Here’s some more evidence that our North Carolina State Legislature despises traditional public schools and favors charter schools that don’t have to play by the same rules as other public schools. Yesterday, the North Carolina House voted to allow charter schools to once again play by different rules.
While traditional public schools have been required to disclose to names and salaries of all its employees to newspapers and the other media under public records laws, it seems our legislature does not believe charter schools should have to do the same. The bill passed by the North Carolina House does not require charter schools to disclose the names of employees with the salaries with public records requests. The logic used to justify this measure by NC Representatives Charles Jeter and David Lewis? “Disclosing the charter school salaries by name creates a hostile work environment.” (See “NC House Votes to Block Charter Employees’ Names with Pay.”)
As far as I am concerned, the logic and intentions of this legislature is clear. It simply despises public schools. period. Through this bill, our legislature finally admits, though tacitly, that it “wants to create a hostile work environment” in traditional public schools, because they are unwilling to protect public school employees from some “theoretical hostile work environment.”
Once again, this North Carolina Legislature proves its hostile intentions toward traditional public education. For the past several years, all employees in school districts in our region have endured having their salaries publicly available in data-bases located on newspaper web sites. Has it caused a hostile work environment? I’m not sure it has. Most of us don’t even bother to access that data anymore. But the fact that our political leaders somehow want to hide how charter schools operate and spend money, definitely shows hostile intentions toward traditional public schools.
These two state legislators, Jeter and Lewis, prove that what they really want to protect is how charter schools actually spend public money. Charters in our area have been known to pay exorbitant salaries to administrators. One charter in Charlotte, North Carolina recently imploded due to bloated administrator salaries. (See “Troubled StudentFirst Charter School Closes Abruptly")
If anyone needs names and salaries disclosed it is public charter schools. Because they are not required to play by the same employment laws as traditional public schools, the public has an even greater interest in making sure these schools do not waste tax payer money. Perhaps this is once again that the signs of intelligent life in our North Carolina Legislature grow even dimmer.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, June 27, 2014
Monday, May 23, 2011
Beware of Politicians Bearing Tidings of "Big Changes in Education"
According to North Carolina Senate Leader, Phil Berger, "We've got big changes coming the public schools in North Carolina this year." Some of the earlier changes mentioned were: zero money for textbooks, instructional supply money cut by half again, and no professional development money. Our politicians want to hold us accountable for teaching kids but don't want to fund the tools we need to do the job. There's definitely something amiss in that logic, but I'm not sure logic and politics even belong together any more any way.
What were some of these other "Big Changes" spoken about by Senator Berger?
Now the idea of shrinking class size in this proposal looks really attractive, after all, most of us who are experienced educators believe that smaller class sizes do matter, but maybe not in ways that can be measured by bubble sheets. But on this proposal look at that one word, "goal." Goals in soccer and football are good things. Goals in politics are bad things. Why? Because politicians use them as excuses. In this case, three of four years down the road when we point to them that they said they were going to reduce class size, they can say, "Oh but that was only a GOAL." Political goals can be moved about when it is politically expedient. So, the word "goal" in this case is useless rhetoric.
I knew our politicians were going to get around to pushing performance pay. This fad has been blazing across the country since it was first suggested by Secretary Arne Duncan. The problem with this provision is that a)it's been tried, and b) it wont' work. I admit, we need to revise the pay system, but just switching to performance pay because you don't have another alternative is not wise. Besides, researchers Daniel Pink and Dan Ariely have had a lot to say about the idea of performance pay, and they say it doesn't work. What's really funny, it doesn't work well in business either according to Pink and Ariely.
Finally, the idea of extending the school year by five days isn't earth shattering either. Does anyone really think adding five more days to the school year is going to make any difference in what students learn? Besides, with our state's mad devotion to testing, schools will probably just end up using those extra days for more testing. The problem with learning isn't that we need more of what we're doing in the classroom by adding more time to do it. The problem is we need to fundamentally change what we're doing in the classroom not continue doing more of the same.
Honestly, I agree public schools need to reform. We need to do what we're doing better, but politicians using education as political football only creates useless policy. There are no big changes suggested in any of the political propaganda suggested by our North Carolina legislators. Except maybe that our K-12 budget is going to be severely cut. You can safely say, this legislature has taken one more step in its efforts to make the job of educating students in North Carolina more difficult.
What does everyone else think? Do we really think cutting out teacher assistants is going to make a difference in the classroom? Is simply having legislation that says we have a "goal" of reducing class size enough to make it happen? Is adding 5 days to the school year, at the expense of doing away with worth days going to have any effect on learning? Is paying teachers for performance going to work in a state who can't even pay teachers for test bonuses and by seniority? What do you think?
What were some of these other "Big Changes" spoken about by Senator Berger?
- Cut teacher assistants in all but kindergarten classrooms.
- Shrinking class sizes in grades 1-3 toward a "goal" (please notice the quotes here) of 1 to 15.
- Paying teachers based on performance instead of seniority.
- Extending students' school year by five days by turning 5 workdays into student days.
Now the idea of shrinking class size in this proposal looks really attractive, after all, most of us who are experienced educators believe that smaller class sizes do matter, but maybe not in ways that can be measured by bubble sheets. But on this proposal look at that one word, "goal." Goals in soccer and football are good things. Goals in politics are bad things. Why? Because politicians use them as excuses. In this case, three of four years down the road when we point to them that they said they were going to reduce class size, they can say, "Oh but that was only a GOAL." Political goals can be moved about when it is politically expedient. So, the word "goal" in this case is useless rhetoric.
I knew our politicians were going to get around to pushing performance pay. This fad has been blazing across the country since it was first suggested by Secretary Arne Duncan. The problem with this provision is that a)it's been tried, and b) it wont' work. I admit, we need to revise the pay system, but just switching to performance pay because you don't have another alternative is not wise. Besides, researchers Daniel Pink and Dan Ariely have had a lot to say about the idea of performance pay, and they say it doesn't work. What's really funny, it doesn't work well in business either according to Pink and Ariely.
Finally, the idea of extending the school year by five days isn't earth shattering either. Does anyone really think adding five more days to the school year is going to make any difference in what students learn? Besides, with our state's mad devotion to testing, schools will probably just end up using those extra days for more testing. The problem with learning isn't that we need more of what we're doing in the classroom by adding more time to do it. The problem is we need to fundamentally change what we're doing in the classroom not continue doing more of the same.
Honestly, I agree public schools need to reform. We need to do what we're doing better, but politicians using education as political football only creates useless policy. There are no big changes suggested in any of the political propaganda suggested by our North Carolina legislators. Except maybe that our K-12 budget is going to be severely cut. You can safely say, this legislature has taken one more step in its efforts to make the job of educating students in North Carolina more difficult.
What does everyone else think? Do we really think cutting out teacher assistants is going to make a difference in the classroom? Is simply having legislation that says we have a "goal" of reducing class size enough to make it happen? Is adding 5 days to the school year, at the expense of doing away with worth days going to have any effect on learning? Is paying teachers for performance going to work in a state who can't even pay teachers for test bonuses and by seniority? What do you think?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
How Politics Can Hamper School and Curriculum Reform Efforts
If you have been educator for any length of time, you know how difficult it is to get the education system to change. During the nineties, I remember all to well the struggles my high school had when we were trying to switch to block scheduling from the traditional six-period day. It took an entire two years to get the idea finally implemented, because it honestly takes long time to win over students, parents and teachers. One of the obstacles to any change or reform in schools is the common belief out there, that schools "should be just like they were when I attended." Everyone has some kind of idealized picture of how school should be, and attempts to change that picture receive very hostile attention.
A recent illustration of this hostility was North Carolina's attempts to revise the social studies and history curriculum. Basically, the state wanted to spread out the study of history over multiple grades so that students could get a more in-depth look at history and social studies. In a memo June Atkinson, State Superintendent, states that "one of the over-arching goals of the new curriculum standards was to give our students the opportunity to study U.S. history in depth to the present day." Because of this the team that wrote the proposed curriculum so that students would receive multiple opportunities to study U.S. history through reconstruction before they entered high school. In effect, STUDENTS WOULD RECEIVE MORE HISTORY RATHER THAN LESS. This mess all started after FOX news misrepresented the facts, as they so often do. They published a story that stated that "North Carolina Schools May Cut Chunk Out of U.S. History Lessons." The proposal from the North Carolina curriculum team was an attempt to restructure the U.S. History curriculum so that students encountered more of history. Well, after FOX News did its magic, our state education leaders found themselves battling the lies and half-truths spread by a national news network.
To make matters worse, it seems our state politicians are now voicing their concerns. In a letter published here, and written to our state superintendent and State School Board Chairman, one of our state senators, Marc Basnight voices his opposition to any changes in the high school history curriculum. His rationale is simply that only high school students can understand and appreciate our country's history like the Civil War or our country's founding. His suggestion to "offer history as an extracurricular activity outside the school day" demonstrates just how far removed this man is from the realities of the modern school and classroom. I'm sure we would have a million students waiting in line to study history after school! His argument in a nutshell is that "U.S. history must be taught in its entirety during the high school years." No room for experimentation or change. What is really interesting is the veiled threat placed at the end of the letter. "I look forward to working with you as we continue improving education in our state." My personal translation of that is, "Keep you hands off our history curriculum, or I will introduce and get passed a law that mandates that all U.S. History is taught in high school." It does not take a long look at our state's history to see that our legislature has no qualms about meddling in curriculum.
This incident illustrates the same forces at work that are keeping or trying to keep schools from moving into the 21st Century. The tendency to want to keep schools like they were in some earlier ideal time is extremely strong, and it is very difficult to introduce and implement change because of this. Whether it is suggested curriculum change like this one, or some kind of restructuring of the school calendar, politics sometimes dictates that schools should be same as the schools of yesterday.
I suppose the question at this point is, how do we break out of this rut? Usually a crisis of some kind is the easiest way. It took Sputnik and the belief that we were behind in the Space Race to change science and math instruction. Perhaps it is going to take the same kind of crisis, perceived or real, to force us to really and truly rethink our schools. When America is on the brink of becoming a true third world country because of an outdated education system, people might finally wake up and see that the schools they attended were first of all, not all that ideal. The old schools only educated a small number of our citizens. Now we are charged with educating everyone. They will also see that our schools, especially high schools are obsolete. Perhaps the true way we are going to really move our schools into the 21st Century is by attacking head-on this outdated vision of the perfect schools of the past, and replacing that image with what our high schools could really look like. Fellow 21st Century Administrators, that is no small order.
A recent illustration of this hostility was North Carolina's attempts to revise the social studies and history curriculum. Basically, the state wanted to spread out the study of history over multiple grades so that students could get a more in-depth look at history and social studies. In a memo June Atkinson, State Superintendent, states that "one of the over-arching goals of the new curriculum standards was to give our students the opportunity to study U.S. history in depth to the present day." Because of this the team that wrote the proposed curriculum so that students would receive multiple opportunities to study U.S. history through reconstruction before they entered high school. In effect, STUDENTS WOULD RECEIVE MORE HISTORY RATHER THAN LESS. This mess all started after FOX news misrepresented the facts, as they so often do. They published a story that stated that "North Carolina Schools May Cut Chunk Out of U.S. History Lessons." The proposal from the North Carolina curriculum team was an attempt to restructure the U.S. History curriculum so that students encountered more of history. Well, after FOX News did its magic, our state education leaders found themselves battling the lies and half-truths spread by a national news network.
To make matters worse, it seems our state politicians are now voicing their concerns. In a letter published here, and written to our state superintendent and State School Board Chairman, one of our state senators, Marc Basnight voices his opposition to any changes in the high school history curriculum. His rationale is simply that only high school students can understand and appreciate our country's history like the Civil War or our country's founding. His suggestion to "offer history as an extracurricular activity outside the school day" demonstrates just how far removed this man is from the realities of the modern school and classroom. I'm sure we would have a million students waiting in line to study history after school! His argument in a nutshell is that "U.S. history must be taught in its entirety during the high school years." No room for experimentation or change. What is really interesting is the veiled threat placed at the end of the letter. "I look forward to working with you as we continue improving education in our state." My personal translation of that is, "Keep you hands off our history curriculum, or I will introduce and get passed a law that mandates that all U.S. History is taught in high school." It does not take a long look at our state's history to see that our legislature has no qualms about meddling in curriculum.
This incident illustrates the same forces at work that are keeping or trying to keep schools from moving into the 21st Century. The tendency to want to keep schools like they were in some earlier ideal time is extremely strong, and it is very difficult to introduce and implement change because of this. Whether it is suggested curriculum change like this one, or some kind of restructuring of the school calendar, politics sometimes dictates that schools should be same as the schools of yesterday.
I suppose the question at this point is, how do we break out of this rut? Usually a crisis of some kind is the easiest way. It took Sputnik and the belief that we were behind in the Space Race to change science and math instruction. Perhaps it is going to take the same kind of crisis, perceived or real, to force us to really and truly rethink our schools. When America is on the brink of becoming a true third world country because of an outdated education system, people might finally wake up and see that the schools they attended were first of all, not all that ideal. The old schools only educated a small number of our citizens. Now we are charged with educating everyone. They will also see that our schools, especially high schools are obsolete. Perhaps the true way we are going to really move our schools into the 21st Century is by attacking head-on this outdated vision of the perfect schools of the past, and replacing that image with what our high schools could really look like. Fellow 21st Century Administrators, that is no small order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)