Woodland Facing Huge Cut Backs in Education as Davis Rescinds Its Layoffs –
According to the Woodland paper, “the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team recommended $3.9 million be cut from the budget for the 2011-12 school year. The budget deficit is estimated to be as high as $6.19 million by 2012-13.”
According to the paper, “This included $1 million in certificated layoffs, including teachers, and nearly $1.1 million in classified layoffs. Two high school vice principals are proposed to be cut, leaving four administrators at each high school.”
This is a school district that already faces far more challenges due to demographics.
Compare that to their neighbors just to the south, and you see a very different picture.
Last week, the Enterprise reported that the Davis school board was rescinding almost all of the 61 layoff notices for local teachers.
With the news from the state this week, Davis will have a balanced budget and no layoffs for the next two years.
Reported the Enterprise, “Best said that of the 61 layoff notices, 56 were rescinded entirely. Five partial layoff notices, involving a reduction in duties, were approved by the school board on Wednesday, totaling 2.4 full-time-equivalent positions. These went to teachers at the junior high and high school level, including some language teachers.”
The Enterprise went on to report, “Best said there is a high probability that some of those positions will be brought back over the next few weeks as it becomes clearer what courses incoming seventh-graders have signed up for in the fall, and as several employees currently on leave of absence decide whether they will be coming back to work.”
As the Vanguard reported earlier this week, the May revise and increased numbers for education means there will not be another $3 million dollar deficit as feared, had the budget sustained further educational cuts.
However, the school district will not have any surpluses from the improved budget news, instead, the extended increased state taxes would eliminate the use of revenue deferrals. Right now, schools are receiving their funding so late that they have to borrow money in order to make payroll. The increased revenue would mean that school districts could stop borrowing money and actually put together budgets based on cash.
Right now, there is about $2.1 billion in the state budget for deferrals, and that revenue would take away those deferrals.
“While the budget line for education at the state level is going to go up, there is not going to be new funding for the school to spend,” Bruce Colby told the Vanguard last night. “It’s just basically going to give us cash to pay the bills.”
“There is no additional funding for education at the district level, it is creating a sustainable funding and cash payment level for next year,” Mr. Colby added in an email.
The difference between Woodland and Davis is the willingness of the Davis voters to step up and pay taxes to avoid cuts to education and, therefore, layoffs.
“We promised we would bring these people back with Measure A. And that is what we’re doing,” Matt Best, the assistant superintendent for human resources, said at last week’s board meeting.
Superintendent Winfred Roberson said, “We want to express our gratitude to the community on behalf of our teachers and staff for giving us the capacity to bring back the program that people voted to save.”
This was not an easy thing, nor was it an easy election. Many voters complained that the increased taxes were straining their resources. They argued that the taxpayer, too, was feeling the hurt from the economic downturn.
Board member Sheila Allen said, “Parents, community members and PTA leaders came together to get the word out, and the community voted.”
At the same time, she acknowledged that the two-thirds majority needed to approve a parcel tax is tough.
However, one has to wonder which is tougher, to find $200 more a year to pay for the parcel tax or to watch a school district go through what Woodland will have to go through for the next two years.
Davis was not alone, as 12 other school districts in Northern California passed parcel taxes to help their local school districts. Unfortunately for Woodland students, Woodland was not one of them.
Wrote columnist Dan Walters last week, “The outcomes were not surprising. All of the districts were in relatively affluent communities that tend toward liberal politics. Their voters decided that enhancing education for their children, grandchildren and neighbors was worth taxing themselves.”
It may get easier for local school districts to raise money in the future. If Senator Steinberg’s bill passes, it will greatly expand the options for not only school districts, but also local government.
Senate Bill 653 would allow local governments, such as counties and school districts, to adopt a wide range of taxes including income, vehicle, alcohol, cigarette and oil severance taxes, with the approval of a supermajority of voters.
Senator Steinberg argued that the bill would give local governments more flexibility to fund key services like schools and public safety if lawmakers are unable to reach a budget solution that includes a statewide revenue stream.
“We cannot leave our communities with just one uncertain option when it comes to closing the 2011-12 budget and putting this fiscal crisis behind us,” Senator Steinberg told the Senate Governance and Finance Committee a week ago, before the committee approved his legislation on a strict party line vote.
However, due to Proposition 13, all such measures require a two-thirds vote and it will be interesting to see the disparity between liberal communities like Davis and more conservative communities like Woodland, in terms of education funding, should this go forward.
As it is, the worlds of Davis students and Woodland students could not be further apart. And for Woodland students that is not a good thing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It will get worse. Get used to it. We are becoming a nation divided between the haves and the have notes–objective measures of inequality (e.g., the Gini coefficient) have increased dramatically in the past twenty years and this great recession is making it worse.
And keep in mind that fund raising has become an important source of revenue for many public schools in affluent areas. For example, in Menlo Park and San Rafael one is [i]expected[/i] to give money to the schools if your child is enrolled.
I don’t think this inequality is good for the US. On the other hand I do think there is a limit to what government can do. A healthy school system requires local involvement. We are fortunate that we still have that.
Let us also remember that Woodland gets a great deal of our sales tax dollars, although this does not go to the school district. And Woodland has let developers take over, leading to plunging property prices which probably also is a factor here.
[quote]The difference between Woodland and Davis is the willingness of the Davis voters to step up and pay taxes to avoid cuts to education and therefore layoffs.[/quote]
The difference between Woodland and Davis is the average income of its residents.
[quote]It may get easier for local school districts to raise money in the future. If Senator Steinberg’s bill passes, it will greatly expand the options for not only school district but local government.
Senate Bill 653 would allow local governments, such as counties and school districts, to adopt a wide range of taxes including income, vehicle, alcohol, cigarette and oil severance taxes, with the approval of a supermajority of voters.[/quote]
Let’s hope Bill 653 does not pass… but if it does, I very much doubt citizens will agree to being taxed to death… which means Bill 653 will achieve nothing…
Some critics of the public school system have made the case that there is fat to cut and that putting more money into education will not improve things. There are ~1000 school districts in California, and perhaps almost as many responses to cutbacks from the state. With all the test score measures and data collection going on, we will be able to have some idea what worked and what didn’t.
It is like running a bunch experiments through different school districts and schools. Unfortunately, it is children’s education that we’re tampering with, and this isn’t normally an ethical thing to do.
California Gov. Brown takes step toward testing sanity
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/california-gov-brown-takes-step-toward-testing-sanity/2011/05/18/AFpGOc6G_blog.html[/url]
Another consequence of the budget environment, reported on the front page of today’s Sac Bee:
Schools’ history books are so 1998: Assemblyman urges update of standards
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/20/3640800/assemblyman-mike-feuer-urges-upgrading.html[/url]
Roberson redistributes, streamlines duties at district office
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/roberson-redistributes-streamlines-duties-at-district-office/[/url]
Article explains the rest of the district office re-organization following French’s departure. As I read this, there is no overall increase in salary over what Kevin French was earning.
[i]”one has to wonder which is tougher, to find $200 more a year to pay for the parcel tax or to watch a school district go through what Woodland will have to go through for the next two years.”[/i]
It is certainly not a happy moment, but Woodland schools are just taking their medicine earlier than Davis. However, lacking structural and compensatory reform, this cycle will continue for all communities.
[i]” Some critics of the public school system have made the case that there is fat to cut and that putting more money into education will not improve things. There are ~1000 school districts in California, and perhaps almost as many responses to cutbacks from the state. With all the test score measures and data collection going on, we will be able to have some idea what worked and what didn’t.”[/i]
This is an interesting observation.
In the business world a business “risk” is also defined as a missed opportunity. How many opportunities to significantly improve education outcomes are being missed every day? Even if the protectors of this medieval system can scrape together enough dubious proof that spending more results in improved outcomes (so far they have come up way short), there is little hope that more money can be allocated. In 1964 state education spending was 54.9% of the state’s general fund. For 2012 it is projected to be 54.4%.
It is ironic that the same group of voters and promoters for greater school spending are also the voters and promoters to protect spending for all other social services… including their demand that we continue paying these costs for illegal immigrants. In effect, this group shoots themselves in the feet preventing any reallocation of spending. For them there is only ONE solution… increase taxes.
There is a symbiotic relationship here between the costs for social services and funding for education. Crappy schools are a significant root cause for people needing social services. For example, there are almost 50 million people on food stamps today, and our prisons are overflowing with uneducated and illiterate people unable to make an honest living. The education establishment has joined the DNC in adopting the convenient scapegoat of blaming parents, capitalism and George Bush for this. The marketing campaign using this message combined with “save the kids” and “protect and value the teachers” has been breathtakingly effective creating a wall of public sentiment ensuring the status quo. However, it has also injected significant business risk of the missed opportunities to create a much better system.
Our public school system is certainly not responsible for all of our social problems; but it is our best opportunity to address many of our social problems. Our failure to recognize this contributes to the fiscal dilemma we find ourselves in today… and it will likely continue until our paradigms on public education significantly shift.
[i]” Schools’ history books are so 1998: Assemblyman urges update of standards”[/i]
Public education is so 1960s. Why are expensive paper books still used as the primary teaching resource? This is a rhetorical question because we all know the answer.
JB: [i]In 1964 state education spending was 54.9% of the state’s general fund. For 2012 it is projected to be 54.4%.[/i]
In 1964 schools were more heavily funded by local property taxes. That was rolled back when Prop. 13 passed in 1978. The state took on more funding of local schools after that. So in arguing that education funding takes up a roughly equal percent of the general fund in 1964 and 2012 highlights the fact that there is overall less funding of California schools these days because of the intervening rollback on property taxes.
[i]There is a symbiotic relationship here between the costs for social services and funding for education. Crappy schools are a significant root cause for people needing social services. For example, there are almost 50 million people on food stamps today, and our prisons are overflowing with uneducated and illiterate people unable to make an honest living.[/i]
Would you care to make the case that times were better in the past? I concede that the economy of the past could better absorb those who had less than a high school diploma (i.e., dropouts). Now what is required is a high school diploma plus some additional education, either college or vocational training, to be viable in the contemporary economy.
wdf1: State property values skyrockted since 1960 and made up for the lower property tax rates. I cannot find the link to the resource I have saved (on my home computer I think) that shows CA education spending per GDP and per student since 1960. These ratios have stayed materially the same since then even after prop-13. The difference is about 12% in gross compensation for teachers after being adjusted for inflation.
That is 12% increased gross compensation for teachers adjusted for inflation.
wdf1: [i]”Now what is required is a high school diploma plus some additional education, either college or vocational training, to be viable in the contemporary economy.”[/i]
Agreed. So how do you reoncile this recognition with the facts that vocational classes have been cut, and dropout numbers have increased?
Jeff: This pushes the conversation further off topic than it already was, but have dropout numbers really increased? And over what time period. It seems to me a higher percentage of students complete high school than ever before, the problem is that now completing HS is not the ticket to entry.
JB
I would like to address your persistent focus on ” the crappy” nature of the public schools.
On Sunday, while attending my daughter’s graduation ceremony at Cal Berkekey in the department of Integrative Biology, I learned several facts I had not previously known.
1) The majority of the Integrative Biology majors are products of the public education system.
2) Over 90 percent of these students were in the top 10% of their graduating class
3) The UCB Integrative Biology program is the top ranked in the nation
My point ? Do I agree with you that there are missed opportunities for improvement ? Absolutely. However, demonizing an entire system which has obvious shining successes as well as demonstrable failings is counterproductive. And posing this as a liberal vs conservative or Democrat
Vs Republican issue is nothing but a polarizing way to duck mutual responsibility for our societal shortcomings.
And then there is your demonstrably false assertion that ” for them there is only one solution: raise taxes”
On multiple previous posts, I have outlined a number of changes I would like to see in the public schools which you have never chosen to address. So, I will give a brief summary of my starting point suggestions:
1) Teachers unions agree to some form of merit evaluations
2) Society alters our current assessment of the value of teachers such that they receive compensation packages on a par with other currently more highly valued professionals
3) We set our recruitment and training expectations for teachers on a par with what we expect from other professionals such as docs and lawyers
4) We offer teaching internships in underserved areas, similarly compensated and valued as military service, with similar post completion
educational opportunities
5) more active recruitment and utilization of community volunteers such as retirees instead of just parents for in classroom teacher assistance
and one one help with very basic skills such as English and elementary level reading which would benefit especially English as a second
language and lower income students.
6) Updating educational materials such as you have suggested, and which by the way, part of your current “crappy”system, DaVinci, has already instated.
Good luck answering the dropout question: [url]http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10rel140.asp[/url]
Apparently, graduation and dropout rates both increased slightly during the time period of this Ca DoE analysis, and some percentage of students did neither.
medwoman:
You raise good points. I think it’s easy to point to failing schools, but difficult to remember that those failing schools are generally in failing neighborhoods where what we really need to do is far more than just education. I think the typical school in this country provides students with a good education and some schools provide students with a very good to great education. Could we do better? Of course. But then again, when you cut billions for education, what do you expect?
JB: [i]Agreed. So how do you reoncile this recognition with the facts that vocational classes have been cut, and dropout numbers have increased?[/i]
A little too much over-emphasis on college prep relative vocational training, because standardized tests currently measure college prep material better than it can measure vocational knowledge.
And this situation has only been exacerbated by the squeeze on community college funding. Finding seats in California community colleges is becoming as challenging as getting into a CSU or UC campus. Community colleges haven’t been given the funding to open up additional classes to absorb the booming population of students squeezed out of UC and CSU education and brought in by higher rates of unemployment.
I question how you can really know if dropouts have increased or not. That is not a number that has been defined consistently or measured reliably. For many years it didn’t matter as much if a kid dropped out or not. Now it matters.
Also, because high school education is more of an economic necessity these days, it is worth knowing that it is more expensive to run a high school vs. elementary or JH. It tends to require teachers with more specialized and advanced training, science lab facilities and equipment, more expensive textbooks, often the need to maintain an auditorium and athletic facilities, and vocational facilities.
Don: The DoE do not count students that drop out during middle-school years. The education establishment “facts” on dropouts has always been suspect. There are much more comprehensive studies that put the numbers much higher. In any case, don’t you agree that these rates are way too high and represent a big problem and an opportunity to solve.
JB: [i]The DoE do not count students that drop out during middle-school years. The education establishment “facts” on dropouts has always been suspect. There are much more comprehensive studies that put the numbers much higher. In any case, don’t you agree that these rates are way too high and represent a big problem and an opportunity to solve.
[/i]
Agreed that, especially in this 21st century economy, dropout rates are too high. A recent article that discusses complications of measuring dropout rates.
School dropout rates are worse than the numbers show
[url]http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_18085728?nclick_check=1[/url]
I agree that it is likely that dropout rates are probably on an increasing trend due to recent budget cutbacks.
Medwoman:
[i]”1) Teachers unions agree to some form of merit evaluations”[/i]
This does not sound like we agree since I think a complete change of their compensation system to a performance-based model is required. “Some form of merit evaluations” is too nebulous to be useful in my opinion. Moast schools already have “some form” of merit evaluations.
[i]”2) Society alters our current assessment of the value of teachers such that they receive compensation packages on a par with other currently more highly valued professionals.”[/i]
Given their actual hourly rate based on 2080 total hours in the work-year, adding retirement benefits, and including the fact that most teachers do not require upper-level degrees, they are already paid on par, and in many cases higher, than are equitable professional roles in the private sector. I don’t get your point about “more highly valued professionals”. The market is what “values” professionals. Are you suggesting some form of socialism to circumvent market-based compensation to legislate “fairness” for teacher pay? That is the same problem I advocating against.
[i]”3) We set our recruitment and training expectations for teachers on a par with what we expect from other professionals such as docs and lawyers”[/i]
In some case, yes, we need highly educated teachers teaching the subjects that require it. Otherwise, we just need teachers that know the subject matter and are talented at engaging the students so the information is absorbed. I think this mindset that teachers are equal to doctors and lawyers in terms of the compensation they would receive is fine as long as most of that compensation is at risk based on a comprehensive assessment of their performance… meaning the top-performers could earn it, the middle performers would be working hard to achieve the same, and the lower performers would be on job warning with a development plan that would send them packing unless they demonstrate consistent and significant improvement.
[i]”4) We offer teaching internships in underserved areas, similarly compensated and valued as military service, with similar post completion educational opportunities. ” [/i]
I agree with this. It is somewhat a free-market approach… it is more challenging to be a teacher in these tough areas, so the job would need to pay more to attract talent. I am okay with subsidizing this through taxation as long as the students and their parents have choice for where their kids attend.
[i]”5) more active recruitment and utilization of community volunteers such as retirees instead of just parents for in classroom teacher assistance and one help with very basic skills such as English and elementary level reading which would benefit especially English as a second language and lower income students.”[/i]
Ha… how about all the retired teachers donate their time for this!
I have a better idea: why not reduce the number of teachers and hire an army of college students to tutor the kids as a way to help them pay for college. How many crappy algebra teachers are employed by this state to teach the exact same subject year after year. Why not combine the class to one larger one retianing only one Algebra teacher per school and use the excess funds to hire more of these student tutors? I think this would be a much better model than the current one.
[i]”6) Updating educational materials such as you have suggested, and which by the way, part of your current “crappy” system, DaVinci, has already instated.”[/i]
Great. Why not the rest of the school?
medwoman:
[i]”On Sunday, while attending my daughter’s graduation ceremony at Cal Berkekey in the department of Integrative Biology, I learned several facts I had not previously known.”[/i]
With all due respect, having a daughter attending Cal Berkeley and graduating with a degree in Biology, although certainly things to celebrate and be proud of, indicates she is academically gifted and in the top 10 percent of “intellectual capability wealth”. Maybe we should tax her more for this!. Seriously though, this causes me to consider that you might not have enough understanding and empathy for those not blessed with similar gifts… which by the way is the majority of kids. Frankly it is easy to teach a student like your daughter. Making that the benchmark for evidence that the schools are not “crappy” is the essence of the problem I see in the Davis schools (i.e., “my kid did fine, so the school is great!”). There are far too many kids that do not do fine. There is also a too high percentage of kids that do fine only because of the herculean efforts of doting and involved parents… that don’t seem to understand that they are supplementing their valuable time to make up for the deficiencies of the education system.
wdf1: Good article from Mr. Elias.
JB: [i]Are you suggesting some form of socialism to circumvent market-based compensation to legislate “fairness” for teacher pay?[/i]
If it is widely agreed that it is in society’s interest that everyone receive a complete high school education, then you already have a form of socialism in place. And you have to figure out how to meet that societal interest.
You can minimize what is required of teachers by comparing hourly rates and the fact that it isn’t a 12-month work schedule, but already we lose about half of teachers within the first five years of employment. Teachers have been beaten up and blamed as a group for a number of failings and social ills, extending all the way to the downfall of America. There are not currently enough teachers coming through the system to replace those who are expected to leave/retire in the next five years. And job security doesn’t appear to be strong, especially given the budget pressures that come up every ten years or so. I don’t think the current system offers enough compensation to attract the number teachers that are really needed.
There’s a maxim that if you want something 1) high quality, 2) done quickly, and 3) cheaply, that you can really only have two of the three. You have to sacrifice the third. I think that might apply here. Because we’re dealing with kids who are maturing and aren’t waiting for the grown-ups to figure out the best possible system, we already have to accept #2. The 21st century economy demands #1 as well, so we’re inevitably facing the realistic scenario that these expectations will cost money that a lot of people don’t want to pay. In the long run, I think a good education is cheaper than the alternatives.
Wdf1: [i]” If it is widely agreed that it is in society’s interest that everyone receive a complete high school education, then you already have a form of socialism in place. And you have to figure out how to meet that societal interest.”[/i]
The more jobs available for people lacking a high school diploma, the less we would require people to have acquired their high school diploma. We have a market interest that drives our social interest, not the other way around.
[i]” we lose about half of teachers within the first five years of employment.”[/i]
It has been proven over and over again that pay is not the top issue for attracting and retaining quality employees. What most high performing people want in their career is the ability to make a difference and to be recognized for their accomplishments doing so. Good people leave the teaching profession, not because of the pay, but because they become disgusted with the system that prevents them from achieving and ensures they will not be recognized for thinking and working outside the ever expanding box of rules to legislate fairness and compliance. The current system filters and attracts too much of the same personality type… people that are generally risk averse and desire the comfort of job security over the risk-rewards of achievement competition. We lose new teachers with energy and enthusiasm to make a difference after they learn that the system will not allow them to do so.
[i]”Teachers have been beaten up and blamed as a group for a number of failings and social ills, extending all the way to the downfall of America.”[/i]
It is the system, not the teachers. Saying teachers are being blamed is a bit like blaming the US auto workers for the downfall of the American auto companies. The teachers’ union and the DNC do a good job using the teachers and the kids as a human shield to deflect the real target of criticism: the entire public school education SYSTEM.
[i]” There’s a maxim that if you want something 1) high quality, 2) done quickly, and 3) cheaply, that you can really only have two of the three. You have to sacrifice the third.”[/i]
Although businesses like Southwest Airlines and C.C. Meyers are examples of exceptions to this, I generally agree because there is a natural adverse relationship with these things. Incorporated in this is the principle of “value”, and cost is a component of that. I have said all along… if you want me to tax myself more, then commit to significant education improvements. Like most people I am an expert at calculating value. Standing in the isle at Target, or looking over my choices on Amazon.com, I will consider a myriad of criteria to select the product that provides me the greatest value. Give me choice and I will reward the greates value by giving up my money.
Today, the quality is crappy by comparison to what it could be and should be, so I don’t want to pay for it. I want to spend my money on something else that will provide much greater value. I will spend more if I need to. But I will not support spending more on the same.
We need Cadillac service-quality public schools, and all that the left and the education establishment are pushing for are Rolls Royce costs to ensure we maintain the same Chevy Vega quality.
Here is the Daily Democrat article that DMG references:
[url]http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_18103338[/url]
JB
First, you made me smile with the thought of taxing my daughter’s intelligence. But then maybe I should get a rebate for my lack of communication skills. I am not sure how else to explain how you could have gone so astray from my intended meaning. I was not attempting to hold up my daughter as an example of a success story, although that is certainly true. My remarks were meant to address your repeated contention that the California public school system is fatally flawed and as such should be scrapped and converted to what you seem to think would be some utopian free market system. My point was with regard to the system, not individuals. The fact that the UCB Integrative Biology
Department as a whole is ranked more highly than that of any of our prestigious private ( and twice as expensive) institutions is indicative to me that private systems and institutions are not always better.
With regard to your responses to my suggestions:
1) I think a complete change in compensation system is appropriate, but not one that is based on providing the least amount of compensation for the greatest amount of work, which is what the “free market”typically does. I am quite sure we would not agree on the basis for compensation.
2) I do not share your unmitigated faith in the fairness of the “free market ” which I think frequently over compensates those who contribute little, while maintaining in poverty those who contribute much. Concrete example, Paris Hilton or the Kardashians whose only contribution that I can see is their ability to exploit their names and tackiness as opposed to field workers who perform hard labor for long hours for barely enough tp live on in sometimes lethal conditions. And, with all due respect, you think I lack compassion!
Am I proposing some form of socialism? If by that you mean a system that would prevent the above inequities, yes. If you mean am I a Stalinist, no.
3) I think we have a possible middle ground on this one. I would not object to a system that allowed for some pay differential for more advanced knowledge or technical subject matter just as neurosurgeons are paid more than Family Practitioners. However, I believe that the job of kinder ten teacher, although not requiring a great deal of academic knowledge, is of sufficient societal importance to merit professional level compensation.
4) I first thought we were in agreement here. not so sure as I read on. In what way do you feel the military, which was the model I was using,
Is “a somewhat free market approach”. And with regard to parental choice in where their kids attend, how do you intend to ensure that their school of choice will accept every applicant as the public schools do ? And how are you going to transport rural and inner city kids to these wonderful private schools which are probably not going to flock to these challenging areas?
5) Disagree that yours is a “better idea ” on two counts. First, I think it displays a profound lack of respect for teachers by equating ” an army of college students, presumably with no experience, to seasoned teachers. Finally, your focus seems to be always on the lowest, “how many crappy algebra teachers”. I don’t know, ( and suspect that you don’t either), the number of”good”vs “bad”algebra teachers in the public schools. What I do know is that it is much easier to blame than it is to work constructively to improve.
And to that point, I very much appreciate your response to my specific ideas.
Why kids drop out:
[url]http://www.dropoutprevention.org/statistics/quick-facts/why-students-drop-out[/url]
Should be a cinch to solve those problems.
Don, great link. I have seen similar data. Note the difference between the percentage of boys versus girls that dropped out because they could not get along with the teacher. What if the gender results had been the opposite: 3 time the number of girls than boys saying they dropped out because they did not get along with the teacher? I am guessing we would be reading left and media outrage and a call for action.
I wonder if all those folks who were so quick to accuse the school district of dirty tricks regarding the administrative re-organization care to comment about the today’s Enterprise article saying the changes will save about $11.000?
NPR/California Report: Conference Tackles Truancy
[url]http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201105201630/a[/url]
I invite you to listen to this piece, then read the comment posted by the teacher. I think this is a more accessible piece on how a student ends up dropping out.
Wdf1, good resource. What is your takeaway from the interview and comments? I am curious to see if we are even close.
JB: [i]What is your takeaway from the interview and comments?[/i] and from Don’s link on dropout survey…
Underneath all that, that there is probably a strong lack of parental guidance and maybe a lack of parental value on education in some sectors. And that a number of these dropout prone kids, as a result, may not have the sense of present sacrifice for future gain.
That getting parents a little better in line with getting their kids to school will yield some dividends. That would cover some significant parts of the problem.
JB: [i]It is the system, not the teachers. Saying teachers are being blamed is a bit like blaming the US auto workers for the downfall of the American auto companies. The teachers’ union and the DNC do a good job using the teachers and the kids as a human shield to deflect the real target of criticism: the entire public school education SYSTEM.[/i]
My problem with your proposal to model the education system as if it were any other business is that you tend to assume a passive consumer. Grade school education doesn’t really work well unless there is some good home structure and parenting and adequate investment of effort on the part of the student. Also, the students being taught are not necessarily in a position to recognize why the curricula. Students have to work hard, and they’re not necessarily going to understand so readily that there is a payoff for that hard work. That’s where the parent support comes in.
There will inevitably be kids who lack appropriate parent support. Teachers have to do their best, but it isn’t the teachers’ fault the family support isn’t there. And there is only so much that a teacher can realistically do. I’m not inclined to “blow up the system” as your comments seem to favor. There is a lot here that can work with tweaking.
Here’s one example of parent neglect with respect to school that took place in Sacramento.
[url]http://www.contracostatimes.com/education/ci_18116501?nclick_check=1[/url]
Yes, probably more on the extreme end of what goes on.
[i]Also, the students being taught are not necessarily in a position to recognize why the curricula.[/i]
Meant to say, “…why the curricula might be worth learning.”
wdf1: I got a chuckle from your response because it was just what I suspected… you and I came away with opposite conclusions.
Listen the last question by the interviewer and note how the teacher just dismisses it – deflecting the question to some political-correctness talking point instead.
Scott Shafer: [i]“And making sure that maybe teachers are doing a good job of teaching a class that kids want to be in?”[/i]
Ana Tintocalis: [i]“Relevant ways of reaching out to them and culturally-relevant ways of reaching out to them as well; that’s right.”[/i]
So the template argument from the teacher unions and their political cover for the high dropout and low graduation rate is that it is the parents’ fault… and their solution is to use law enforcement to force parents to force their kids to stay in their crappy schools and sit through their crappy classes.
I have some follow-up questions:
– Think back to your childhood. During that time, did parents help their kids with studies and homework the way parents of high-achieving students do today? Mine sure didn’t. “Helicopter parent” and “tiger mom” are new terms in our social vocabulary, right?
– Are there more bad parents today (those that let their children skip school and drop out) than back when the dropout rates were lower and a higher percentage graduated?
I hear many Davis parents understandably prattle and bray about their kids doing well in Davis High and then going on to get accepted into a desirable school. Then I learn that one or both of these parents spent almost every evening tutoring, helping, drilling and cajoling their little darlings into their higher GPA.
Then three thoughts come to mind:
One – Why is this required now when 20-30 years ago high-achieving kids would be more self-sufficient in their academic pursuits?
Two – What does this “new normal” mean for the kids that lack parents with the education and time to help this way?
Three – How might this trend corrupt the service-level provide by the public education system, as the highly educated parents push the academic bar higher with copious additional home schooling of their kids?
Four – How does one validate the “great Davis schools” mantra after factoring the thousands of supplemental hours of labor from highly educated parents to achieve the level of outomes we see?
Edit: “four thoughts come to mind”… I had another.
[i]”My problem with your proposal to model the education system as if it were any other business is that you tend to assume a passive consumer. “[/i]
Passive yet still able to decide to drop out? Remeber, I am focused on the grades 8-12. I agree that the youngsters require more specific direction.
I would make the argument that children are passive customers because they are captive customers. Give them choice and they will become more active customers. Right now their only choice is to stay in their crappy school or drop out.
JB: [i]- Are there more bad parents today (those that let their children skip school and drop out) than back when the dropout rates were lower and a higher percentage graduated?[/i]
Once again, I disagree with your premise that things were rosier in the past. I don’t think you can find solid info that HS graduation rates were higher (or dropout rates were lower) 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago than they were now.
The difference is that in 2011 the bar has been raised such that it is a bigger deal for a student to dropout/not graduate than it was when you and I were in high school.
JB: [i]I would make the argument that children are passive customers because they are captive customers. Give them choice and they will become more active customers. Right now their only choice is to stay in their crappy school or drop out.[/i]
I think a number of 8-12 graders will always think school is a drag. If they can graduate and spend a few years in the real world, they will realize that it was definitely better to stick it out. There are definitely worse things in this country than crappy schools.
I tend to think that you might like to see the different military branches be more service oriented toward their recruits — fill out surveys that ask, “Was your drill seargent kind to you?” The military has a better chance at training recruits because they can control both ends of an individual’s life — “home” and “class”. Grade schools can’t control the home end of a kid’s life.
My parents expected B’s or higher. A C or lower would trigger an inquiry with teachers. I wasn’t allowed to use the excuse that I was failing because it was the teacher’s fault. I went through some rough patches when I thought school sucked. My parents helped keep me in line enough to see payoff for my efforts. If I kept a B or higher, they tended to stay out of my life. It worked for me.
“Helicopter parent” or “tiger mom”? I don’t know. I think we’re really discussing doing what it takes to graduate from high school rather than get into an ivy league school.
Solutions?
JB: [url]I have a better idea: why not reduce the number of teachers and hire an army of college students to tutor the kids as a way to help them pay for college[/url]
This idea has been partially anticipated. The Davis Bridge Foundation hires UCD students to tutor “at risk” kids after school at a number of sites. I have volunteered with them from time to time. I don’t think college students can replace professional teachers in the classroom, but I do think they are a great supplement for situations where extra support is needed.
JB: I heard an interview with Michelle Rhee within the past month in which she basically conceded to having personal tendancies to being more like a “tiger mom”, meaning, in part, having high expectations of one’s kids beyond being content with receiving a trophy and a medal for just participating.
[i]”Once again, I disagree with your premise that things were rosier in the past. I don’t think you can find solid info that HS graduation rates were higher (or dropout rates were lower) 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago than they were now.”[/i]
[url] http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/Ten-year_Trends_in_Californias_Dropout_and_graduation_Rates.pdf [/url]
[quote]” Over the last ten years, enrollment in grades 9-12 increased 25 percent, the number of high school graduates increased by 33 percent, and the number of dropouts from grades 9-12 increased by 66 percent. In other words, the number of high school dropouts in California increased twice as fast as the number of graduates. And the number of high school seniors who neither graduated nor dropped out increased by more than 100 percent.”[/quote]
[i]”The difference is that in 2011 the bar has been raised such that it is a bigger deal for a student to dropout/not graduate than it was when you and I were in high school.”[/i]
It is a bigger deal for students to get a high-quality education than it was when you or I attended school. “High-quality” should be determined by measuring how equipped all students are to have a self-supported prosperous life after school.
[i]”I think a number of 8-12 graders will always think school is a drag. If they can graduate and spend a few years in the real world, they will realize that it was definitely better to stick it out. There are definitely worse things in this country than crappy schools.”[/i]
You seem to lack vision and enthusiasm for what it can be and what it should be, and instead fall back to the same template of “lazy kids” and “poor parenting” being the root cause, and law enforcement being the solution. It is almost like you expect school to be crappy and think everyone should be forced to suck it up. This is truly sad.
I completely differ with this thinking. I think most children are born wanting to learn, and humans in general are wired to be driven to grow, develop and achieve. The education system, as currently designed, does not take advantage of these natural human tendencies… It fails to engage too many of these kids. It fails for the same reason that other forms of collectivism fail.
It is not “the kids working for the teachers”… it should be “the teachers working for the kids”.
[i]”I tend to think that you might like to see the different military branches be more service oriented toward their recruits — fill out surveys that ask, “Was your drill seargent kind to you?” The military has a better chance at training recruits because they can control both ends of an individual’s life — “home” and “class”. Grade schools can’t control the home end of a kid’s life.”[/i]
This is a ridiculous comparison since soldiers chose to join the military. Even so, the military does a great job creating capable soldiers without mom and dad’s help.
[i]”My parents expected B’s or higher. A C or lower would trigger an inquiry with teachers. I wasn’t allowed to use the excuse that I was failing because it was the teacher’s fault. I went through some rough patches when I thought school sucked. My parents helped keep me in line enough to see payoff for my efforts. If I kept a B or higher, they tended to stay out of my life. It worked for me.”[/i]
Me too. The difference was that there were more teachers working harder to engage me in classes that I was having trouble in.
[i]”The Davis Bridge Foundation hires UCD students to tutor “at risk” kids after school at a number of sites. I have volunteered with them from time to time. I don’t think college students can replace professional teachers in the classroom, but I do think they are a great supplement for situations where extra support is needed.”[/i]
If it is needed and it works… so why not just make it mainstream?
[i]”I heard an interview with Michelle Rhee within the past month in which she basically conceded to having personal tendancies to being more like a “tiger mom”, meaning, in part, having high expectations of one’s kids beyond being content with receiving a trophy and a medal for just participating.”[/i]
I think the difference with Ms. Rhee is that she also was working to improve education for the vast majority of kids lacking a tiger mom.
So, do I understand that you are more apt to advocate creating more tiger moms as a way to improve education outcomes, than you are apt to support reforming our schools to do so? How does that single mother without a college education working two jobs join up for and attend this tiger mom training?
JB: [i]This is a ridiculous comparison since soldiers chose to join the military. Even so, the military does a great job creating capable soldiers without mom and dad’s help.[/i]
And the military can discharge anyone who is not up to standards. Grade schools can’t play by those rules without looking bad.
In each case, schools or the military, require adequate effort made on the part of the individual. At some level, that effort might feel a little inconvenient. Shopping for a new car and most other goods and services is all about minimizing inconvenience for the client.
More later…
wdf1: the military only accepts adults. In public education we are talking about pre-adults. Adults in training. It is a 100% difference and I think telling of your perspective that you would compare the two.
I care about the support we provide kids more than I care about what happens to adults (people eighteen or older). If we do a better job preparing kids to become self-supporting, then less bad stuff should happen to them. However, once they become an adult, they are on their own and the bad stuff that happens to them is all covered in the “life isn’t fair” rule.
You should not be able to throw a kid out of school unless he or she is a danger to someone else. Every learning-related challenge is a customer requirement that the education system must rise to meet. Kids that are not template academic learners should have choices and they should have help maneuvering those choices. They should be given help finding their element and the education system should provide enough choice so that they can grow and develop to a capable and self-sufficient adult within their element. However, the current system has developed an ever-shrinking model of student that it is willing to support and accept. The schools design and mandate the element and then attempt to force kids into it. Davis parents exacerbate this trend by devoting so many home school hours to create this model student.
Even if our education system is not worse that it was 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago (not a point I am willing to concede), it is woefully inadequate to serve our current needs.
You should not be able to throw a kid out of school unless he or she is a danger to someone else.
Public schools can’t. Private schools can, and do, throw kids or decline to accept them for any number of reasons.
Every learning-related challenge is a customer requirement that the education system must rise to meet.
But of course, resources are limited.
Kids that are not template academic learners should have choices and they should have help maneuvering those choices.
They do have choices. I’ve describe the secondary-level options repeatedly. And they do have counselors to help with those choices. But those support options take money.
They should be given help finding their element and the education system should provide enough choice so that they can grow and develop to a capable and self-sufficient adult within their element.
It is difficult to separate out those with special needs from the herd, especially as class sizes increase. So smaller class sizes help to identify those with different learning styles and needs. But parents really, really, really have to monitor how their kids are doing and move quickly when things aren’t going well.
However, the current system has developed an ever-shrinking model of student that it is willing to support and accept. The schools design and mandate the element and then attempt to force kids into it.
On the contrary, the school district offers different school options. As I’ve said before. You have DaVinci, DSIS, and even King as needed. But the schools aren’t going to seek out the mid-level student who is doing o.k. (but not great), and suggest alternatives. The student and his/her parents is the consumer.
Davis parents exacerbate this trend by devoting so many home school hours to create this model student.
Davis parents do what all parents should do. They help their children do well in school. I don’t know why you or anyone would choose to denigrate those efforts.
JB: [i] the military only accepts adults. In public education we are talking about pre-adults. Adults in training. It is a 100% difference and I think telling of your perspective that you would compare the two.[/i]
Agreed on the issue of adults. And you’re weaseling toward distracting side arguments to avoid addressing the original point I was making.
Schooling does not fit the conventional business models that you want to impose. Schools, like the military, involves training, educating, and conditioning. It is not intentionally meant to be a convenient experience. It’s nice if the student/recruit can find it an enjoyable challenge, but not necessarily 100% expected that it will be that way.
You want to tear down the grade school education system and re-invent the wheel. You can do that, but you still won’t control what happens to a kid between the hours of 3 p.m. and 8 a.m., the other 17 hours of the day. If you go look at charter and private schools that aggressively promote themselves, I find they consistently promote parent involvement. That’s great, but what they’re doing is self-selecting for parents who are pre-disposed to be involved with their kids from those parents who are more minimally involved, leaving the latter to concentrate at public schools that have already been labeled as failures under NCLB, to be shunted from one temporary situation to the next. A “free-market competitive” model of education allows for failing students. They will be at the failing schools.
[i] Every learning-related challenge is a customer requirement that the education system must rise to meet. Kids that are not template academic learners should have choices and they should have help maneuvering those choices. They should be given help finding their element and the education system should provide enough choice so that they can grow and develop to a capable and self-sufficient adult within their element. However, the current system has developed an ever-shrinking model of student that it is willing to support and accept. [/i]
Jeff, I don’t think we’re disagreeing too much on this. Except that the reason for that ever-shrinking model is the progressive cutbacks to education that only leave the testable basic core subjects left — math, English, science, history. In many districts, there is little or no vocational ed., computer skills/design, visual/performing arts, athletics, shop or home ec.
I say find funding to add back those components that have been cut and then work more on building up accessible after school enrichment programs — tutoring, sports, life skills classes. That way you gain some control over a few of those remaining 17 hours of the day, and put them to some use that will help them graduate. Meanwhile middle class+ Davis parents can pick up their kids at 3/3:30 and drive them to their private soccer practice, dance lessons, Chinese school, Little League baseball, Kumon tutoring/enrichment, whatever.
[i]”the military only accepts adults.”[/i]
Actually, my daughter was 17 when she joined the Marine Corps. I had to sign for it. Kids who are going to college and going into the military are 17 – 18. They are making life decisions as adults. Some are capable of those decisions, some aren’t. Some who drop out of high school at 16 believe they are making sound, informed choices, albeit often under emotionally challenging circumstances. I know some of the kids who were in DSIS and King would have been dropouts if those options hadn’t been available.
wdf1:
You say spend more money on the current system because you think it is solid enough as is and would improve enough with greater funding.
I say the current system is fundamentally flawed and inadequate and needs to be overhauled and reformed before I would agree to tax myself more.
You do not support choice except on a limited basis… where the education establishment has tight control over what is offered and how it is offered.
Conversely, I want full blown market forces… where the parents and students are as free as possible to chose… where the education system shifts from forcing kids into their narrow template, to one that helps kids find their element… even if that means recommending a private school supported by vouchers. I want the market to enable innovation and creativity like we have never seen before. I want there to be winners and losers in the competitive economic game of being a for-profit education provider… with the winners finding the formulas that work the best and be rewarded with more customers wanting to pay for their services and this supporting their expansion plans. I want education businesses (regardless if they are public, private, non-profit or for profit) following their lead. I expect a mix of public and private schools to result, but all with the competitive mindset for always improving and always striving to satisfy the customer. The public side of this should shift from being the sole provider of education services, to being the sole advocate for the education needs of the child… something that it should already be, but is not. Once we start heading down a path like this, I will tax myself more.
Note that there are zero proposals out there from the current education establishment for significantly improving the service of education. Their proposals are: “you cut more and we cut more”, or “tax yourself more to keep what we currently provide”, or “give us more money and we will do more (as long as we are not measured and held accountable for the results)”.
According to the education establishment, it is the parents’ fault and the kids’ fault, Bush’s fault, the GOP’s fault and corporations’ fault… it is everything but their fault. With this much finger-pointing, I can easily smell the rat.
It is time more of us shed our tin ear on education reform and get behind it.
[i]”Davis parents do what all parents should do. They help their children do well in school. I don’t know why you or anyone would choose to denigrate those efforts.
You disparage the schools, disparage the teachers, disparage the parents, and vote against more money for the schools. I don’t see anything in this process that encourages the schools to improve.”[/i]
Don: it is broke and it needs fixing. No need to sugar coat it to make others feel good. That is one source of our problem… protecting the feelings of too many prevents necessary dialog. I’m sure you understand how business owners, bankers and CEOs might feel these days from being blamed by the left for every economic problem… however, they have thick skin, right?
Let me use an analogy: You have a nice education and time and interest on your hands and you spend much of it to help provide supplementary home schooling to your kids. This then gives them an advantage. It raises the academic bar and causes some of the teachers to see the average struggling student as more problematic by comparison.
I have a nice bank account and interest and business knowledge on my hands. I give my kid seed money and help him grow a business. This gives him an advantage. It raises the economic bar and causes some of the population to see the economically struggling person as more problematic by comparison.
Which one of these scenarios do you see as being less or more fair?
I see the former are being less fair for these reasons:
– Kids all deserve the best education oportunity regardless of the gifts of their parents.
– Education is a public service paid for by public tax money… it should not descriminate service attention.
I don’t have a problem with you boosting the grades of your kids. I do have a problem with it being the new benchmark.
Don, I graduated high school with a 3.4 GPA and a 1800 SAT. What college would I be accepted into today compared to 1978?
[i]Don: it is broke and it needs fixing[/i]
If I agreed with you about the state of Davis schools I wouldn’t have worked so hard to get my children into them, and fought to keep them in DJUSD when the district tried to throw out all the inter-district transfer students in the 1990’s. Fortunately for my kids, most of the Davis voters agree with me in their esteem for the district.
I served on the site council and various other committees because I believe that is how you improve your local schools. I supported the tax increase so that parents of children coming up behind mine will have the same range of choices mine had. The options we availed ourselves of — the choices we made among those available at DJUSD — and the resources the district provided led to great outcomes in my children, and many others of my acquaintance. I know of a few who could have been served better. I can think of a couple of teachers who seemed dispirited, but most were hard-working and cared about their students.
If you want to change the district, run for school board, or volunteer in the classroom, or serve on some of the committees. Your constant denigration of the schools simply does not comport with my experience.
JB: [i]I say the current system is fundamentally flawed and inadequate and needs to be overhauled and reformed before I would agree to tax myself more.[/i]
You conflate the Davis schools with larger problems with grade school education in the state. So you appear to want to tear down what is working well in Davis and happens to be an asset for the community. I am fine with limited experimentation where things are clearly not working. Tearing down the whole system is overkill.
I have a son with a learning disability, and other challenges. I doubt he would have graduated from HS in my time. My view is that if the district could work for him and he could graduate here with his HS diploma, then this system has hope. He is not elite college material that you insinuate is the norm for Davis, but he found a way to fit in. Because of it, I will volunteer and go to bat for this district.
Our country has the potential for a strong volunteer ethic that I fear is deteriorating in many other communities, but shows strength in Davis. George HW Bush tried to co-opt that ethic in his “thousand points of light” theme. I like to think he genuinely believed in that sentiment, but in time that theme seemed to fall off his political menu. I think there is far more realistic potential for improvements in education by tapping into the volunteer resources and ethic in this country. I think it also provides positive mentoring relationships that are missing for many youth in this country, whose symptoms include poor performance in schools.
I have done volunteer work in local schools for several years and have seen plenty of good stuff going on. As with Don’s experience I could identify a teacher or two that might be better in some other situation besides teaching in Davis, but on the whole, I see the staff is generally dedicated and effective.
Volunteering is more satisfying that sitting on the sidelines and venting. I take inspiration from Thomas Paine’s quote: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. In a democracy, I take volunteerism to be one form of civic leadership.
Don and wdf1: I think you both are maybe too humble to recognize you should be patting your own back for the education success of your kids and not so much the school system.
I do like the idea of having more volunteers provide the help needed to improve education, but let’s then recognize the model for this and not just reward the base system for doing such a bang-up job. Volunteers can distort the resource picture and make planning and management difficult. For example, how can we set performance expectations on volunteers? Let’s also recognize that Davis is unique in that so many parents are equipped and able to do this type of work. That is not the norm by a long shot. I worked in Sacramento for most of the time my kids were in Davis schools and typically would have to leave early and I would get home late. I rarely could take vacation time. My wife did volunteer and helped the kids where she could, but she works too. Davis has a larger percentage of parents able to have flexible work schedules, or one parent not working. Again, that is not the norm and the work of these parents should not be used to set a benchmark for how the school performs, since the kids lacking the same would be put at a disadvantage.
I think the two of you are missing the bigger point I am making… that we are missing the opportunity to drastically improve the system at a time when we need to drastically improve the system. Even if I agree that Davis schools are better than average (I’m not sure they are minus the parent help), they fall far short of what we need today. I no longer support the status quo. I am open to all ideas for improvement, but there are few coming from the education establishment and its supporters other than incarcerating parents of truant kids and paying teachers more. If that is the leadership we are going to get from the education establishment then I would prefer that they just follow or get out of the way of real reform.
JB: I think you may also underestimate some effects of volunteering. I often think I observe that if I’m willing to donate my time, teachers and staff are often willing to work harder because I’m watching them, they know that I care, and it makes them want to care a little more.
When my son was in school, I had less flexibility to volunteer and often didn’t. There were parent volunteers in school who often came and said a good word or two to me about my son. It made a big difference in how I saw him and saw the schools. I guess I’m paying it forward when I can. You can volunteer at whatever point in your life allows you.
This may start to veer off topic, but more outside of Davis I think I see signs of community deterioration because people don’t care. Less likely to get out of the house and interact with neighbors, church, schools, civic groups (the book, Bowling Alone, addresses some of these ideas). In my view that then leads to deteriorating schools, people not taking care of grafitti, potholes going unfixed, etc. I go for runs around town regularly. One of the first things I do when I get back from my runs is note where I saw new grafitti. I call it in to the city the next opportunity, and within a few days, it’s gone. I’m not sure that free market solutions that you advocate are going improve education the way you hope. After all, many deteriorating communities can’t get physicians and supermarkets to serve them, presumably more basic needs (food and health) than education. If the free market can take care of those basic needs reliably, then you might convince me that there are viable free market solutions for education.
Convince people that it’s worth it to care about their community, and many other good things will follow.
wdf1: Nice post. I agree with your point about declining community involvement. I have my own theories that I will save for another day.
As I have said, I am all for a public-private partnership to ensure the maximum opportunity for a great education is provided as many kids as possible. I work in an industry that takes this approach. The SBA recognized they would be incapable to serve the diverse needs of each community and so licensed private Certified Development Companies (CDCs) to provide the services directly. It is not perfect, but it is several orders of magnitude better than the centralized top-down approach. There are about 300 CDCs across the nation. They range from being 2-3 employees to a few hundred employees in size. We compete with each other in the states we are licensed to serve. We innovate and constantly improve to win customer loyalty. The performance bar is continually raised because of this. We have to focus on meeting and exceeding the needs of each individual customer… not just some standard template set top-down.
The SBA has had an issue getting loans out to underserved territories. The reason is purely economic… it costs less per dollar of loan volume to originate loans in more economically-robust and populated areas. So the agency has invented new pilot programs with incentives designed to move this needle.
My point is that there are solutions to this obvious problem where private schools would tend to cherry-pick the wealthy areas and stay out of the inner-cities. Say for example subsidized vouchers based on some measure of the area’s median household income.
The current education system is much too top-down and centralized. I think a much better model would be like the SBA model of delegating and outsourcing services to private companies that would compete with each other… with the central agency managing the system at a service-provider level and not at the customer level.
More insidious than Wall Street greed:
[url]http://www.ournewsnow.com/national/1252/NAACP-vs.-Charter-Schools—Is-it-Civil-War?[/url]
J.B.: I invite you to read Diane Ravitch’s, [u]The Death and Life of the Great American School System[/u] (2010).
It gives some very good historical context for education reform in the U.S., and makes you realize that we’ve been going in circles on some issues for the past decades, even past century.
It will offer you challenges to your thoughts about using business modeling in education reform.
wdf1: I just ordered it.
I invite you to read two books:
Out of Our Minds by Ken Robinson
Your Teacher Said What? by Joe and Blake Kernen
[i]”we’ve been going in circles on some issues for the past decades, even past century”[/i]
I agree, that is why I believe we need to blow up the current system. It cannot be reformed without a drastic paradigm shift. The existing education establishment will prevent that from occurring… like they have for the past decades.