[regional_school] Re: regional_school Digest V2 #40
- From: Dina Strasser <dinaeliz@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: regional_school@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 06:17:07 -0500
I've posted below a recent editorial in our district's union newsletter, on
mayoral control and Race to the Top, from our president's perspective (Dave
Rose, a social studies teacher at Sperry High School). I found it
well-reasoned and very compelling. Enjoy. ~ Dina
Brothers and Sisters –
If you have been following the story of Mayor Duffy’s proposal to take over
the Rochester City School District, you are aware that the presidents of
most of the local colleges endorse Duffy’s proposal. On February 24, a
supporting Op-Ed piece was published in the Democrat & Chronicle.
In this piece, a curious assertion was made that most local colleges are
eager to work with RCSD students but in too many cases never get the chance
“either because they never graduate…or graduate *ill-prepared* for college
work” (emphasis mine).
Apparently, our local colleges have some minimum standards of preparation
required before they will even consider working with students.
Public school teachers have no such discretion.
The local college presidents suggest that the governance model for the RCSD
is so flawed as to cause the ill preparation of students for college
success. They cite poor 8th grade ELA scores with the note that “Students
who cannot understand what they are reading, cannot succeed in high school”
(or, by extension, college).
What these college presidents hypocritically overlook is the vast number of
city students who show up “ill prepared” for kindergarten and each
subsequent grade level.
Educational/social research has established a striking statistical
correlation between poverty and student success. While being poor has no
statistical significance for individual students, high concentrations of
poverty do appear to be connected to large patterns of systemic failure.As a
single, simplistic indicator of poverty, 80% of all RCSD students qualify
for subsidized lunches. This at least suggests that poverty may be a factor.
However, critics of public education have accused teachers’ unions of
“bullying” state legislators while “protecting” incompetent teachers in
order to resist efforts at reform. The implication is that teachers unions
don’t care about students; they only care about themselves. That’s just
outright dishonest.
The dishonesty of these criticisms becomes evident upon comparison of the
governance models and union presence in the school districts recognized as
successful. Pittsford, Brighton, and West Irondequoit all have similar
governing structures, with the same kinds of teachers, with the same kinds
of teacher training, and the same unions with the same core contracts. Why
is it, then, that some districts are successful, while others “fail”?
At the very least, these college presidents, Mayor Duffy and other
disinterested critics should be offering a testable hypothesis as to the
“cause” of lack of student success BEFORE a solution is offered. The
solution should be directly, operationally linked to the cause.
(By the way, what is the percentage of college students who graduate within
4 years? What percent of students drop out of college within the first 4
semesters?)
Colleges “cherry pick” students, but still “blame” public schools for the
ill preparation of unsuccessful ones. Public schools attempt to educate all
students, whether “ill prepared” or not.
Unfortunately, too many of those interested in educational reform have a
political ax to grind. The Op-Ed piece mentioned makes my point.
One of our initiatives this year involves our efforts, from the AFT right
down to our own local, to reframe the public discussion about education
reform. This is why your local union has decided to attempt to engage our
own administration in developing a joint oversight structure to try and
ensure that the actual CAUSES of poor student achievement are accurately,
scientifically identified BEFORE any politically expedient remedies are
enacted. In the upcoming months, union identified teachers will have
increasing opportunities to directly affect policies and strategies to
address achievement concerns for our district’s children.
Let’s not let our collective attempt to achieve fair compensation and stable
careers serve as the “fall guy” for whatever reform efforts may be needed
for our district. Instead, let’s prepare ourselves to be involved in the
analysis of our district’s problems as well as in the formulation and
articulation of needed prescriptive efforts.
An initiative is underway to increase the participation of union sponsored
teachers in all analysis and planning efforts for the district. At least
within our school district, our union brothers and sisters will have the
opportunity to avoid the politically inspired finger pointing that too often
serves as “reform dialogue” on the larger political field of play. A
labor/management oversight structure is being created/refined for the
district and for each building. Stay tuned.
Other related posts:
