Student flight puts district's construction plans at risk

10-year enrollment could fall by 14,000

Saturday, March 12, 2005

Ebony Reed and Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporters

As the Cleveland public schools face building closings and additional layoffs in coming months, a rising number of students are transferring out - and leaving behind tough questions for the $1.5 billion construction project.

 

About 2,200 students left district schools between August and January, compared with 680 who left during the same period last school year, according to the district. Researchers at Cleveland State Univer sity recently predicted that, in a worst-case scenario, enrollment could plummet from the current 65,000 students to 51,000 in 10 years.

 

More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com

Man, this same exact thing is going on in Cincy (and, I would imagine in scores of cities).  There's a thread on it in P&C.

 

This kind of stuff is one of the biggest hurdles our cities face these days.

Good points, but Cleveland's not unique in this area (sadly).  Our haves/haves-not country doesn't place the emphasis on educating all its young (just like it tells working class folks to fend for themselves for health care) anywhere near the way it should – as in, the way practically every industrialized nation in the world does!!!!  Unfortunately our infrastructure in human beings – and not buildings, bridges, etc. -- suffers greatly because of this.  The after effects?  try drugs. crime. social stratification. fear. guns. and killing.  We didn't need Michael Moore's excellent flick "Bowling for Columbine" to tell us that even though, per capita, or Canadian neighbors have a much higher gun ownership per capita, we have a much higher rate of murder -- we're off the charts.  And the root of this is that we look at those who have lesser than us as our enemy who we must protect ourselves from rather than reaching out to them and realizing that, as goes the least of us, so goes the rest of us… 

 

And the fact that we educate kids based on how much $$ their parents have has mushroomed into all sorts of social ills -- off of soap box, cause I could go off on this for hours if you had some good jazz and a few cups of coffee...

 

I lived in Philly for years and just visited Chicago -- both towns with schools that suck, but neither of them are hemorrhaging population like we are (central-city Chicago actually even grew slightly in the 2000 census).  Hell, the rich parents (among the dominant young singles) in Chicago's Lincoln Park and River North areas (just to name a few) aren't sending their kids to Chicago Public Schools any more than Warehouse District or Ohio City middle/upper middle class residents are sending theirs to Cleve public schools... So while our crappy schools certainly aren't helping our situation, I think it's a bit simplistic to think the schools are the sole or even main cause to our flight of middle class/young professionals. … (and I'm not saying you are so this isn't my taking a shot at you)... It's worthy of discussion, though.   I tend to think jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs are the thing our city needs to lure to keep people here moreso than better schools, although I am quick to recognize there’s a tie between the 2.

 

OK, I'm going to say it. The problem is not really the schools themselves, the teachers or even the administrators. Its the STUDENTS and PARENTS, or lack thereof. Without order, discipline, and a sense of security, education cannot take place. A teacher can't give lessons when all their time is spent breaking up fights, squelching arguments, and attempting to keep school property from being destroyed. In any given classroom in an inner city school, there are at least a half-dozen kids who because of their behavior are basically un-teachable in a traditional setting. Yet more often than not, there is nothing that can really be done about them because there is no money or staff for remedial action.

 

Inner city public schools have the hardest job with the most difficult students, so they need proportionally the most resources. Instead of deperately needed help, they get criticism, budget cuts, and calls for more and more testing.

 

You're right - the battle for the future of our core cities is being fought in the schools, and the fact is that we (as a society) aren't putting up much of a fight.

Inner city public schools have the hardest job with the most difficult students, so they need proportionally the most resources. Instead of deperately needed help, they get criticism, budget cuts, and calls for more and more testing.

 

If Jesus were alive, he'd kiss you.

Hey, things are getting better in Cleveland Schools!  I just think there are less children in Cleveland.  Actually, BBB credits better record keeping as one reason, thus maybe Cleveland thought they had a lot more students a few years ago than they actually did.

From today's cleveland.com

 

NEWS UPDATE

2:40 p.m.

 

Cleveland Schools grad rate tops 50 percent

 

The graduation rate for Cleveland high school students has topped 50 percent for the first time in years and is now more than 20 percentage points higher than it was six years ago.

 

J.C.Benton, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Education, cautioned that the number's have not yet been verified and won't be official until August, but said the education department is hopeful the jump is real.

 

Cleveland schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett said better record keeping and intervention for students have boosted the numbers.

 

Good to hear some positive news about the school district.

Yes, it is indeed good to hear that the school system is posting a rise in the graduation rate!!!  :clap: :clap:

 

Cleveland graduation rate soars

Number edges past 50 percent

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporter

The graduation rate for Cleveland high school students has topped 50 percent -- more than 20 percentage points higher than it was six years ago.

 

The 50.2 percent graduation rate for last year's senior class, still much lower than the state average, "is not at all where we need to be" but is reason for optimism, said schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett.

 

More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com

Unfortunately it's sorry we celebrate the fact graduation rate is at 50%.

 

About the only thing worse is the graduation rate from D1A NCAA basketball programs.

The schools in America are very well funded.  I lived in India for a year, and during that time I went to school in what was basically a mud hut, with no fans, no lights, no blackboard, and a dirt floor.  The temperatures during the daytime would hit 100 degrees.  During lunchtime, it was a struggle to keep the cockroaches off your food.  And if you answered a question incorrectly during class, the teacher would beat you with a stick  :whip:, in accordance with Indian pedagogical traditions.  :drunk:  Still there are people studying in that environment, and going on to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, and what not.  All this talk of inner cities schools iin America needing more money is garbage.  Those who have the propensity to study will get ahead, even in 3rd world conditions.  Therre is perfectly sufficient funding in inner city schools.  In many of these schools, they get more money altogether (with federal and state grants and what not) that the overall spending per student exceeds that of nearby suburban districts (e.g. Washington DC).  It's not fair to say the schools are crap.  The schools have crappy performance because the kids they take aren't that bright to begin with.  That may not be a PC thing to say, but those are the facts.

 

The teaching in urban schools gets dumbed down because most of the students need to be taught at a lower level, and taught more slowly.  That was what my friend told me who worked in inner city schools in MI after graduating from college.  So parents whose kids are bright and show academic promise pull their kids out of the urban public schools and put them in private schools or they move to the suburbs.  Also, a lot of the urban kids are just troublemakers.  They get violent and beat people, especially the "nerds" who do well academically in class.  That's even more incentive for people to flee the cities.

 

So called "poor" people here in America complain about how hard they have it, but pretty much all of them except the most destitute panhandlers have it better off in terms of material wealth and opportunities here in the "ghettos" of America than my relatives back in India, who are rich by Indian standards. 

 

When it comes to poor performance of urban American students, I agree that something needs to be done.  But the solutions offered by the Republican and Democratic parties are not going to work.  The Republicans talk of increased "Accountability" from school teachers is meaningless, because the schoolteachers aren't the problem, its the kids they have to deal with.  And the Democrats talk of putting more money into the districts (as a payoff to schoolteachers unions) isn't going to deliver results either (e.g. Washington DC schools still have poor performance).

Locutus,

 

I disagree.  There is a big difference between material, spiritual and psychologial health.  How can you compare a completely different culture to the US inner city?  Spending time in India, you should realize that there are many types of poverty.  I taught in Peru for a few years and had over 40 students in a classroom.  It was fine. The kids were poorer than anyone in the US, but their cultural values provided a much better classroom experience.  If you had 40 kids in a classroom in Cleveland, it would be chaos.  You are dealing with a completely different situation.  You seem to place the onus completely on the individual child.  Somewhat of a predestination argument.  So, there is no hope for these kids, I guess you would say.  So, why even send them to school if they are bound to fail?  Its their fault, right?  C'mon. 

 

 

The amount of funding is sufficient?  It all depends on the results that you wish to have.  Ask any inner city public school teacher what needs to be done to improve the education. I guarantee you that 9 of 10 will say that class size needs to drop.  As you said, it is all about the type of students that are handed to you.  Well, if they have learning and behavioral issues, then a teacher needs to spend a lot more time with the individual students.  If you had a teacher with 10 kids in a room, we would have a vastly different result.  However, the public will never agree to hike taxes to the degree that would be necessary to make that happen. 

 

Your argument seems to say that the school and teacher have no effect on a student.  If those that have a propensity will get ahead no matter what (as you claim), then lets lower the school funding to about $1 per school. Have the students sit in a public park in a circle around the teacher. All 50 of them.  Funding doesn't matter at all, you're right. 

 

Everything you've stated sounds like propaganda from the teachers unions.

 

In NYC, lots of Asian immigrants come in speaking little English each year, but eventually outperform the American born blacks and HIspanics studying in the same schools.  How are the former able to outperform the latter under the same allegedly crappy conditions? 

 

We can raise the income taxes until they are 90%.  We can tax people in the suburbs to the point that they practically starve to death.  And we can put all that money into city schools hiring new teachers.  But there is no proof that that is going to make the kids perform, when they are not as smart to begin with and have little interest in learning.

 

If those that have a propensity will get ahead no matter what (as you claim), then lets lower the school funding to about $1 per school. Have the students sit in a public park in a circle around the teacher. All 50 of them.

 

Well there's no need to do that here in America because the GDP per capita is much higher.  It's easy to give students all kinds of opportunities here that are impossible in the 3rd world :clap:  The point is that even our ghetto schools have more resources than schools in the rest of the world.  But they are not producing results.  Why?  Because of the students, that's why.

^well.....

 

it has nothing to do with how "bright" the kids are. all kids are equally bright in that respect whereever they come from.

 

another issue i have in your own analogy is that everyone in your school in india was indian. an ancient monoculture. you schoolmate's mother's-mother's-mother, etc were from india! not so in america, which is a recent conglomoration of many cultures. so there is no cracking the kid over the head when they get a wrong answer here--we don't want to offend anyone so there is no order!

 

if there is anything similiar to a monoculture here like that or japan or wherever---it is the monoculture of lawyers---that will sue the state, county, city , school district, principal , and teacher back to the stone age if they can get away with it. schools (and cities) are easy picking for lawyers!

 

so i would say in a nutshell the root of the problem in big city schools are mostly the social, economic and multi-cultural issues and the wildly varying family values about discipline and education. the schools themselves are just a reflection.

 

ps--as for the graduation numbers. it looks like good news, but realistically take it with a grain of salt at this point. enrollment and grad rates over the next five years, now that they are paying closer attention, will give a better overall picture.

 

 

 

I also disagree.  There are bright individuals in all social classes from all walks of life.  It isn't the stupid who got left behind in the city of Cleveland, it's the poor.  If an individual who lived in the city could AFFORD to send their kids to private schools, then they probably would.  "The schools have crappy performance because the kids they take aren't that bright to begin with.  That may not be a PC thing to say, but those are the facts".  Whose facts are these?  Where did you get this information?  Have you ever stayed on E.30th and Central in Cleveland?  I have, and the residents of that neighborhood on average make $5000 a year (of course, there is a large underground economy in the nieghborhood).  Does that mean that they're dumb?  No, but it does mean that they're poor.

 

"The teaching in urban schools gets dumbed down because most of the students need to be taught at a lower level, and taught more slowly."  Again, where did you (or your source) get this information?  I personally went to Euclid city schools, and had many friends who moved from the Cleveland school district to Euclid.  Were all the students from the Cleveland school district somewhat behind in their schooling?  Absolutely not.  Were there some students who seemed behind in their schooling?  Yes, there were.  It depends on the student, and just because the student isn't on the same level as the rest does not mean that he or she isn't bright.  I have friends who were behind in their schooling who came from the Cleveland school district when I was in school.  Were they dumb?  No, they are definately bright individuals, just misguided.  If you had a parent who was on crack and your neighborhood is full of drug-dealers, do you think that you would be in a stable living/learning environment?

 

"Also, a lot of the urban kids are just troublemakers.  They get violent and beat people, especially the "nerds" who do well academically in class."  Once again, where did you or your source get this information?  My girlfriend graduated from East Cleveland city schools not too long ago.  I knew the valedictorian of her class, and he graduated from the district with a grade point average above 4.0.  Was this kid a whimp because he was a "nerd"?  Hell no.  This kid was strong and didn't have problems in school (he went to Shaw High, which some would call a rough high school, but probably not as rough as East Tech or Glenville).   

 

"So parents whose kids are bright and show academic promise pull their kids out of the urban public schools and put them in private schools or they move to the suburbs."  A child does not have to be "bright" to be in a private school.  A child only needs parents who can afford to send them to private schools.  We know sociologically that those with high income usually get a better education.  But why is that?  Because individuals with lower income might have to help take care of their families earlier, which can interrupt their schooling.  Sometimes, also, parents just don't want their children in the school district for whatever reason the parent feels.  Lets take the Cleveland school district as an example.  As freeways were built and racial tension mounted, the population declined in the city through the 60's.  Then student bussing came around, trying to force the integration of the school system.  What did the parents do?  They voted with their feet, and left the school district (and the city) all together if they could afford to.  During the 70's, Cleveland lost an average of three households A DAY.  Between 1970 and 1980, the city's population fell from 750,829 to 573,912.

 

"So called "poor" people here in America complain about how hard they have it, but pretty much all of them except the most destitute panhandlers have it better off in terms of material wealth and opportunities here in the "ghettos" of America than my relatives back in India, who are rich by Indian standards."  Though Americans might have more in poverty than other countries, poverty still stings.  There is less shame in a country like India because so many people are poor.  Poverty can be more difficult in a rich counrty than in a poor one.  Those in America who live in poverty are continuously face to face with wealth, and are blamed for their own suffering (no matter how unfair it may be).  I'm sorry, but you have proven this last fact. 

 

So before bashing students and calling them not bright to begin with, look at the aspects of the city and the community that the child grows up in.  Cleveland is the poorest big-city in America, and the state of Ohio's funding of schools is unconstitutional.  These two aspects don't bode well for students in the school district, but I believe that the schools are a major piece of the economic fabric of the city.  These students are not only the future of the city, but the region as well (along with all the other school districts).     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you've stated sounds like propaganda from the teachers unions.

 

In NYC, lots of Asian immigrants come in speaking little English each year, but eventually outperform the American born blacks and HIspanics studying in the same schools. How are the former able to outperform the latter under the same allegedly crappy conditions?

 

We can raise the income taxes until they are 90%. We can tax people in the suburbs to the point that they practically starve to death. And we can put all that money into city schools hiring new teachers. But there is no proof that that is going to make the kids perform, when they are not as smart to begin with and have little interest in learning.

 

If those that have a propensity will get ahead no matter what (as you claim), then lets lower the school funding to about $1 per school. Have the students sit in a public park in a circle around the teacher. All 50 of them.

 

Well there's no need to do that here in America because the GDP per capita is much higher. It's easy to give students all kinds of opportunities here that are impossible in the 3rd world :clap: The point is that even our ghetto schools have more resources than schools in the rest of the world. But they are not producing results. Why? Because of the students, that's why.

 

Locutus,

 

I have never belonged to a teachers' union.  In fact, I no longer teach. But, if want to know what is wrong with schools, I suggest asking a teacher.  They would know a lot more than you would.  No one is suggesting taxing the suburbs at 90% in order to produce a better school system.  But, do you think that smaller class sizes would not help the situation?  Have you ever taught a room full of 40 teenagers?

 

Secondly, you are not stating anything new by saying that the problem with city schools are the students.  But, you are incredibly oversimplifying the situation.  Might you ask why the students are the problem?  What creates the problem?  You state that they are not as bright.  Is that a racist generalization?  These are enormously sweeping statements that you are making about our inner cities and their youth.  Might there be damaging influences present in US inner city neighborhoods that are not as prevalent in Indian communities?  This is a a pretty deep issue.  It cannot be solved by holding a grudge against a taxation system and laying the blame on the supposed inherent intellectual inferiority of minority youth.

 

I don't really understand why you compare the US inner city with India.  Do the worst Indian schools provide a great number of doctors, lawyers, etc?  I would assume that the elite of India generally recycles itself, just as is true in almost all countries.

Voters reject school levy

65 percent say 'no' to Cleveland tax

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporter

Despite a low-key campaign intended to bring out only supporters, the Cleveland schools tax was crushed in Tuesday's election by angry West Side opponents.

 

Thirty percent of all votes cast on the issue came from Old Brooklyn and the city's far West Side, neighborhoods known for their aversion to school tax increases. Only about 43,000 voters turned out at the polls, or about 13 percent of those eligible, which shows that a core group on one side of town sealed the fate of the issue.

 

More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com

Sorry Cleveland. Keep trying.

this totally sucks for the kids who want a better education.  The school are improving but i feel this will keep them at a stand still.  I feel so sorry for the thousands of kids who will be affected by this.  Hopefully corporate donations will increase.

 

Some of my neighbors thought it was another tax and some were unmoved/unmotivated because they have the option of sending their kids to shaker public schools.

 

Although I don't have any adorable tax deductions of my own...I did my part.

hey i made 200 calls yesterday to get people to go vote yes... most seemed to not care or well ya know... hang up too heh

In a city with a declining population like Cleveland, what possible justification could there to be to jack up spending on education?

 

Backers of the tax ran no television or radio ads and mailed fliers only to a carefully screened list of likely supporters, hoping that opponents would forget about the vote. The tactic failed.

 

I love the attitude these liberals have.  They're so convinced they're right, they'll take any means necessary to force their agenda.  And if people don't go along with it, well then obviously they were just "confused".

 

This sort of shenanigans ain't no different in Toledo.

We love you too, Locutus.

 

 

Backers of the tax ran no television or radio ads and mailed fliers only to a carefully screened list of likely supporters, hoping that opponents would forget about the vote. The tactic failed.

 

I love the attitude these liberals have.  They're so convinced they're right, they'll take any means necessary to force their agenda.  And if people don't go along with it, well then obviously they were just "confused".

 

This sort of shenanigans ain't no different in Toledo.

 

jeez, i'm sure we could switch conservative for liberal in that sentence and i'd sound just as "correct"

^ Zing!

 

Hey...does anyone know much would the tax increase have cost the owner of a $100,000 home?

I *thought* I heard it would be about 50¢ a day, but don't quote me on that.

who really thought this thing was gonna actually pass??  makes me wonder when they're gonna reduce the tax abatement stuff or when some of whats been already built will start getting taxed.

Seems like we have another decade until the abatements start to sputter out.  I wonder what the financials will look like once a bunch of these pricey townhomes and condos are added to the taxroll.

^Of course it is going to cost more to educate students who are more difficult to teach!  You are comparing suburban and inner city students?  You are comparing apples and oranges. You should spend the amount of money that will get the job done.  Suburban schools have an easier job. They have parents who generally are more supportive of education.  The whole idea about a good education is that you try to break that cycle.  The argument could be made that suburban schools should get less because they do not need as much money to produce a satisfactory result.  C-Dawg, you are not educated on this topic.  You fail to see the purpose of education.  Are you a teacher?  Do you know what it takes to provide a good education?  The Cleveland schools have a shrinking budget due to lower tax revenue, they needed the levy to provide the same level of services.  I also find it ridiculous that you can comment on the motivations of the staff.  There are many many motivated teachers who choose to work in Cleveland schools because they want to make a difference.  Many young and talented teachers were let go because of the cuts.  It is sad because Cleveland has lost a lot of teaching talent.  On the flip side, there are teachers who are unmotivated and just waiting for retirement.  This is true inner city and suburban environments.  Yes, motivation is a problem in that respect, but it is not particular to one part of the city.

You claim that money is being wasted.  Tell me exactly where the money is being wasted.  Are you trying to say that inner city students deserve less money because they don't work as hard?   Isn't that the point of education?  More does need to be invested in these schools to break the chain.  You break that chain now so that the next generation will be more susceptible to an education.  That is the whole point.  You are missing that point.     

C-Dawg, you are not educated on this topic.  You fail to see the purpose of education.  Are you a teacher?  Do you know what it takes to provide a good education?

 

You have made true, exactly what I said.  You think people are stupid, especially people who might espouse some conservative principles, and you believe that the only opinion on this issue that should count is your own.

 

What proof do you have that spending more money on education produces proportionatly better results?  As smart as you seem to think you are, you obviously have no idea of the concept of diminishing marginal returns.

 

Also, where do you think money comes from?  From your post, you make it seem as if we should be spending an infinite amount of money per student.  You make it seem as if we should just take all of the economic output of society, (i.e. tax everyone 100% of their own income) and spend all that money on education, because the school teachers think that you can never have enough spending on education.

 

Reality check: Cleveland is a poor city.  Cleveland is losing population.  Cleveland is an aging city with fewer and fewer students each year.  Cleveland is an overtaxed city that hardworking people continue to escape in droves, because the tax burden is unbearable.  To jack up the taxes on people so that tens or hundreds of thousands of more Clevelanders leave the city in the next ten years, and spend all that money on education which will produce marginal or no benefits is of no good to the city.

 

And that's why people in Cleveland voted against it.  They voted against know-it-all liberals like you trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

You have made true, exactly what I said.  You think people are stupid, especially people who might espouse some conservative principles, and you believe that the only opinion on this issue that should count is your own.

I recall a tale of a pot and kettle... :roll:

 

It's hard to be sypmathetic to the "conservative" side in this kind of thing, because the typical attitude is "why should I pay taxes for schools when I don't use them?", as though the kids should fend for themselves.

 

That said, I'm inclined to agree that throwing more money at the schools isn't going to improve education given the factors mentioned.  I also don't see how spending money is going to help when the kids and their parents just don't give a shit about education.

 

On the other hand, I could see more spending being justified, depending on the asnwers to a couple questions:

-Is the enrollment in Cleveland schools dropping at the same rate as revenue?  Taxpayers may be disappearing faster than students.

-What was the money needed for?  Things like buildings that are falling apart and 40-year-old textbooks deserve some money, for instance.

And there are probably other things that would justify it for me.  I don't know anything about Cleveland schools in particular, so it's hard to truly take a side here, but those are my general attitudes.

It's hard to be sypmathetic to the "conservative" side in this kind of thing, because the typical attitude is "why should I pay taxes for schools when I don't use them?", as though the kids should fend for themselves.

 

Those people already are paying taxes for schools.  Nice distortion of the issue.  This is exactly why it didn't pass, because those who wanted it to pass probably used the same old, simple-minded "IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR IT, YOU'RE AGAINST THE CHILDREN YOU EVIL PEOPLE!" type arguments that even the most clueless Democrat nowadays is smart enough to not fall for.

 

When people already are paying a lot of taxes for schools, can you imagine how insulting it is for them, when people like you start accusing them of being selfish for not supporting even more unjustified increases?

 

The real question here is how much money do you have in your pocket?  How much money do you have in your bank account?  Before you accuse other people of being greedy by not supporting your favorite cause, you should go and donate all of your money to that same cause.  Otherwise you are nothing but a hypocrite.

Locutus,

 

Quit putting words in our mouths.  You address arguments that I am not making.  It is very frustrating to argue with you because you don't address the issues.  You conveniently mention a weak argument that no one is making and then supposedly refute it.  Its easy to refute poor arguments that you conjure up yourself. No one said that an endless amount of cash should be put in the schools.  i will respect your arguments when you stop dissorting what others say. 

 

The west side Catholics are the ones who defeated this measure.  The West Park area of Cleveland is strongly middle class and generally send their kids to catholics schools.  I know, I was one of those kids.  I have understood the mindset for a long time. 

^its like he's making straw strawmen

It's hard to be sypmathetic to the "conservative" side in this kind of thing, because the typical attitude is "why should I pay taxes for schools when I don't use them?", as though the kids should fend for themselves.

 

Those people already are paying taxes for schools.  Nice distortion of the issue.  This is exactly why it didn't pass, because those who wanted it to pass probably used the same old, simple-minded "IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR IT, YOU'RE AGAINST THE CHILDREN YOU EVIL PEOPLE!" type arguments that even the most clueless Democrat nowadays is smart enough to not fall for.

 

When people already are paying a lot of taxes for schools, can you imagine how insulting it is for them, when people like you start accusing them of being selfish for not supporting even more unjustified increases?

 

The real question here is how much money do you have in your pocket?  How much money do you have in your bank account?  Before you accuse other people of being greedy by not supporting your favorite cause, you should go and donate all of your money to that same cause.  Otherwise you are nothing but a hypocrite.

That's not what I mean.  The point is not about how much money people are paying; it's the attitude toward school taxes.  I only mean to say that there is a certain segment of the population that seems to feel it owes nothing to schools, regardless of wether the spending is justified or not or even whether they can afford the taxes; they don't seem to weigh the merits of a levy at all.  I wouldn't call them selfish or greedy, and it of course makes sense to oppose increased taxes that are not going to do any good.  But it bugs me when people oppose the school levies simply on the grounds of not having children in the system or whatever.  I wouldn't advocate placing an excessive burden on citizens, but in the end sometimes people have got to make peace with the way taxes work:  sometimes you pay for something that you personally aren't using.

C-Dawg, Locutus, what do you guys know about the management of the Cleveland Public School systems.  How do you know it's poorly managed?  Is it the increasingly clean audits it has received over the past couple of years, or the continually improving bond rating that it now has, allowing it to borrow money more cheaply?  Perhaps it is the rising test scores or the improving (I admit, still low) graduation rate.  Or is it the fact that 70% of those who do graduate go on to college?

 

I'm not saying that CPS are up to the standard of a quality education yet, but they have made HUGE strides in terms of management and education in recent years, in the face of declining income and state support.  And I don't appreciate people who don't know what the hell they are talking about thinking that they really know what's up with the schools.  Can either of you can back up your contention that the problem is with the actual management of the schools?

jumping off the ship before it sinks again

 

:(

I'm not sure if this is necessarily a good or bad thing. The fact remains that the schools have shown improvement under her watch - on the other hand, she wasn't the best at convincing people that accountability was valued.

 

From wkyc.com

 

Cleveland schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett says she's leaving

POSTED: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:31:20 AM

UPDATED: Friday, August 05, 2005 12:08:46 PM

 

CLEVELAND -- The Cleveland Schools CEO says she’ll leave after her contract expires next month.

 

Barbara Byrd-Bennett says she’ll stay on the job for up to a year while a replacement is found.

 

She said at a school board news conference today that voters’ rejection of a tax issues on Tuesday isn’t a factor in her decision to step down. Sixty-five percent of voters rejected the Cleveland district’s $46 million request.

 

School leaders in Cleveland have laid off about 1,400 people in the last two years and permanently closed 11 schools when classes ended in June.

 

Byrd-Bennett says she’s considering several jobs in the Cleveland area. She came to Cleveland from New York in 1998 with a reputation for turning around dilapidated schools and poor-performing districts.

mixed feelings on this one, honestly.  Bennett did accomplish great things - doubled the graduation rate, improved test scores, 70% of graduating students going to college.  All admirable things she and her staff did.  But they just couldn't convince the citizens of Cleveland that their schools were worth investing in, and that is her major failure.  The schools chief was polarizing, to say the least, and was certainly a "love her or hate her" sort of woman.  That being said, I certainly hope that Mayor C takes this opportunity to think about who would best lead a school district into the next decade and who can make Cleveland WANT to make its schools successful again. 

It just seemed that the media was out to get her.  She bought a new house in the city of Cleveland and the media was stunned to realize that she took the tax abatement that everyone who buys a house in the city gets.

 

(the media folks probably don't even live in the city)

Punch,

 

I agree. They villified her for that abatement.  Clevelanders love to be negative where no negativity is due.  Good Lord!  I heard Jane Campbell has two minor children and claims them as dependants on her tax return!  Off with her head!

My feelings aren't mixed at all.  Unless you consider disappointment, frustration, and anger to be a mix.  Sometimes I think this town eats up and spits out anyone with talent and the willingness to stand out. It's been a bad week for Cleveland.

I did not go to CPS, but I would say that I do know something about the situation, because of a couple of things: I live near and work in Cleveland, in the neighborhoods, and I have followed the progress of the schools enough to know where they have been and where they are.

 

Don't forget, ten years ago, this argument of how fast the test scores should be rising couldn't have been held with a straight face.  Nearly everyone though that CPS was a lost cause, and so were the students.  It's only now that we've actually seen some progress (we have risen to "Academic Watch", btw) that everyone starts complaining that we aren't a top notch school district overnight.

 

To come this far and then say that the school system isn't being managed well is a misreading of the situation.  We haven't achieved what we should ultimately be achieving yet, but we are headed in that direction.  I don't know the relative rise in scores between Cleveland and its suburbs, and I don't care to look them up because I actually do think that the absolute scores matter more than the relative scores.  The reason is that when we talk about education and economics, education is one way of "growing the pie".  That is to say that an absolutely more educated populace will be absolutely more productive.

 

It does not follow that a school with better results and lower spending per pupil is better managed.  As you acknowledged, the job being done is not the same.  Yes, people don't like to hear excuses, but they have to realize the reality of the situation at hand.  If 80%+ of your students are requiring free meals, if your buildings are crumbling around your ears, if you have to provide a greater amount of remedial courses and disciplinary programs (not to mention security), then it will cost more to educate children to the same level.  Much more.  This isn't opinion, its simple common sense.  (yes, teachers should be paid more than janitors)

 

Again, I'm not saying that the schools are managed perfectly.  I'm not saying that all of the teachers are of the level that students should be able to expect. I'm not saying that they are where they need to be yet.  But in the face of incredibly difficult odds and little support from the public or government, I think that the last 7 years have been a time of solid improvement.  I think we have Barbara Byrd-Bennett's leadership to thank for that.  I think that all of it is in serious jeopardy.  And I am frustrated because I think that the public is making bad choices, on bad information, and that the children and the future of our community will suffer because of it.

C-Dawg,

 

I do not agree with most of your points.  However, I appreciate your good faith effort to debate.  Too often, opposing viewpoint holders just try to jam the partyline down our throats.  Partylines almost never provide a workable solution.

 

First off: teacher salaries

-The Cleveland district is not a place where most teachers want to be.  You need to pay higher salaries in order to attract talent.  If all salaries are equal, teachers will not choose the CPS and Cleveland will be left with the worst teachers. 

Also, I have a hard time believing that janitors make more than teachers.  I would believe and hope that a new teacher would make less than a janitor that has been working there for 35 years.

 

Apples and oranges:

I respect your position, but teaching at the college level is much much different than teaching at an inner city school.  I taught at an inner city school in Nashville.  Most say that Nashville schools are quite good overall.  Let me tell you, it was almost impossible to teach in this environment.  The problem stems from class size (along with many other factors).  There are a good number of students who want to learn. However, there are some that ruin the environment and turn the teacher's role into that of a crowd control officer.  Because the levy didn't pass, class sizes will balloon up to 40.  This is an impossible situation in which to teach.  You are setting the teachers up to fail.  The best thing to do is to lower class size.  This is mainly why I am for increasing spending for schools.  Teachers can do a great job with smaller classes.  25 kids is normal.  If class size could be shrunk to 15-18, there will be much better results.  Teachers will not only be more effective, but they will be more motivated.  Can you imagine how it would feel to be CPS teacher at this moment, you know that you are walking into an impossible situation.  If teachers can be positioned to succeed, they become even more motivated to be more innovative, creative and successful.  Its a basic principle of self-efficacy: if the teacher can feel that they can be successful, it is much more likely to happen.   

 

Solutions, not excuses:

In order to come up with a workable solution, you have to understand that situation.  By saying that the inner city kids and teachers should just act like they do in the suburbs is to ignore a basic tenent of problem management.  C'mon really, how can you even suggest that?  To help change a situation, you have to understand where the person comes from.  If you refuse to do this and mandate that they act more like the suburban kids, you'll fail.  C-Dawg, it sounds like your solution is to tell the kids to act like good kids.  That doesn't work.  You have to understand where they come from before they will ever listen to you.  If you have a class with over 40 students, you can forget about ever having a chance to improve the schools.  Would you really set up the schools so that they fail?

 

 

 

C-Dawg,

 

You are right.  I did put words in your mouth.  My response was in regard to another poster's comments.  I mixed you two up.  My apologies.

 

Average class size is said to be going up to 40 because of the teacher layoffs. While there is declining enrollment, it is not declining that fast to compensate for the lower number of teachers. 

My personal opinion is that the media was prtraying BBB to purposely get rid of her.  The same old, rich, men (think Ratner types, the people who own corporations and buy votes from politicians) who haven't been paying into the school system don't want the way schools are funded to change.  They don't want to have to pay more money.  That is why the news media were out to get her; she was making people see that the funding is inherently flawed..  This is also why universal health care won't happen.  We will always have to pay for insurance out of our own pockets (instead of another tax) because the people who own the insurance companies don't want the funding to change.  Unfortunately, people will die because of this.  Also, unfortunately, children in the State of Ohio lose out because of the way schools are funded. 

I just realized I failed to post these stories within the past few days.  I realize it's a lot of reading, and it will probably close out this topic anyway.  First, from the 8/6/05 PD:

 

 

Byrd-Bennett a victim of plummeting image

Some say her fall inevitable; others cite money issues

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

When times were good, Cleveland schools Chief Executive Barbara Byrd-Bennett was touted as a possible candidate for mayor and was whispered to be a contender for just about every big-city superintendent's job that came open across the country.

 

When her star fell, she was seen as such a liability that neither her face nor her name could be found on fliers pushing last Tuesday's school tax.

 

More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1123320903154540.xml&coll=2

 

From the 8/9/05 PD:

 

 

Campbell, board's Hopkins reach agreement to find new schools CEO

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Before a replacement for Cleveland schools Chief Executive Barbara Byrd-Bennett can be chosen, Mayor Jane Campbell and Cleveland school board Chairwoman Margaret Hopkins had to decide on who gets to choose.

 

Late Monday, after both claimed authority to lead the search, they agreed to work together. They're expected to announce formation of a committee today.

 

More at cleveland.com

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/112357980827760.xml&coll=2

---

 

 

First the candidate, then the salary

Campbell wants emphasis on finding superintendent

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

As Mayor Jane Campbell and Cleveland school board members took the first steps Tuesday toward finding a new superintendent, they were immediately confronted with the last issue they say they'll settle when they make a hire.

 

More at cleveland.com

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1123666261291741.xml&coll=2

 

But it bugs me when people oppose the school levies simply on the grounds of not having children in the system or whatever.

 

Conversely, it bugs me when people vote FOR the levies simply on the grounds that they DO have children in the system.  What GOOD reason is there to oppose a levy, I might ask?  I'm curious to know some stats on what percentage of people waffle on their levy votes.  Some who might support one school levy and then vote against the next, or vice versa.  It kind of strikes me that it wouldn't be that many - that there are some people who would vote for just about every school levy that might come down the pike for their own philosophical reasons, and some like myself who vote no for every one for philosophical reasons.

 

 

You need to pay higher salaries in order to attract talent.

 

I don't know if that's necessarily true in this case.  My huge fear is that teachers may take a CPS job over a suburban public school job simply for the moneys.  And is that the motivation you want your inner city teachers to have?  Most teachers become teachers for good reasons - they enjoy it, they feel they can do some good and making a difference in children's lives makes them feel good.  But like with anyone, they also are motivated by money - if you can make X thousand dollars teaching in Cleveland and X-5 thousand teaching in a suburban district, what it say about the teacher who takes the extra money?  It likely means a varying comination of two factors:  1.) They wanted to make more money, and 2.) they felt that the challenge of teaching in the inner city schools was either a plus, or not enough of a negative to outweigh the difference in compensation.

 

My point is that people for whom the first factor is predominant are likely to be lousy teachers.  People for whom the second factor is predominant are more likely to be good teachers, and will be good regardless of extra salary they might be getting.  I don't think talented and motivated teachers are not necessarily motivated by money - they are motivated by the profession itself and where they think they can do the most good.  Some teachers will always be drawn to teaching in the inner city...So why not replace the teachers who are motivated more by making X thousand dollars instead of X-5 thousand, with MORE teachers who are just happy to make X-5 thousand.  At the very least you have more teachers in the schools which reduces class size - which is one thing that can help kids learn.  I think a "C" teacher can do a lot better job with a class of 18 kids than a "B" teacher can with a class of 30 kids, no?

I think that it is unrealistic to think that "good" teachers will teach for less money, because they just care that much.  A good teacher can probably teach in any of a multitude of places, and be successful and feel rewarded.  They are still going to try to get the best paycheck that they can on top of that.  And I don't think that a "C" teacher will do well with any number of children, especially children with a multitude of existing special requirements, as one finds in the inner city. 

 

Here is the simple reality of life:

It costs money to get any task done.

It costs more money to get it done well.

It costs even more money than that to get it done well if there are additional complications.

 

End of story.

Here is the story from the 8/16/05 PD about a CSU study:

 

 

CSU study links levy failure to race, homeownership

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

As Cleveland school leaders plot how and when to go to voters again for money, they have their work cut out for them among whites, homeowners and parents of private-school students.

 

Those were the three factors most strongly linked to votes against a school tax both last November and earlier this month, according to an analysis by Cleveland State University's Levin College of Urban Affairs.

 

More at cleveland.com

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1124184782166990.xml&coll=2

 

I guess this has become the de facto Cleveland schools thread, so here ya go from the 9/16/05 PD:

 

 

New task force to tackle Cleveland schools' plight

District CEO search, politics fuel idea mill

Friday, September 16, 2005

Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

At a time when the Cleveland schools are going through leadership change and financial tumult, it seems that every politician and business leader in town is weighing in on how to fix the district.

 

The Greater Cleveland Partnership, a group representing local businesses, has hired the consulting firm Pearce Group Inc. to form an Operations Improvement Task Force with about 30 business experts yet to be named. The task force will study the district's human resources, food service and information technology departments and suggest improvements.

 

More at cleveland.com

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1126863192283131.xml&coll=2