when it decides how much money it gives to local school districts. If a district is not using enough of its maximum allowable rate and is being penalized, voters can correct the problem. And a tax-decrease referendum seems like one that would succeed.
This change in the law should be approved before the next election. Voters have a right to know how much a tax increase really will cost them and how much good it will do for them to pay more. Until they can know for sure, they should be voting no to tax increases.
– Eric Olson is the Northwest Herald's multimedia editor.
Tax bill would erase lots of confusion
Our local legislators are working during this week's veto session to win approval of a bill that would simplify school tax referendums and how they affect taxpayers.
I wouldn't advise anyone to vote for another school tax-increase referendum until the measure is approved.
State Rep. Mike Tryon, a Crystal Lake Republican, said he went to Springfield early to work on the bill this week, though all our local state legislators are sponsoring Senate Bill 1682.
The measure has arisen from the troubles that have befallen taxpayers in Huntley School District 158, who in November 2004 approved a tax increase that allowed more than double the rate increase that was advertised. Now that district officials are trying to keep the increase to what originally was intended, they are finding that the district will lose millions in state aid as a result.
Tryon puts the chance of it getting approved during the Legislature's veto session, which ends Friday, at 50-50.
The way the system works now, voters cannot know for certain how large a tax increase they are approving, nor can they tell how much their district will benefit from the increased taxes.
The current law requires tax-increase referendums to ask voters to approve increasing the maximum allowable tax rate. However, tax-cap laws limit the amount of new money schools can collect each year to 5 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. The result is that tax rates tend to decline a little bit every year.
Usually by the time a school district asks for a rate increase, the actual tax rate is less than the maximum allowable rate, which can result in a hidden increase that is difficult to predict.
This new legislation would allow voters to decide on how much to raise their actual tax rate, from what it is at the time to what it would be the next year.
"This problem will go away in all future referendums, but the problem will not go away in tax-cap districts where [a] referendum was already approved," Tryon said. "We're trying to provide a mechanism for a district to be able to manage its tax rate."
The bill also allows our local school boards to propose lowering their maximum allowable tax rates.
This is needed because the state takes the maximum allowable tax rate into account when it decides how much money it gives to local school districts. If a district is not using enough of its maximum allowable rate and is being penalized, voters can correct the problem. And a tax-decrease referendum seems like one that would succeed.
This change in the law should be approved before the next election. Voters have a right to know how much a tax increase really will cost them and how much good it will do for them to pay more. Until they can know for sure, they should be voting no to tax increases.
– Eric Olson is the Northwest Herald's multimedia editor.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Bill to vote on a tax decrease.
Today's Northwest Herald has an article about a Bill that would although voters to vote on a tax decrease for schools. Although this Bill is an excellent ideal it is highly unlikely that this Bill will pass. The teachers' unions in Illinois have now become so strong that they donate large sums of your tax dollars to both republican and democrat legislators.
Bill would turn tide on D-158's tax rate
[published on Tue, Nov 1, 2005]
State lawmakers are making a last-ditch effort to craft legislation that could help undo a controversial District 158 property-tax increase.
Voters in Algonquin, Huntley and Lake in the Hills were stunned after learning that a 55-cent tax-rate increase approved in November 2004 could increase taxes by more than double that amount. Members of the General Assembly have debated multiple bills to prevent a similar misstep in the future and possibly to keep District 158 from losing millions of dollars in state aid.
State Rep. Mike Tryon, R-Crystal Lake, said lawyers were reviewing changes to Senate Bill 1682, which could allow voters to decide on a tax reduction. He said the original bill would be replaced with language from Senate Bill 2123, sponsored by state Sen. Don Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park.
"We have the ability in this bill to run a [tax] rate decrease," Tryon said.
But there is no consensus on whether this bill or others could result in a tax decrease for school districts. State school code does not mention a tax decrease, and Tryon's bill might not address the school-code issue.
Scott Nemanich, a lawyer who represents District 158, said he had not seen the revised bill so he could not comment. He said he expected to offer an opinion today on the bill's ability to provide the mechanism for a tax rollback.
After meeting last week with House and Senate staffers in Springfield, District 158 officials had mixed views on the tax legislation being debated in the General Assembly.
School board President Mike Skala said he had confidence in legislation accomplishing the board's goal to seek a tax decrease. Board member Larry Snow said attorneys for the district were not optimistic about the passage of a bill that would resolve the tax issue.
Tryon said, "If we have to amend the school code, it's a long shot at best."
The fate of the bill rests in the hands of House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat who decides which bills will be sent to the House floor before the fall veto session ends Friday.
By STEVE BROSINSKI
sbrosinski@nwherald.com
Bill would turn tide on D-158's tax rate
[published on Tue, Nov 1, 2005]
State lawmakers are making a last-ditch effort to craft legislation that could help undo a controversial District 158 property-tax increase.
Voters in Algonquin, Huntley and Lake in the Hills were stunned after learning that a 55-cent tax-rate increase approved in November 2004 could increase taxes by more than double that amount. Members of the General Assembly have debated multiple bills to prevent a similar misstep in the future and possibly to keep District 158 from losing millions of dollars in state aid.
State Rep. Mike Tryon, R-Crystal Lake, said lawyers were reviewing changes to Senate Bill 1682, which could allow voters to decide on a tax reduction. He said the original bill would be replaced with language from Senate Bill 2123, sponsored by state Sen. Don Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park.
"We have the ability in this bill to run a [tax] rate decrease," Tryon said.
But there is no consensus on whether this bill or others could result in a tax decrease for school districts. State school code does not mention a tax decrease, and Tryon's bill might not address the school-code issue.
Scott Nemanich, a lawyer who represents District 158, said he had not seen the revised bill so he could not comment. He said he expected to offer an opinion today on the bill's ability to provide the mechanism for a tax rollback.
After meeting last week with House and Senate staffers in Springfield, District 158 officials had mixed views on the tax legislation being debated in the General Assembly.
School board President Mike Skala said he had confidence in legislation accomplishing the board's goal to seek a tax decrease. Board member Larry Snow said attorneys for the district were not optimistic about the passage of a bill that would resolve the tax issue.
Tryon said, "If we have to amend the school code, it's a long shot at best."
The fate of the bill rests in the hands of House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat who decides which bills will be sent to the House floor before the fall veto session ends Friday.
By STEVE BROSINSKI
sbrosinski@nwherald.com
Sunday, October 30, 2005
What Every Ed Student Should Know
The below piece was sent to us by our friend Kevin Killion at Illinois Loop. org. He received this from a teacher friend. This was the note attached. "I thought you might enjoy this article below. This letter to ed school students was written by Martin Kozloff (kozloffm@uncw.edu), an independent thinking professor who is the Watson Distinguished Professor in the education department at the University of North Carolina. " Our education system would be amazing if all teachers took this message to heart.
What Every Ed Student Should Know
March 23rd 2005
Dear Education Student,
I've never met you but I know you.
You are bright.
You are energetic.
You like kids.
You want to do good by kids.
I salute you for that.
You deserve to know the story-to know what the deal is. Therefore, at the risk of being presumptuous and paternalistic (after all, you haven't asked for my opinion), I'm going to give you some advice.
And here it is!
1. Most of what education professors tell you is totally useless.
It has nothing to do with any of the REAL tasks of teaching -- such as communicating information to your students and checking to see if they get it (which is the CORE of teaching).
It has never been tested and shown to be valid, true, reliable, or useful. It fact, most of what education professors tell you is wrong, false, and pure baloney. It is superficial. You'll be told a few things that Piaget believed. It will add up to nothing. You'll be told to adapt instruction to your students' "learning styles," but no one will tell you exactly how to do this. [Besides, there's really no such thing as learning styles, anyway.]
2. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. Don't be taken in by nice-sounding words.
"Best practice." Oh, yeah? Who says?
"Authentic." What on earth does that mean?
"Developmentally appropriate." Are all kids the same?
"Reflection." How is that different from thinking about something?
"Child centered." What else?
"Multiple intelligence." How is that different from skills?
"Learning styles." Does not exist.
"Portfolio assessment." Look at junk in a kid's scrapbook.
"Brain-based." Is there some other organ involved? Real brain scientists think "brain based learning" is just a stupid fad. Do you think education professors know ANYthing about the brain? Would you take their advice on medication?
These words sound good but they are logically absurd (i.e., stupid) and there is almost no research to support them. They will be NO help to you in the classroom. In fact, they will confuse you and take time away from designing CLEAR instruction that is to the POINT. There you are standing in front of your kids. Your objective is to teach them the strategy for decoding words (sounding out words and then saying them fast) -- regular words (such as ran, slim, ask) and irregular words (such as the, was, said). If kids don't learn to decode words accurately and quickly, they will not learn to read connected text accurately and quickly, and therefore they will not comprehend what they read, and therefore they will spend their lives being ignorant.
How will "learning style," "child centered," "holistic," "authentic," and "Piaget said!" help you now?
They won't. Not one bit. So, drop it. Delete it from your memory. Forget it.
Teaching is a technical game. A logical game. All you have to do is demonstrate the strategy for decoding words clearly and explicitly (showing students exactly HOW), using a range of examples of words that they will soon have to read.
Boys and girls, I'll show you how to read this word (point
to "slip") the slow way. When I touch under a letter I will
say the sound. Get ready. Here I go.
sssllliiip
Watch again.
sssllliiip
Do it with me.
sssllliiip
Your turn.
sssllliiip.
Excellent for reading that word the slow way.
Was Piaget a lot of help there?
In other words, if you present information in a logically clear way, you don't need ANYthing else.
3. Be skeptical. In fact, have an "attitude." Ask hard questions. After all, you're paying for this education.
"What exactly does 'authentic' mean?"
"What research shows what is best?"
"What experiment pits so called developmentally appropriate practices against so-called developmentally inappropriate practices?"
Most education professors will turn red when you ask these questions. They won't have good answers. They'll just repeat themselves.
"Best practices are practices that (work best, are child-centered, are effective)." Gee, that's REAL helpful.
"Is there any research? Oh, yes. Lots of research. Lots. A whole lot." Oh, good.
If that's how your physician answered questions would you stay or would you run?
4. Education is a moral enterprise. We do NOT have the right or the public mandate to experiment with (other people's) children or to play with "ideas" by using (or by teaching ed students to use) untested methods and curricula.
In any other field, using methods that have not been thoroughly field tested and shown to be reliably effective would be considered malpractice and perhaps criminal. Corporations spend more time and money testing if a new shampoo will really give you "lustrous and vibrant hair" (and not make you bald) than education professors spend on whole methods for teaching reading or math to millions of children. Yet, they will tell you -- with great confidence -- to use these methods.
How do YOU spell immoral?
Remember. It's YOU in front of those kids! Your professors are back in their offices. If your kids don't learn to read or do math, even though you did what your education professors told you, it will be YOU that is considered responsible. No one will be going after them.
The arrow of accountability -> You
"Me?"
Yes, you!
5. As in medicine, architecture, structural engineering, and food science, the only morally acceptable guide to action is research. Not personal opinion. Not personal preference or style. Not "philosophy." And certainly not what a lot of other people [who just might be morons] think is right.
Has a new curriculum been field tested with thousands of kids before it is sold? [If not, run!]
What does the preponderance of scientific research-experimental research (with control groups, longitudinal, quantitative data)-say about a method, an assessment instrument, or a curriculum? If you can't find a ton of serious research on it, then RUN!
Don't be sucked in by qualitative research (e.g., case studies of one classroom, interviews with teachers or students, field notes). This kind of information is too subjective and unreliable. For example, there is NO experimental research showing that teachers make better decisions about how to improve instruction when teachers assess kids' portfolios than when teachers use standardized tests to see what kids have learned. So how come education professors want you to use portfolio assessment?
Would you give your own children medication that had not been tested scientifically? Would you use medication that is supported only by testimonials?
"I used Dr. Bingbong's Herbal Rejuvenator. Now I have LOTS of energy. Of course all my teeth fell out and I can't hear. Hello? Hello?"
6. We are not social revolutionaries or even social reformers. No one asked us to do anything but teach. We will not produce greater equity in the life chances of disadvantaged minorities by having ed students mouth platitudes about diversity or student centered instruction. We can only try to teach all kids well.
So, when education professors try to enlist you in THEIR great cause (social justice, equality, stamping out racism, reforming American social institutions), ask yourself,
"Who IS this person? Where does THIS person get off thinking that changing society is HIS job? Would I even let this person baby-sit my little brother? Besides, look at how this guy dresses! Where does he get those clothes? A dumpster?"
7. Teaching well is not an art. It is not about teachers' creativity. It is a technical game -- like surgery, architecture, engineering, and even cooking. Just as perfection in dance, music, archery, sky diving, martial arts, sports, and creative writing are FIRST technical. There is a way (a routine-a set of steps governed by rules) that produces good results (balance, speed, strength, grace, hitting the target-i.e., accomplishing the objectives). Your job is to learn those ways. The time for creativity is thinking how to expand or enhance instruction. Once you have taught students figures of speech, symbolism, rhyme and meter, how might they APPLY this? Now be creative.
8. We know enough about the technology (how to) for teaching reading, writing, spelling, math, foreign languages, history, logic, science, and many other subjects, so that instruction can be relatively straightforward and routine for most students, and can even be in commercial curricula. Creativity is reserved for nonroutine situations and problems.
So, don't be a dope. Use commercial, tested programs to teach the core skills in the major subjects. Or, you can spend hours every day and all weekend preparing lessons!
Here are your real friends:
Sopris West
Curriculum Associates
SRA McGraw-Hill
Core Knowledge
Saxon
Singapore Math
Websites used by homeschoolers. They have done the research
on good programs for you.
"Teach Your Child in 100 Easy Lessons " at
http://www.startreading.com You can teach almost any kid to
read using this book -- for 20 dollars.
"Designing effective mathematics instruction" by Marcy Stein.
All the lessons are there.
And there are lots of resources at http://www.educationation.org
Professor Plum may be a little strange but he's not always wrong.
What Every Ed Student Should Know
March 23rd 2005
Dear Education Student,
I've never met you but I know you.
You are bright.
You are energetic.
You like kids.
You want to do good by kids.
I salute you for that.
You deserve to know the story-to know what the deal is. Therefore, at the risk of being presumptuous and paternalistic (after all, you haven't asked for my opinion), I'm going to give you some advice.
And here it is!
1. Most of what education professors tell you is totally useless.
It has nothing to do with any of the REAL tasks of teaching -- such as communicating information to your students and checking to see if they get it (which is the CORE of teaching).
It has never been tested and shown to be valid, true, reliable, or useful. It fact, most of what education professors tell you is wrong, false, and pure baloney. It is superficial. You'll be told a few things that Piaget believed. It will add up to nothing. You'll be told to adapt instruction to your students' "learning styles," but no one will tell you exactly how to do this. [Besides, there's really no such thing as learning styles, anyway.]
2. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. Don't be taken in by nice-sounding words.
"Best practice." Oh, yeah? Who says?
"Authentic." What on earth does that mean?
"Developmentally appropriate." Are all kids the same?
"Reflection." How is that different from thinking about something?
"Child centered." What else?
"Multiple intelligence." How is that different from skills?
"Learning styles." Does not exist.
"Portfolio assessment." Look at junk in a kid's scrapbook.
"Brain-based." Is there some other organ involved? Real brain scientists think "brain based learning" is just a stupid fad. Do you think education professors know ANYthing about the brain? Would you take their advice on medication?
These words sound good but they are logically absurd (i.e., stupid) and there is almost no research to support them. They will be NO help to you in the classroom. In fact, they will confuse you and take time away from designing CLEAR instruction that is to the POINT. There you are standing in front of your kids. Your objective is to teach them the strategy for decoding words (sounding out words and then saying them fast) -- regular words (such as ran, slim, ask) and irregular words (such as the, was, said). If kids don't learn to decode words accurately and quickly, they will not learn to read connected text accurately and quickly, and therefore they will not comprehend what they read, and therefore they will spend their lives being ignorant.
How will "learning style," "child centered," "holistic," "authentic," and "Piaget said!" help you now?
They won't. Not one bit. So, drop it. Delete it from your memory. Forget it.
Teaching is a technical game. A logical game. All you have to do is demonstrate the strategy for decoding words clearly and explicitly (showing students exactly HOW), using a range of examples of words that they will soon have to read.
Boys and girls, I'll show you how to read this word (point
to "slip") the slow way. When I touch under a letter I will
say the sound. Get ready. Here I go.
sssllliiip
Watch again.
sssllliiip
Do it with me.
sssllliiip
Your turn.
sssllliiip.
Excellent for reading that word the slow way.
Was Piaget a lot of help there?
In other words, if you present information in a logically clear way, you don't need ANYthing else.
3. Be skeptical. In fact, have an "attitude." Ask hard questions. After all, you're paying for this education.
"What exactly does 'authentic' mean?"
"What research shows what is best?"
"What experiment pits so called developmentally appropriate practices against so-called developmentally inappropriate practices?"
Most education professors will turn red when you ask these questions. They won't have good answers. They'll just repeat themselves.
"Best practices are practices that (work best, are child-centered, are effective)." Gee, that's REAL helpful.
"Is there any research? Oh, yes. Lots of research. Lots. A whole lot." Oh, good.
If that's how your physician answered questions would you stay or would you run?
4. Education is a moral enterprise. We do NOT have the right or the public mandate to experiment with (other people's) children or to play with "ideas" by using (or by teaching ed students to use) untested methods and curricula.
In any other field, using methods that have not been thoroughly field tested and shown to be reliably effective would be considered malpractice and perhaps criminal. Corporations spend more time and money testing if a new shampoo will really give you "lustrous and vibrant hair" (and not make you bald) than education professors spend on whole methods for teaching reading or math to millions of children. Yet, they will tell you -- with great confidence -- to use these methods.
How do YOU spell immoral?
Remember. It's YOU in front of those kids! Your professors are back in their offices. If your kids don't learn to read or do math, even though you did what your education professors told you, it will be YOU that is considered responsible. No one will be going after them.
The arrow of accountability -> You
"Me?"
Yes, you!
5. As in medicine, architecture, structural engineering, and food science, the only morally acceptable guide to action is research. Not personal opinion. Not personal preference or style. Not "philosophy." And certainly not what a lot of other people [who just might be morons] think is right.
Has a new curriculum been field tested with thousands of kids before it is sold? [If not, run!]
What does the preponderance of scientific research-experimental research (with control groups, longitudinal, quantitative data)-say about a method, an assessment instrument, or a curriculum? If you can't find a ton of serious research on it, then RUN!
Don't be sucked in by qualitative research (e.g., case studies of one classroom, interviews with teachers or students, field notes). This kind of information is too subjective and unreliable. For example, there is NO experimental research showing that teachers make better decisions about how to improve instruction when teachers assess kids' portfolios than when teachers use standardized tests to see what kids have learned. So how come education professors want you to use portfolio assessment?
Would you give your own children medication that had not been tested scientifically? Would you use medication that is supported only by testimonials?
"I used Dr. Bingbong's Herbal Rejuvenator. Now I have LOTS of energy. Of course all my teeth fell out and I can't hear. Hello? Hello?"
6. We are not social revolutionaries or even social reformers. No one asked us to do anything but teach. We will not produce greater equity in the life chances of disadvantaged minorities by having ed students mouth platitudes about diversity or student centered instruction. We can only try to teach all kids well.
So, when education professors try to enlist you in THEIR great cause (social justice, equality, stamping out racism, reforming American social institutions), ask yourself,
"Who IS this person? Where does THIS person get off thinking that changing society is HIS job? Would I even let this person baby-sit my little brother? Besides, look at how this guy dresses! Where does he get those clothes? A dumpster?"
7. Teaching well is not an art. It is not about teachers' creativity. It is a technical game -- like surgery, architecture, engineering, and even cooking. Just as perfection in dance, music, archery, sky diving, martial arts, sports, and creative writing are FIRST technical. There is a way (a routine-a set of steps governed by rules) that produces good results (balance, speed, strength, grace, hitting the target-i.e., accomplishing the objectives). Your job is to learn those ways. The time for creativity is thinking how to expand or enhance instruction. Once you have taught students figures of speech, symbolism, rhyme and meter, how might they APPLY this? Now be creative.
8. We know enough about the technology (how to) for teaching reading, writing, spelling, math, foreign languages, history, logic, science, and many other subjects, so that instruction can be relatively straightforward and routine for most students, and can even be in commercial curricula. Creativity is reserved for nonroutine situations and problems.
So, don't be a dope. Use commercial, tested programs to teach the core skills in the major subjects. Or, you can spend hours every day and all weekend preparing lessons!
Here are your real friends:
Sopris West
Curriculum Associates
SRA McGraw-Hill
Core Knowledge
Saxon
Singapore Math
Websites used by homeschoolers. They have done the research
on good programs for you.
"Teach Your Child in 100 Easy Lessons " at
http://www.startreading.com You can teach almost any kid to
read using this book -- for 20 dollars.
"Designing effective mathematics instruction" by Marcy Stein.
All the lessons are there.
And there are lots of resources at http://www.educationation.org
Professor Plum may be a little strange but he's not always wrong.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Education Myths and Cheating Our Kids
Looking for a great Christmas present, Hanukkah present or your favorite holiday present for your favorite education reformist consider Education Myths : What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools and Why it Isn't So by Jay P. Greene and Cheating Our Kids : How Politics and Greed Ruin Education by Joe Williams. Amazon is offering a special savings if you purchase these two books at once. For complete reviews of the books go to Amazon.
A Nation at Risk
In April 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education Published A Nation at Risk
. It has been 22 years since this piece was published and about 18 years of teachers who were educated in this system now teaching our children. Some of the indicators of risk included the following.
1. International comparisons of student achievement, completed a decade ago, reveal that on 19 academic tests American students were never first or second and, in comparison with other industrialized nations, were last seven times.
2. Some 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading, writing, and comprehension.
3. About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. Functional illiteracy among minority youth may run as high as 40 percent.
4. Average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched.
5. Over half the population of gifted students do not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school.
6. The College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) demonstrate a virtually unbroken decline from 1963 to 1980. Average verbal scores fell over 50 points and average mathematics scores dropped nearly 40 points.
7. College Board achievement tests also reveal consistent declines in recent years in such subjects as physics and English.
8. Both the number and proportion of students demonstrating superior achievement on the SATs (i.e., those with scores of 650 or higher) have also dramatically declined.
9. Many 17-year-olds do not possess the "higher order" intellectual skills we should expect of them. Nearly 40 percent cannot draw inferences from written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps.
10. There was a steady decline in science achievement scores of U.S. 17-year-olds as measured by national assessments of science in 1969, 1973, and 1977.
11. Between 1975 and 1980, remedial mathematics courses in public 4-year colleges increased by 72 percent and now constitute one-quarter of all mathematics courses taught in those institutions.
12. Average tested achievement of students graduating from college is also lower.
13. Business and military leaders complain that they are required to spend millions of dollars on costly remedial education and training programs in such basic skills as reading, writing, spelling, and computation. The Department of the Navy, for example, reported to the Commission that one-quarter of its recent recruits cannot read at the ninth grade level, the minimum needed simply to understand written safety instructions. Without remedial work they cannot even begin, much less complete, the sophisticated training essential in much of the modern military.
This must be a concern of all parents and all citizens for the full report go to A Nation at Risk
. The undereducation of American children effects all citizens because those who are not properly educated as children are either robbed of a more prosperous future or become burdens on society which we must support through welfare or the penial system. The problem is not the amount spent on education but the quality of education. You may think that your child is in a good school but that does not go far enough we need to make sure all children are educated properly and with that we need true education reform.
. It has been 22 years since this piece was published and about 18 years of teachers who were educated in this system now teaching our children. Some of the indicators of risk included the following.
1. International comparisons of student achievement, completed a decade ago, reveal that on 19 academic tests American students were never first or second and, in comparison with other industrialized nations, were last seven times.
2. Some 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading, writing, and comprehension.
3. About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. Functional illiteracy among minority youth may run as high as 40 percent.
4. Average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched.
5. Over half the population of gifted students do not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school.
6. The College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) demonstrate a virtually unbroken decline from 1963 to 1980. Average verbal scores fell over 50 points and average mathematics scores dropped nearly 40 points.
7. College Board achievement tests also reveal consistent declines in recent years in such subjects as physics and English.
8. Both the number and proportion of students demonstrating superior achievement on the SATs (i.e., those with scores of 650 or higher) have also dramatically declined.
9. Many 17-year-olds do not possess the "higher order" intellectual skills we should expect of them. Nearly 40 percent cannot draw inferences from written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps.
10. There was a steady decline in science achievement scores of U.S. 17-year-olds as measured by national assessments of science in 1969, 1973, and 1977.
11. Between 1975 and 1980, remedial mathematics courses in public 4-year colleges increased by 72 percent and now constitute one-quarter of all mathematics courses taught in those institutions.
12. Average tested achievement of students graduating from college is also lower.
13. Business and military leaders complain that they are required to spend millions of dollars on costly remedial education and training programs in such basic skills as reading, writing, spelling, and computation. The Department of the Navy, for example, reported to the Commission that one-quarter of its recent recruits cannot read at the ninth grade level, the minimum needed simply to understand written safety instructions. Without remedial work they cannot even begin, much less complete, the sophisticated training essential in much of the modern military.
This must be a concern of all parents and all citizens for the full report go to A Nation at Risk
. The undereducation of American children effects all citizens because those who are not properly educated as children are either robbed of a more prosperous future or become burdens on society which we must support through welfare or the penial system. The problem is not the amount spent on education but the quality of education. You may think that your child is in a good school but that does not go far enough we need to make sure all children are educated properly and with that we need true education reform.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
How teachers union hurt teachers and institutions.
Teachers' unoins are taking big chunks of money out of teahers' paycheck to fight the Governor Schwarzeneggers reform plans. A great article appears in the Heartland Institute's magazine School Reform News
Class-Action Lawsuit Pending Against California Teacher Union
U.S. District Court allows union to use forced dues increase for political lobbying
Written By: Karla Dial
Published In: School Reform News
Publication Date: November 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
While a class-action lawsuit against the California Teachers Association (CTA) was pending, a U.S. District Court judge on October 6 refused to temporarily freeze funds the union seized from teachers statewide without due process in order to fight Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and several measures on the November 8 special-election ballot.
Since September 30, the CTA has been automatically collecting an additional $60 a year in dues from all 335,000 teachers and college professors statewide. Six teachers, represented by the National Right to Work Legal Foundation, filed a class-action lawsuit against the union in late August, citing a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson) that says all union members must be notified of how their forced union dues are spent and be given a chance to prevent their money being spent for purposes other than collective bargaining.
Lead plaintiff Judy Liegmann, a fifth-grade teacher from Sunnyvale, said she found out about the three-year increase in late June from the CTA representative at her school. The union never formally notified her or told her of her constitutionally guaranteed options.
"Assessing dues for political purposes without asking permission [from members] ahead of time is very strange," Liegmann said. "That's money that has to do with our convictions. The union has done nothing to let teachers know they voted in an arbitrary way to dip into every teacher's paycheck to fight a political battle whether the teachers liked it or not."
Money Already Spent
In a sworn statement, CTA accountant Carlos Moreno revealed September 30 that the CTA already has spent on political activities the $60 million that will be raised by the forced dues increase. At press time, the union was seeking an additional $40 million loan from a bank.
While the U.S Supreme Court precedent boded well for the class-action lawsuit, Justin Hakes, a spokesman for the National Right to Work Legal Foundation, said the October 6 ruling violated teachers' consciences.
"The whole point of [seeking to freeze the funds] was that once the election is over, the money's been spent, and you can't undo the results of the election," he said. "Once someone's conscience has been violated, you can't undo that."
The CTA did not return calls seeking comment.
The teachers have been doing a great job of destroying the public education system now they are trying to mess up a Catholic School in Michigan. The below article appears in School Reform News
If Catholic school teachers want to unionize we would prefer they go to the public schools and not mess up the better performing Catholic school system.
Court: State Can't Force Catholic School to Unionize
Written By: Neal McCluskey
Published In: School Reform News
Publication Date: November 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The Michigan Education Association (MEA) is deciding whether to appeal an August ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals that held a state labor relations commission could not force a Roman Catholic high school to permit its teachers to unionize. This marks the latest twist in a two-year battle between Brother Rice High School in Birmingham, several of its teachers, and the MEA.
The case began in July 2003, when 30 of Brother Rice's 42 teachers requested that the school permit the faculty to vote on whether to join the MEA, the state affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA). The school refused, arguing that permitting its teachers to join the MEA, which sends a portion of all dues it collects to the NEA, would conflict with Roman Catholic teachings. The Catholic Church opposes legalized abortion, for instance, while the NEA has cosponsored pro-abortion marches.
After Brother Rice rejected the teachers' request, the MEA petitioned the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to force the school to let the vote proceed. In August 2004, MERC ruled against Brother Rice, finding the Michigan Labor Relations and Mediation Act required the school to permit the unionization vote.
Brother Rice appealed MERC's ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which on August 16 overturned the commission's decision, declaring MERC did not have jurisdiction over the matter and that government infringement on a parochial school's labor relations raises "substantial First Amendment concerns." The ruling was consistent with National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishops of Chicago, a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court found federal involvement in labor disputes involving religious organizations violates the religious freedom provisions of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Balancing Act
Patrick Gillen, an attorney for the Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan--Brother Rice's parent organization--was pleased with the appeals court's ruling. He told the Detroit Free Press on August 17 the "delicate balance" between keeping a Catholic school affordable and treating its teachers fairly "should be struck by the school community without any interference from the state."
MEA Communications Director Margaret Trimer-Hartley said the union has not yet decided whether it will appeal the court's ruling. Likely important to that decision will be whether the MEA thinks an entity like MERC or the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will ever constitutionally be able to command a religious school to accept a unionized faculty.
Such a command was recently upheld at the post-secondary level. On August 30--just two weeks after the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned MERC's decision--the NLRB ordered Presbyterian-founded Carroll College in Milwaukee to allow its faculty to organize under the United Auto Workers. The NLRB rejected Carroll's argument that a unionized faculty would compromise the school's religious mission.
However, that decision did not necessarily bode ill for schools with clear religious affiliations. The NLRB found Carroll's connection with the Presbyterian Church had become very weak over time, with Presbyterians neither owning nor running the school today.
Ongoing Challenges
Justin Hakes, director of legal information for the National Right to Work Foundation in Springfield, Virginia, does not think efforts to unionize religious schools are near an end.
"Though the August ruling signifies a victory both for religious independence and teacher freedom in Michigan," Hakes said, "union officials will continue to target teachers as they hungrily pursue new sources of forced union dues revenues."
The MEA's Trimer-Hartley, in response to a question about future efforts to organize religious schools, suggested Hakes might be right in predicting continued union involvement.
"[Though] we have not actively sought members in religious schools, and we don't see this decision as changing that strategy," Trimer-Hartley said, "our organizing strategy is to answer the phone and respond to requests to hold elections. We will likely still answer the phone and judge each request individually."
Class-Action Lawsuit Pending Against California Teacher Union
U.S. District Court allows union to use forced dues increase for political lobbying
Written By: Karla Dial
Published In: School Reform News
Publication Date: November 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
While a class-action lawsuit against the California Teachers Association (CTA) was pending, a U.S. District Court judge on October 6 refused to temporarily freeze funds the union seized from teachers statewide without due process in order to fight Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and several measures on the November 8 special-election ballot.
Since September 30, the CTA has been automatically collecting an additional $60 a year in dues from all 335,000 teachers and college professors statewide. Six teachers, represented by the National Right to Work Legal Foundation, filed a class-action lawsuit against the union in late August, citing a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson) that says all union members must be notified of how their forced union dues are spent and be given a chance to prevent their money being spent for purposes other than collective bargaining.
Lead plaintiff Judy Liegmann, a fifth-grade teacher from Sunnyvale, said she found out about the three-year increase in late June from the CTA representative at her school. The union never formally notified her or told her of her constitutionally guaranteed options.
"Assessing dues for political purposes without asking permission [from members] ahead of time is very strange," Liegmann said. "That's money that has to do with our convictions. The union has done nothing to let teachers know they voted in an arbitrary way to dip into every teacher's paycheck to fight a political battle whether the teachers liked it or not."
Money Already Spent
In a sworn statement, CTA accountant Carlos Moreno revealed September 30 that the CTA already has spent on political activities the $60 million that will be raised by the forced dues increase. At press time, the union was seeking an additional $40 million loan from a bank.
While the U.S Supreme Court precedent boded well for the class-action lawsuit, Justin Hakes, a spokesman for the National Right to Work Legal Foundation, said the October 6 ruling violated teachers' consciences.
"The whole point of [seeking to freeze the funds] was that once the election is over, the money's been spent, and you can't undo the results of the election," he said. "Once someone's conscience has been violated, you can't undo that."
The CTA did not return calls seeking comment.
The teachers have been doing a great job of destroying the public education system now they are trying to mess up a Catholic School in Michigan. The below article appears in School Reform News
If Catholic school teachers want to unionize we would prefer they go to the public schools and not mess up the better performing Catholic school system.
Court: State Can't Force Catholic School to Unionize
Written By: Neal McCluskey
Published In: School Reform News
Publication Date: November 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The Michigan Education Association (MEA) is deciding whether to appeal an August ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals that held a state labor relations commission could not force a Roman Catholic high school to permit its teachers to unionize. This marks the latest twist in a two-year battle between Brother Rice High School in Birmingham, several of its teachers, and the MEA.
The case began in July 2003, when 30 of Brother Rice's 42 teachers requested that the school permit the faculty to vote on whether to join the MEA, the state affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA). The school refused, arguing that permitting its teachers to join the MEA, which sends a portion of all dues it collects to the NEA, would conflict with Roman Catholic teachings. The Catholic Church opposes legalized abortion, for instance, while the NEA has cosponsored pro-abortion marches.
After Brother Rice rejected the teachers' request, the MEA petitioned the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to force the school to let the vote proceed. In August 2004, MERC ruled against Brother Rice, finding the Michigan Labor Relations and Mediation Act required the school to permit the unionization vote.
Brother Rice appealed MERC's ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which on August 16 overturned the commission's decision, declaring MERC did not have jurisdiction over the matter and that government infringement on a parochial school's labor relations raises "substantial First Amendment concerns." The ruling was consistent with National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishops of Chicago, a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court found federal involvement in labor disputes involving religious organizations violates the religious freedom provisions of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Balancing Act
Patrick Gillen, an attorney for the Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan--Brother Rice's parent organization--was pleased with the appeals court's ruling. He told the Detroit Free Press on August 17 the "delicate balance" between keeping a Catholic school affordable and treating its teachers fairly "should be struck by the school community without any interference from the state."
MEA Communications Director Margaret Trimer-Hartley said the union has not yet decided whether it will appeal the court's ruling. Likely important to that decision will be whether the MEA thinks an entity like MERC or the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will ever constitutionally be able to command a religious school to accept a unionized faculty.
Such a command was recently upheld at the post-secondary level. On August 30--just two weeks after the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned MERC's decision--the NLRB ordered Presbyterian-founded Carroll College in Milwaukee to allow its faculty to organize under the United Auto Workers. The NLRB rejected Carroll's argument that a unionized faculty would compromise the school's religious mission.
However, that decision did not necessarily bode ill for schools with clear religious affiliations. The NLRB found Carroll's connection with the Presbyterian Church had become very weak over time, with Presbyterians neither owning nor running the school today.
Ongoing Challenges
Justin Hakes, director of legal information for the National Right to Work Foundation in Springfield, Virginia, does not think efforts to unionize religious schools are near an end.
"Though the August ruling signifies a victory both for religious independence and teacher freedom in Michigan," Hakes said, "union officials will continue to target teachers as they hungrily pursue new sources of forced union dues revenues."
The MEA's Trimer-Hartley, in response to a question about future efforts to organize religious schools, suggested Hakes might be right in predicting continued union involvement.
"[Though] we have not actively sought members in religious schools, and we don't see this decision as changing that strategy," Trimer-Hartley said, "our organizing strategy is to answer the phone and respond to requests to hold elections. We will likely still answer the phone and judge each request individually."
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Funding for Schools to be Fair and Equal
Thanks to Bruno Behrend of Extreme Wisdom
for this great heads up. Tony Blair has decided to take on the left and the teacher's union and reform the education system in England. Not surprising many of the same lame excuses put out by the education establishment here are being touted in England.
Funding for Schools to be Fair and Equal
Funding for schools to be 'fair and equal'
By John Clare, Education Editor and George Jones
(Filed: 25/10/2005)
Every secondary school is expected to become an independent, self-governing academy within five years, Tony Blair said yesterday.
Parents would be given power to change the curriculum, replace failing heads and start new schools, he promised. Anticipating today's education White Paper - "a pivotal moment in the life of this Government" - he outlined radical plans to "complete the reform" of state education in England that Labour started when it came to power eight years ago.
Councils will be stripped of their responsibility for schools; businesses, churches, City livery companies and wealthy individuals will be allowed to take over schools; independent schools will be encouraged to accept state cash and join the state sector; and there is to be a new emphasis on grouping pupils by ability and offering advanced classes to the brightest.
Mr Blair made clear that he was ready to resist opposition from the Labour Left and the teachers' unions to opening up the system to parent power and ending comprehensive education.
He has decided to make reform of secondary education one of the defining issues of his remaining years as Prime Minister.
In what will be seen as a rebuff to his critics, including John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, he said: "Parts of the Left will say we are privatising public services and giving too much to the middle class. Both criticisms are wrong and simply a version of the old levelling down mentality that kept us in opposition for so long."
The National Union of Teachers said Mr Blair's "obsession with choice" would "lead to chaos" and accused him of "pandering to the pushy middle classes" at the expense of poorer children.
Ian Gibson, the Labour MP for Norwich North, said he was -"dismayed" that all the good work in secondary education could be destroyed by the changes.
Government sources stressed that Mr Blair was ready for a final showdown with the Left over the plans to introduce more choice in both education and the National Health Service.
Although Mr Prescott is unhappy with the plans, fearing that they will discriminate against the poor and favour the middle classes, Mr Blair has the backing of Gordon Brown, the Chancellor and his likely successor, who is intent on creating more "personalised" public services.
David Cameron, the Tories' education spokesman, said that if Mr Blair really meant to introduce greater rigour, autonomy and choice he would "have the full backing of the Conservative Party because the education of our children is too important to play games over".
Mr Blair, addressing an invited audience of parents at No 10, said that successive reforms of state education since 1944 had not always fulfilled what they had promised. This time it was different because "we have learned what works".
Since 1997, good or better teaching in primary schools, as judged by Ofsted, had risen from 45 per cent to 74 and in secondaries from 59 per cent to 78. The proportion of 11-year-olds reaching the expected level in reading, writing and maths had risen from 43 per cent to 57 and pupils achieving five good GCSEs, including English and maths, had gone up from 35 per cent to 44.
But there was more to do to tackle pockets of deep educational disadvantage. Parents would be given real power. All schools would be able to have academy-style freedoms and be able to take on external partners.
"No one will be able to veto parents starting new schools or new providers coming in simply on the basis that there are local surplus places."
There would be a market in both education and the NHS but not one based on private purchasing power.
"Personal wealth won't buy you better NHS service. Funding for schools will be fair and equal no matter what their status and there will be no return to selection aged 11."
Parents would be able to replace the leadership or set up new schools if they were dissatisfied and they would be involved in decisions on issues such as the curriculum, school meals and uniform.
Although Mr Blair failed to acknowledge the debt his academy and specialist school programmes owe to the city technology colleges devised by the Tories, he did try to explain why he had abolished grant-maintained status, which provides the model for his independent schools.
He said: "Grant-maintained schools only covered 18 per cent of secondary schools and three per cent of primary schools and on both funding and admissions, where special privileges were given, created a real sense of anger amongst other less fortunate schools, needlessly creating a two-tier system."
Mr Cameron said: "Only now at the twilight of his premiership is he taking the steps that the Conservatives pressed him to take for so long."
for this great heads up. Tony Blair has decided to take on the left and the teacher's union and reform the education system in England. Not surprising many of the same lame excuses put out by the education establishment here are being touted in England.
Funding for Schools to be Fair and Equal
Funding for schools to be 'fair and equal'
By John Clare, Education Editor and George Jones
(Filed: 25/10/2005)
Every secondary school is expected to become an independent, self-governing academy within five years, Tony Blair said yesterday.
Parents would be given power to change the curriculum, replace failing heads and start new schools, he promised. Anticipating today's education White Paper - "a pivotal moment in the life of this Government" - he outlined radical plans to "complete the reform" of state education in England that Labour started when it came to power eight years ago.
Councils will be stripped of their responsibility for schools; businesses, churches, City livery companies and wealthy individuals will be allowed to take over schools; independent schools will be encouraged to accept state cash and join the state sector; and there is to be a new emphasis on grouping pupils by ability and offering advanced classes to the brightest.
Mr Blair made clear that he was ready to resist opposition from the Labour Left and the teachers' unions to opening up the system to parent power and ending comprehensive education.
He has decided to make reform of secondary education one of the defining issues of his remaining years as Prime Minister.
In what will be seen as a rebuff to his critics, including John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, he said: "Parts of the Left will say we are privatising public services and giving too much to the middle class. Both criticisms are wrong and simply a version of the old levelling down mentality that kept us in opposition for so long."
The National Union of Teachers said Mr Blair's "obsession with choice" would "lead to chaos" and accused him of "pandering to the pushy middle classes" at the expense of poorer children.
Ian Gibson, the Labour MP for Norwich North, said he was -"dismayed" that all the good work in secondary education could be destroyed by the changes.
Government sources stressed that Mr Blair was ready for a final showdown with the Left over the plans to introduce more choice in both education and the National Health Service.
Although Mr Prescott is unhappy with the plans, fearing that they will discriminate against the poor and favour the middle classes, Mr Blair has the backing of Gordon Brown, the Chancellor and his likely successor, who is intent on creating more "personalised" public services.
David Cameron, the Tories' education spokesman, said that if Mr Blair really meant to introduce greater rigour, autonomy and choice he would "have the full backing of the Conservative Party because the education of our children is too important to play games over".
Mr Blair, addressing an invited audience of parents at No 10, said that successive reforms of state education since 1944 had not always fulfilled what they had promised. This time it was different because "we have learned what works".
Since 1997, good or better teaching in primary schools, as judged by Ofsted, had risen from 45 per cent to 74 and in secondaries from 59 per cent to 78. The proportion of 11-year-olds reaching the expected level in reading, writing and maths had risen from 43 per cent to 57 and pupils achieving five good GCSEs, including English and maths, had gone up from 35 per cent to 44.
But there was more to do to tackle pockets of deep educational disadvantage. Parents would be given real power. All schools would be able to have academy-style freedoms and be able to take on external partners.
"No one will be able to veto parents starting new schools or new providers coming in simply on the basis that there are local surplus places."
There would be a market in both education and the NHS but not one based on private purchasing power.
"Personal wealth won't buy you better NHS service. Funding for schools will be fair and equal no matter what their status and there will be no return to selection aged 11."
Parents would be able to replace the leadership or set up new schools if they were dissatisfied and they would be involved in decisions on issues such as the curriculum, school meals and uniform.
Although Mr Blair failed to acknowledge the debt his academy and specialist school programmes owe to the city technology colleges devised by the Tories, he did try to explain why he had abolished grant-maintained status, which provides the model for his independent schools.
He said: "Grant-maintained schools only covered 18 per cent of secondary schools and three per cent of primary schools and on both funding and admissions, where special privileges were given, created a real sense of anger amongst other less fortunate schools, needlessly creating a two-tier system."
Mr Cameron said: "Only now at the twilight of his premiership is he taking the steps that the Conservatives pressed him to take for so long."
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Teachers' Cost Of Living Matters More
Thanks to a friend in Harvard for passing this analysis on to CRAFT. The below analysis appears on the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
website.
Teachers' Cost of Living Matters More
Brief Analysis
No. 535
by Danielle Georgiou, Pamela Villarreal and Matt Moore
Public officials and teacher unions often compare teacher salaries in a particular city or region against the national average or against other U.S. cities. They assume teachers in areas with higher than average pay are doing well, whereas teachers in areas below the national average must fare poorly. Legislators in states where teacher pay is below the national average are under considerable pressure to raise salaries.
However, our analysis suggests officials may want to consider the cost of living — the quantity of goods teachers can actually purchase with their salaries — rather than simply comparing pay. Our analysis of teacher pay in 50 major metropolitan areas shows that after the adjustment, some cities regarded as higher-paying are actually below average, while cities that appear to pay so-so wages are actually quite generous.
Why Is the Cost of Living Important? Teacher pay is determined mostly by years of service and level of education; the grade level taught or a teacher's effect on student performance are not considered, and advanced degrees are given equal weight.
The average wage for elementary public school teachers in the United States is $45,670.
The average wage for elementary teachers in the regions considered in our analysis range from $59,514 in New York City to $32,209 in Oklahoma City.
Of course, other factors can affect a teacher's salary, such as continuing education credits and sponsorship of extracurricular activities. But simply totaling the number of dollars they are paid doesn't give a complete picture of how well, or poorly, teachers in a given city or region are faring. It is much more meaningful to know what a teacher's dollar will buy locally.
The local cost of living is determined by prices for a basket of consumer goods and services. Prices for housing, groceries, utilities, health care and so forth vary from city to city and region to region. The cost of living for each metro area was determined using the "ACCRA Cost of Living Index," published quarterly by the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association. The data shows the cost of living varies widely. For example:
The cost of living in San Francisco is 80 percent higher than the national average, largely because area housing costs are three times the national average.
The cost of living in Memphis, Tenn., is more than 11 percent below the national average, primarily because housing prices there are only three-fourths the national average.
Methodology. Average teacher salaries for elementary and secondary teachers were determined using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Metropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates report. The salaries in each area were adjusted for the cost of living. We analyzed 50 metropolitan areas, selected according to availability of data, size and geographic balance. They include the United States' largest 20 metro areas (except for Detroit, Mich., which was not included in the ACCRA data).
National Results. When pay for elementary and secondary teachers is adjusted by the cost of living, the rankings of the 50 cities shift:
With an average salary of $59,514, New York City's elementary teachers receive the highest salaries in the nation, but when adjusted for the cost of living, the number drops to $42,662, making New York City's teacher compensation 25th among major cities. [See the table.]
With an average salary of $59,284, elementary teachers in San Francisco rank 2nd in the nation; adjusted for the cost of living, the salary falls to $32,663, plunging the city to next to last (49th).
In Honolulu, the average annual salary equals $45,467, but the adjusted salary is only $27,048, pushing that city to last place (50th).
The results are similar for secondary school teachers:
In Los Angeles, secondary teachers average $56,384, well above the national average of $47,120, and rank 5th among major cities; however, when adjusted for the cost of living, Los Angeles teachers' pay plunges to 45th.
Salaries for secondary teachers in Houston rank 30th, but the cost of living adjustment moves the city up to 15th.
Slight improvements are seen in a few cities: in Beaumont, Texas, the average annual salary for elementary teachers is $39,960, while the adjusted salary is $45,513 and in Memphis, Tenn., average annual salary is $45,108 and adjusted salary is $50,797. [See the figure.] Overall, public school teachers who are paid above the national average may actually be compensated below the national average when the cost of living is considered.
Conclusion. Clearly, the cost of living makes a difference when examining teacher pay and making comparisons between different regions. Because the cost of living varies widely from city to city and region to region, public officials and teacher unions should consider how much a teacher's dollar can buy, not just numerical pay, when discussing teachers' wages.
Thanks again to the Harvard resident who passed this analysis on to CRAFT. CRAFT and other opponents to referenda have often pointed out cost of living vs. teacher pay to referendum supporters, teachers and administrators. However this analysis often appears to go over their heads. Perhaps a couple of courses in economics would assist in their understanding of the matter and why many residents believe teachers and administrators our overpaid.
website.
Teachers' Cost of Living Matters More
Brief Analysis
No. 535
by Danielle Georgiou, Pamela Villarreal and Matt Moore
Public officials and teacher unions often compare teacher salaries in a particular city or region against the national average or against other U.S. cities. They assume teachers in areas with higher than average pay are doing well, whereas teachers in areas below the national average must fare poorly. Legislators in states where teacher pay is below the national average are under considerable pressure to raise salaries.
However, our analysis suggests officials may want to consider the cost of living — the quantity of goods teachers can actually purchase with their salaries — rather than simply comparing pay. Our analysis of teacher pay in 50 major metropolitan areas shows that after the adjustment, some cities regarded as higher-paying are actually below average, while cities that appear to pay so-so wages are actually quite generous.
Why Is the Cost of Living Important? Teacher pay is determined mostly by years of service and level of education; the grade level taught or a teacher's effect on student performance are not considered, and advanced degrees are given equal weight.
The average wage for elementary public school teachers in the United States is $45,670.
The average wage for elementary teachers in the regions considered in our analysis range from $59,514 in New York City to $32,209 in Oklahoma City.
Of course, other factors can affect a teacher's salary, such as continuing education credits and sponsorship of extracurricular activities. But simply totaling the number of dollars they are paid doesn't give a complete picture of how well, or poorly, teachers in a given city or region are faring. It is much more meaningful to know what a teacher's dollar will buy locally.
The local cost of living is determined by prices for a basket of consumer goods and services. Prices for housing, groceries, utilities, health care and so forth vary from city to city and region to region. The cost of living for each metro area was determined using the "ACCRA Cost of Living Index," published quarterly by the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association. The data shows the cost of living varies widely. For example:
The cost of living in San Francisco is 80 percent higher than the national average, largely because area housing costs are three times the national average.
The cost of living in Memphis, Tenn., is more than 11 percent below the national average, primarily because housing prices there are only three-fourths the national average.
Methodology. Average teacher salaries for elementary and secondary teachers were determined using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Metropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates report. The salaries in each area were adjusted for the cost of living. We analyzed 50 metropolitan areas, selected according to availability of data, size and geographic balance. They include the United States' largest 20 metro areas (except for Detroit, Mich., which was not included in the ACCRA data).
National Results. When pay for elementary and secondary teachers is adjusted by the cost of living, the rankings of the 50 cities shift:
With an average salary of $59,514, New York City's elementary teachers receive the highest salaries in the nation, but when adjusted for the cost of living, the number drops to $42,662, making New York City's teacher compensation 25th among major cities. [See the table.]
With an average salary of $59,284, elementary teachers in San Francisco rank 2nd in the nation; adjusted for the cost of living, the salary falls to $32,663, plunging the city to next to last (49th).
In Honolulu, the average annual salary equals $45,467, but the adjusted salary is only $27,048, pushing that city to last place (50th).
The results are similar for secondary school teachers:
In Los Angeles, secondary teachers average $56,384, well above the national average of $47,120, and rank 5th among major cities; however, when adjusted for the cost of living, Los Angeles teachers' pay plunges to 45th.
Salaries for secondary teachers in Houston rank 30th, but the cost of living adjustment moves the city up to 15th.
Slight improvements are seen in a few cities: in Beaumont, Texas, the average annual salary for elementary teachers is $39,960, while the adjusted salary is $45,513 and in Memphis, Tenn., average annual salary is $45,108 and adjusted salary is $50,797. [See the figure.] Overall, public school teachers who are paid above the national average may actually be compensated below the national average when the cost of living is considered.
Conclusion. Clearly, the cost of living makes a difference when examining teacher pay and making comparisons between different regions. Because the cost of living varies widely from city to city and region to region, public officials and teacher unions should consider how much a teacher's dollar can buy, not just numerical pay, when discussing teachers' wages.
Thanks again to the Harvard resident who passed this analysis on to CRAFT. CRAFT and other opponents to referenda have often pointed out cost of living vs. teacher pay to referendum supporters, teachers and administrators. However this analysis often appears to go over their heads. Perhaps a couple of courses in economics would assist in their understanding of the matter and why many residents believe teachers and administrators our overpaid.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Having Trouble saving for your child's college tuition?
Communism at its best. Your child's tuition may be paying for someone else to go to college.
The below editorial appeared in the Belleville News Democrat
Tuition, aid a bad match
We know that college costs keep going up. Still, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville's plans to raise tuition 41 percent over the next three years is extreme -- especially given the way the university plans to use a huge chunk of the money.
Chancellor Vaughn Vandegrift said the increase will bring in about $3 million to $3.5 million in the first three years. Of that, $1.6 million will be used for scholarships and other types of student financial assistance.
So SIUE is going to raise tuition so it can turn around and give away more money for financial assistance? A lot of colleges and universities are doing it. But what's wrong with that picture?
No doubt more students will need financial help once tuition goes up so dramatically. In 2008, incoming students will pay about $6,150 a year in tuition compared with the $4,350 a year incoming students paid this year.
It seems more logical to keep tuition increases to a minimum, so that fewer students would need assistance in the first place.
The below editorial appeared in the Belleville News Democrat
Tuition, aid a bad match
We know that college costs keep going up. Still, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville's plans to raise tuition 41 percent over the next three years is extreme -- especially given the way the university plans to use a huge chunk of the money.
Chancellor Vaughn Vandegrift said the increase will bring in about $3 million to $3.5 million in the first three years. Of that, $1.6 million will be used for scholarships and other types of student financial assistance.
So SIUE is going to raise tuition so it can turn around and give away more money for financial assistance? A lot of colleges and universities are doing it. But what's wrong with that picture?
No doubt more students will need financial help once tuition goes up so dramatically. In 2008, incoming students will pay about $6,150 a year in tuition compared with the $4,350 a year incoming students paid this year.
It seems more logical to keep tuition increases to a minimum, so that fewer students would need assistance in the first place.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Trouble or Waste in Districts 2, 15 and 50
On October 20th the NWH Published an Our View regarding Districts 2, 15 and 50. You can view the article below or in the Northwest Herald
Trouble chases
D-15, 50 and 2
Administrative and school board leaders in McHenry District 15 have had a hard time making new friends. "Yes" voters, actually.
Over the past three years, voters have defeated five referendums to increase property taxes for the elementary school district. The revenue would pay for everything from teachers to supplies.
Only Harvard District 50 keeps pace with District 15 for failed education-fund referendums.
Nippersink District 2 is close with four defeats. Yet teachers have threatened to go on strike Oct. 24 over wages and benefits. They say they will continue to negotiate and that a strike is unlikely. Nevertheless, what are they thinking?
But it is worth noting that Harvard is not deficit spending; it continues cutting programs and increasing class sizes in buildings stretched beyond capacity. It hurts the quality of education.
District 15 has a mounting deficit, and if the sixth referendum fails in March, $2.1 million will be cut. "No" voters call them scare tactics and threats. No matter; the cuts will be made.
More children will be packed in classrooms that already have 30-some students. Fine arts will be eliminated, as well as physical education teachers. Three administrators will be dismissed.
But school leaders need to fight the perception that they are overstaffed and overpaid.
Referendum opponents troop out the too-many-administrators argument every time, despite District 15 cutting the number. When people with high five- or six-figure salaries get raises, voters get cranky.
When the administrators were shamed into salary freezes, the next referendum lost by 193 votes, a far cry from margins of defeat in the thousands.
In the defense of teachers and administrators, the best people often leave the district for better pay elsewhere. The district is left with the young ones learning – and making mistakes – on the job, then leaving once they have it down.
But perception, fair or not, counts. Administrators getting raises and decent teachers-union contracts hurt on Election Day.
Voters in Districts 15, 50 and 2 remain unconvinced. They will wait for proof before March 21.
Below was the response from Jim Peschke in the form of a letter to the editor in the NWH.
Waste is no Illusion
If one reads the Northwest Herald's October 20th Our View, one might think that wasteful spending in Districts 2, 15, and 50 is all an illusion. Stingy voters are depriving poor, deserving districts of a few scraps of money needed to save their spartan programs from imminent collapse. Program cuts in these districts are all our fault, and its hurting kids.
Or so we are told.
History tells a different tale. District 2 teachers are threatening to strike, District 15 broke its promise to refund tax dollars, and District 50 hired a PR consultant while cutting programs. These are not acts of need, they're acts of greed.
The Northwest Herald bought into this nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Its not surprising that they'd draw poor conclusions from flawed assumptions. Classrooms with 30 or more students hurts the quality of education? Tell that to anybody over 40 who attended classrooms with 40 or more students. Tell that to high performing Asian students in 50-student classrooms.
The best teachers and administrators are leaving for better pay? Evidence, please! Younger teachers make more mistakes than older teachers? Again, show us some proof.
Parroting the lines of the education establishment hardly qualifies as responsible journalism. Those who question the waste in these districts need only visit private schools that do so much more with so much less.
Trouble chases
D-15, 50 and 2
Administrative and school board leaders in McHenry District 15 have had a hard time making new friends. "Yes" voters, actually.
Over the past three years, voters have defeated five referendums to increase property taxes for the elementary school district. The revenue would pay for everything from teachers to supplies.
Only Harvard District 50 keeps pace with District 15 for failed education-fund referendums.
Nippersink District 2 is close with four defeats. Yet teachers have threatened to go on strike Oct. 24 over wages and benefits. They say they will continue to negotiate and that a strike is unlikely. Nevertheless, what are they thinking?
But it is worth noting that Harvard is not deficit spending; it continues cutting programs and increasing class sizes in buildings stretched beyond capacity. It hurts the quality of education.
District 15 has a mounting deficit, and if the sixth referendum fails in March, $2.1 million will be cut. "No" voters call them scare tactics and threats. No matter; the cuts will be made.
More children will be packed in classrooms that already have 30-some students. Fine arts will be eliminated, as well as physical education teachers. Three administrators will be dismissed.
But school leaders need to fight the perception that they are overstaffed and overpaid.
Referendum opponents troop out the too-many-administrators argument every time, despite District 15 cutting the number. When people with high five- or six-figure salaries get raises, voters get cranky.
When the administrators were shamed into salary freezes, the next referendum lost by 193 votes, a far cry from margins of defeat in the thousands.
In the defense of teachers and administrators, the best people often leave the district for better pay elsewhere. The district is left with the young ones learning – and making mistakes – on the job, then leaving once they have it down.
But perception, fair or not, counts. Administrators getting raises and decent teachers-union contracts hurt on Election Day.
Voters in Districts 15, 50 and 2 remain unconvinced. They will wait for proof before March 21.
Below was the response from Jim Peschke in the form of a letter to the editor in the NWH.
Waste is no Illusion
If one reads the Northwest Herald's October 20th Our View, one might think that wasteful spending in Districts 2, 15, and 50 is all an illusion. Stingy voters are depriving poor, deserving districts of a few scraps of money needed to save their spartan programs from imminent collapse. Program cuts in these districts are all our fault, and its hurting kids.
Or so we are told.
History tells a different tale. District 2 teachers are threatening to strike, District 15 broke its promise to refund tax dollars, and District 50 hired a PR consultant while cutting programs. These are not acts of need, they're acts of greed.
The Northwest Herald bought into this nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Its not surprising that they'd draw poor conclusions from flawed assumptions. Classrooms with 30 or more students hurts the quality of education? Tell that to anybody over 40 who attended classrooms with 40 or more students. Tell that to high performing Asian students in 50-student classrooms.
The best teachers and administrators are leaving for better pay? Evidence, please! Younger teachers make more mistakes than older teachers? Again, show us some proof.
Parroting the lines of the education establishment hardly qualifies as responsible journalism. Those who question the waste in these districts need only visit private schools that do so much more with so much less.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Columnist vs. Teacher
Dear Friends,
The below article appeared in Sun Publications
Back to school on District 202 referendum
In honor of my beloved Chicago White Sox, winners of the 2005 American League pennant, one half of this year's World Series, owners of 99 victories and one of the best pitching staffs in modern memory — OK, I'll stop, the sound of Cubs fans jumping out of windows is irritating — I begin with a baseball quote.
As the verbally-vexed New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra once (supposedly) said, "It's like deja vu, all over again." I talk not about baseball, but about school referendums — a sport of even greater political intrigue, consequence and yes, difficulty.
Face it — no matter how tough the opposing team is, Mark Buehrle doesn't have to spend seven hours a day with 30 or 35 kids, then go home and grade 100 papers each night.
The District 202 Board of Education on Oct. 11 approved placing a $252.1 million referendum measure on the March 2006 ballot. The board agreed to ask voters for approval to build six more elementary schools, two more middle schools and another high school over five years. The nine new buildings are needed to house expected enrollment increases through the 2010-11 school year. District 202 anticipates continuing to add 2,000 to 2,500 students each year. This year, another 2,700 students enrolled. The package also would include fix-'em-ups at numerous schools and a new transportation facility. All of this will supposedly cost the owner of a house with a $250,000 market value another $63 a year in taxes to the school district. Deja vu. We've been here before. Recently, in fact. In April, when a similar building package failed by about 120 votes. That's right — 120 taxpaying adults made the future more difficult for tens of thousands of children by ignoring the simple facts. Those facts were as obvious and devastating as a Paul Konerko home run. Will those voters be so blinded by their selfish ignorance and have the gall to do so again? Probably.
Few things cloud the voters' judgment like their wallets. And for many, this question next March will come down to nothing so personal as their tax bill, just as it has in the past. Deja vu all over again? Let's hope not.
Because the truth is as clear and incontrovertible as a Bobby Jenks fastball down the middle of home plate.
District 202 continues to grow at a dizzying, breathtaking pace. The whys and hows and wherefores and such are not so important, especially since the district cannot control any of that anyway. What is important is the bottom line: thousands of new students each year. To be housed, where? In classrooms already so full that teachers have trouble teaching effectively?
The Board of Education already has defined what the referendum package will include, what it's all about.
Here's what it is not about. It's not about teacher pay. It's not about out of control pensions — a state function by the way,
beyond the control of the local district. It's not about rich or poor, black or white, gifted or challenged,
old or new. It's not about No Child Left Behind or student achievement or comparing this district to that one (none of which, by the way, absolutely none, are growing as much as District 202). It's not about the problems with state funding (for once). This referendum is, simply, about backsides in seats. How many children should we, can we, do we want to cram into our
classrooms and schools?How much more do we want to burden teachers and administrators already overworked and woefully underpaid? How much more do we want to stretch a facilities system already stretching to its limit? How much is a good education in comfortable facilities worth to a community that continues to grow and draw others here?
Is it worth 63 more dollars a year? The cost of a college education? The difference between a good job with a decent income and another minimum wage gig at the latest megasuperstore to build on Route 59?
Voters will have to decide this next March.
As for me, well, Yogi Berra has already spoken my sentiments. I voted yes before. There is no price tag too high for the education of my children, and this community's children. If we need more buildings so that our students have the room and
resources they need to learn how to be productive citizens in today's world, so be it. For me, it'll be deja vu all over again.
Comments on this week's Home Front? Suggestions for a future column?
Call Tom Hernandez at (815) 886-0594 or e-mail to homefrnt16@juno.com.
Below is a response we received from a teacher.
I am not sure what teachers the author knows, but I do not know of any teachers that take home 100 papers to grade each night. I usually stay around school for an hour or two and get all my grading and planning done before I leave. I also have a couple of hours of planning time built into my day. In short, I work a pretty standard 8-9 hour day, and I only work 180 days per year (not counting summer school for which I get paid extra). At any rate, any teacher who does not like the hand they are being dealt is free to find other work - just like everyone else.
The author is also full of it when he says that 120 voters stood in the way of the tax increase. That was the margin of the referendum's defeat. There were far more voters that stood behind that 120 to make it a majority. At any rate, if even one property owner objected to it, I think he should have the right not to pay. Let those voting for the increase pay the increase, and let the rest keep what is rightfully theirs.
Finally, if the district is growing so rapidly, its property tax base must also be growing. Given skyrocketing property values and the fact that new construction is not subject to the tax caps, there should be plenty of new revenue to fund those schools without an increase, and even if that is not the case, let the people who want the new schools fund the new schools.
Go Sox!
The below article appeared in Sun Publications
Back to school on District 202 referendum
In honor of my beloved Chicago White Sox, winners of the 2005 American League pennant, one half of this year's World Series, owners of 99 victories and one of the best pitching staffs in modern memory — OK, I'll stop, the sound of Cubs fans jumping out of windows is irritating — I begin with a baseball quote.
As the verbally-vexed New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra once (supposedly) said, "It's like deja vu, all over again." I talk not about baseball, but about school referendums — a sport of even greater political intrigue, consequence and yes, difficulty.
Face it — no matter how tough the opposing team is, Mark Buehrle doesn't have to spend seven hours a day with 30 or 35 kids, then go home and grade 100 papers each night.
The District 202 Board of Education on Oct. 11 approved placing a $252.1 million referendum measure on the March 2006 ballot. The board agreed to ask voters for approval to build six more elementary schools, two more middle schools and another high school over five years. The nine new buildings are needed to house expected enrollment increases through the 2010-11 school year. District 202 anticipates continuing to add 2,000 to 2,500 students each year. This year, another 2,700 students enrolled. The package also would include fix-'em-ups at numerous schools and a new transportation facility. All of this will supposedly cost the owner of a house with a $250,000 market value another $63 a year in taxes to the school district. Deja vu. We've been here before. Recently, in fact. In April, when a similar building package failed by about 120 votes. That's right — 120 taxpaying adults made the future more difficult for tens of thousands of children by ignoring the simple facts. Those facts were as obvious and devastating as a Paul Konerko home run. Will those voters be so blinded by their selfish ignorance and have the gall to do so again? Probably.
Few things cloud the voters' judgment like their wallets. And for many, this question next March will come down to nothing so personal as their tax bill, just as it has in the past. Deja vu all over again? Let's hope not.
Because the truth is as clear and incontrovertible as a Bobby Jenks fastball down the middle of home plate.
District 202 continues to grow at a dizzying, breathtaking pace. The whys and hows and wherefores and such are not so important, especially since the district cannot control any of that anyway. What is important is the bottom line: thousands of new students each year. To be housed, where? In classrooms already so full that teachers have trouble teaching effectively?
The Board of Education already has defined what the referendum package will include, what it's all about.
Here's what it is not about. It's not about teacher pay. It's not about out of control pensions — a state function by the way,
beyond the control of the local district. It's not about rich or poor, black or white, gifted or challenged,
old or new. It's not about No Child Left Behind or student achievement or comparing this district to that one (none of which, by the way, absolutely none, are growing as much as District 202). It's not about the problems with state funding (for once). This referendum is, simply, about backsides in seats. How many children should we, can we, do we want to cram into our
classrooms and schools?How much more do we want to burden teachers and administrators already overworked and woefully underpaid? How much more do we want to stretch a facilities system already stretching to its limit? How much is a good education in comfortable facilities worth to a community that continues to grow and draw others here?
Is it worth 63 more dollars a year? The cost of a college education? The difference between a good job with a decent income and another minimum wage gig at the latest megasuperstore to build on Route 59?
Voters will have to decide this next March.
As for me, well, Yogi Berra has already spoken my sentiments. I voted yes before. There is no price tag too high for the education of my children, and this community's children. If we need more buildings so that our students have the room and
resources they need to learn how to be productive citizens in today's world, so be it. For me, it'll be deja vu all over again.
Comments on this week's Home Front? Suggestions for a future column?
Call Tom Hernandez at (815) 886-0594 or e-mail to homefrnt16@juno.com.
Below is a response we received from a teacher.
I am not sure what teachers the author knows, but I do not know of any teachers that take home 100 papers to grade each night. I usually stay around school for an hour or two and get all my grading and planning done before I leave. I also have a couple of hours of planning time built into my day. In short, I work a pretty standard 8-9 hour day, and I only work 180 days per year (not counting summer school for which I get paid extra). At any rate, any teacher who does not like the hand they are being dealt is free to find other work - just like everyone else.
The author is also full of it when he says that 120 voters stood in the way of the tax increase. That was the margin of the referendum's defeat. There were far more voters that stood behind that 120 to make it a majority. At any rate, if even one property owner objected to it, I think he should have the right not to pay. Let those voting for the increase pay the increase, and let the rest keep what is rightfully theirs.
Finally, if the district is growing so rapidly, its property tax base must also be growing. Given skyrocketing property values and the fact that new construction is not subject to the tax caps, there should be plenty of new revenue to fund those schools without an increase, and even if that is not the case, let the people who want the new schools fund the new schools.
Go Sox!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)