Back in October, the Davis School District announced that there would need to be 3.5 million dollars in additional cuts as a means of absorbing budget reductions from the state. The idea at that time was that there would be 2.5 million dollars in budget reductions which would anticipate a reduction of 43 employees in the coming year.
Superintendent James Hammond then hoped that employees would accept an additional million dollars in employee concessions as a means of avoiding further layoffs.
Said DTA President Ingrid Salim:
“We are split almost right down the middle on the idea of employee concessions. Because of that, we probably would not have enough votes to ratify a contract change, and truly do not want to introduce the kind of fragmentation that would result if a slight majority voted in a change of such magnitude and wide effect. However, I hope to revisit the issue in a few months, after some articulated uncertainties have been visited.”
As a result, Superintendent Hammond told the school board that the district would need to layoff of an additional 16 employees meaning at least 20 people would be noticed.
Across the state, employees of cities, counties, school districts, the state, and higher education employees have taken furlough days as a means to avoid layoffs. However, for some reason, DTA is refusing to do so in order to save the jobs of 16 of their colleagues.
Why would they do this? There is some indication that membership believes that such layoffs would only affect recently-hired teachers with temporary employment status in the district. However as Associate Superintendent Kevin French pointed out on Thursday, while this might have been true at one point in time, it is no longer the case. The district simply does not have as many temporary teachers as they once did.
Whether that is an explanation or the truth, what we have here is that experience teachers are putting the jobs of their less experienced colleagues in jeopardy rather than take a temporary pay cut through furloughs. And furloughs would not even impact their pensions because the base salary would remain the same.
The impact of cuts on the students may be devastating. While the district has taken great pains to avoid program cuts and has absorbed many of these cuts into creating larger classes, there is only so far they can go, particularly since this is not the first year of layoffs.
Regular readers of the Vanguard may remember that last year we called on teachers to take furloughs rather than face layoffs. We did so at a good deal of criticism from some in the educational community who believed at that time that the district could balance its budget without making such cuts.
It is unclear if anyone still believes that. This is actually the fourth round of cuts that the district has faced. The first round was back in 2008 and that was largely due to internal factors such as declining enrollment, the remnants of a structural deficit, coupled with budget cuts at the state level. The worst cuts were avoided due to the state reducing the budget cuts, eating a small amount with the reserve, and the Davis School’s Foundation raising $1.7 million.
Last year, the district was in far better shape to weather not one but two massive budget cuts, but the result was still a number of layoffs that could have been avoided with concessions by the teachers but also other employee groups. Now the district has been cut to the bone and we are back to the same question–layoffs or concessions.
The Vanguard has heard interesting speculation on the vote by the teachers. The DTA President Ingrid Salim suggested that the vote was nearly 50-50. She further suggested that the union prefers not to “fracture” their membership by moving forward with concessions at this time. However, some believe that this may indicate that the vote was not only close but it might have been in favor of negotiations and concessions. The Vanguard will be examining this issue as the process moves forward.
The Vanguard understands the hardships that furloughs impose on employee groups as we have witnessed first-hand the impact on state and county officials. However, we believe that for the sake of the employees and the sake of the students and our beleaguered education program, we need to all take one for the team–that means for the younger teachers and the students.
While the Governor’s budget has pledged to restore some funding to higher education, and place education above prisons, on Friday, some charged that the Governor’s budget proposal would cut more than $1.5 billion in additional cuts to schools.
While that money may not seem like a lot, it is simply an indication that schools will have to absorb more in cuts on top of the $17 billion already endured by K-12 schools over the past two years.
For many districts it is simply a matter that the mounting cuts have eaten away at reserves, rainy day funds, buffers, and possible unnecessary programs. Additional cuts are going into core programs.
For this reason, the Vanguard encourages the teachers to look into ways to find concessions that can avoid further layoffs, it is the right thing to do for younger teachers and the right thing to do for students and the school district.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
From what I have heard about the results, what concerns me is that the vote was specifically reported as ~50% in favor of negotiating concessions, and ~50% either undecided or against negotiating concessions.
So I infer that three choices were presented (yes, undecided, no), but the results fell into two categories (yes & undecided/no).
In such a scenario, I doubt that “no” votes will change their minds. To me an undecided vote means, potentially, that not enough information is available to make a decision.
If mostly “no” votes make up most of the undecided/no category, then indeed it is a very divided group. If “undecideds” make up a significant portion of the undecided/no catagory, then it isn’t as sharply divided as it would seem.
The survey results, as presented, don’t offer as much useful information to DTA leadership for how to serve its constituents — Do a lot of members want more information and further discussion on what concessions would mean or not?
It looks like potential cuts to k-12 education could be greater than the governor’s press releases suggest. In his state of the state address he expressed a position that education wasn’t going to get cut this time around, but this article suggests otherwise:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/education/story/2450729.html[/url]
Why would they do this?
Lay off teachers and reduce services to students and you create a PR opportunity to garner support for future reparations. Accept concessions to lower pay while providing the same or similar service level and you have reset the pay-performance expectation. In non-unionized private industry this latter approach is continually taken as a matter of necessity and survival: “do more with less” is the consistent top-down theme. With unionized labor the bottom-up theme is: “establish and maintain negotiating leverage”.
There was another article in the Enterprise Forum section today is illustrative of this tired, old and ineffectual approach: create sympathy for victims in order to justify higher taxation. If teachers are underpaid and students are under-served then eventually, it is thought, citizens will allow themselves (through a tyranny of the majority) to be additionally taxed.
Here is a groundbreaking idea for any and all public-sector businesses wishing to dip their hands further into my pockets… DO MORE! If you want more of my hard-earned dollars then make commitments for how you will improve the services that I will pay for. For education, commit to changes and related hard goals for how California schools will be improved with higher taxation. Also include in the proposal what will happen if this plan fails (e.g., more privatization of public education). Put skin in the game and I will be happy to pay to play.
In California, the long-run, government-controlling, unionized, political left has created their own problem by being too successful with their template process: identify victims, garner sympathy and extract payments from non-victims. Over time California has become a state of too many victims and not enough non-victims to pay all the previous commitments – let alone to pony up for more commitments. We are at ideological stalemate because the political left is unwilling to recognize this and change their game plan.
The new game plan should be to propose and commit to substantive improvements commensurate with the demands for sustained or increased funding levels. Tax payments should be linked to the achievement of the committed goals. Unions that want more will have to perform. If they fail to perform, they will find their related program/service budgets and member compensation cut while we divert revenue to the next great idea. The related disruption in service will be part of the social price we pay to invest in a plan that eventually works… not a PR case for why we need to keep funding the same or declining crappy service. Unions will fight this approach tooth and nail because it takes away their power and puts it in the hands of tax-paying citizens demanding their performance.
For education, commit to changes and related hard goals for how California schools will be improved with higher taxation.
It’s harder to argue for changes in public education in Davis when a large number of students are actually doing well. Jeff, you suggested the reason for this in other comments of yours was that Davis has a lot of involved parents. Parent involvement may be the biggest key to education reform. If parents can’t or won’t get that involved with their child’s education, then probably no other reform will make much of a difference.
[i]In California, the long-run, government-controlling, unionized, political left has created their own problem by being too successful with their template process[/i]
I understand the position of venting against the unions. I used to do it too, and I still don’t usually trust unions.
But the fact is that the CTA is not one of California’s most powerful unions. Relative to the cost living, teachers’ pay in California is not particularly higher than in many other states. A key comparison is between prison guards and teachers. In most states, teachers are paid quite a bit more than prison guards. In California, the pay is about the same.
If you want to be mad at public-sector unions, you should talk about the prison guard’s union first and second. Not only are they paid a lot more than they have to paid, they constantly lobby the state and the public for more prisoners. The CTA does not lobby the state to add a 13th and 14th grade and prevent high-school graduation, but that is the way that the prison guard’s union behaves.
Before I get ripped by anonymous haters who will say, “Rifkin hates teachers, etc.,” I don’t hate teachers and I don’t think on average they are overpaid or [i]deserve[/i] a pay cut. I think our best teachers are highly underpaid and it makes no sense to me why City of Davis workers make so much more than teachers make. Yet because of the way schools are funded (and in part because we overpay some top administrators in the schools), it is [i]necessary[/i] to cut teacher compensation across the board.
It would be interesting for the school district to poll the parents on this question. It could be worded as such: [quote]Due to reductions in state funding, the Davis school district needs to cut its budget by one million dollars. To find that one million dollars in savings, would you prefer:
[b]A)[/b] salaries are cut across the board and we retain all of our current teacher positions; or
[b]B)[/b] the district will fire 16 more teachers and class sizes will increase further. [/quote] Vanguard readers should understand that the impasse procedures which cities have in dealing with their unions exist for the DJUSD, as well.
When the DTA contract came up last year, the district could have imposed its last and final offer which would have (at that time) saved every teacher’s job at a reduced rate and could have included language to make further adjustments as the state government financing situation changed. But the 5 elected members of the school board chose not to take that stance and the result was to give the power over these decisions to the DTA.
The school board effectively said to the DTA, “You, the DTA, can decide how many teachers are employed in the district moving forward. We only have X number of dollars to pay teachers. The rate will pay will determine the number who keep their jobs.”
Because the majority of the teachers keep their jobs and salaries each time the most junior teachers are fired, the DTA is unlikely to ever vote for across the board cuts to save marginal jobs.
And because parents have nothing to gain by having marginal teachers fired, any poll (like the one I posed above) would find that the parents prefer across the board pay cuts and no one getting fired.
What would have been much more preferable is to have a school board taking charge and making decisions which consider the DTA position but don’t swallow it hole hog and consider the parents’ positions but don’t always concede to their wishes.
It’s harder to argue for changes in public education in Davis when a large number of students are actually doing well.
True, but there is still tremendous room for improvement. I think the Davis public schools are not so much high performing as they are blessed with a high percentage of brainy kids and parents.
Parent involvement may be the biggest key to education reform
I’m not sure if I agree with “biggest”, but I agree that it is a key. I absolutely agree with this being a major reason why Davis schools consistently achieve strong outcomes. I think the complaint about too much homework is an indication that the Davis schools maybe rely too much on parental involvement. However, it is clear that there is a correlation between student education outcomes and parental involvement.
Here is an idea, how about including program goals to increase parental involvement in communities where parental involvement is lacking as part of an overall plan to improve education outcomes? In Davis, maybe the goal is to increase involvement of parents lacking advanced degrees who work at least 40-hours per week.
“I think the Davis public schools are not so much high performing as they are blessed with a high percentage of brainy kids and parents.”
How would you quantify, measure, or otherwise determine the difference? I’m not even necessarily saying I disagree on that point. But on the other hand, maybe that also suggests the problems elsewhere are not the schools but rather the environment.
If you want to be mad at public-sector unions, you should talk about the prison guard’s union first and second.
I will be happy to rip the prison guard union when that topic comes up. I am not a fan of unions in general and think they are the primary culprit for our budget problems up and down the state. Teachers are generally underpaid in my opinion, but the unions have effectively blocked every reasonable attempt at pay-for-performance change so they get what they deserve. Read about D.C. schools for an example of how far their political reach goes to protect the status quo and prevent reform that has proven to benefit students and parents.
[i]I will be happy to rip the prison guard union when that topic comes up.[/i]
Somehow it almost never does.
At least on here that’s because we don’t have a prison.
[i]At least on here that’s because we don’t have a prison.[/i]
I’m not blaming you for the blind spot. But since you mention it, even if we don’t have prisons, we certainly do have prisoners, and you have talked about them. When Ajay Dev was sentenced to a zillion years in prison, California’s prison-industrial complex had a hidden hand in it.
How would you quantify, measure, or otherwise determine the difference?
Well, you could assess the percent of higher-educated parents and their kid’s GPA related to the percent of lower-educated parents and their kid’s GPA. I’m not sure what it would show, but I suspect there would be a notable gap. Some of this gap would be explained as logical and natural human filtering, but I suspect some would be an indication of poor teaching.
maybe that also suggests the problems elsewhere are not the schools but rather the environment.
Kid’s brains come in all shapes and sizes, and they all develop at different paces. There are many different types of intelligence too. If we are lucky, as we enter the working world we learn to self-identify with our cerebral/emotional intelligence strengths and weaknesses and pick the correct career. The “environmental” problem as I see it is that we have a high percentage of students genetically gifted with quicker-developing and larger academic-wired brains. Certainly there are economic factors too if one or more highly-educated parent can make time to be involved with the kid’s school work.
I think Davis teachers, and teachers in general, can be made blindly lazy teaching a high percentage of academic-brainy kids with similar and involved parents. The downside result is less quality support given to the slower-developing and/or different-brained kids, or kids without parents that have the same involvement resources. I have lived in Davis for over 30 years and I hear routinely from people I consider smart that attended Davis school how they felt they got screwed by the supposed “quality” system. What gets measured gets done and high test scores only tell part of a story.
I thk a lot of Davis teachers would argue that they can’t get lazy because the parents are constantly breathing down their neck.
The PPIC published a fascinating study of our growing prison population a few years ago. It’s available on-line here ([url]http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_806ABCC.pdf[/url]). This sentence is from the introduction: [quote]The state prison population has grown three times faster than the general adult population since 1990 and at year-end 2005 stood at 167,698. African Americans have the highest incarceration rates of any group (5,125 per 100,000 adults in the population for men and 346 per 100,000 for women, compared to 1,159 and 62, respectively, for all adults), although Latinos now constitute the largest ethnic group in the prison system, at 38 percent of the total.[/quote]
[i]How would you quantify, measure, or otherwise determine the difference?[/i]
First, I don’t agree with Jeff’s suggestion that brain genes are the big explanation. Genes might make a difference in specific cases, but for a population group as large as the city of Davis, that’s not what is going on.
Children in academic families do better academically on average because of a cultural appreciation of academics. I do not mean that in the military “do your homework or else” sense, although there are children in the district who never turn in any homework at all and I admit that that does take a toll. I also do not mean it in the arrogant sense of enduring cultural superiority. My only point is that many children of mechanics also like to fix cars, many children of professional athletes also like sports, and many children of academics like to read and study. Again, this is not about individual cases, but rather statistical averages.
It isn’t necessarily important to read and study all the time. In fact, I feel bad for students who feel obliged to cram material all day that they find boring. But, if people in this discussion are concerned about academic achievement, the difference is not a magic gift of brain genes, it is not a military model of childhood obedience, and it is not some weird ritual with flash cards or abacus trays. It is about children learning to like what their parents like.
Yes, these things can be measured. For instance, you can look at how many books there are in the house. I have heard of families who have several TV sets, but not even one book. Since school is based on books, this is not very good preparation for school.
[i]”For instance, you can look at how many books there are in the house. … Since school is based on books, this is not very good preparation for school.”[/i]
It helps if those books have content. Consider, for example, the library of baseball great Ivan “Pudge” Rodriguez ([url]http://jeffpearlman.com/?p=4224[/url]): [quote]A bunch of years ago I visited Pudge’s house in Miami. He was friendly and nice and sorta dull, but two things stand out: First, he had a ton of books in his library—stuff like biographies of FDR and Lincoln; profiles of great debates, etc. I picked up one of the books to read through it—and the pages were empty. One hundred percent empty. All the books. They were merely for show, brought in by some interior decorator. [/quote]
Here is an idea, how about including program goals to increase parental involvement in communities where parental involvement is lacking as part of an overall plan to improve education outcomes? In Davis, maybe the goal is to increase involvement of parents lacking advanced degrees who work at least 40-hours per week.
I like this idea. Particularly appealing is that it shouldn’t have to cost a lot of extra money (if any) to a school district.
But I’m not prepared to accept that this strategy (increase parent involvement) is an excuse to cut overall money to public education.
Children in academic families do better academically on average because of a cultural appreciation of academics
Greg: just because dad or mom is a dedicated sports fan doesn’t mean his kids will be gifted athletes. It is more likely that if dad or mom was a gifted athlete his/her kids will have a similar leg up on the competition.
I would also argue that a son or daughter of any parent with high skills in a particular area is just as likely to rebel and push for differentiation if he/she feels the slightest insecurity about measuring up to mom or dad. It is only later in life where they discover the true color of their parachute sans the need for parental approval.
Jeff:
The problem with that theory, the strongest correlate of academic performance is the degree attained by the parents.
But I’m not prepared to accept that this strategy (increase parent involvement) is an excuse to cut overall money to public education.
On the contrary: I would absolutely support funding this if it was tied to commitments for improvement (e.g., improved test scores and/or GPAs for the population of students coming from lower income families.) However, the kicker is that the funding gets cut if the committed to results are not realized. How it works today… programs are funded in good times and then protected in bad times by introducing fear in the population of the chaos that will ensue if funding isn’t continued or increased. I say reverse that trend and put fear in the program that funding will be cut if it does not perform to expectation.
“For instance, you can look at how many books there are in the house. … Since school is based on books, this is not very good preparation for school.”
I think I might have as many books in my house as most UC professors (BTW, my three copies of “Atlas Shrugged” sits right next to Krugman’s “The Conscience of a Liberal”). Only recently has by college-age son started expressing an interest in the things I read… granted many of them are IT and management books which don’t yet apply anything my two kids are doing in school.
The problem with that theory, the strongest correlate of academic performance is the degree attained by the parents.
A more specific breakdown of that I read recently is that the mother’s education is the stronger predictor of a child’s academic performance than is the father’s. I will have to go back and look up the source to post the reference.
Slightly depressing news for a father to hear, but it does go far at suggesting the social benefit of making sure that women get access to education as much as men.
The problem with that theory, the strongest correlate of academic performance is the degree attained by the parents.
David: I don’t know if I agree that it would be the strongest, just strong. Davis is a bit different because of the high percentage of people with advanced degrees working in academics. We are a unique situation given the small size of our city and the concentration of UC employees. Aren’t we listed as the 4th most educated city in the nation (or something like that)? Folsom has a high percentage of parents who are technical engineers and computer scientists from Intel; I think it would be safe to assume a higher percentage of Folsom High students are gifted in the technical science and engineering disciplines.
I see where you are heading with your question though. I think it makes some people uncomfortable to accept genetic factors as much as family, social and cultural influence to describe our individual differences. Also, I concede that the existence of an advanced degree is no absolute measure of genetic academic gifts. Lastly, I am all for competition, so in some ways it goes against my grain to argue for teaching methods to help less-gifted students. However, as I said before, teaching is in the “producer-training” business; and I believe there are smart kids being left out of this training because they do not have the same kind of smarts more generally existent in the heads of the children of the typical higher-educated Davis parent.
Where are the “no new taxes” proponents? Decreases in pay for teachers and other public workers are the same as a large increase in taxes for a small section of the middle class. Anyone who feels that “no new taxes” is an appropriate mantra (and not just the NIMBY equivalent “no new taxes FOR ME”) should be opposed to these pay cuts.
MIKE: What tax increase are you proposing which won’t harm the California economy?
We have the highest sales tax rate of all states. We have the highest income tax of all states. We have the highest employment tax burden of all states. We have the highest paid public employees of all states. And we have (after Michigan) the highest unemployment rate of all states.
Rich:
Are you sure about your figures?
LINK ([url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html[/url])
[quote]Are you sure about your figures? [/quote] Apparently 3 states now have negligibly higher income tax rates (all due to changes made in 2009). I stand corrected in that one regard. And I ask again, what tax rates in California can we raise which won’t harm our economy right now?
[i]just because dad or mom is a dedicated sports fan doesn’t mean his kids will be gifted athletes.[/i]
As I said, I was arguing statistics and not individual cases. And your example somewhat misses the point. If mom and dad like to [b]watch[/b] sports, then the kids are more like to watch sports too. That’s different from playing sports.
[i]I think I might have as many books in my house as most UC professors (BTW, my three copies of “Atlas Shrugged” sits right next to Krugman’s “The Conscience of a Liberal”).[/i]
Again, I wasn’t talking about individual cases, and this example also somewhat misses the point. If parents like to read, their children won’t necessarily like to read the same things. It’s more a matter of generally placing a value on reading and encouraging children to read, which in the early years has to include reading with your children and reading to them.
Another part of it is a limit on television, which is the saccharine imitation of reading for pleasure. And not a limit like, “I bought a 48-inch TV, but you’re not allowed to watch it; go do your homework”. But rather, “You can’t watch TV all day, but to make up for it, you can pick any book you want at Borders and I’ll buy it.”
You said in the other thread that your kids had trouble in math class, not trouble reading. My point here is that instead of blaming the teacher or blaming DNA, you could instead help your children with their math and endorse it as interesting. Don’t just poll them to see if they’re doing “okay”; stay on top of their grades and their comprehension.
[i]I think it makes some people uncomfortable to accept genetic factors as much as family, social and cultural influence to describe our individual differences.[/i]
You’re right that it makes me uncomfortable. First, genetics could possibly work as an explanation, but certainly not as a solution. Not unless you think DJUSD should try gene therapy to improve performance. Other factors are known to play a role, and they can point to solutions. It is established that children learn a lot about what is fun, interesting, and important from their parents. My advice is that “important” without the other two is dictatorial and rings false.
Second, genetic theories have led to all kinds of terrible political reactions. Not long ago I was sent an article by Charles Murray (the Bell Curve guy) claiming that Jews have special intelligence genes. I am part Jewish, and I think that Murray (who was not Jewish) supposed that I would feel gratified. No thank you, I would rather not have a theory that Jews are the master race. At the level of science, Murray was leaping to wild conclusions; and at the level of politics and empathy, his thinking was equally incompetent.
[url]I think it makes some people uncomfortable to accept genetic factors as much as family, social and cultural influence to describe our individual differences.[/url]
I think it would have to be a very small influence compared to family, social, and cultural influences. Five generations ago, none of my ancestors that I can learn about had anything more than an elementary education, if that. At least one was likely illiterate (because of signing a document with an “X”), and another one also likely didn’t have any education. They were mostly farmers and mill workers. I can’t yet brag of coming from royal or privileged stock.
Genetics doesn’t explain why I have a college education. Lots of other Americans probably have a similar story.
First, genetics could possibly work as an explanation, but certainly not as a solution.
I agree with that statement. In any case, this whole “nature versus nurture” path is making me uncomfortable too because it sounds like I am making excuses for some students’ poor academic performance. I am the first to say to hell with excuses as to why anyone cannot compete. We all have personal differences; some genetic, some biological, some social and cultural, some learned and some based on the opportunities provided. At best we all only get life, and soon it is up to us individually to make the most out of it. Often those that struggle the most will develop the best long-term life skills. So, I’m not crying for any student that has to struggle.
I’m also not advocating any crutch be provided kids without gifts or gifted parents. My issue is 100% about learning opportunities provided. I think Davis’s public school curriculum and teaching methods produce fewer learning opportunities for less academically-brainy kids. They call these other kids “non-traditional learners”. (Isn’t this why we need Da Vinci High?) I’m thinking the academically-brainy kids are more non-traditional when you move outside of Davis… regardless if they are made brainy by expert parenting or genetics or both.
It is established that children learn a lot about what is fun, interesting, and important from their parents.
Yes, when they are young, but it only works long-term if they have or develop some ability to be successful. That’s a good thing. I don’t know how old your kids are, but at some point most kids decide that fun and interesting is the opposite of what their parents think. Usually that happens about the time they get their drivers license. Although sometime I hear it doesn’t happen until the kid turns 40. Mostly this is a good thing too.
Greg: your style and teaching methods might be the exception, but in all my K-12 and college upper division math instruction, I cannot remember having much fun. I do remember being very interested to understand and learn, but also, in high school calculus, I remember being equally frustrated that the guy next to me could not explain how any formula worked, but he aced every test because he could memorize copious miniscule details like his math teacher father. Thankfully my girlfriend at the time was also in the class and was able to help me since she her parents were two PHD engineers who divorced each other when she was young. Like the teacher’s son, she aced everything… but at least she could explain things.
Greg: “you can pick any book you want at Borders and I’ll buy it….” Or one of the independently owned local bookstores….[url]http://daviswiki.org/Bookstores[/url]….
[i]I think Davis’s public school curriculum and teaching methods produce fewer learning opportunities for less academically-brainy kids.[/i]
But maybe what some students get in Davis schools is frustrating reminders of higher standards. That might not always be a bad thing, even if it doesn’t feel good. There is a difference between feeling discouraged and being discouraged. What some schools and teachers do which is truly discouraging is assign a bit of easy work, declare everyone a winner, and dismiss class. Or, give full credit for shabby work. Then students never find out what they could have learned.
This is something that I have heard several times from good graduate students and postdocs who came from highly non-academic families. They may say, “When I started college, I had no clue that this knowledge even existed.”
[i]I don’t know how old your kids are, but at some point most kids decide that fun and interesting is the opposite of what their parents think.[/i]
They’re certainly old enough to carry a huge chip when they feel like. They also know how to rebel against authority. But they don’t entirely mean it. Okay, the typical thing is a mixture of setting an example or taking an interest, and expecting kids to do their work, and letting them make their own choices. It’s a matter of making an effective combination of all three elements, and it also doesn’t always work.
For instance, I wanted my son to know how to cook, because I knew nothing about it until I was engaged to be married. He isn’t any great chef (and neither am I), but he’s not bad. On some occasions, we made a deal that he had to cook lunch, but he could choose what to cook and we would help him. So, this was a mixture of giving an order, taking an interest, and giving him discretion.
[i]your style and teaching methods might be the exception, but in all my K-12 and college upper division math instruction, I cannot remember having much fun[/i]
To be honest, one common opinion about my courses is that they are pretty hard, and some of the students really don’t like my style. That said, I personally enjoy the material; I honestly think it’s fun. Maybe “fun” is a misleading word even though it’s true, because academics is an acquired taste. Anyway, some of my students, if they get used to me, definitely enjoy the material too.
[i]he aced every test because he could memorize copious miniscule details like his math teacher father.[/i]
It really discourages me when students are convinced that the path to success in math is memorization. I have always been terrible at straight memorization of anything; for instance in a history course, I usually only roughly remember the dates or not at all. I only remember math or anything else when I think with it, like remembering names of friends. When I do calculations, I make mistakes often enough, more often than some students. But I can debug a calculation if it feels wrong-minded.
I’m sure that you have these skills too, when you can apply them to a topic that truly interests you.
Davis Voice article today on the Governor’s budget with respect to public education (it’s not as protected as suggested in his state of the state address):
[url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/01/protected-guvs-proposal-for-education/[/url]
[i]”Not long ago I was sent an article by Charles Murray (the Bell Curve guy) claiming that Jews have special intelligence genes. … I would rather not have a theory that Jews are the master race.[/i]
My own take is that the great advantage of the Jews is cultural, especially (but not always) when Jews are a minority. Almost all of the same bits of “Jewish genius” come to fruition with Chinese minorities, as well as Lebanese minority populations, as well as Indian minorities in various countries.
These minorities have tended to eschew occupations of physical labor and farming — often because they were banned from doing so — and filled niches which required extraordinary intelligence. They all (at some point) developed a love for learning and a great reverence for education, which pushed ahead their intellectual advantages.
David Brooks in today’s New York Times ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html?em[/url]) discusses this with regard to Jews and Israel: [quote]Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates.
Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction.[/quote] But Brooks notes how so much of the accomplishment had bypassed Israel. Until now. [quote] Tel Aviv has become one of the world’s foremost entrepreneurial hot spots. Israel has more high-tech start-ups per capita than any other nation on earth, by far. It leads the world in civilian research-and-development spending per capita. It ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq. Israel, with seven million people, attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined. … All the countries in the region talk about encouraging innovation. Some oil-rich states spend billions trying to build science centers. But places like Silicon Valley and Tel Aviv are created by a confluence of cultural forces, not money. The surrounding nations do not have the tradition of free intellectual exchange and technical creativity.
For example, between 1980 and 2000, Egyptians registered 77 patents in the U.S. Saudis registered 171. Israelis registered 7,652.[/quote]
[i]My own take is that the great advantage of the Jews is cultural, especially (but not always) when Jews are a minority.[/i]
To the extent that Ashkenazi Jews have a cultural “advantage”, their culture is a European culture, and the “advantage” is an accidental outcome of a medieval caste system. That caste system was a very bad thing. It is very foolish, and sometimes all too easy, to use stories of Jewish success as a confirmation of caste.
I said that I’m part Jewish. But in any direct cultural sense, I’m not Jewish. I define myself as an American, as a mathematician, and as an immigrant from Poland. My mother is not Jewish, and I am 0% observant. The main relevance of Jewish culture to me is by certain statistical associations that do not define my life goals.
I feel much more Jewish when Jews are attacked. Then I can’t help but share a feeling of underdog pride. But this isn’t really something to celebrate.
All of this is a reason that I want to respond to Jeff’s suggestions about special advantages for this or that group in school. Yes, cultural appreciation of mathematics, or other academic subjects, can be an advantage in school. I’d much rather help spread this appreciation than to trap it with ethnic history.
Hammond announced by e-mail to employees today that DJUSD will be seeking an additional $2 million in cuts in response to the governor’s 2010-2011 budget proposal released last Friday. Although the cuts could have been worse in the scheme of things, they do go agaist some expectations given that he made grand statements about protecting education this time.
So the grand total is about $5.5 million in cuts for next year. Some anticipate a second round of stimulus money, but it can’t be a reliable assumption at this moment.
My comment about “brainy kids and their brainy parents” actually had nothing to do with any group-ism other than the family unit. Certainly this is not absolute, but physical, mental, emotional traits exist within families. K-12 public schools are justified in providing grade rewards to kids that produce the highest results. Brainy students will have an easier time. My beef was that this also translates into an easier time for the teachers. The best teachers will give each student what he or she needs to provide the best opportunity for learning. A lazy teacher, or a teacher blind to this tendency, will teach to the academic stars in the class, while leaving the less brainy kids to fall behind.
Interesting topic though about Jews demonstrating higher than average prosperity… thinking about the poorer states in their vicinity owning similar natural resources (Lebanon comes to mind), as well as the relative success of Jews living within high-prosperity countries like the US, one has to conclude that Jewish culture must play some role. Historically that would be representative in the primary religious teachings that are the underpinnings of Jewish culture and other cultures. I think Judaism emphasizes the integrity, freedom, and independence of the individual, as well as his or her responsibilities to society. Also, Individual property rights were important to the Hebrew Bible. I read somewhere that in Jewish law, the highest form of charity is to find someone a job so that he or she no longer needs to depend on charity. Compare that to the teachings of Islam which disallows bank lending, and seems to – at least in modern times – to shun wanting riches or wealth and embraces poverty. The teachings of Christianity seem to focus on faith, service and charity and discourages the hording of wealth (as in ‘Thou shalt not covet’.). However, the attainment of prosperity is not discourages and is even suggested as being a probable result of demonstrated faith (as in the Lord will bless the obedient).
[i]A lazy teacher, or a teacher blind to this tendency, will teach to the academic stars in the class, while leaving the less brainy kids to fall behind.[/i]
How do you distinguish between a “lazy” teacher who doesn’t teach the weaker students, and a hard-working teacher who makes enemies of the weaker students by expecting too much from them? Certainly there are students who evaluate teachers in general by the equations easy = good and hard = bad.
[i]I think Judaism emphasizes the integrity, freedom, and independence of the individual, as well as his or her responsibilities to society.[/i]
You’re projecting the RNC platform onto Judaism here. Judaism per se doesn’t emphasize any of this any more than any other religion does. Moreover, if you want to talk money-lending, the law against lending money with interest is in the Old Testament, it is an old social standard of the Middle East and Mediterranean, which at different times was taken very seriously in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
If there is one thing that Judaism does emphasize (except maybe Reform Judaism), it’s rules. Just about everything that you do is subject to a complicated list of instructions. Whereas in many modern Christian denominations, what you believe is relatively more important than what you do. Religious Jews are more often called observant, while religious Christians are more often called devout.
But to get back to money-lending. For centuries, there was [url href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury]a widespread philosophy in Europe[/url]: “You’ll burn in hell if you lend money with interest. So leave that to the Jews.” This is what I meant by a caste system that led to certain “advantages” for Jews. If Jews were allowed to lend money because they’d burn in hell anyway, then eventually, as an accidental effect of religious persecution, they might succeed in business. It’s an ironic outcome, because if the Old Testament is any guide, the Jews once hated money-lending as much as any Christians or Muslims. But eventually they had to condone it as a matter of survival.
Again, I see no cause for celebration in this history.
Ack, hosed url. Here is the URL for the usury article in Wikipedia:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury[/url]
How do you distinguish between a “lazy” teacher who doesn’t teach the weaker students, and a hard-working teacher who makes enemies of the weaker students by expecting too much from them?
I think most kids want to learn and are smart enough to tell when they are being taught and when they are being ignored (handing out homework is not teaching). Certainly some get grouchy when loaded up with work, and depending on the class requirements and innate interest in the subject matter, some might not be motivated to work hard enough to earn a higher grade. However, my experience with humans in general (and students mostly fall in the same category) is that learning is contagious and higher achievement is a natural and common desire.
I direct 20 employees and the principles of effective leadership requires teaching and coaching them to give them the best opportunity for meeting or exceeding the job expectations and reaching higher levels of achievement. My job is to provide them everything they need in order to do the best job they can. If, given everything they need, they cannot develop in a reasonable amount of time to at least meet the expectations of the job, then they will be let go. The likelihood at that point is both of us have mutually discovered that the person is not a good fit for the job, or has prerequisite development needs that must be addressed. The “failure” of the employee at this juncture is actually an achievement in vetting appropriate job-employee fit or readiness. The earlier this is figured out… the better it is for both employee and company.
My issue is teaching that fails to provide the student with everything he/she needs to have the opportunity to meet or exceed performance expectations and develop… but then fails the student because he/she didn’t meet the performance expectations. Add to that my consideration that the student is actually a paying customer of the education institution, and not an employee, and I am even more disappointed in what I call “lazy teaching”. Note that I think that 20-30% of public school teachers are in the wrong job, and another 20-30% of them are burned out. I think “lazy teaching” is a symptom of those root problems.
[i]My issue is teaching that fails to provide the student with everything he/she needs to have the opportunity to meet or exceed performance expectations and develop… but then fails the student because he/she didn’t meet the performance expectations.[/i]
Yes, but if the teachers themselves set “the performance expectations”, how do you know that they aren’t just getting it in the head for setting them too high? Because, here is a well-known strategy to make certain students happy:
(1) Discuss an interesting topic and make the material fun, but water down the expectations a lot.
(2) Make a big deal of your expectations; imply that they are high.
(3) Assign enough homework to be convincing, but don’t make it hard. Give away answers to students who get stuck.
(4) Express sympathy for the students and theatrically provide help, which however isn’t very hard with lowered expectations.
Because, here is a well-known strategy to make certain students happy:
There is a vast difference between giving students (or employees) what they want compared to what they need. Only satisfying wants is a lazy approach… just as would be ignoring their needs. Give a kid a good grade and you circumvent potential conflict with the student or the parents… but you without actual learning taking place, you just pass on the (compounding) problem to the next teacher. Again, the job is not passing out grades; the job is teaching.
I am a fan of the Blanchard Situational Leadership Model and I think all public school teachers should be forced to learn it. It is a simple and practical model that matches four progressive leadership styles to four levels of development. The general concept is that effective leadership behavior should be tailored to fit the situation. At development level one (low confidence, low competence, high enthusiasm) the employee/student needs absolute attention and direction. At level four (high confidence, high competence, balanced enthusiasm) you just need to hand them the work and be available for questions. The job is to progress the student from D1 to D4. I see a lot of Davis teachers teaching/leading at level four exclusively because of the higher population of brainy kids that perform at that level. When they do that, they fail to give the other kids what they need.
“It’s harder to argue for changes in public education in Davis when a large number of students are actually doing well. Jeff, you suggested the reason for this in other comments of yours was that Davis has a lot of involved parents. Parent involvement may be the biggest key to education reform. If parents can’t or won’t get that involved with their child’s education, then probably no other reform will make much of a difference.”
WDF,, you make me sick with your comments. It’s obvious you must be a teacher. It’s the job of the school to educate the children. The parents can only do so much. Sorry but there are other people that don’t have the luxury of living your model of life..you probably are a stay at home mom, or a teacher with a husband…two parent household…etc etc etc…
Stop speaking from your podium of privilege and judgement.
Davis is a good school district because the students are good students. They are good students because the parents have money, education, privilege, and many have one parent working while the other is lucky enough to stay at home and fuss about the kids and house all day.
What about the working poor, the single parents, the uneducated.. the ones that don’t have the money to pay for tutoring, or be as involved as you demand they should be….
I wish the teachers would stop blaming parents for their failures to do their jobs.
It’s time for the DTA to stop being so godamned selfish and take a cut…it’s obvious they would rather have the kids suffer than take a pay cut…
how selfish and disgusting.
most of you are failures at teaching the kids…not vice versa….this model of teachers getting automatic pay raises whithout any accountability has got to STOP….it’s the public’s money. We pay for your salaries with our taxes and it’s time for you people to suffer like the rest of us who have to actually work for our money.
WDF Said:
“Although the cuts could have been worse in the scheme of things, they do go agaist some expectations given that he made grand statements about protecting education this time”.
what do you expect Hammond to do if the teachers association won’t meet him halfway????? WHAT R U WILLING TO DO TO PROTECT EDUCATION MISS TEACHER?????
Obviously not a god damned thing. You’re willing to tell every one else to take a cut, and you’re willing to desperately hold on to your retirement at the expense of the kids. SHAME ON YOU!!!
Jeff Boone said:
“In California, the long-run, government-controlling, unionized, political left has created their own problem by being too successful with their template process: identify victims, garner sympathy and extract payments from non-victims. Over time California has become a state of too many victims and not enough non-victims to pay all the previous commitments – let alone to pony up for more commitments. We are at ideological stalemate because the political left is unwilling to recognize this and change their game plan”
I’m sorry Jeff but I disagree with you here on this one. Many true progressives like myself, David Greenwald, Cecilia, Lois Wolk and Sue Greenwald ARE willing to change their game plan and have been calling time and time again for the Unions to renegotiate thier contracts and stop screwing over Californians….Mariko Yamada, Asmundson, and others have been taking MONEY from these unions to keep their contracts rich and lucrative at the expense of the public.
But unfortunately, the masses can’t see this…
I’ve spoken to many good teachers that truly care about the kids and education and would be willing to take a pay cut to keep the kids afloat…we need to focus on teachers like them who really care about kids and education.
[i]There is a vast difference between giving students (or employees) what they want compared to what they need.[/i]
Yeah, I certainly think so. But in education, that’s rather the opposite of the phrase, “The customer is always right”.
[i]At level four (high confidence, high competence, balanced enthusiasm) you just need to hand them the work and be available for questions.[/i]
Actually, Jeff, high-achieving students deserve to be challenged just as much as other students. You keep referring to “the” work as if it’s a set standard. Surely you see the argument for adjusting the standard to the student.
But in education, that’s rather the opposite of the phrase, “The customer is always right”.
I think the customer in this case wants the best education possible. Yes, some all want good grades too. However, again, the product of education is educated students, not grades. I hear you though… especially in the public schools where parents are desperate that their kids have a high GPA to get into that great college so they can keep their parents fulfilled and content.
Surely you see the argument for adjusting the standard to the student.
Not adjusting the standard; adjusting the teaching methods and teaching attention. You have a standard curriculum. You have a standard syllabus. You lecture, hand out assignments and periodically test the students with the standard tests. You start to understand which students are having an easy time, and which are struggling. The reward is the grade, so your star students are not wanting for attention unless they ask for it. However, the struggling kids need more direct attention from the teacher to have the opportunity to learn.
The joy in teaching should be to save as many struggling students as possible, not to relax when the class has a high percentage of brainy stars. The Brainy kids can challenge themselves with AP classes and early college classes.
We don’t need public school teachers to spend time polishing the diamonds while the potential gems fade to lumps of coal.
I’m sorry Jeff but I disagree with you here on this one… I’ve spoken to many good teachers that truly care about the kids and education and would be willing to take a pay cut to keep the kids afloat
Malenie: I may be wrong, but I think we agree perfectly. I know many, many teachers that are in the job for the right reasons, and care about the kids more than their own pay. My issue isn’t with these teachers. My issues are with the unions and the percent of teachers who are not so caring about the kids. You and I both know they exist in quantities and have no problem funding “The Governor is Hurting the Kids” ad campaigns while they threaten to strike or reduce their service-levels in order to extract more for their pockets.
As you can probably tell, I don’t like unions very much… especially public employee unions… and especially the teachers unions. However, I very much like good teachers and want to see them paid very well. Bad teachers are either in the wrong job, or burned out… but they are often the ones screaming for pay increases and job security.
Melanie says:
“Although the cuts could have been worse in the scheme of things, they do go agaist some expectations given that he made grand statements about protecting education this time”.
what do you expect Hammond to do if the teachers association won’t meet him halfway????? [edit]
The “he” I referred to was Schwarzenegger, not Hammond. Schwarzenegger, in his state of the state address, suggested that education wouldn’t get hit in his current proposed budget, but DJUSD just got hit with another $2 million to cut.
The best details of the cuts to DJUSD for next year are here:
[url]http://www.djusd.net/[/url]
What about the working poor, the single parents, the uneducated.. the ones that don’t have the money to pay for tutoring, or be as involved as you demand they should be….
I agree with your point. It can be a bigger challenge for families in such situations.