New politics and old policies.

The Washington Post has an interesting piece on the intersection of Tea Party politics and school policy.  Desegregation plans, whether by race or by economics, require educators and elected officials to create plans that keep students from spending too much time on buses or concentrate the most challenging students in low performing schools.

"Over the years, both Republican and Democratic school boards supported the system. A study of 2007 graduation rates by EdWeek magazine ranked Wake County 17th among the nation's 50 largest districts, with a rate of 64 percent, just below Virginia's Prince William County. While most students posted gains in state reading and math tests last year - more than three-quarters passed - the stubborn achievement gap that separates minority students from their white peers has persisted, though it has narrowed by some measures. And many parents see benefits beyond test scores."

Using a 'new' political ideology to recreate a system that was showing progress seems counter intuitive.  Radical changes, whether they are influenced by the 'left' or the 'right', need to be thought out, studied, and implemented with the best interests of the students in mind, not the political interests Americans for Prosperity (Sourcewatch.org's profile here).

"Things have not gone smoothly as the new school board has attempted to define its vision for raising student achievement. A preliminary map of new school assignments did not please some of the new majority's own constituents. And critics expressed alarm that the plan would create a handful of high-poverty, racially isolated schools, a scenario that the new majority has begun embracing.  Pope, who is a former state legislator, said he would back extra funding for such schools.  "If we end up with a concentration of students underperforming academically, it may be easier to reach out to them," he said. "Hypothetically, we should consider that as well."

The lesson learned is that you get what you voted for.  Next time, make sure you know who's paying for your candidate's campaigns, because they are the ones who will be influencing your policy.

School reading

Here's an interesting NY Times piece on Brockton High that challenges some of the trends in education reform and Race to the Top.

What an odd idea- actually letting the faculty of a high school control their own jobs.

Real help.

I know I'm on vacation and should only be posting minor stuff about Spring Training games. (Long posts from my new phone are very challenging!) Reading about the Level 4 labels for Union Hill and Chandler Elementary and the new state and federal law mandated 'solutions' got me fired up.

In order to qualify for federal or state funding to fix these schools, we must now choose from the following:
-Close the school
-Transform it into an unproven charter school (and lose control)
-Fire the principals
-Extend the school day
-Force the staff to reapply for their jobs.

None of these solutions focus on the real problems faced by these schools. Classes are overcrowded. Supplies are limited or non-existent. Facilities are badly in need of upgrades. Morale is diminished.

My solution? Federal and state money should fix the real problems, not the perception of the problem. It's politically easy to fire everyone and close schools, shifting attention away from years of top down, unfunded mandates that stifle true innovation. (Think of it as Extreme Education Makeover for troubled schools!)

Education fads come and go, but the most successful educators should be free to innovate and teach in small classes. It's the only way to reach students who are limited english and lacking in home support for education. A good school and good teachers can help, as long as we reverse current trends of budget cuts.

I was encouraged by the reactions of our School Committee, especially Tracy Novick and Joe O'Brien. They seem to recognize that the current focus on test based results and punitive measures aimed at educators is not the best way forward.

Please spend money in the classrooms and our students and not on more bureaucracy!

I ate my pudding.

It makes me happy when I read a story like this in the T&G about a candidate I supported speaking out as the voice of reason. Keep up the good work, Tracy!

It was also nice to see a reference to my high school history teacher, Gil Cronin in Clive McFarlane's column today. I wonder if such a project would be feasible during class time now that teachers are under pressure to teach the the MCAS?

Lazy journalism, part 2!

Apparently I'm going to start a weekly series based on the Sunday column of Robert Z. Nemeth. I hoped Tracy would tackle this article because she is far more knowledgeable about the subject, but no such luck (yet?).

Mr. Nemeth begins his article with the following quote:

"Hard-core opponents of charter schools are licking their chops at the prospect of the state closing two of those schools, one in Springfield and another in Lowell, for alleged testing irregularities, mismanagement or lack of academic progress. They’re using the occasion to discredit all charters in the state. The effort is mean-spirited and misguided."

Apparently Massachusetts Education Commissioner Michael Chester is a 'hard core opponent' despite the fact that he was appointed by Governor Deval Patrick. In related news this week, Governor Patrick called for expansion of charter schools in the state.

Mr. Nemeth then takes exception to Mr. Chester's actions:

"Mr. Chester should be more concerned about the well-being of tens of thousands of children in regular district schools who receive substandard education."

Perhaps Mr. Nemeth should read this article about the new head of the Robert Hughes Charter in Springfield. With all the hoopla over the Donna Byrnes hiring last year, imagine Mr. Nemeth's anti public school vitriol if the School Committee hired a convicted felon to run a public school?

Mr. Nemeth finishes with the jewel:

"However, expansion comes with suffocating restrictions and creates a bureaucratic nightmare. It mandates quotas for low-income, special education, high-risk and limited-English-proficiency students, along with specific strategic plans to recruit and retain students from such categories. No district school is expected to function under such restrictions."

The reason district schools don't have such restrictions is because the entire public school system cannot turn away any students! Our public schools are full of high risk and underachieving students, and charter schools aren't. Comparing results from the two is highly illogical, and only serves Mr. Nemeth's agenda.

I hope next week he decides to leave his argument with Clive McFarlane to the break room at the T&G.

The new hermit

Frugality and anti-materialism seems to be popping up everywhere. This story reminded me of one of my all time favorite books, Blue Highways, by William Least Heat-Moon. I admire the author's discipline and ability to evade a mountain of student loan debt. However, I wonder what he missed in his years of avoiding contact with his fellow students.

While we're on the subject, here's another blog that I've been reading on the same theme, but even more radical.

This blog loosely fits in with the theme, especially the parts about Vicky.