Written and edited by Norm Scott:
EDUCATE! ORGANIZE!! MOBILIZE!!!
Three pillars of The Resistance – providing information on current ed issues, organizing activities around fighting for public education in NYC and beyond and exposing the motives behind the education deformers. We link up with bands of resisters. Nothing will change unless WE ALL GET INVOLVED IN THE STRUGGLE!
This blog has become such a joke. It's nothing but tunnel-vision UFT propaganda...and has no interest in examining the education issue from all angles.
Every other post on this blog is an attack on people who try to do ANYTHING to change the way our schools operate, with precious little in the way of presenting balanced facts.
I agree with some of the points raised on this blog, but I'm disappointed at the black and white, broad brush strokes that are used to discuss the topic.
Let's face it:
Unions are not all good or all bad.
Traditional public schools are not all good or all bad.
Same is true for charter schools & the ed reform movement...not all good, but not all bad either.
If you're looking for unbiased information on the education topic, go elsewhere.
My philosophy: Take the good ideas from both sides and find the best mix for the STUDENTS.
But you can't hear all of the ideas if you're busy impugning the motives of everyone who comes to the table with a different idea than your own.
You must have been reading the wrong blog all along. Tunnel vision UFT propaganda when this is one of the leading blog critical of the UFT?
This is an advocacy blog for a certain point of view not a blog that looks to examine the issues or convince anyone. We don't care if charter schools are good or bad or whatever. WE oppose them because public institutions should not be under private control. Why so many public schools have problems should be examined and fixed. And if the answer is to get rid of unions we reject that answer. As a leading critic of the UFT we also think that institution must be fixed as part of the solution.
And yes, we do impugn the motives of many people on the charter school question because it is a political not an educational agenda. The racism of telling people of color they have to submit to a dictator mayor running their schools while the white suburbs get to vote on budgets and school boards is inherent.
I notice that you have nothing to say about the charter school scandals blog.
You guys have billions at your disposal. Ask Bill Gates/Eli Broad and the rest of the gang to be fair and balanced. Your call for me to be fair and balanced is a bigger joke than this blog.
To be fair, I recognize that you are often critical of individual UFT/NEA leaders, but your views are certainly in line with the rank and file union crowd....that's neither good nor bad, just my observation.
I, however, reject your broad assertion that those who support charter schools are purely motivated by corporate interests (or other sinister motives).
Many charter schools are non-profit entities....and many of those have begun to appear because the organizations have a national reputation and some local parents have lobbied for the organizations (i.e.- KIPP, Uncommon, etc) to come to their neighborhoods. They see a demand and respond to it. They may receive some corporate donations, but that's out of necessity, given that they receive fewer public dollars per student.
I share your concern about parent voices being shut out of the process in some cases...and I think that, while Bloomberg and Klein have gotten some things right, they have done a poor job of rallying public opinion and creating stakeholders. Ultimately, I think parents must be more involved for any solution to work in the long term.
But it's not "racist" to demand that schools in poor neighborhoods shape up. The issue of equality is precisely what motivates many in the charter movement. To many, myself included, it is simply unacceptable (and "racist") to deny poor, often minority, parents access to a good school simply because we want to protect the current system. And, unfortunately, what often happens is that the regular schools spread fear and misinformation to those parents, rather than helping parents to make an informed choice one way or the other.
If there's a better way to do it, and somebody outside the current bureaucracy has an idea that works, why shouldn't we look into it?
I personally like the charter model because, unlike private schools, they are subject to the same tests and most of the accountability measures of regular schools...but they have the flexibility to try new things or run their school differently. Similarly, enrolling in a charter school is a choice...and that, by default leads to a greater sense of ownership by parents...they made the choice themselves and were not forced into it.
I do not come to this position lightly. I have taught in various capacities and locales for the last 6 years. Frankly, after my experiences working in public schools, I have come to understand that, while there are many good people working in them, there is simply too much inertia to effect the kind of systemic change that is needed. If a school is unable to change, then sometimes you just have to go around it. And unfortunately, the examples of successful turn-arounds are few and far between.
I find it both heartbreaking and outrageous to see schools (and their students) flounder in mediocrity simply because the leadership and the teachers are unable or unwilling to change. And, in some cases, the unions play a role in this.
We need a comprehensive evaluation system that takes a variety of factors into account: student growth/achievement, principal/peer evaluations, and portfolio assessments. Nobody should be evaluated on test scores alone....but neither should they keep their jobs when their students routinely show a lack of progress.
In general, charter schools are not a silver bullet...but they are one solution that can be a part of the equation.
But I reject the whole "charter schools don't serve enough people" argument....because right now they are subject to caps and simply aren't ALLOWED to serve more people.
Ultimately I see that you are very immersed in this debate and have strongly held views.
I don't expect to change your mind, but I would hope for a little more openness to the discussion.
Look. I'm sure there is a dialogue you and I can engage in. I've has some engaging conversations with NYC charter school leader James Merriman and we agree on a lot of interesting things.
But in our discussion we are talking apples and oranges. You are talking education (and I agree with you on many points) and I am talking political movements.
I have believed for the past 40 years that we will not improve education - charters or public schools - without a democratic movement that takes control of the educational institutions.
SO I see the charter school movement as taking us away from that. If you take the thing we both agree on theoretically - a decentralized control at the school level than why not public schools under local control? Your KIPPs are a national chain and the free market idea will only create larger national chains. If you don't see the long-term danger of these national orgs running local schools, sometimes with competing chains next door then we are talking apples and oranges.
I taught for over 30 years in elementary school and I saw the good the bad and the ugly so your 6 years pales.
I think we agree that one of the most important things the schools need is more local, democratic support from parents and community.
Here's where I feel conflicted:
Local control is good in principle...and leads to more buy-in from the community....but what happens when the local people in charge are not well qualified?
Should we keep allowing mediocre teachers and principals to stay in charge simply because they're "local"?
I share your reservations about national chains (like KIPP ,etc) taking away some local control...but what do you do in communities where they have a hard time attracting good teachers and administrators?
I don't say leave local incompetents in charge - believe me I saw so many hacks. I would assign a full-time monitor to each school and rotate them so they never get too cozy with the principals.
Sort of an independent oversight. it would be worth the money and you would save a lot by removing the Tweed oversight people.
If we had a neutral State ed comm we would trust them but we don't.
Hard to really set something up that works but even though democracy is messy it works best in the long run. THink of how there is no one really watching day to day ops in charter schools and their success is determined by outcomes. There are lots of scandals and no one is watching the store other than people like Sharron Higgins.
6 comments:
This blog has become such a joke. It's nothing but tunnel-vision UFT propaganda...and has no interest in examining the education issue from all angles.
Every other post on this blog is an attack on people who try to do ANYTHING to change the way our schools operate, with precious little in the way of presenting balanced facts.
I agree with some of the points raised on this blog, but I'm disappointed at the black and white, broad brush strokes that are used to discuss the topic.
Let's face it:
Unions are not all good or all bad.
Traditional public schools are not all good or all bad.
Same is true for charter schools & the ed reform movement...not all good, but not all bad either.
If you're looking for unbiased information on the education topic, go elsewhere.
My philosophy: Take the good ideas from both sides and find the best mix for the STUDENTS.
But you can't hear all of the ideas if you're busy impugning the motives of everyone who comes to the table with a different idea than your own.
You must have been reading the wrong blog all along. Tunnel vision UFT propaganda when this is one of the leading blog critical of the UFT?
This is an advocacy blog for a certain point of view not a blog that looks to examine the issues or convince anyone. We don't care if charter schools are good or bad or whatever. WE oppose them because public institutions should not be under private control. Why so many public schools have problems should be examined and fixed. And if the answer is to get rid of unions we reject that answer. As a leading critic of the UFT we also think that institution must be fixed as part of the solution.
And yes, we do impugn the motives of many people on the charter school question because it is a political not an educational agenda. The racism of telling people of color they have to submit to a dictator mayor running their schools while the white suburbs get to vote on budgets and school boards is inherent.
I notice that you have nothing to say about the charter school scandals blog.
You guys have billions at your disposal. Ask Bill Gates/Eli Broad and the rest of the gang to be fair and balanced. Your call for me to be fair and balanced is a bigger joke than this blog.
To be fair, I recognize that you are often critical of individual UFT/NEA leaders, but your views are certainly in line with the rank and file union crowd....that's neither good nor bad, just my observation.
I, however, reject your broad assertion that those who support charter schools are purely motivated by corporate interests (or other sinister motives).
Many charter schools are non-profit entities....and many of those have begun to appear because the organizations have a national reputation and some local parents have lobbied for the organizations (i.e.- KIPP, Uncommon, etc) to come to their neighborhoods. They see a demand and respond to it. They may receive some corporate donations, but that's out of necessity, given that they receive fewer public dollars per student.
I share your concern about parent voices being shut out of the process in some cases...and I think that, while Bloomberg and Klein have gotten some things right, they have done a poor job of rallying public opinion and creating stakeholders. Ultimately, I think parents must be more involved for any solution to work in the long term.
But it's not "racist" to demand that schools in poor neighborhoods shape up. The issue of equality is precisely what motivates many in the charter movement. To many, myself included, it is simply unacceptable (and "racist") to deny poor, often minority, parents access to a good school simply because we want to protect the current system. And, unfortunately, what often happens is that the regular schools spread fear and misinformation to those parents, rather than helping parents to make an informed choice one way or the other.
If there's a better way to do it, and somebody outside the current bureaucracy has an idea that works, why shouldn't we look into it?
I personally like the charter model because, unlike private schools, they are subject to the same tests and most of the accountability measures of regular schools...but they have the flexibility to try new things or run their school differently. Similarly, enrolling in a charter school is a choice...and that, by default leads to a greater sense of ownership by parents...they made the choice themselves and were not forced into it.
I do not come to this position lightly. I have taught in various capacities and locales for the last 6 years. Frankly, after my experiences working in public schools, I have come to understand that, while there are many good people working in them, there is simply too much inertia to effect the kind of systemic change that is needed. If a school is unable to change, then sometimes you just have to go around it. And unfortunately, the examples of successful turn-arounds are few and far between.
I find it both heartbreaking and outrageous to see schools (and their students) flounder in mediocrity simply because the leadership and the teachers are unable or unwilling to change. And, in some cases, the unions play a role in this.
We need a comprehensive evaluation system that takes a variety of factors into account: student growth/achievement, principal/peer evaluations, and portfolio assessments. Nobody should be evaluated on test scores alone....but neither should they keep their jobs when their students routinely show a lack of progress.
In general, charter schools are not a silver bullet...but they are one solution that can be a part of the equation.
But I reject the whole "charter schools don't serve enough people" argument....because right now they are subject to caps and simply aren't ALLOWED to serve more people.
Ultimately I see that you are very immersed in this debate and have strongly held views.
I don't expect to change your mind, but I would hope for a little more openness to the discussion.
Look. I'm sure there is a dialogue you and I can engage in. I've has some engaging conversations with NYC charter school leader James Merriman and we agree on a lot of interesting things.
But in our discussion we are talking apples and oranges. You are talking education (and I agree with you on many points) and I am talking political movements.
I have believed for the past 40 years that we will not improve education - charters or public schools - without a democratic movement that takes control of the educational institutions.
SO I see the charter school movement as taking us away from that. If you take the thing we both agree on theoretically - a decentralized control at the school level than why not public schools under local control? Your KIPPs are a national chain and the free market idea will only create larger national chains. If you don't see the long-term danger of these national orgs running local schools, sometimes with competing chains next door then we are talking apples and oranges.
I taught for over 30 years in elementary school and I saw the good the bad and the ugly so your 6 years pales.
I think we agree that one of the most important things the schools need is more local, democratic support from parents and community.
Here's where I feel conflicted:
Local control is good in principle...and leads to more buy-in from the community....but what happens when the local people in charge are not well qualified?
Should we keep allowing mediocre teachers and principals to stay in charge simply because they're "local"?
I share your reservations about national chains (like KIPP ,etc) taking away some local control...but what do you do in communities where they have a hard time attracting good teachers and administrators?
I don't say leave local incompetents in charge - believe me I saw so many hacks. I would assign a full-time monitor to each school and rotate them so they never get too cozy with the principals.
Sort of an independent oversight. it would be worth the money and you would save a lot by removing the Tweed oversight people.
If we had a neutral State ed comm we would trust them but we don't.
Hard to really set something up that works but even though democracy is messy it works best in the long run. THink of how there is no one really watching day to day ops in charter schools and their success is determined by outcomes. There are lots of scandals and no one is watching the store other than people like Sharron Higgins.
Post a Comment