Am I crazy too

Here's how every child can have an excellent teacher--
without firing or laying-off any teachers!

Follow up to the post, "Am I crazy to think that...

by Maura Larkins

San Diego Education Report

By Maura Larkins 
"There’s very good evidence that teacher quality
matters a lot in terms of student performance in
school and success later on in life.

The economist Raj Chetty of Harvard, for example, has found that students randomly placed with more experienced kindergarten teachers not
only perform better on tests but earn more and save more for retirement as adults, are likelier to go to college, and go to better colleges than their peers with less experienced teachers.

Eric Hanushek of Stanford estimates that a good teacher – defined as at the 84th percentile... Provides students with test scores associated withan increase of between $22,000 and $46,000
in lifetime earnings."--Washington Post
Lots of kids get stuck for years with various incompetent teachers, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can fix the problem. And not spend any more money!

HERE'S THE PLAN:

An excellent teacher could come into each classroom for just a few hours a week and make a huge difference--if that teacher had responsibility for student  success and authority to make decisions.

Parents should not need political clout to get a good teacher for their child. Every student should--and could--have a great teacher, without wasting time and energy on the losing battle to fire incompetent teachers.

The truth is that the critical moments in learning don't happen continuously five hours a  day. They add up to at most a couple of hours each day, and probably much less. The rest of the time an ordinary, mediocre teacher can handle the skill practice and lesson reinforcement, omputer activities, art projects, silent reading (how much skill is needed to be in charge of that?) and so on.

GIVING SUPPORT TEACHERS A REAL JOB

At my old school we were paying a top salary--well over $60,000, for a computer teacher who was very nice, but her job was merely to familiarize kids with computer programs. An aide could have done the job. When the principal (Ollie Matos) tried to switch that computer teacher to giving basic reading and math lessons, the teachers went ballistic. The story became a sensation in the San Diego Press, and a group of angry teachers were named the "Castle Park Five" by San Diego Union-Tribune editor Don Sevrens. Basically, what the teachers wanted was 45 minutes a week in which they could send their students to another teacher. But in my plan, classroom teachers would have this kind of help and relief for more than an entire day each week! The nice computer teacher could become a master teacher!

Resource teachers like computer teachers and language and math support teachers could become master teachers. And let's face it: how much good are those resource teachers able to do? They go around and offer suggestions, but they are really doing the equivalent of passing out band-aids. I would never want such a job. It might be relaxing not to have direct responsibility for student learning, but isn't that the point of being a teacher?

NO MORE ABUSIVE TEACHERS

Academics would not be the only thing that master teachers would be responsible for. 
Abusive, immature teachers with a habit of undermining students could be overruled and 
guided by the master teacher.

WE COULD SAVE MONEY!

Why do we pay bad teachers the same amount of money as good teachers? It makes no 
sense!

Excellent teachers should be paid much more than average teachers, and could be responsible for all students in several classrooms.

Each classroom could have a full-time regular teacher who be paid a lower salary, but would be eligible to become a master teacher. The master teacher would also be responsible for helping and guiding the regular teacher.

In California the average teacher salary is roughly $60,000 (with a starting salary of $35,000.) We could allow regular teachers to rise in salary to an average of $50 thousand, and allow master teachers to rise to an average of $100 thousand--for overseeing our classrooms (or, in a time of better budgets, three classrooms.

Money for support teachers and teacher aides would be switched to master teacher positions in the classrooms. (Of course, special education would still require teacher aides.) Some people who are currently teacher aides could become regular teachers.)

Here's the comparison for four classrooms and one extra salary (thousands):

Currently: $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 = $300

New plan: $100 + $50 + $50 + $50 + $50 = $300

MEANINGFUL EVALUATIONS OF TEACHERS WOULD BE REQUIRED
Of course, meaningful evaluations of teachers would have to be instituted to make this plan work. Current evaluation systems are worse than useless. My plan would call for frequent observations by both master and regular teachers, but they would observe classrooms in other districts to keep school politics out of the process as much as possible. The observations would have a beneficial side effect: they would allow teachers to pick up new ideas.

I believe it would be good to use student test scores when choosing who is to be a master  teacher, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. The good thing about it is that it would take some of the politics out of teacher evaluation. It should be noted that although student test scores vary widely from year to year for most teachers, some teachers do get 
consistently high scores from their students year after year.

School reform won’t help all (Most) struggling students. Though some will succeed, others will continue to fail.

Demonizing teachers for the failures of these students is both easy though misguided and counterproductive in that it misses the target for students with no support from home...
It appears that a  philosophical backlash is gaining momentum, as important empirical evidence and some insightful truths have begun to emerge on the national educational frontline. One of these truths, as AFT President Randi Weingarten noted in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, is that the evidence shows that the market-based reforms, which are so much in vogue today, have not delivered. While self-described education reformers may suggest that we double down on these reforms—such as creating more charter schools, implementing voucher programs, using student test scores to evaluate and compensate teachers, and relying more and more on corporate executives and business practices to run school districts—Weingarten suggests a different path, a path taken by the world’s most successful education systems:

These countries focus on developing great teachers and giving them the autonomy to hone their craft. There is an ethos of working together to continuously improve. They de-emphasize excessive standardized tests and test prep, and each has a well-rounded curriculum that engages students in gaining knowledge by developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills—not by rote memorization. These countries provide a more equitable education for all students, and they offset the effects of poverty through on-site wraparound services such as medical and dental care and counseling.

Another truth is that demonizing teachers is not a good starting point for a school improvement plan. As Dave Eggers and Nínive Clements Calegari write in the New York Times, “No one contemplates blaming the men and women fighting every day in the trenches for little pay and scant recognition. And yet in education we do just that.” The disrespect for teachers extends to salaries, which have declined in real terms over the past 30 years. Today, 62 percent of teachers work a second job, and 46 percent quit before their fifth year. The high turnover rates cost school systems more than $7 billion annually. As Eggers and Calegari write, “There is no silver bullet that will fix every last school in America, but until we solve the problem of teacher turnover, we don’t have a chance.”

All the best evidence shows that leading countries like Finland, Singapore and South Korea respect and revere their teachers. They support and mentor them, and give them the tools and conditions they need to do their jobs. While we are celebrating Teacher Appreciation Week, we should pay close attention to how these nations develop, support and respect their teachers.

It’s also true that teachers’ experience and class size matter. That’s the case in an Orlando, Fla., school highlighted by the New York Times’ Michael Winerip, who focuses on three sisters who live at a homeless shelter and get a terrific education at Fern Creek Elementary School. The school, where 20 percent of the students are homeless, has received an A on the state report card for each of the past five years. The principal credits experienced teachers, small class sizes and strong discipline.

Finally, a piece by Joe Nocera in the New York Times, titled “The Limits of School Reform,” points out some important truths. Nocera revisits a New York Times Magazine article about M.S. 223, a school in the South Bronx whose principal and teachers struggle valiantly to educate homeless children. Sometimes successful, sometimes not, the school offers a lesson for would-be school reformers, Nocera believes:

What needs to be acknowledged, however, is that school reform won’t fix everything. Though some poor students will succeed, others will fail. Demonizing teachers for the failures of poor students, and pretending that reforming the schools is all that is needed, as the reformers tend to do, is both misguided and counterproductive. Over the long term, fixing our schools is going to involve a lot more than, well, just fixing our schools.

The bottom line: Evidence does matter. It should guide us as we seek to transform schools and improve student learning—and it shouldn’t be ignored. 

Global Capitalism Is Destroying the Middle Class

Friday, May 6, 2011

James P. Hoffa

General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Some of the most trusted institutions in the world are finally awakening to the dangers of unrestrained global capitalism.

Unions, of course, have for decades warned about the emerging global order. The reason for integrating regional economies into global networks has always been to shift power away from workers. The imbalance, we warned, was dangerous to all of our futures.

It gives me no satisfaction to say we were right. The world's economy is now dominated by multinationals roaming the globe to sniff out tax havens and cheap labor; out-of-control banks extorting governments for bailouts again and again; and politicians catering only to greed. All the while, America's middle class grew poorer, and smaller. Workers lost their jobs, their savings and their houses. Now their Social Security and Medicare are attacked.

The new organization of the world economy, dreamed up by the bankers and the multinationals, has failed. Don't take my word for it: This is what the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Council on Foreign Relations are reporting.

The Council on Foreign Relations, for example, just published a paper that explicitly rejects the fantasy that everyone is better off when the free market prevails. The paper, written by economist Michael Spence, says that America will soon face a jobs crisis. He makes the striking argument (for the CFR) that so-called free-market solutions won't work. "That seems clearly incorrect and is supported by neither theory nor experience," he writes.

"Assuming that the markets will fix these problems by themselves is not a good idea... In truth, all countries, including successful emerging economies, have addressed issues of inclusiveness, distribution, and equity as part of the core of their growth and development strategies," he concludes.

You might think Spence was influenced by a union representative on the Council's board, but there are none. Its board consists of retired generals, bank presidents, Cabinet officers, prominent academics, and even one of the world's biggest union-busters, FedEx chairman Fred Smith.

Like the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Bank has long sided with powerful special interests in developed nations, often to the detriment of the lower and middle classes. So it was surprising to hear the World Bank call for justice and jobs earlier this month.

The Bank issued a report saying unemployment "was overwhelmingly the most important factor cited for recruitment into gangs and rebel movements." World Bank President Robert Zoellick said, "If we are to break the cycles of violence and lessen the stresses that drive them, countries must develop more legitimate, accountable and capable national institutions that provide for citizen security, justice and jobs."

This was a stunning statement coming from Zoellick, a former managing director at Goldman Sachs and President George W. Bush's trade representative. As a member of America's political and financial leadership, you would expect Zoellick to be blind to the need for justice and jobs, both as a moral duty and as a matter of self-interest.

The World Bank's sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, has typically taken a hard line against working people. For decades the IMF made emergency loans to troubled governments only after forcing them to cut spending on social programs. The IMF has even demanded worker's rights be weakened as a condition of granting a loan.

And so the IMF was perhaps the last institution you'd expect to argue that workers need more bargaining power. Yet the IMF came out with a paper last year that said exactly that.

The paper, titled "Inequality, Leverage and Crisis" presented evidence that extreme inequality between workers and the rich was a reason for the current Great Recession.

The paper said there will be "disastrous consequences" for the world economy if workers do not regain their bargaining power. It suggests radical changes to the tax system and debt relief for workers.

I am heartened that these respected institutions are sounding the alarm over the policies that are destroying the working classes around the world. Perhaps our combined voices will make some difference.

Make no mistake, however; the message cannot be denied, no matter who delivers it: Our economy rewards wealth, not work. It has impoverished the middle class and taken a savage toll on the growing ranks of the poor.

We need our leaders to hear this message clearly from all of us and to seek out a new economic course for our country. I've been waiting a long time for political leaders to show they understand this. I hope that I -- along with the IMF, the World Bank and the Council on Foreign Relations -- will not be waiting for much longer

.

NH Senate rejects changes to anti-bullying law

By KATHY McCORMACK
Associated Press


CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- New Hampshire's Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to reject changes to the state's anti-bullying law that received strong support from the House, such as limiting school responsibility in dealing with off-campus incidents.

Senators said the current law is only months old and that schools have just put policies into place to handle bullying. Senators agreed the law needs further study before any changes are made.

Many states have been moving in this direction of extending school involvement to off-campus bullying, but some New Hampshire lawmakers wanted to restrict the boundaries to school grounds. The House passed a bill in March that would remove the off-campus provision and make other changes. The Senate's rejection leaves the measure's future in doubt.

Sen. Molly Kelly, a Senate Education Committee member, described the strong testimony at a recent hearing from students who were bullied and from educators and parents who support the current law. "They were close to begging us to keep the law the way it is," she said.

New Hampshire amended its 10-year-old anti-bullying law last year for the electronic age, now that tools like Facebook and Twitter also present golden opportunities for belittling and bullying. The change also allowed districts to step in "if the conduct interferes with a pupil's educational opportunities or substantially disrupts the orderly operations of the school or school-sponsored activity or event."

Some legislators believe the revised law gives schools too much authority over children. They say once a child leaves school grounds, it's the parent's responsibility to combat bullying.

"Bullying's bad; it's always existed, and nothing we do is going to stop it," said Republican House member Ralph Boehm, the bill's main sponsor and a former Litchfield school board member who said he was bullied as a child in the 1960s. "But the thing is, people do have freedom of speech and the freedom of speech can be mean," he said, so it's unconstitutional for school districts to punish children for what they say or do outside of school.

Sen. James Forsythe, a Republican, said Wednesday there were some provisions in the bill that did strengthen parental rights. However, he noted, no parents testified in favor of them during the hearings.

Nancy Willard, a Eugene, Ore., resident who runs the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, providing help with youth risk online issues, noted that courts have given schools the reach to combat off-campus bullying.

"School officials clearly have the authority to respond to any situation - regardless of the geographic origin - if that is causing a substantial disruption at school or making it impossible for another student to receive an education," she said.

All but five states have laws addressing bullying and 29 of them have provisions addressing cyberbullying. Last year, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed into a law a bill cracking down on bullying, passed after the suicides of two students believed to be victims of intense harassment, 15-year-old Phoebe Prince of South Hadley and 11-year-old Carl Walker-Hoover of Springfield.

When cyberbullying issues started emerging several years ago, Willard said, school administrators were afraid of the additional liability.

"It appears they are shifting because they know that they have to respond to these off-campus incidents because they sure as heck are going to have an impact at school," she said.

Educators and administrators - many of whom worked to revise New Hampshire's law last year after four teenagers were accused of coercing a special-needs student into getting a tattoo against his will - strongly support keeping the additional authority to fight bullying off school grounds.

Malcolm Smith, a family education and policy specialist at the University of New Hampshire who was part of a team working on the law last year, said research showed a direct link between "what happens at the burger joint, what happens at the skating rink and what happens in the school."

When parents or schools try to deal with bullying issues on their own, he said, they usually don't get resolved.

"It takes a community working together to solve this meanness that we're seeing," he said. "When you look at the data, our kids are becoming meaner than they've ever been before."

When schools want to fight off-campus bullying, it's not their intent to infringe of free speech or expression, said Robert Trestan, a civil rights counsel for the Anti-Defamation League in the East.

But, for example, if a student tweets from a home computer something that threatens the safety or learning ability of another student, he said, schools need to be on top of that.

"Social media is their social scene," he said of schoolchildren.

Rep. Donna Schlachman, a Democrat from Exeter, introduced last year's bill to update the law because of concerns she was hearing from parents and educators about bullying. She characterized the recent House vote approving the changes as "an overgeneralization about parents' rights."

"There's a sense where `We don't want the state telling us as parents how to raise our kids, how to educate our kids, or what our disciplinary rights are,'" she said. "I think it's a misreading of the law that occurred that made people feel schools were overreaching into the rights and privacy of kids and parents."

Boehm's bill would require school district employees or board members who know about an instance of off-campus bullying to tell the school principal, who would then have to bring it up with the parents of both bully and victim within 48 hours.

That provision has some school officials worried that the law revision would actually ratchet up the responsibility of schools.

"Every school board member under the existing law would as a citizen still have the opportunity to report bullying if they observed it," said Dean Eggert, a lawyer who has represented school districts throughout the state. "I'm not sure if the idea of reducing liability for school districts is consistent with imposing a duty on school board members to report bullying. The two seem to be moving in different directions."

American Dream Out of Reach for Most Americans

American Dream Still Alive But Out of Reach for Most Americans

Thursday, March 10, 2011

New Survey Shows Widespread Concern About Wages, Healthcare, Gas Prices

WASHINGTON, DC -- A majority of working Americans now believe their children are going to be worse off economically than they are, according to a poll of 800 non-supervisory workers released today by Change to Win (CtW). This, along with other striking results, reveals that on Labor Day 2006, the American Dream is slipping away. Among the key findings:

• A majority of workers say the number one issue they face is that the wages they are paid are not keeping up with the cost of living.
• More than half expect to have to work longer before retiring than they thought they would five years ago.
• More than a third have been forced to go into debt in the last year just to pay for basic necessities like food, utilities, and gasoline.

The survey also found a substantial majority believe that by joining together with other workers in unions, workers can help restore the American Dream.

The "American Dream Survey: Hope and Fear in Working America" was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Washington, DC-based polling firm.

Change to Win chair Anna Burger said CtW commissioned the Labor Day survey to see how the country is contributing to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of working Americans -- the people who contribute most to the nation's strength, prosperity, and well-being.

"We've known for a long time that working Americans are being squeezed," said Burger. "But these results tell us that five years into an economic recovery working families are feeling battered, and are losing hope for the future."

The survey found that while the ideal of the American Dream is still very much alive for working families, most see it slipping away. Also, more than eight out of ten non-supervisory workers in America say that that no matter what you hear about the economy, working families are falling behind.

Survey participants were asked to describe the American Dream and the vast majority spoke about being able to make ends meet, not worrying about debt or meeting basic expenses, and ensuring a good future for their families. When asked to rate attributes of the American Dream, the top scorers were: being proud of the work you do, being able to ensure a better future for your children, owning a home, having affordable health care, having a secure and dignified retirement, and feeling secure in your job. 

"The American Dream for American workers is simple, direct, and powerful," said Burger. "It is not driven by personal greed, and its fulfillment is not great individual wealth, but core American values." 

More than half of working Americans believe that the American Dream is still achievable, but only 14% believe they have obtained it. Among the top economic concerns of the majority of working Americans: keeping up with the cost of living, rising gas prices, and rising health care costs.

On the issue worrying most workers, health care, they feel strongly (61%) -- and 82% overall agree -- that America cannot rely on the marketplace for health insurance; government has a responsibility to make sure Americans have health insurance.

Burger said the findings should set off alarm bells for Congress and urged them to focus their attention on the very real issues facing the majority of American families -- good jobs, decent wages, affordable healthcare, and retirement security.

She also said the survey findings confirmed Change to Win's belief that while the American Dream is at risk in an economy that fails to respect or reward work, workers are ready for change, and see joining together as the way to make change happen.

"Our challenge," concluded Burger, "is to move forward and build on the hope that workers have and increase our efforts to unite more workers in their industries. The challenge to America -- from the corporate boardroom to Congress -- from Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue -- is to remain true to the workers who do the jobs that make the profits. Working Americans are the foundation of our country and our economy.  We must keep the dream real for them and for future generations."

The poll was conducted in August 2006, for Change to Win by Lake Research Partners, and surveyed a random national sample of 800 non-supervisory American working adults.

LA Teacher layoffs

LA Teacher layoffs - coming to a district near you

Monday, April 25, 2011

Darsha Philips
More: Bio, E-mail, Recent Stories, News Team

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- LAUSD employees who are set to be laid off are speaking out at a Monday hearing about how the budget cuts are affecting the students.

The district is facing a massive budget deficit and the loss of federal stimulus dollars, meaning thousands of jobs are on the line. However, the district says it is committed to keeping teachers in the classroom.
The LAUSD and the teachers union are going head to head over notices that would send thousands of Los Angeles Unified School District teachers to the unemployment line.
Monday's Reduction in Force hearing was set to involve attorneys from the district and the United Teachers Union of Los Angeles. An administrative law judge will decide if the district followed policy when giving out the layoff notices.
"Morale obviously is very down since the March 15 pink slip distribution. It's a humiliating experience," said teacher Jennifer Preuss.
Meanwhile, the students are stuck in the middle of the battle.
"It's taking away the food for the mind. You can't cut from the inside out. It just doesn't make any sense," said Preuss.
Over 5,000 layoff notices were handed out to balance the brimming $400 million budget deficit - a solution that not everyone is willing to swallow.
"We talk about, you know, continuity, consistency, and these kids are going to get so many teachers, just like a revolving door," said teacher Anita Hawatin.
If the layoffs go through, it would mean students would see, among other things, an increase in class size. Many teachers say they are already at full capacity in the classroom.

Related Content

STORY: LAUSD authorizes 5000+ layoff warnings

STORY: 4K LAUSD teacher layoff letters may be issued

STORY: LAUSD adopts earlier academic calendar

STORY: LAUSD to change layoff policy at some schools

STORY: Dozens protest against LAUSD mass layoffs

"There's just no other place. I couldn't even imagine where I would put that many extra children," said another teacher.
Superintendent John Deasy says there is a way to save most of these jobs. He proposed a one-year emergency fix that includes 12 furlough days and borrowing a sum from a surplus. He said the plan would rescind 80 percent of the layoff notices for at least one year. However, he said the teachers union has yet to accept that offer.
"I think one year of employment is better than unemployment," said Deasy. "We need our teachers and we need our principals and our classified workers. We need our union to come to the table in partnership and save their membership."
The teachers union says other options need to be explored. Some said that they would be willing to take 12 furlough days if it meant they could keep their jobs.
If the layoff notices hold, thousands of teachers and school professionals will be let go effective June 30.

Get more Los Angeles News »