Clevelander17

If I lived in that district my parochialism would likely motivate me to vote for Kucinich in the primary almost no matter what Kaptur said or did. I'm sure Kaptur is a perfectly fine person who's good enough at her job, but she doesn't know Cleveland like Dennis! (or even someone else--anyone else--from here) does. The Cleveland MSA should have three congresspeople in D.C. looking out for our specific interests. We need that now as much as any time in our history. LaTourette and Kucinich are working together to get the Inner Belt bridge funded. What's Kaptur's plan if that's just" smoke and mirrors" as she say?

As much as I like Sessions, he has to be traded because I don't see him re-signing here. Further, his stock is really high at the moment and this team doesn't need to be worrying about the playoffs this year. I'm not saying that I wouldn't want to see them in the postseason, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if they didn't make it, so no reason to hold on to Sessions through the end of the season. As for the Heat, I really think if they don't win it all this year, Riley might make some big changes, including possibly jettisoning one of the Big 2.5. That's a dream scenario for me and I don't think it's that impossible to have happen.

Yeah I wonder what the real story was there. Kiley and Booms were getting real dramatic about the whole thing. I didn't catch the actual interview, though, so I'm not sure if Coach Waters had a good reason or if there was a mix-up. I don't imagine that he would just skip the interview, because he does come off as a classy guy who wouldn't do such a thing.

Tough, tough blow. This means that if Cleveland State is going to win the Horizon League tournament, it's very likely going to have to happen in Indiana.

That was terrible on so many levels.

Ignoring context for a moment because we have no idea what schools you're talking about or any other details about the anecdote, but even if we did there's no way anyone could draw such a conclusion from such a limited piece of information about one student's experience.

So you would theoretically shut down a charter that was outperforming a neighboring public? Some Charters are great. Some are terrible. You're painting with too broad a brush. The ones that are "great" (and there really aren't that many in this category) tend to be great because they're getting highly-motivated students/families. They're basically magnet schools that have a little more flexibility in certain areas and maybe a little less public funding (though they don't necessarily spend less because oftentimes funding comes from other places). I think charters have some promise and benefits, don't get me wrong, but I don't see them as the panacea for urban education that they're often described as. But to directly answer your question, there would be no such thing as for-profit charter schools in my hypothetical district. Non-profit charters would have a limited role, but I'd want to see them partnered with and sponsored/managed/hosted by other non-profit entities like CSU, CWRU, CC, UH, CMA etc. I'd be very cautious about bringing corporations into the mix, though I think they could potentially have a role to play. Some of the best schools in the country are also "lab schools" run by universities.

If I were in charge of CMSD, the first thing I would do would be to break up the district into four or five smaller sub-districts that would be extremely autonomous. Each of these sub-districts would have neighborhood elementary schools and both neighborhood and magnet secondary schools (honors, arts, STEM, alternative/reform/behavioral/remedial, etc.). Other large urban districts already have similar plans in place with sub-districts and magnet-clusters and I think it could work here if done correctly. Also, if I were serious about the merit pay plan, I would petition the state to become a pilot district for such a program (since Kasich apparently likes this idea) and kick in some extra money for bonuses to initially attract teachers to come work in the urban school setting since such a plan would, as I mentioned above, very possibly turn away potentially good teachers that are already uncertain about teaching in an urban environment. I would also look into outsourcing transportation, maintenance, food service, and janitorial services and put every dime of savings back into the classrooms. For-profit charter schools would have no place in my district and would not receive one red cent. Non-profit charters would be watched very closely, both for the good and the bad.

So what is a district like Solon doing that Cleveland is not? You do realize that all of the suburban systems in the state that are regarded as exemplary have the exact same "non-merit pay," seniority-based system that Cleveland has, don't you? Teachers' unions are often these days fighting for a bare minimum of a living wage and benefits for their members as compared to equally educated professionals in other fields. I should have actually said that no teacher enters the profession to become wealthy, so I apologize for the confusion. But the overall point of what I'm saying is that teachers still need to be fairly compensated for their time and effort. Just because many of them followed their hearts into the profession does not mean that they should be exploited. In fairness though, teacher's unions are also often arguing for other things like class size and conditions that are also beneficial to the children (even if those same things also happen to benefit the teachers). As I mentioned earlier, studies on merit pay have produced mixed and contradictory results. It may be worth a shot, but only if there is a high enough salary floor (say $35,000-$40,000 or so) that potential teachers recognize that their basic living needs aren't hinging on one week's worth of test results of kids and families that don't care much about education. And that's the other condition I'd like to see: There has to be a fair way of judging teachers that truly measures how much value they add and eliminates from the measurement other factors beyond a teacher's control. I think this is more a function of the fact that teachers are generally already paid so little that even a couple extra thousand dollars can make a huge difference in quality of life. Maybe people who are paid significantly more in other fields (sports would be a good example) can afford to turn down 5-10% raises to move to or stay in their position of choice or a position where they can have the most impact, but not as much with teachers. Sure I can, because I'm arguing that although the situation now in attracting good teachers may be bad, it can indeed get worse. Though I do understand your point. Gray, that was not my argument. The main point I am making is that I think that the "solutions" being offered could quite possibly make things worse.

I just don't agree that trying for the sake of trying, even if the policies instituted end up being damaging, is a good thing. I think there are big issues with what he is proposing.

Well I don't think it sounds that great, either, though in fairness it was short on details. But the research on the efficacy of teacher merit pay is mixed. The problem is that many teachers don't get into teaching for the money. Working as a teacher in CMSD is, as I've come to understand, already not very desirable. To throw another stressor into the mix, and make teachers fight for every penny (of their already meager salaries) based on a lot of factors that are beyond their control, is only likely to make things worse as even more good teachers either avoid taking jobs in the city in the first place or leave at the first suburban job offer they get. Jackson and others seem to think they can wave a magic wand and everything will be better. The problem is that the greatest issues that the district faces, the ones that affect student achievement and test scores across the district the most, are well beyond their control.

Bad situations are compounded further by bad ideas. Jackson's drinking too much of that ultraconservative "teachers are the real problem" kool-aid.

I love that area around southern Cuyahoga County/northern Summit County. Incredibly scenic. In high school we did a "bicycle retreat" all around the CVNP and it was amazing--I wish I had taken a camera. I also wish I had been in better shape because I was not at all ready for all of that riding and probably would have enjoyed it much more!

Their definition of "major" city seems to be based on the top 50 largest incorporated places' populations within the city limits only. This explains why Buffalo and Salt Lake City are excluded. The ridiculous thing about this survey, to me, is that Forbes could simply use the each city's yearly average over recorded history, created one list, and never need to do it again. In fact this is absolutely how they should do it if they were looking to determine the actual snowiest cities, and not just the snowiest cities in a single year (which would be dumb).

I don't think the data is there to lead anyone to conclude that charter schools are "successful." There are a few really good ones, a few mediocre ones, and a lot of really bad ones. That's despite the motivation/selection factor. One thing that charter schools are good at doing is being as much or more so segregated than regular public schools, at least in Northeast Ohio. There are some interesting, innovative, and positive things going on in some charter schools, but I don't think they're quite the answer, at least not in enticing families that can move further out to stay in urban/inner-ring areas. At least, I don't think, not more so than magnet/honors schools can.

Big statement win for the Buckeyes today in Madison. They seem to be rolling right now.

I guess Akron gets no credit for UA's outstanding soccer program (including being the 2010 national champions).

I would still argue that individual potential and family background can and often do transcend peer group influences. There is some merit to the peer group argument, but I think it may be overblown to some degree. Further I'm bothered by the fact that I think that some people use it as cover (not necessarily anyone here) to justify acceptance of a modern-day segregation of the schools along urban-suburban lines that exists in Northeast Ohio and undoubtedly elsewhere. This idea of acceptable and legal re-segregation is, in my opinion, in fact one of the biggest contributors to sprawl.

I hate to say it but my first thought was also that wherever James goes ends up being crowned most miserable city.

Right and in either case they don't "count against" the district's ODE rating, which means the city/district can sell their schools as being more successful than peers who aren't on a level playing field. It's all part of the perception of the quality of the schools in the suburbs.

This is off on a tangent, but I want to make it abundantly clear that every student has the capacity to learn, even the ones from troubled or less supportive backgrounds. The point is that when you have a number of these students aggregated together into one school or district, it's a challenge for that school or district and their rating, under the current ODE system, is most certainly not going to compare favorably to the rating of a district in an outer-ring suburb. Not to belabor the point, but as an analogy in some districts you have large groups of kids who are starting First and Goal from the 7-yard line and the ODE congratulates them for kicking a field goal and in other districts you have kids starting on their own 10-yard line who schools help along to midfield and the ODE tells them that they're failures.

This is a pretty fair assessment. There are indeed some environmental factors, as you pointed out. As for CMSD's per pupil expenditure number, as a large urban district there are significant costs associated with large enrollments of special needs and ESL students (both of which require federally-mandated services but are severely underfunded) and low-income students that also need programs and services. You simply don't see as many of those students in the outer-ring suburbs.

Yes, the per student funding is high. I don't know what its current ratings are..... but I do know it produces an astounding number of national merit scholar students and its student consistently get admitted to the top colleges and universities. The property taxes in SH are the highest in the state. The per pupil expenditures are in the top 5-10, but there are a few others (Beachwood, Orange, CH-UH even) that spend slightly more, I believe. The district and high school are both rated "effective," which is the second highest rating. As I mentioned above, those ratings are far from perfect, however.

It's very simple. If enough well-adjusted kids from educated middle- or upper-class families started attending CPS (or really any urban district, for that matter), the state report card ratings would rise. And then perception of the schools would change without the administrators, principles, or teachers significantly changing anything. But there would have to be a critical mass of these families and students. What people everywhere don't understand is that the state's report card ratings are a sham. They correlate much more closely with demographics than with what is going on in the classrooms. And yet when people run off to the exurbs to avoid get away from the "terrible" schools in the inner-rings, they are oftentimes basing that decision mostly on something that is blatantly flawed. This was all tried years ago. Busing? No, I wasn't suggesting that we go back to doing that. I was making the larger point that schools aren't "good" or "bad" as much as the students attending them are from good or bad backgrounds. Solon, for instance, is a "great" school (in the minds of many) because it's loaded with students from great family backgrounds. Any school anywhere can be a "great" school with the right students. On a more micro level, any student from a background with the right family support can succeed in most schools, whether that school is considered "good" or "bad" by those that worship the ODE ratings.

It's very simple. If enough well-adjusted kids from educated middle- or upper-class families started attending CPS (or really any urban district, for that matter), the state report card ratings would rise. And then perception of the schools would change without the administrators, principles, or teachers significantly changing anything. But there would have to be a critical mass of these families and students. What people everywhere don't understand is that the state's report card ratings are a sham. They correlate much more closely with demographics than with what is going on in the classrooms. And yet when people run off to the exurbs to avoid get away from the "terrible" schools in the inner-rings, they are oftentimes basing that decision mostly on something that is blatantly flawed.