Teaneck spends too much money without a decent return on its investment. Unless of course your student scholars are in the top quarter of their class.
Many in this forum have said that "it's important that you vote yes because schools need adequate budgets to educate our kids." The fact of the matter is that voting against the budget is NOT a question of whether or not an individual supports kids, education or schools, but whether you agree that $78 million is adequate.
A few facts:
1) The comparative spending guide says that Teaneck ranks higher than anyone in spending. Perhaps we are mismanaging our facilities.
2) The Board of Ed initially stated that they would cut 15 teaching jobs and then dropped that number down to 7. What happened to the other 8? The District is predicting at least 200 fewer students. At under 20 students per class, that's a minimum of 10 teachers, right?
I believe in classroom spending, but I question why there are administrators in EVERY SUBJECT? Why are our schools so top heavy?
When you step into the booth tomorrow there is one question you need to answer. Is $78 Million the right number? But unlike most elections when the results are an end game (a particular resolution is passed or defeated), voting no on the school budget allows you to explain why.
After the budget is defeated, you get to make your case to the Town Council. You get to tell them that you voted no, not because you want to gut the schools, but because you think that $78 million was the wrong number and it should be $77.5 or $58. You can tell them that they should remove a particular item from the budget or adjust the spending on another.
Basically, you get to vote "no with an explanation". Voting no on the budget isn't a disaster for the schools. A sub-committee of the town council has already been formed to meet with a sub-committee of the School Board in order to determine what changes (reductions) should be made to the budget before the Council sends it to Trenton for final approval.
I think that if the township HAD to do more with less it would find a way. I also think that they aren't going to try on their own. So tomorrow when I go into the booth, I will vote no with an explanation - and let the Council know exactly what that explanation was.
Parade Or Disruption?
-
In its wisdom, the township has decided to disenfranchise a large part of
the community by insisting on holding the Independence Day Parade on the
morning...
4 months ago
50 comments:
Well said, Swiggle. All good points.
Swiggle, you could have attended Board of Education meetings with these comments and concerns. It would have greater impact. Now, you look like a Monday morning quarterback.
It is not Monday yet.
Unfortunately, the culture of the Board in this town (and I know for a fact it is different elsewhere) has -- at least since the Stalinistic period of the Great Dictator Morris-- been one of total deference to the apparatchiks of the bureaucracy.
The point -- the really important point -- is that it is not the teachers that are the problem in teaneck, but rather it is the layers of costly administration.
The Council will have the power to improve the system by removing administrators (yes, I know they bounce down and replace junior teachers)when the failed budget reaches them. The Council will be able to help the school board do what it seems incapable of doing on its own, reforming the bureaucratic structure that strangles the schools and taxpayers alike.
The council can only decide how much to cut the budget. Only the school board gets to decide how any such cuts are applied. The council does not get to send it to Trenton. The school board does. As always Swiggle is clueless.
Also the quote at the beginning of his post is not form one of the bloggers it is from the Suburbanite.
Tom,
I listed several reasons as to why the budget is deficient and your chief complaint is who puts the stamp on the envelope?
Perhaps you can tell me where my REASONING is off?
NO....YES.....
VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT YOUR WALLET
I corrected the misinformation about the process that takes place if the budget fails. The claim that the council decides what to cut is the kind of nonsense that someone who knows nothing about the process invents.
My main point was not about who sends it to Trenton. That's just an attempt by Swiggle to deflect from his ignorance. He no doubt thought it clever.
I have no interest in arguing with Swiggle over his opinions. I didn't even comment on his "no with an explanation" which he probably thinks makes sense but I think is no more than a "clever" ploy to get fence sitters to vote his way.
I've made my view on the budget clear many times. Most recently by posting the Suburbanite editorial. It express my views pretty well. If anyone wants a to know more about my views, read Zev Mo's recent posts in regard to public schools. The views he's expressed are surprisingly close to mine.
For the record I'd like everyone to vote for the budget tomorrow. I also agree with Ester's candidate choices and heartily endorse David Diuguid, Gervonn Rice and Howard Rose.
Sarcasm, the grumpy man's wit. Grow up Tom.
I have the solution...all of the people who live in Teaneck with school aged children who attend private school should register their kids for public school...then we will see the uproar over taxes going up when you double the size of the school system. People who send their kids to public school should be thanking those who do not send their kids because they keep the public school parents taxes lower...remember more than 65% of the taxes collected to pay for school comes from households who do not use the public school in Teaneck!!
And if you are looking for someone to blame...you can blame the same people who are making the airlines and auto industry fail...THE UNIONS!!
Maybe we can add a few dollars to Paterson's tax bill to support our schools, which a good number of their kids evidently attend.
I'm amongst those who pay taxes and no longer use the public schools. I would be glad if everyone's children enrolled in public schools even if my school taxes went up. It would benefit all the students to eliminate the segregation we now have based on religion, race and economic status.
It would still be a smaller portion of my taxes than is going to support the US's foolish war in Irag.
The council can only decide how much to cut the budget. Only the school board gets to decide how any such cuts are applied.Are you saying that after
a) the voters reject the budget
b) the people inform the Council where changes should be made
c) the Council makes changes
and
d) the changes are approved by Trenton
that the School Board would override the will of the voters, public, council and State in allocating where the money should be spent?
If that's the case, why bother having the public vote on the budget to begin with?
@Anon1:10
..register their kids for public school...then we will see the uproar over taxes going up when you double the size of the school system.This would be a dramatic increase in the population (about a 50% increase- check my numbers, Alan). Now, while that sounds like a wonderful show of passive resistance, it is an empty threat without actually following it up by sending your kids that year. And everyone knows it. So, instead of the feel-good exhalation of anger by rhetoric without bite, why can't we have a community forum of leaders designated to work with the BOE towards a MEANINGFUL solution, like they attempted to do in Englewood? I think the use of threats and adversarial language is unnecessary.
-------
People who send their kids to public school should be thanking those who do not send their kids because they keep the public school parents taxes lower...As is the case with anyone who pays taxes in town, empty-nesters, businesses, Catholic school parents, private school parents, singles, and Yeshiva parents. That is why public education is part of the commons. We all contribute because we all get the benefits.
--------
And if you are looking for someone to blame...you can blame the same people who are making the airlines and auto industry fail...THE UNIONS!!How many times do we have to go through this debunked Milton Friedman poo-poo? This isn't a wage-caused economic crisis, this is a unregulated investment market crisis coupled with BAD trade policies, decimated manufacturing base, stagnant wages, and a top heavy debt burden on households. Oh, yeah, and fraud... forgot to mention that.
If you don't recognize it, that is you listening to the conservative talking heads (who have been the parade leaders for the destruction of the middle-class in this country for 30 years) and not concentrating on the FACTS here. Unions didn't cause anything but fighting for the rights of the workers on what remains that last bastion of hope for what remains of the middle-class. My question is, where was all of your anger when the pro-economic royalists were destroying your middle-class? Just because you have been brainwashed into blaming others for your inaction doesn't allow you to support the only manufacturing the conservatives have supported since Reagan, 'straw men'. It is a booming industry in Washington on K street.
The fault lines in this debate are pretty clear. To his credit, Tom is pretty clear and consistent. Public school education is so important to him that there seems to be no amount he would oppose spending to support it.
This is pretty much in line with the letter sent out by Dr. Diuguid where in the only paragraph addressing "fiscal responsibility" he acknowledges that it is necessary, times are very tough and then essentially says that education is critical and expensive but critical to the success of our society.
On the other side of the fault line are two camps. The "I don't use the schools so keep down the budget" camp - they are just wrong, but many on this blog try to paint anyone critical of BoE spending as a member of this camp. The other and I believe larger camp, agrees that Public School education is valuable and are willing to spend considerable sums in support. However, like many valuable things in our society, there have to be limits and the BoE in both words and deeds fails to acknowledge that. If there was no cap, I have little doubt the increase would have been more than 4%. To then hear Tom say that essentially the BoE is powerless to tackle teacher's salaries just reinforces the belief that supporters of the status quo will never seriously tackle the question of the cost of education in Teaneck. Since Dr Diuigid seems very representative of the spending views of most BoE members, rejecting the school budget becomes the only means of voicing opposition.
The problem is not teacher salaries or teacher unions. Those are more or less the same everywhere. We have a lot of senior teachers in this system. Once the retirement wave hits the salaries will be lower.
The problem is the huge amount of administration. That is the area where dramatic cutting is in order. The high school should have one principal, one assistant principal and departmental lead teachers on a stipend that goes with their teaching a full schedule. The non-teaching department heads are the real cancer on the high school.
Add to that the huge bureaucracy in the headquarters that needs trimming and you will find why the Teaneck schools cost so much more than other public school systems in New Jersey.
I was able to read Dr. Diuguid's letter to Teaneck on his website.
Some points he makes seem racist:
Increased the percentages of students of color in the Honors and AP programs at the high school.
At Grades 3 & 4, we had NO achievement gap between our Caucasian students and our students of color.
Do we now have affirmative action in the public schools? Is Dr. Diuguid representing all of Teaneck or just black people?
Grow up, Tom. Your personal attacks on those who disagree with you are not worthy of an adult citizen debating fellow citizens.
Or don't grow up and take yourself to another blog where such antics are applauded.
Actually, OutofRightField, there are minority students who are qualified to be in the advanced program but who are not moved into it (often because their families do not push for it). So long as they actually deserve to move up, then it is completely appropriate - indeed, obligatory - for the school system to move them up.
Too many students in the advanced program are there because their families insist on it, and too many are not there because their families are not involved.
The problem is not teacher salaries or teacher unions. Those are more or less the same everywhere. We have a lot of senior teachers in this system. Once the retirement wave hits the salaries will be lower.Just not so. If you look at NJ State Dept of Ed Report Card the median years of experience for a teacher in Teaneck is 10 years vs. 9 statewide. Further since the pay scale maxes out at 13 years of experience, that difference is not especially meaningful.
What really drives costs is the reward for advanced degrees, where Teaneck reports over 77% with MA. Study after study has shown no link between advanced degrees and the quality of instruction, yet the bonus is significant. To get to the top bracket you need an MA and credits towards a PhD. The Superintendent has the discretion to decide whether the advanced degrees are educationally relevant. Amazingly, the Superintendent felt this was the case even for multiple gym teachers.
As to the administrators, I am not familiar enough to comment. I will note that according to the report card our student:administrator ratio is actually much better than the state:
Teaneck 350.4: State: 178.8:1
You keep harping on areas that are universal in public education. Advanced degrees guarantee that teachers will be educated educators. Gym teachers will not be paid less than math teachers. That is going to remain.
Class size increase and the downsizing of staff is possible in all schools and is in fact the way most systems are dealing with the current economic crisis.
The administration to student numbers need careful explication. They are very prone to fudging. Apples to oranges comparisons need to be sorted out.
2008 anon,
Can you site one of your sources where people with advanced degrees don't provide better education than those without.
Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule, but you're making a much more generalized statement.
My wife taught in a local yeshiva. Her reward for being the ONLY teacher in early childhood with an MA was $500/year. So, she left to follow other pursuits. Her boss (head of early childhood) begged her not to leave as she was her 'most qualified and best' teacher. My wife said 'pay me more'. They couldn't. She left. Life goes on. but the kids in that yeshiva lost one of their best teachers.
But, I guess we should follow mr. burack's advice and make the public school more like the yeshivas. That will probably mean most of the early childhood teachers will not only NOT have advanced degrees - most will not have ANY degree related to education or children.
I must have missed the part of physics that stated that teachers' compensation is a law of nature that can never be changed.
But I guess you are right, better to let teacher's salaries crowd out every other part of spending and we'll just keep on increasing class size. That's not really good for education - is it? But I guess that has never been a top concern for the Teacher's Union.
I confess, I am a radical, I even believe that really good teachers should be rewarded through merit pay and bad ones fired. Of course, the Unions object to this to, because another law of physics is that the only thing that can't be measured is teaching quality.
Fortunately, our President seems to share an obviously misguided focus on the quality of education and has made some encouraging statements about revisiting the structure of teacher compensation. Hopefully he will stick to his guns.
Re: advanced degrees, can you cite any evidence that such degrees HELP education? It's not self-evident, especially when you consider that our educational system is doing significantly worse than it was doing 50 years ago.
I believe that it's important to support the school board and the work being done in our town's schools. The time to get involved is during the year when open meetings are held and voices may be heard. Different "subjects" need experts in each field to manage them. Participation in the life of the school is more important than just voting no on a number.
I believe that it's important to support the school board and the work being done in our town's schools.That's a very valid position, but I would say that they aren't inextricably linked. One may support the system while telling the board they are doing things incorrectly.
The time to get involved is during the year when open meetings are held and voices may be heard. That is a common fallacy that keeps getting repeated. There is no specific "time to get involved". Yes, you can have a greater impact by showing up at meetings throughout the year, but just because an individual didn't go to a school board meeting does not mean that they should throw up their hands and give up their right to vote on the budget - or to tell the Council how they want it pared down.
Participation in the life of the school is more important than just voting no on a number.Again, just because it's more or less important to be involved doesn't mean that voting no on a number is wrong - providing it's the wrong number. I'm very pro spending on public schools, but I think we need to be spending the right number and that $78 million isn't it.
Different "subjects" need experts in each field to manage them. That's an opinion and the reason that the public votes on the budget. Why do you feel that each subject needs its own administrator? Why can't teachers also serve an administrative role?
Mr. Shulman,
Someone posted that studies showed that advanced degrees do not have a corolation to better education.
I asked him to cite real evidence of this.
Your defense is to demand me to prove that there is such a corolation - a claim I never actually made.
You must be a product of a yeshiva education with reasoning skills like that.....
Someone thought the process goes:
a) the voters reject the budget
b) the people inform the Council where changes should be made
c) the Council makes changes
and
d) the changes are approved by TrentonIf the budget is rejected the council votes on a new budget amount and can recommend specific cuts. They do not prepare a budget to send to Trenton. They send the new number with the recommendations to the Board of Education who has several options.
Usually the school board takes the numbers and creates a new budget. It can except all, some or none of the council recommendations. This is the only budget sent to the NJ Department of Education.
The school board also has the option of appealing any cut made by the council to the Department of Education who can restore all or part of the money cut by the council. I don't believe this happens often but I have not researched it.
Do to economic conditions, I expect this will be a year when an unusually high number of school budgets across NJ will be defeated. Teaneck's will likely be one of them.
I predict the budget is defeated about 55% to 45% - roughly 400 votes with a turnout of about 3400 (14%). The defeat will be led by districts 10 and 11 where at least 75% will vote against the budget.
Take it easy with the sarcasm. I wasn't responding to you, but to him. I was actually defending your position. He was putting the burden on you to prove that advanced degrees don't help. I was suggesting that he should bear the burden of proving that advanced degrees DO help.
My comment immediately above is to Anonymous, who posted a comment just above Tom's comment.
Anonymous,
Wait, never mind. Disregard my post just above. I had it backwards.
Yes, I was asking you to show that there is indeed a correlation between advanced degrees and better educators. Our educators today in public schools have advanced degrees, but it appears that those degrees may not only NOT help, but actually HARM public education.
My point is that those who criticize the requirement of advanced degrees for teachers should not have to bear the burden of proof.
Mr. Shulman,
I no longer have any clue what you are saying or trying to say!
2008 anon posted that studies show that advanced degrees to lead to better education.
I called him out and asked to show proof of these 'studies'.
You in turn asked me (him?) to prove that they DO show how advanced degrees lead to better education.
It would seem that you took 2008 anon's position and not mine. If someone makes a statement citing 'studies', then I expect him to be able to show real proof or to be called out as a BS'er.
I have never claimed 'studies' show that education is enhanced by advanced degrees, although I suspect this would be the case - I'm not stating it as fact or the result of studies.
Thus, I have nothing to 'prove'. Only 2008 anon does to back his own words.
Maybe his studies are next to the 'proof' that Iraq has WMD?
The Suburbanite will publish the election results later tonight.
Anonymous,
OK, you were just asking for studies to back up 2008 anon's claim. I agree that if someone claims he has studies supporting his position, he should cite them.
My larger point is that 2008 anon's claim doesn't actually need studies. The failure of public schools is apparent without studies - and yet the teachers unions have been requiring advanced degrees for some time now. So the burden of proof is on those who argue that advanced degrees improve teaching at the K-12 level.
Do medical degrees improve health care at the consumer level? Or could people simply practice medicine because they are naturally good at it? Who needs medical schools and licensing, right?
What's really evident here is the lack of respect for education and educators thrown around on this blog, and in our society in general. There is no guarantee that a master's degree makes a teacher a better teacher, just as a medical degree doesn't make a doctor a good doctor, per se. But learning about sound pedagogical practices, having the kind of fieldwork experiences provided by a master's in education, study of learning disabilities, learning styles, teaching methods, etc...those are necessary components of excellent teaching, as is continuing education for teachers. All of these things are what make up "advanced degrees." Yes, some people are naturally good teachers, but even those people need training and can learn something about education beyond what they just know.
It would seem that regardless of 2008anony's questioning the logic, the district ought to be able to provide a justification for why it spends every penny of taxpayer money that it spends, including a justification of its salary structure.
Why is a teacher with a masters-plus and 13 years of experience paid more than double the salary of a teacher with a bachelors and 6 years of teaching? I don't know, but why doesn't the district tell us why?
I don't doubt that a masters makes a teacher better, but how much better and how much more are they worth? Should we be paying drivers ed and gym teachers $100,000 a year?
In all of their years getting masters degrees, did any of these teachers or administrators find any research that shows why they're worth more and how much more they're worth?
Mr. Shulman,
I don't know if your statement regarding public school education refers to Teaneck or all public schools. No doubt teaneck is not the finest speciment of suburban public schools, but it is not nearly as bad as many in the orthodox population would make it out to be.
If your comment is about all public schools (in a general way), I would ask you to back that up with any proof. I checked out the recent math league stats. Frisch came in behind Fair Lawn and Ridgewood, which means not much has changed in 20-30 years.
I have been rather appalled by the attitude of the Orthodox population in Teaneck that has decided that the entire U.S. public school system has failed while somehow maintaining that the Yeshiva school system is massively superior. Yet, I have found most of my Orthodox friends to be anything but well rounded. While some are quite bright in certain disciplines, most don't know much about American Lit., American history and a variety of other secular topics.
Yeshiva high schools despite being able to hand pick the students they want are unable to show that they can outperform many public schools. I guess if you measure the yeshivas by the Teaneck public school system average scores they look like they're doing a wonderful job. If you had to compare them to Fair Lawn or Ridgewood, they would be an unmitigated disaster, worthy of a stake takeover if if were a public school system.
It is not the Orthodox who have decided that public schools are failing children, but a majority of America. Why do you think (Democratic) Mayor Fenty is taking on the public school system and the teachers unions in Washington, DC? He's by no means the only one, either.
And this is coming after years and years and years of bad reports about public schools in major newspapers (even pro-teacher-union newspapers). And by the way, it's not just public schools - many private schools offer inferior education, too.
Second, by pointing out that the public schools are failing, I am not therefore endorsing the yeshiva system. I attended public schools for most of my K-12 years (not in Teaneck), as did my sister, and I am not myself Jewish (my last name is deceiving).
I think Teaneck needs to get out of the us versus them mindset. I don't have to be member of one or the two major groups in town - Orthodox Jew or Public School Enthusiast. The sooner we concentrate on good ideas to improve the schools - without regard to which camp is suggesting those ideas - the better.
You wany studies, I'll give you studies . . .
1. For a good summary try the following paper:
http://www.cecr.ed.gov/guides/researchSyntheses/Research%20Synthesis_Q%20A2.pdf
2. "The Market for Teacher Quality" National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fedpro%2Estanford%2Eedu%2Fhanushek%2Fadmin%2Fpages%2Ffiles%2Fuploads%2Fw11154%2Epdf
The NBER is the largest economics research organization in the United States[2]. Sixteen of the thirty-one American winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics have been NBER associates, as well as three of the past Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers, including the former NBER president, Martin Feldstein. NBER research is published by the University of Chicago Press.
3. While I do not believe they commissioned a study, Bill Gates in the annual report of the Gates Foundation (which spent $2 billion on education development) identifies teacher quality as the most important variable in determining student achievement. He then points a finger direcetly at teacher compensation that is tied primarily to advanced degrees and longevity (which is noted in the first paper referenced above - also has a weak link to achievement after the first few years).
Now I would not confuse a study with fact and even multiple studies with fact. However, with strong evidence to at least question the impact of advanced degrees and longevity (after the first few years) how do we justify a pay scale that rewards ONLY that and no other measures of teacher quality.
The anti-union people do not have a better way to compensate teachers. I have been involved with schools for many years and can assure you there is absolutely no better way to deal with the issue or there would be advocates among teachers for change. Education is a cooperative enterprise and teachers help each other. Turning teaching into a gotcha, tuches licking operation (like perhaps the ones the people calling for a systemic change are employed in) will never work, could never work and steer the discussion away from real reform.
Schools are about teachers and students. Some guidance and library services are needed. Everybody else working in a school is more or less parasitic. Cutting out the waste is what we ought to be united on rather than banging our heads against the wall to determine whether physical education (sound mind in sound body?)or mathematics teachers ought to be paid more. The fact that the math teachers won't buy the differentiation should tell you all you need to know about the silliness of trotting out different kinds of teachers for excoriation.
there is absolutely no better way to deal with the issue or there would be advocates among teachers for changeThis statement is so rediculous on its face that I only have one question - are you/were you (1) a public school gym teacher; (2) a school union official or representative; or (3) both.
As I noted before, fortunately it seems that even the President is willing to take on the issue of teacher compensation and teacher quality. Funny, how teachers who give out grades as one the primary "tools of the trade," fight so strongly against being graded.
I was in what I am sure you would regard as an academic area.
You did not indicate how you would do your grading. I am left to assume it would be tuches licking, as it is in so many fields of endeavor.
Unless you have been in schools, you cannot appreciate the nature of the job.
You did not indicate how you would do your grading. I am left to assume it would be tuches licking, as it is in so many fields of endeavor.Thinking a new way will fail before it's even proposed shows that you are not the right person to be dealing with this issue.
Unless you have been in schools, you cannot appreciate the nature of the job.Look, you can't have it both ways. When you want us to appreciate the value of the schools, the argument is that we understanding how we all benefit - but when we criticize, we don't understand anything.
I come from a long line of teachers. My father (a verteran of the NYC school system) will tell you stories of waste that will make your blood boil and my brother (a new teacher) will tell you about union and administration rules that seem dedicated to sucking originality and passion out of the teaching staff.
I beleive that teachers can be graded. If the problem is that we currently don't have a good metric, let's look at what we think is working best (be they charters, private or public programs) and see how we can quantify the results so that we know what to measure.
Saying it can't be done doesn't help. You are simply part of the problem.
I'll take Swiggle one step better. Since like combat, apparently teaching is something you can't understand unless you are in it - why not let the teacher's union define the criteria (as long as it focuses not on the qualifications of the teachers but rather the results in the classroom). If they are as dedicated to the quality of education as they claim, they should be able to create a system which identifies high achievers and under-performers - then the School Board could construct a compensation system that rewards the former and takes away the financial incentives for under-performers to stay in the system. Surely teachers who can label one poem an A and one poem a B can figure out a reasonably fair way of deciding who is a great teacher and who is a poor teacher.
BTW, let's hear it for the teachers union. Confronted with layoffs/demotions the fire fighters have offered to implement a salary freeze and forgo budgeted overtime. When confronted with the layoffs of 7 of their most junior colleagues, in a show of great concern, the Teaneck teacher's union offered . . . [fade to sound of crickets]
Incompetent teachers get weeded out before achieving tenure. Judging among established teachers is both impossible and divisive.
If we follow your logic, teachers will kill to get the brightest students for themselves, since they will thus qualify according to you for the highest salary. The weakest students (no matter who the teacher is) will achieve the least. Is that fair to their teachers? No one in a real school situation would think so.
Anyone with real knowledge of schools knows that the kind of evaluation process you fantasize does not work.
Letting the most junior go is the fairest way to deal with layoffs.
If we follow your logic, teachers will kill to get the brightest students for themselves, since they will thus qualify according to you for the highest salary. The weakest students (no matter who the teacher is) will achieve the least. Is that fair to their teachers? No one in a real school situation would think so.I may not have a PhD in education, but here's a thought - don't let the teachers decide the class assignments then they won't have the ability to fill their classes with first round picks.
The sad thing is, I don't think you have a clue as to how much of the problem and not the solution you and your fellow Unionists are. The even sadder thing is that it is our public school students that suffer from this stranglehold of the teachers' union on teacher evaluation and compensation.
You pompously make assertions based on no knowledge of the real world of schools.
It is very difficult to believe your father has long term educational experience and agrees with you.
You pompously make assertions based on no knowledge of the real world of schools.
It is very difficult to believe your father has long term educational experience and agrees with you.First - Please create a name for yourself if you expect people to have a conversation with you. It's hard to follow which anon is which.
Second - You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. I do have knoweldge of the real world of schools independent of my family - and to think that all teachers must be against me is ridiculous.
Third - As to the picking and choosing of the best students...it's quite possible that the current system of random assignment is flawed as well.
We currently take kids and randomly assign them to classes which means that if you were born right around the cut-off date, you can be up to 12 months older than other kids in the class. This is an age when physal development and academic ability are very tied together. How logical does it seem to put kids up to a year older than the other in the same class? Wouldn't you say separating them by date of birth might be a little more accurate?
Perhaps a class of kids born Jan-March, another for April-Jul, etc....
This is especially important when you consider that we take the best performers and give them advanced placement classes. Were they performing better (and getting a leg up) because they are smarter or just because they had an extra 12 months of growth? How much does the age difference get exascerbated when year after year to treat them to better classes?
But sure, keep fighting for the current system and change nothing because it's the best it can ever be and no one else knows anything about education.
Just throw out all the real experience acquired in the world and make up fantasies to justify your brilliant hypotheses.
I suggest you'd make a great Education School professor, the kind all real teachers scorn.
Why have tenure?
Who's to say that the teacher who is great prior to receiving tenure will maintain the same level of performance years down the road?
"Incompetent teachers get weeded out before achieving tenure. Judging among established teachers is both impossible and divisive."
You think that a teacher that gets tenured after THREE years, constitutes being weeded out?????
You thnk that 4th year teacher is just as great as the burnt out "yeller" that has been teaching for 25+ years, or the one that has been teaching for 40+ years???
Have you ever been inside a teaneck school where we are blugeoned with lazy teachers (who are at the highest salaray) who could care less about teaching and are not worried about their job security at ALL while these fabulous enthusiastic junior teachers are being let go?? How does that help the kids?
I am not against tenure. i am against the complacency and the lack of motivation and the "you cant touch me" attitude that comes along with if from some of, not all of these educators.
Letting the most juniors is NOT the fairest way to go. In fact they are the only ones that give a hoot about their job...
Post a Comment