Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "We are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for ten or fifteen years, and come out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing." This blog is a place for exploration of the American educational system, contemplation of ways to improve schools for our children, and debate on the effectiveness of our teachers and academic leaders.
The York, Pennsylvania Suburban School District pushes for a property tax increase of 1.4% to pay for a $3.8 million budget gap. The Clay County, Florida school board proposed raising teacher salaries 1.5% in a time of high unemployment. In both instances, local Tea Party groups said - yelled - "No!"
The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting story today on the involvement of national Tea Party groups in the fights against what are perceived to be irrational, unnecessary, and unwarranted spending and tax increases. After the public debacle arising from the governor of Wisconsin's battle with public sector unions, it's interesting to see how the tension between the Tea Party and school boards from around the country is rising as well.
When it comes to administrators and cafeteria staff ensuring that our children have the best food available to them at school, what should they have to hide? Well, if you're talking about the Los Angeles Unified School District school board, apparently there is a lot to hide. In fact, they appear to be so apprehensive about the general public knowing what is spooned onto their students' trays each day that they have fought tooth and nail to keep Jamie Oliver and his camera crew out.
Oliver, the Essex, England-born chef who has made it a personal crusade to improve the food provided to boys and girls in school - and, through side projects, to help families make wiser and more healthy dietary choices - is now in season two of a show which I love, Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. After a successful first season tackling the cafeterias of Huntington, West Virginia, Oliver has moved on to Los Angeles. Through two weeks, we've seen him blocked at every turn from even stepping foot into a cafeteria to simply look at what's being served, much less into the kitchens to see how it is prepared.
I don't even live in California, but I think that this is utterly disgraceful. The LAUSD's argument is that this "reality show" would cause chaos in the schools were Oliver and his crew to be allowed in. Apparently, the superintendent, Ramon Cortines (and yes, I've linked his name to his email address), has never actually watched a reality show. This isn't "The Apprentice" or "Survivor" or "Amazing Race"; there are no drunk kids wasting their lives as you would see on "Real World", and there is no "Jersey Shore" plot where ... well, drunk kids are wasting their lives.
This is about the lives of the children. I strongly believe that good dietary standards start at the home, and parents bear a lion's share of the responsibility here. However, school is about more than mental education; there is also physical education and good health - areas where the board of LAUSD seems to have fallen down.
No, Jamie Oliver still has not been allowed into a school cafeteria in Los Angeles, but the school did recently announce that they were improving the school menu a bit. They were quick to point out, however, that this is something that was in the works for a while and not something where they felt a responsibility to do so as a result of the pressure brought to bear by Oliver. For that, I'm proud to present them with the Pee Wee Herman Award, the motto of which is, "I meant to do that."
I would encourage everyone to sign Jamie's petition for the Food Revolution; our kids deserve the best. I also encourage you to watch this video, which is Jamie's TED Award speech from 2010. It definitely gives you a lot to think about...
An investigation by the Washington Examiner has revealed that the Washington, D.C. public school system is owed at least $648,000 in non-resident school fees - and that in just the past three years alone. An investigation by the DCPS Student Residency Office (which, as has been noted, is extremely understaffed), identified 235 non-resident students using fake addresses or addresses belonging to relatives or friends. Some students withdrew, while others were billed their oustanding fees - and they still have not paid.
Uncollected revenue and unavailable slots for Washington students. Things just keep getting better...
The debate over use of a voucher program in Washington, D.C. has been long and contentious, and with the signing into law recently of the continuing resolution to fund the federal government for the remainder of this fiscal year, the city's receipt of $300 million to reinstitute that program is sure to draw some fire. Indeed, Mayor Vincent Gray, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and others are decrying the inclusion of this funding and - in their opinion - stripping away the city's home rule, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution and the 1973 Home Rule Act dictate that final authority over the administration of the D.C. government, including the budget, remains in the hands of Congress.
In all of this debate, however, the voices who are being drowned out are those of the families who have benefitted from having this program in place. Political posturing aside, aren't the students and their parents or guardians the ones who should have the greatest say in decisions involving their educational opportunities? I was reminded today of a guest piece submitted to the Washington Post on February 5, 2011 by a parent whose child was the beneficiary of the voucher program. As the mother writes,
Jerlisa isn’t the only one who has benefited from this experience. I, too, started to feel more confident. Now I ask about resources and fill out scholarship applications with ease. I found a way to buy new uniforms for my daughter. Instead of washing uniforms every afternoon, I use the time to help my daughter with her homework.
And seeing Jerlisa’s growth over the past six years has inspired me to take some hard steps in my own life. I’m now applying to programs to become a home health-care nurse. Meanwhile, Jerlisa is deciding where to apply for college.
These are things we never dreamed were possible before. I am extremely proud of my daughter, and she is proud of me. Jerlisa’s scholarship has been worth so much more than $7,500.
An opinion piece in today's Tennesseean, penned by former Senator Bill Frist and former D.C. schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, references legislation currently moving the state legislature which would address the "last in / first out" provision of teacher collective bargaining laws. As Frist and Rhee write:
Any change to Tennessee’s collective bargaining laws for teachers must include explicit language removing seniority as the basis for making personnel decisions. Legislation currently moving through the General Assembly and endorsed by Gov. Bill Haslam (HB 130, Amendment 1) contains this important language.
I have read the amendment in question, and in some ways the Frist/Rhee description is a bit misleading. Rather than addressing "last in / first out" in its entirety, Amendment 1 only refers to the removal of teachers subsequent to a strike by the union. Specifically:
When the local education agency has determined which employees engaged in or participated in the strike, those employees may be subject to dismissal or forfeiture of their claim to tenure status, if they presently have attained tenure, and the employees may revert to probationary teacher status for the next three-year period. Any employees who engaged in or participated in the strike but who are not tenured teachers may also be subject to dismissal.
Now similar moves to repeal LIFO provisions are underway in New York and Illinois, among other states, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan has also weighed in with his opposition to the current practice. So am I missing something here with regard to Tennessee? Is there a provision of which I - and presumably others - are not aware which would carry forward the post-strike provision into layoffs? If so, shouldn't Frist and Rhee be more clear in that regard?
Growing up in rural Central Virginia in the 1970s and 1980s, I was fortunate to have an outstanding education. The teachers who guided me through twelve years of elementary, middle and high school were second to none - and the only thing which kept me from doing even better than I did was sheer laziness on my part. To this day, I still wonder how life might have turned out differently had I put in more effort and repaid the hard work and prepartion of my teachers with hard work and preparation of my own.
Now, having watched the oustanding documentary "Waiting for Superman", I can't help but wonder what has changed in the nearly 25 years since I graduated from high school. There are still oustanding men and women in our schools today - my daughters have had the good fortune of being under their tutelage under their still-young educational lives - but things elsewhere are not nearly as good. Why, for instance, do we still see underperforming but more senior teachers retain their jobs when more talented, but more junior, teachers lose their jobs during layoffs? Why must bright young students who are suffering at underperforming schools be forced to put their futures in the hands of lotteries for the few available spots at private and charter schools?
I have to praise the efforts of Michelle Rhee, Geoffrey Canada, and the thousands of other nameless advocates pressing for school reform and working towards the implementation of changes that will benefit those who need the help most - our students. I will be using this blog to highlight those efforts, the ongoing work in various state legislatures to improve school systems around the country, and the accomplishments of individual teachers that come across my path. And in the spirit of fairness, I will also offer articles and posts on dissenting opinions and a forum for discussion.
