What I Learned at the Education Barricades

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...493796156.html

Quote:

---

Over the past eight years, I've been privileged to serve as chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, the nation's largest school district. Working with a mayor who courageously took responsibility for our schools, our department has made significant changes and progress. Along the way, I've learned some important lessons about what works in public education, what doesn't, and what (and who) are the biggest obstacles to the transformative changes we still need.

First, it is wrong to assert that students' poverty and family circumstances severely limit their educational potential. It's now proven that a child who does poorly with one teacher could have done very well with another. Take Harlem Success Academy, a charter school with all minority, mostly high-poverty students admitted by lottery. It performs as well as our gifted and talented schools that admit kids based solely on demanding tests. We also have many new small high schools that replaced large failing ones, and are now getting outsized results for poor children.

Second, traditional proposals for improving education—more money, better curriculum, smaller classes, etc.—aren't going to get the job done. Public education is a service-delivery challenge, and it must be operated as such. Albert Shanker, the legendary teachers union head, was right when he said that education has to be, first and foremost, about accountability for "student outcomes." This means there must be "consequences if children or adults don't perform."

When Mayor Bloomberg and I started, there was zero accountability. Instead, bureaucrats, unions and politicians had their way, and they blamed poor results on students and their families. When we talked about managing the system with organizational practices that work in every other sector of our economy—like accountability, incentives and competition—we were told that education isn't a business. Maybe so, but whether it's health care, education or any other service, poorly-structured, nonaccountable delivery systems cost a fortune and don't work.

To counter the dysfunction, we turned the system upside down. We empowered principals, giving them new authority over budgets, hiring and other programs. In return, we held them accountable for student outcomes, rewarding them for success or removing them and closing their schools for poor performance. To attract and retain strong teachers, we raised salaries substantially and paid more to our best teachers who agreed to transfer to low-performing schools. We also increased choices for families by replacing almost 100 failing schools with about 500 new, small schools designed with community and charter management groups. Multiple studies showed that these new choices yielded significantly better results. Competition works.

Our embrace of charter schools was especially controversial. But why should any student have to settle for a neighborhood school if it's awful? The debate shouldn't be about whether a school is a traditional or charter public school. It should be about whether it's high-performing, period. Low-income families deserve the ability to make the best choices for their kids, as more financially secure families always have.

Changing the system wasn't easy. The people with the loudest and best-funded voices are committed to maintaining a status quo that protects their needs even if it doesn't work for children. They want to keep their jobs by preserving a guaranteed customer base (a fixed number of students), regardless of performance.

We have to rid the system of this self-serving approach. We must stop protecting ineffective teachers and stop basing layoffs on a last-in/first-out rule. With federal stimulus dollars running out, budgets are only going to get tighter and layoffs will be necessary. When that happens, do we really want to lose the talented and energetic new teachers we have hired in the last few years?

Finally, we need to innovate, as every successful sector of our economy does. The classroom model we have used since the 19th century, in which one teacher stands in front of a room of 20-30 kids, is obsolete. We should be making the most of new technology and programs that help teachers deliver personalized instruction and allow students to learn at their own pace. In New York City we've experimented with new models and seen great promise, but it will take larger investments to see real results.

As I leave the best job I've ever had, I know that more progress is possible despite the inevitable resistance to change. To prevail, the public and, most importantly, parents must insist on a single standard: Every school has to be one to which we'd send our own kids. We are not remotely close to that today.

We know how to fix public education. The question is whether we have the political will to do it.

---

Quote:

---

First, it is wrong to assert that students' poverty and family circumstances severely limit their educational potential. It's now proven that a child who does poorly with one teacher could have done very well with another. Take Harlem Success Academy, a charter school with all minority, mostly high-poverty students admitted by lottery.

---

Really? One charter school with smaller classes is proof that poverty and family circumstances don't mean that much when educating children?

oookkkk


so now it looks like darrins is in support of public schools..

Quote:

---

Competition works.

---

You do realize they opened more public schools to create the competition..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Really? One charter school with smaller classes is proof that poverty and family circumstances don't mean that much when educating children?

oookkkk


so now it looks like darrins is in support of public schools..



You do realize they opened more public schools to create the competition..

---

You didn't understand the arguments put forth in the op ed. This does not surprise me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

You didn't understand the arguments put forth in the op ed. This does not surprise me.

---

I'm not surprised that you missed the boat completely on what he was saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

I know you are, but what am I.

---

Good one.

I think the OP-ed has it spot on.

A significant problem is that allowing any kind of competition, be it from private entities or from other public schools reeks of local control and naturally that is unacceptable, because in 21st century America that is automatically assumed to conceal an underlying racial or other nefarious motive.

Sure, the school districts are local, but much of the content of American public education is ultimately centralized, be it at the state, or federal level.

American democracy is ill-served by the presumption that federalizing, or centralizing, a government function makes it better. This comes out of this tedious need to standardize all Americans, to ensure some kind of uniformity in a heterogeneous population.

Though American public education is not a failure. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

"it is wrong to assert that students' poverty and family circumstances severely limit their educational potential"

The lie about The American Dream. Not talking about "nature", but about "nurture", the culture in the family that values and insists on academic achievement AND the family that has the means to pay for increasing expensive PUBLIC higher education.


Talented poor kids graduate from college less than mediocre wealthy kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

A significant problem is that allowing any kind of competition, be it from private entities or from other public schools reeks of local control and naturally that is unacceptable, because in 21st century America that is automatically assumed to conceal an underlying racial or other nefarious motive.

Sure, the school districts are local, but much of the content of American public education is ultimately centralized, be it at the state, or federal level.

American democracy is ill-served by the presumption that federalizing, or centralizing, a government function makes it better. This comes out of this tedious need to standardize all Americans, to ensure some kind of uniformity in a heterogeneous population.

---

http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/

Not very flattering to the teachers unions.

My big take was that in many states teachers are automatically granted tenure, and that is a HUGE drag on our system.

The other thing the film left me with is how poorly many suburban schools really prepare even kids who are presumed to be better-off.

I would encourage anybody to see this movie, even if you don't have kids, because you will be working with or employing the results of our educational system for the rest of your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Though American public education is not a failure. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

---

One of the big problems with that design is that it was set during a time when manufacturing and agriculture could absorb a lot of low-skilled workers, in the 1960's.

That design is VERY ill-suited to the modern work environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"it is wrong to assert that students' poverty and family circumstances severely limit their educational potential"

The lie about The American Dream. Not talking about "nature", but about "nurture", the culture in the family that values and insists on academic achievement AND the family that has the means to pay for increasing expensive PUBLIC higher education.


Talented poor kids graduate from college less than mediocre wealthy kids.

---

As pointed out in the Op Ed, it's not their poverty that is the limiting factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/

Not very flattering to the teachers unions.

My big take was that in many states teachers are automatically granted tenure, and that is a HUGE drag on our system.

The other thing the film left me with is how poorly many suburban schools really prepare even kids who are presumed to be better-off.

I would encourage anybody to see this movie, even if you don't have kids, because you will be working with or employing the results of our educational system for the rest of your life.

---

I haven't gotten around to viewing that, but probably will.

The problem is that the system has other purposes, as you point out. For example, outside of actual classroom instructors, how many individuals are employed by public schools? I think most Americans assume that school district employment consists of a bunch of teachers and perhaps a principal or two.

And also think about how much $$$ flows through a school district. In a small city or rural county it can be a nice chunk of change, money that ends up in the pockets of the local construction firm and other well-connected types when a new facility is built. I've seen some grandiose classroom and sports facilities in Texas for small schools (2A).

School districts are major employers and sources of business in a local community. Positions of control (school board, superintendent) can be lucrative for someone in a small town.

"it's not their poverty that is the limiting factor."

Sure it is. Poverty and family/local culture.

"But why should any student have to settle for a neighborhood school if it's awful"

if you try to get your girls into a better school than where you live, you go to jail (in Ohio).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

One of the big problems with that design is that it was set during a time when manufacturing and agriculture could absorb a lot of low-skilled workers, in the 1960's.

That design is VERY ill-suited to the modern work environment.

---

That inherent in the design is a goal of retarding intellectual development and ensuring the development of loyal patriotic citizens with the right views towards political and business elites might shock some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

As pointed out in the Op Ed, it's not their poverty that is the limiting factor.

---

Quote:

---

First, it is wrong to assert that students' poverty and family
circumstances severely limit their educational potential.

---

Ask any classroom teacher if this assertation is correct 100% of the time?

Good -- you can read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"it's not their poverty that is the limiting factor."

Sure it is. Poverty and family/local culture.

"But why should any student have to settle for a neighborhood school if it's awful"

if you try to get your girls into a better school than where you live, you go to jail (in Ohio).

---

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123985052084823887.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

I haven't gotten around to viewing that, but probably will.

The problem is that the system has other purposes, as you point out. For example, outside of actual classroom instructors, how many individuals are employed by public schools? I think most Americans assume that school district employment consists of a bunch of teachers and perhaps a principal or two.

And also think about how much $$$ flows through a school district. In a small city or rural county it can be a nice chunk of change, money that ends up in the pockets of the local construction firm and other well-connected types when a new facility is built. I've seen some grandiose classroom and sports facilities in Texas for small schools (2A).

School districts are major employers and sources of business in a local community. Positions of control (school board, superintendent) can be lucrative for someone in a small town.

---

Waiting for Superman was a very interesting movie. It seemed to have a fairly clear opinion on some things, and I am definitely going to be doing some more research on it to get at some other viewpoints and data outside of the film.

I think they do seem to have hit on a decent solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Good -- you can read.

---

Apparently you missed the second point of the premise.. but that doesn't fit into your ideological test.. so you ignored it..

you also bolded competition as an answer, yet the accompanying statement mentioned that the govt is opening more schools to create this competition..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123985052084823887.html

---

Quote:

---

Eva Moskowitz, former chair of the New York City Council education committee and now a charter school operator, has characterized this new push against charters as a "backlash" led by "a union-political-educational complex that is trying to halt progress and put the interests of adults above the interests of children." She is right. If the union-political-education complex succeeds in depriving charter schools of funding and burdening them with regulations, children really will be harmed.

The highest quality studies have consistently shown that students learn more in charter schools. In New York City, Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby found that students accepted by lottery to charter schools were significantly outpacing the academic progress of their peers who lost the lottery and were forced to return to district schools.

---

I generally think unions are a good idea, but teacher's unions have far outlived their purpose, and have become self-serving entities at the expense of kids.

One out of 54 doctors will eventually lose their license. One out of 97 lawyers will be disbarred. Only one out of 2500 teachers will lose their certification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Apparently you missed the second point of the premise.. but that doesn't fit into your ideological test.. so you ignored it..

you also bolded competition as an answer, yet the accompanying statement mentioned that the govt is opening more schools to create this competition..

---

My ideological test is called RESULTS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I generally think unions are a good idea, but teacher's unions have far outlived their purpose, and have become self-serving entities at the expense of kids.

One out of 54 doctors will eventually lose their license. One out of 97 lawyers will be disbarred. Only one out of 2500 teachers will lose their certification.

---

I'm all for paying the really great teachers much more $$. Problem is, the salary structure is just based on tenure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

My ideological test is called RESULTS.

---

Aye, there's the rub.

What "results"?

Standardized testing is fucktarded. The only results that matter are whether they can get through a 4 year degree that gets them a job, or vocational training that offers some semi-skilled certification. IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I'm all for paying the really great teachers much more $$. Problem is, the salary structure is just based on tenure.

---

"tenure" is the problem, even pay scales aside. You can't fire the shitbirds, due to union rules.

No excuses. It has been shown that good teachers can do good things with even the most disadvantaged kids.

I think the union arguments for granting automatic tenure have begun to ring very hollow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Aye, there's the rub.

What "results"?

Standardized testing is fucktarded. The only results that matter are whether they can get through a 4 year degree that gets them a job, or vocational training that offers some semi-skilled certification. IMO.

---

They need some metric to determine whether you've actually learned anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

My ideological test is called RESULTS.

---

Well there are many more successful schools and teachers than there are failing schools and bad teachers... so the results according to you, say the system is working..

your 'results' are based on your ideology

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Well there are many more successful schools and teachers than there are failing schools and bad teachers... so the results according to you, say the system is working..

your 'results' are based on your ideology

---

Aye, but the rub is successful according to what metric? Or better yet, what is success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

They need some metric to determine whether you've actually learned anything.

---

Although I do agree one needs to measure progress, let other countries do the standardized "memorize this" bullshit.

I want my kids to learn how to think,












if only to keep them from being conservatives. HA!


Seriously though, I think the ultimate metric is whether they are really ready for college. Not sure how to measure that, other than the amount of "grade inflation" and remedial courses required for incoming freshmen

"successful according to what metric"

crudely, HS graduation rate.


college acceptance rate

Advanced Placement numbers for HS grads

college graduation rate.

not that a college education is a guarantee of anything.

I think there's a real disconnect between graduation rate and college acceptance rate. As recently as 08, the national average was 38% of college freshmen were required to take remediation courses. In some areas, it's closer to 75%. To me, that devalues the graduation rate as any kind of meaningful metric. It also predisposes college acceptance as the only avenue for success, and I know you don't believe that.