Bob Dunning a frequent critic of both the school district’s parcel tax efforts last year as well as the all-mail ballot, came out in noted defense this week, at least of the integrity of the process.He writes, “On occasion I’ve noted that I much prefer voting in person as opposed to the current trend toward an all-mail ballot … I like waiting until the final day, then packing up the kids and walking to our polling place for this simple yet profound exercise in democracy … but never have I ever suggested that my preference has anything to do with a fear that the electoral process may be compromised by all-mail voting.”
Or did he?
Last year he wrote, “SIGN IN PLEASE … if I’m understanding this thing correctly, nobody’s going to count our Measure A ballots unless we sign the envelope we’re supposed to use to send them back to the county clerk in Woodland … for those concerned about a ‘secret ballot,’ this could present a problem … after all, there’s your signature on the envelope and there’s your ballot inside with your stated preference … one and one make two … scary stuff if you think Freddie Oakley actually cares about how you or I voted … she doesn’t … at least not in her official capacity …”
He did make it a point last year to make it clear he was not challenging the integrity of the County Clerk Freddie Oakley. But by suggesting that people’s ballots might be anything but secret seems to argue that “the electoral process may be compromised by all-mail voting.”
He further noted, “It will be interesting to see how many ballots are invalidated simply because someone forgot to sign on the dotted line … after all, an awful lot of us are rookies at this mail-only voting …”
Nevertheless, this year he scoffs at the notion put forward by those against the parcel tax, “that the vote-by-mail election is ‘a questionable democratic process which significantly reduces oversight to maintain the integrity of the election.’ “
Mr. Dunning goes on to argue, “There are legitimate reasons to oppose Measure C and legitimate questions to be asked about a $320-per-home-per-year tax, but raising the red flag of ‘electoral integrity’ is just plain silly.”
He once again sings the praises both of Freddie Oakley and her predecessor Tony Bernhard, writing, “If you can’t get a fair shake out of those two, you can’t get a fair shake anywhere.”
Then he hearkens to my argument from last year, “After all, people have been voting absentee for years without a problem, and if there’s a difference between voting absentee and voting by mail, I haven’t found it … then again, the possibility of fraud from voting in person the old-fashioned way is exceedingly low as well.”
Last year Mr. Dunning argued, “So, we’re going to have an election like no other. A lab experiment with you and me as the guinea pigs.”
We wrote that it was “odd” that he considered the all-mail ballot to be some sort of experiment.
Anyway, glad Mr. Dunning is coming around. I think all-mail ballots are going to become more of the norm, particularly in low-turnout election cycles as state and county budgets become more strained.
As Mr. Dunning highlights, my favorite part of the argument by Jose Granda is that he said, “This is an attempt to violate our First Amendment right of free speech, attempting to use the court as a censoring body instead of a judicial body. In a campaign, each side is entitled to publish its opinion, and it is the court of public opinion, not a court of law, who judges whether an argument is accurate or not.”
The ballot argument is not the free speech zone. In fact, it is very highly prescribed speech at best – limited to arguments for and against the ballot that are more or less provable. This is a higher standard than campaigning, where people running for office can make all sorts of false claims on a daily basis.
Here you must stay on point and you must be accurate to some extent. If Mr. Granda wants to advance his arguments about the integrity of the all-mail ballot there are more appropriate venues to do that. Free speech has time and place restrictions anyway, but ballot measures are not a matter of free speech.
As Mr. Dunning writes, “It’s an open question as to what sort of latitude those making ballot arguments should have … presumably, at the very least, the argument should be on topic.”
Today is the State of the State Address by Governor Jerry Brown. No one knows what his speech will be about, though we can likely guess some ripe areas for discussion.
However, the Sacramento Bee reported yesterday, that Sue Burr, who is the executive director of the State Board of Education, which is in the California Department of Education, “told hundreds of school finance officials today that Brown will seek to reduce student testing and push districts to focus on a broader array of subject areas.”
“We think there’s way, way too much testing in our system right now,” Ms. Burr said. “Just as an example, a 10th grade student takes 15 hours’ worth of tests. So that sophomore is losing 15 hours of their instructional program.”
The Bee notes that the governor ran on a pledge to overhaul the state’s student testing system. But he also vetoed a bill by Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg that would have replaced the current API (Academic Performance Index) with broader measures that gave more credit to schools for things like graduation rate, college preparation and career development.
In vetoing the legislation, the governor wrote, “SB 547 certainly would add more things to measure, but it is doubtful that it would actually improve our schools. Adding more speedometers to a broken car won’t turn it into a high-performance machine.”
Writes the Bee, “A common complaint by Steinberg and Brown is that the statewide testing system has driven teachers to focus too heavily on English and math. Brown wants to change school incentives so that teachers feel comfortable emphasizing other subjects, as well.”
“We’ve spent way too much time over the last several years narrowing our curriculum to English language arts and mathematics,” Ms. Burr said. “While those are critically important, we can’t ignore history. We can’t ignore science. We can’t ignore civics. We can’t ignore the arts.”
The Bee adds, “[Sue Burr] also noted that Brown wants to improve educator performance by focusing on all teachers and school leaders, not just rewarding top performers and firing the worst.”
“We think that’s a wrongheaded conversation,” she said. “We must build the capacity of all of our teachers.”
The note of caution is that, at least right now, the governor’s office will not confirm this will be discussed in the speech, with Press Secretary Gil Duran simply stating, “Nobody knows what’s going to be in the State of the State until it’s given.”
I have long been a critic of testing procedures which focus teaching on a small array of tested material while at the same time putting the onus on schools and teachers – which is only a portion of the achievement puzzle.
On Monday, Davis’ superintendent Winfred Roberson spoke about the district’s achievement gap which continues to show African-American and Hispanic student underperforming compared to their Caucasian and Asian classmates.
“The achievement gap has to do with the academic performance of students in the relationship of students of color to white students,” the Superintendent said.
He said his research suggests the need to look at what he called, “internalized and transferred racism.”
“I think many of our students of color have internalized or they begin to believe and act upon the negative messages that they’ve received about themselves and their group which causes them to give up, which causes them to lose hope, and causes them to doubt that they’re as intelligent as their white peers,” Superintendent Roberson said.
“This undermines their ability to do well,” he said. “We’re having conversations, serious conversations about what we need to do as adults to make sure that every student is valued and feels valued.”
What we see statewide is an achievement gap that extends between affluent and well-financed schools on the one hand, and those who are underachieving, if not failing, on the other hand.
We have asked these schools to improve their performance during a time in which funding has been slashed.
The governor has proposed to restore that funding if his tax plan passes this November. If it does not, we are looking at more and deeper cuts to education. If these cuts continue, there is simply no way we will improve on the achievement of those struggling schools.
While I applaud the governor for taking on the issue of testing, to me it is secondary to funding.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
First, link to Dunning’s article reference above:Electoral integrity isn’t up for debate ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/dunning/electoral-integrity-isnt-up-for-debate/[/url])
My favorite quote from this article on the topic of staying on topic and making the free speech argument:
” … it’s an open question as to what sort of latitude those making ballot arguments should have … presumably, at the very least, the argument should be on topic … I mean, in your Argument Against Measure C, would it be considered appropriate to publish your mother’s recipe for broccoli casserole? … your favorite vacation spot on the Oregon Coast? … if someone tries to censor those, can you play the “free speech” card? …”
Funding: at what level? double teachers’ salaries and benefits? treble? Should we ensure that classified and upper administrative staff be similarly compensated?
Testing: eliminating testing should go a long way to erasing the “achievement gap” (which would be unmeasured). Plus, teachers and administrators would no longer have to concern themselves with performance measures.
The combination of increased funding and fewer/no performance metrics sound perfect for teacher unionists.
Most of the state’s cuts have increased classes between 33 and 50% in some cases rising from 20 to 1, up to 30 to 1. In addition to layoffs, the cuts have resulted in program cuts. That’s what I support putting back first.
[quote]Funding: at what level? double teachers’ salaries and benefits? treble? Should we ensure that classified and upper administrative staff be similarly compensated?
Testing: eliminating testing should go a long way to erasing the “achievement gap” (which would be unmeasured). Plus, teachers and administrators would no longer have to concern themselves with performance measures.
The combination of increased funding and fewer/no performance metrics sound perfect for teacher unionists.[/quote]
Excellent points…
[quote]Most of the state’s cuts have increased classes between 33 and 50% in some cases rising from 20 to 1, up to 30 to 1.[/quote]
Having taught up to 42 students in a portable classroom, I can tell you class size is not as critical as other issues…
The main point of discussion is the DAVIS parcel tax… has Davis gone from 20:1 to 30:1? I’m thinking, NOT. How is the teaching situation different from other public and/or private sector jobs, where workload/responsibilities have significantly increased by not filling open positions, and wages/benefits are either stagnant, and/or where benefit/salary concessions have been made?
David, are you still pro-school parcel tax, and against maintaining/increasing the parks levy?
On the class size issue…
I remember college classes with several hundred students per teacher.
There are plenty of studies that conclude (at least at the upper grades) that teacher-student ratios don’t make any measurable difference in education quality.
The student-teacher ratio argument is simply the unions working to pad their membership.
How about this… I will agree to vote “yes” on the parcel tax if teachers agree to increase the days of the school year and increase the length of the school day… since these have proven to improve education quality for the students.
JB: [i]On the class size issue…
I remember college classes with several hundred students per teacher.
There are plenty of studies that conclude (at least at the upper grades) that teacher-student ratios don’t make any measurable difference in education quality.[/i]
I will assume that we agree that a kindergarten class with several hundred students per teacher is outside the realm of reality, as is giving lower grade elementary students free puppies and espresso.
There are also studies that show that smaller class sizes make the biggest difference in helping at-risk/underperforming demographics (aka “achievement gap” issues).
Most four-year colleges have certain minimum standards for accepting students. Implicit among those standards is the ability to handle college level work in college settings (which may mean a class with several hundred students).
Students in upper grades of K-12 public education are not similarly screened based on ability. Everyone must be accommodated. Given your previous argument that students in K-12 education should be accommodated regardless of ability and preferred style of learning what do you think should be the standard class size for DJUSD? And what is your educational (pedagogical) basis for that class size?
hpierce: [i]The main point of discussion is the DAVIS parcel tax… has Davis gone from 20:1 to 30:1?[/i]
Lower grades (K-3) are about 25/class. Grades 4-6 are close to 30/class, maybe 31. I don’t know JH class sizes, but DHS class sizes are in the high 30’s. JH class sizes is probably about the same as DHS class sizes.
[i]How is the teaching situation different from other public and/or private sector jobs, where workload/responsibilities have significantly increased by not filling open positions, and wages/benefits are either stagnant, and/or where benefit/salary concessions have been made?[/i]
In the past four years they have relied the following measures to balance the budget: cuts to staffing at all levels, increased class sizes, elimination of some class offerings, retirement incentives to senior teachers, salary cuts across the board, community fundraising, cuts to supplies and services budget, spending of reserve funds, spending of previously restricted funds (allowed for by the state), closed a school, improved student attendance (which brings more state funding), utilities conservation, allowing for limited numbers of out-of-district students to enroll where a few classroom seats are available, and local parcel taxes.
[i]”Given your previous argument that students in K-12 education should be accommodated regardless of ability and preferred style of learning what do you think should be the standard class size for DJUSD? And what is your educational (pedagogical) basis for that class size?”[/i]
If I had the money, time and connections, I would put together a consortium including Lucas or Spielberg, Discovery Channel execs, Bill Nye, Michele Rhee, Sir Ken Robinson, Apple Computer execs, the Gates foundation, Morgan Freeman, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Michio Kaku, various pop culture celebrities and sports stars, and the top respected educators and education leadership in the country that are agree that we need to reform the system.
Then I would design/buy/build/develop a start-of-the art subject-based education curriculum and technology platform designed for a new school/education model for middle and high school.
Components of this new system/model would include the following (this is just brainstorming off the top of my head):
-School is clean and modern. It is redecorated every decade or so to keep it from looking shabby and old.
-School has a code of conduct and all students get a clear message that there are principles of good behavior expected, and bad behavior can lead to punishments including temporary or permanent expulsion.
-Kids wear uniforms, but reasonably fashionable and updated each year.
-School is in session 8-4:30 eleven months of the year.
-Large movie-theater-like room with a large high-definition 3D screen and terminals build in to each seat.
-All students with iPads loaded with their books and education software.
-Large study halls with periphery meeting rooms for group projects.
-Lab rooms and outside lab/research facilities.
-Fewer, but more highly-performing and more highly-compensated teachers.
-More counselors.
-A college student workforce of tutors working part time for $10 per hour.
-New courses including the following components:
o Hollywood-quality video/graphics presentation.
oStudents can replay these presentations on their personal computer/media device.
oVideo games related to subject.
oLots of hand-on lab (both virtual and real) exercises to support the practical application of knowledge.
oElectronic textbooks/workbooks/testing facilities.
oOn-line real-time tutoring/help through real-time chat and video conferencing via a web browser… available 24×7.
-More arts and industrial arts classes available.
-Students are constantly tested for aptitude and interest and receive counseling to help develop optimum education tracts and to be directed to appropriate help.
-Students are constantly monitored with frequent electronic quizzes and interactive study tools automatically change to focus them on what they need to work on. Counselors and parents are alerted to problem areas. Tutors are deployed as necessary.
-Mission is to prepare students for next stage in life based on wants and needs. Counselors work with each student to develop a performance plan including their personal goals.
-Students can apply for jobs around the campus and earn money plus education credits.
-Students, parents teachers, administrators are all regularly surveyed as to their level of satisfaction and ideas for improvement. Survey scores impact school employee bonus… as do other performance measurements like the dropout rate, test scores, graduation rate, and percent of students meeting their set goals.
-After school programs are plentiful and are considered an extension of the school operation.
-Food is subsidized. Payment is by a food credit card that can be purchased and credits can be earned. Low income students would get extra subsidy added to the common food credit card (basically, hunger should not be an issue while at school).
Excellent. And since no private firm would ever spend the money on something like that, we will have to massively increase taxes and public spending on education. Meanwhile, I urge you to put aside your hostility to teachers and their unions, and support the parcel tax.
Don, if education was handled by the private sector and supported with choice and vouchers, there would be private companies trying things like this.
There is nothing preventing the public sector doing the same, but it is not. It never will. Public-sector businesses do not re-invent themselves. The education establishment is an adult jobs program controlled by the unions and their political benefactors.
the state is spending near $50 billion a year on education. That provides plent of profit capacity for business to get excited about.
“David, are you still pro-school parcel tax, and against maintaining/increasing the parks levy?”
Did you read the article on the parks on Saturday?
“Public-sector businesses do not re-invent themselves.”
I think UC Davis disagrees with you.
JB: [i]How about this… I will agree to vote “yes” on the parcel tax if teachers agree…[/i]
Did you vote against school parcel taxes while you had kids in school?
Yes, I did the previous time… once I decided that Davis schools were not meeting the needs of far too many kids, and that we needed to start starving the beast to get to needed reforms.
[i]””Public-sector businesses do not re-invent themselves.”
I think UC Davis disagrees with you.[/i]
Two points…
1. The rate and scope of “re-inventing” is miniscule and minor compared to the type of thing I am comparing. Growing is not re-inventing.
2. UCD is not 100% the public-sector model since it has to compete to attract students and it does collect payment from its customers that have options.
But, I will concede your point comparing it to something like the US Postal Service and the DMV… two organizations that would apparently rather die than re-invent themselves.
JB: [i]Yes, I did the previous time… once I decided that Davis schools were not meeting the needs of far too many kids…[/i]
How did you decide whether needs were being met or not, especially now that your kids are not in Davis schools any more?
[i]we needed to start starving the beast to get to needed reforms.[/i]
That logic has far more victims than the status quo. If you want reform, run for school board.
There is a lot to be said about creating some level of crisis in order to get a certain amount of new thinking. Don, you say that has more victims than the status quo? I don’t agree. The staus quo creates generations of victims while forcing the issues creates the opportunity to end the churning of a group of under served students. It may seem counter intuitive but maintaining the status quo when you know there children who are not being served, and I have personally experienced this, is irreprehensible. Davis schools are great for the majority but there is a very large group of students that are not well served.
Sometimes we need to take a step back and figure out if there’s a better way to do things. I supported the parcel tax but I still feel that there are some important reforms that need to be made in our education system. Hmmm, run for school board. Maybe that is a challenge that I should take on. In the mean time I will do what I can for my kids in the place that I am.
Wow, this blog should be renamed the reactionary peoples vanguard.
My favorite “Having taught up to 42…”
Yeah right, When, where and to whom?
Let me tell you, having taught classes of 38 at risk ninth graders, class size is important. It is second only to having a competent teacher.
My next favorite “Starve the beast.” Now there is a hateful non-solution if ever I heard one. What do you think has been state policy for so many years? How is that working?
Jerry Brown is on the right track, the kids are over tested and the pressure to do well on the tests is absurd. As for teacher evaluation you don’t need all this fancy methodology. Ask any principal who is not pulling their weight. Believe me, they know, because, everybody in the school knows. Still the hateful posters here would be surprised to find out that it is fewer people than you suspect. i have seen people who were not very good at teaching hang on for a few years and a few hang on longer, but, I have seen more get out of the way than you can imagine. Its sort of like the Congress, everyone hates the Congress but likes their own representative. So maybe the people aren’t the problem, maybe the problem is in the nature of the institution.
[i]”So maybe the people aren’t the problem, maybe the problem is in the nature of the institution.”[/i]
So then you come all the way back to complaining about the beast. What do you think the “beast” is?
So, following the logic here.
The schools in Davis are great for the majority, but some students are not well served by them. Therefore, we should cut the funding that benefits all the students, even the majority who are well served, in order to force some kind of ‘reform’ to improve outcomes for the minority who are not well served.
How long the starving will take to make people so upset they might embrace reform, nobody knows. So for at least several years, students would have poorer and poorer services and facilities while we await the insurrection on behalf of the minority of students who aren’t well served.
Somehow, this will all lead to a great clamor for vouchers and wonderful private schools will spring up that will provide multi-media experiences and highly personalized service. Never mind that private schools, which have plenty of funding already, are not all that different in content and style than public schools. Evidently they need lots more money in order to provide this utopian vision, and parents will flock to them because they are so dissatisfied with the public schools. Those public schools that presently work well for the majority of students.
Therefore, we should all vote against the parcel tax to starve the beast.
Got it.
Don:
Well when you put it that way!
First of all I never stated that I think Davis schools are great for the majority. I think the majority have found a way to make it work for them.
Here is what happens when we continue to fund parcel taxes… we all breathe a sigh of relief and forget about the school situation until the next vote come up. The beast gets satisfied for the short-term and stops making noise.
Meanwhile far too many kids lacking the benefit of strong families, and/or strong academic genes, and/or abundant family finances receive a crappy education and have their opportunities for prosperity damaged for life.
Meanwhile we stop feeling the urgency for figuring out ways to do more with less.
Add to this a future of greater global economic competition with fewer low and medium-skilled job opportunities (the ones that allow working class people to own a middle-class life) and we are heading toward a much greater crisis of people than we are experiencing now.
Even the smart kids, the kids with strong families, the kids of families with plentiful resources… these kids will also start feeling increasing pain of our education failures as they are required to shoulder a larger and larger tax load to care for the rest.
We need a massive awakening and paradigm shift related to education. Many of the problems we deal with as a society and country are solved with improvements to our education system. Instead, we are heading backwards: with a constantly narrowing offering of service, a constantly narrowing template of “good” student, and continued funding challenges as the beast grows hungrier at the same time more Americans are forced to go without.
Davis is a sort of gated community with respect to public education. We have fewer minority and poor children in our schools because our development change aversion has led to artificially-inflated property costs that we then have to protect by continued development change aversion. We have a higher percentage of highly educated parents with only one or two children to dote on. Average household income is significantly higher than the state average. Let’s imagine that we remove the gates and Davis’s demographics and economics better match the state’s averages. IMO, if that were to occur, assuming no reforms, I would expect Davis school’s education outcomes to be no better, and possibly worse, than the state averages. So, why would I want to continue to feed that beast?
Just think of me as another activist trying to improve the system. Maybe I am “Occupy Education”… except that I shower every day I and don’t camp illegally.
“or strong academic genes”
What chromosome are those located on.
Actually Davis schools work quite well for the majority to argue otherwise is plain stupid. If anything the problems are with the achievement gap and special needs. Certainly cutting funds only makes things worse.
What happens when you vote in parcel taxes for schools is that the underfunding statewide is subsidized locally. Show me a top district and I’ll show you local support. You want to starve the beast, no problem , make Davis schools as underfunded as the rest of the state.
Perhaps it was my comment that Don is referring to regarding a majority of students being well served by the Davis schools. I did not however say anything about abandoning funding or providing vouchers.
Thank you Jeff for elucidating my position. I’m in your camp for sure. We need to find a better path than just trying to buy our way to a better educational system. I feel that often it is at times of privation or constraint that the most innovative new ideas are developed. This isn’t to say throw the kids to the wolves and see who survives, it means let’s take a step back and see if we can’t make improvements that benefit all.
That’s all very interesting, Jeff, but it still doesn’t lead logically to the solution of cutting funding, which is what you repeatedly advocate.
[i]”I think the majority have found a way to make it work for them.”[/i]
Education of your child is your responsibility in partnership with your local schools. It is your obligation to make sure your child is getting the education appropriate to his or her skills and needs. I believe it is your civic duty to make sure your schools have the resources.
[i]”far too many kids lacking the benefit of strong families, and/or strong academic genes, and/or abundant family finances receive a crappy education”[/i]
Involved parents get better outcomes. Districts that fund enrichment programs probably get better outcomes. You’re not trying to improve the system. You’re trying to break it so people get so upset they will advocate for privatization and vouchers. And you denigrate education professionals at every opportunity.
Davis schools do an excellent job overall. They provide lots of options, lots of enrichment. Cutting funding will not help in any way in getting better results here.
[i]”And you denigrate education professionals at every opportunity.”[/i]
Don, that is not true. I absolutely respect teachers as much as I do any professional. It is seems that you are in the camp of using teachers as a human shield to block others from opining about system reforms. That is what the unions do also.
[i]”Involved parents get better outcomes.”[/i]
Sure they do Don. But what about those kids that have one parent or even two parents working full time with a long commute? What about the kid that has uneducated parents? How far can you take this argument… for example, let’s say the parent has to practically tutor his sons and daughters to help them succeed at school? At what point is the level of parental involvement a sign of inadequate school performance rather than a sign that the system is meeting our expectations?
Cutting funding will cause another drop in service and cause us to have to look at alternatives. At some point we are going to have to look at alternative education system designs, I want to do it sooner rather than later. Passing a parcel tax just maintains the status quo and reduces the sense of urgency we should have to enact significant reforms.
All you and others in support of the parcel tax seem to argue is angst over a reduction in the status quo. There is nothing coming from the existing education establishment proposing substantive reforms. They block any and all ideas for substantive change. No vouchers and choice, no pay for performance, no anything that results in any drop in head count or any job loss for employees with seniority.
I have written that I would vote myself higher taxes to fund education with commitments for the right types of reform. Basically I want more of my tax dollars to be converted to value for the students… not to just go into the pockets of the employees of the system and their union bosses. I think we absolutely need MUCH greater education quality and value. Do you disagree? Are you making the case that the current system – the status quo – is just fine the way it is as long as we fund the local parcel tax? If yes, then we will just have to agree to disagree. If no, then what do you want reforms do you think we need and how do you propose we make them happen?
[i]”or strong academic genes”
What chromosome are those located on.[/i]
The current science that I am aware of concludes it is a mix of genetic traits that contribute to IQ. Similar to abservable genetic traits like hairlines, heigth and muscle tone. Also there are controlled studies that prove artistic/creative abilities are explained by genetics. Studies of adopted children have been good at controlling for environment.
A good example is Steve Jobs and his sister. Both were adopted at a very young age by different couples… but both are/were artisitc and creative and much different than their adoptive parents.
“Basically I want more of my tax dollars to be converted to value for the students”
The parcel tax spells out exactly where the money is spent. Could you be specific about what funding you are objecting to paying and why you object?
True, but is required because we are not directing enough existing resources toward providing direct value to the students. If we give the system the money, nothing changes.
[quote]My favorite “Having taught up to 42…”
Yeah right, When, where and to whom?
Let me tell you, having taught classes of 38 at risk ninth graders, class size is important. It is second only to having a competent teacher. [/quote]
I taught 8th grade math/science in a portable classroom in a suburb of Baltimore that had a diversit of students whose parents worked on an army base, at a shoe factory, and for the gov’t. This was about 35 years ago. We had a great system to address the class size problem. A core team of teachers who taught math, science, English and social studies were given a large group of students (120-140). The students were divided up according to ability level into 4 groups. The groups with the at-risk slower kids had smaller class sizes (approx 20); the groups of brighter kids had larger class sizes (approx 40). Worked like a charm…
[quote]There is nothing coming from the existing education establishment proposing substantive reforms. They block any and all ideas for substantive change. No vouchers and choice, no pay for performance, no anything that results in any drop in head count or any job loss for employees with seniority. [/quote]
A legitimate point, especially for the underachievers…
This is the type of thing we need. Why the hell doesn’t the existing education establishment with all it’s leveraged perchasing power fix the damn screwed up textbook system? The answer to that question is why we need more privitization.
[b]Apple Kills the Textbook with iBooks 2, iBooks Author[/b]
[url]http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles/20120119/284470_apple-kills-textbook-ibooks-2-author.htm[/url]
[i]”The students were divided up according to ability level into 4 groups. The groups with the at-risk slower kids had smaller class sizes (approx 20); the groups of brighter kids had larger class sizes (approx 40). Worked like a charm… “[/i]
Awesome… why aren’t we doing this type of thing now?
The answer to that question is why we need more privitization.
JB: [i]Awesome… why aren’t we doing this type of thing now?[/i]
Why do you think something like this isn’t happening now? Your default assumption is that whatever necessary innovation and change that you happen to like isn’t happening. Kind of like a phantom us/me (enlightened, innovative) vs. them (ignorant, unimaginitive) perspective.
For example:
JB: [i]This is the type of thing we need. Why the hell doesn’t the existing education establishment with all it’s leveraged perchasing power fix the damn screwed up textbook system? The answer to that question is why we need more privitization: Apple Kills the Textbook with iBooks 2, iBooks Author[/i]
The short answer to your question is that right now the cheapest iPad that can run it costs $500. Prices haven’t come down enough for everyone to have one, and Apple isn’t currently offering an educational discount for K-12 students.
But also, when my student was at Da Vinci about 5 years ago, he had at least a couple of his textbooks in e-version on his computer (which was made available to him from the district). Why do you think the district wouldn’t be interested in e-books?
JB: [i]Meanwhile far too many kids lacking the benefit of strong families, and/or strong academic genes, and/or abundant family finances receive a crappy education and have their opportunities for prosperity damaged for life.[/i]
Again, how do you know that far too many kids receive a “crappy” education in Davis? What evidence do you have? You’ve been silent about this.
My evidence of a crappy education comes from personal experience. I have four children. Three are very good students and one struggled. I saw a very different standard applied to my children who were good students than what the other received. I would consider myself fairly intelligent. My spouse and I did all we could to help our son, hiring tutors, attending meetings with the teachers, monitoring homework. Still our son would come home with 100% credit on some assignments that were not complete or even done correctly. The response we got from the teacher was that she didn’t grade content just effort. The message my son began developing was that quality doesn’t matter to the teachers so why put in that effort?
This was less of a problem for my other children. They inherently got it. As much as we tried to impress upon our son that spelling, grammar, and showing the steps in your math work matter, he took the cue from his teachers that it was less important.
The moral I got out of it was that this wonderful education that our kids were getting in the DJUSD was more about the above average intelligence inherent in the community and less about the current system. What would happen if we placed our system in a less educated town. One where the ones who struggled outnumbered the ones who found school both interesting and motivating. Parcel tax or not, we need to fix the problems that have seemed to remain hidden for so long.
JB: [i]…once I decided that Davis schools were not meeting the needs of far too many kids, and that we needed to start starving the beast to get to needed reforms.[/i]
Ann_o: [i]Don, you say that has more victims than the status quo? I don’t agree. The staus quo creates generations of victims while forcing the issues creates the opportunity to end the churning of a group of under served students.[/i]
The following are examples of what successfully implementing a “starve the beast” strategy will do and how the status quo will be affected.
In 2000, a little more than 1/3 of students grades 4-6 participated in the music program (band/strings). In fall 2011, a little more than 1/2 of students in grades 4-6 participate in the school music program. Most of that growth has taken place in the last 4 years, and has come about through efforts to make more instruments available to beginning students and to match up high school music students to teach/tutor elementary students. The biggest growth has come about in the participation of lower income families.
Right now there are large numbers of elementary music students ready to move on to JH music program. It’s a positive effect from having saved the elementary music program from getting cut 4 years ago, but you will not get to see the positive effects of that program if funding gets cut. You only have to look at schools around the state to see that elementary music is not the norm.
Davis schools cut their elementary music program completely from 1981-84 during the recession at the beginning of the Reagan adminstration. Shortly after that, enrollments in the secondary music program dropped off precipitously because there weren’t many students around who could participate. After the elementary program was restored, it took about 10 years to restore the whole music program to its previous participation level.
Your ideas for improving education:
JB: [i]Then we need a completely different type of school… more hours,[/i]
[i]-A college student workforce of tutors working part time for $10 per hour.[/i]
Those ideas have been implemented here in Davis with the Bridge Foundation ([url]http://www.davisbridge.org/[/url]). It offers an after school “homework” club (runs until 5 p.m.) available to lower income students and employs tutors who are UCD students. It has grown year by year as participating students matriculate to the next grade; in a year or two the first students in the program will be graduating. This year it is available at three elementary schools, Harper JH, and now DHS. The full-time coordinators regularly meet with teachers and district staff to make adjustments to serve their students better. Some improved performance measures in certain Davis schools are attributed to the positive impact of this program.
JB: [i]I have always applauded Da Vinci as being a net positive when compared to the status quo.[/i]
Da Vinci has been expanding, year-by-year, to the point where this year it is offered to 7th graders for the first time.
Great. Now at least when our kids can’t write a complete sentence or figure out how to do a personal budget they can still busk on the street corner for some change.
Starve the beast, feed the beast, kill the beast, that is not the crux of my argument. Another regressive parcel tax to fund a inadequate system is not even the main point of my writings. It’s the mere fact that people focus on funding first, system second. I would like to see some more discussion about how we better allocate our resources. How we focus less on excuses related to class size or paper shortages and outdated textbooks. All of these things are important but I feel like they get pushed aside in the constant argument that more money or maintaining current funding levels is the most important aspect to rendering a good education. What better time to focus on new ideas than in times of fiscal constraint. Money for education is important but not as important as providing a good education.