This isn't all the parents fault, but WHERE ARE THESE KIDS' PARENTS???? I know I wouldn't get away with being late to school or completely absent on a consistent basis. To me this issues goes hand in hand with parents getting involved with their childrens academics. If there is no parental support there is only so much the District can do.

This isn't all the parents fault, but WHERE ARE THESE KIDS' PARENTS???? I know I wouldn't get away with being late to school or completely absent on a consistent basis. To me this issues goes hand in hand with parents getting involved with their childrens academics. If there is no parental support there is only so much the District can do.

 

Yeah but those parents went through the same thing. They were not pressured to go to school. They're parents weren't involved when they were in school. They weren't motivated to do good. You wouldn't have been able to get away with it because your parents weren't able to get away with it. Its a complex problem

I don't want to repeat what I've said earlier on this subject (I'm sure I've posted quite a bit), but I will say that it is unsurprising that the Cleveland schools latest plan is so far a complete embarrassment.  You cannot fix something this broken with cosmetic changes like new schools, toothless initiatives like Target 11, having math teachers weave tardiness into instruction (I can only imagine the class reaction to that), and so on.  The kids know they can get away anything short of violent crimes, so why change their behavior.

 

The administration does not want to get it.  For example, look at the language of this letter they sent: "excessive absences will eventually impede a student's ability to reach his or her academic potential."  Why are they beating around the bush with this overly diplomatic and unnecessarily mature writing tone.  Just say this (just a broad example): "Your child has missed x number of days of class.  One more, and he will be expelled from this school and prosecuted for truancy.  Additionally, we will press charges against you as his legal guardian.  This letter serves as a final warning."  Now don't take what I just wrote literally - it's just an example of the kind of need for hardlining these kids and parents.

 

Nothing is working outside of blips of hope here and there, and we're just saying the same things over and over.  The cleveland.com'ers pretty much have it right with this story.

 

Just say this (just a broad example): "Your child has missed x number of days of class.  One more, and he will be expelled from this school and prosecuted for truancy.  Additionally, we will press charges against you as his legal guardian.  This letter serves as a final warning."  Now don't take what I just wrote literally - it's just an example of the kind of need for hardlining these kids and parents.

 

That's great, but can they do that?

Just what we need, more non-violent people put in jail.  :roll:

if they can't, then the teacher's union or some other interest group needs to start fighting for legislation that would give them the ability to go after these kids and their parents. 

At my daughter's parochial school, if you missed x number of days you got kicked out.  Certaintly motivated my ex-wife  to get my 7 yr. old daughter to school when she was threatened with it. 

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

So Sanders is leaving huh?

So Sanders is leaving huh?

 

Yes. And it's very ill-timed to say the least. I hope the district comes up with a good long-term leader...

ALSO with Kasich in office, the the state's approbated per-student expenditures and 80% of Cleveland's per-student expenditures can follow the student to any private school, charter school, or suburban district  in the county as long as the student lives in Cleveland. . .

 

THAT's a way to get people to move back to the city.

AND it could put an end to the Teacher's Union. . .

^interesting idea.  I am not an expert on education, is that a successful policy enacted elsewhere?

^interesting idea. I am not an expert on education, is that a successful policy enacted elsewhere?

 

I'm not aware that it's been tried anywhere else. IF I run for mayor in 2013 it'll definitely be on the platform, in addition to original models for economic growth, safety improvements, and regionalism.

 

There would be a potential uproar from the CMSD and Teacher's Union, but in the day we need to look at what's best for our kids, the city, and the region. That type of competition should benefit everyone but those involved in the aforementioned uproar.

I really hope we can get these schools improved, cause I really want to stay in the city. If I have to though, Ill give up my dream for my future kids, but hopefully the city allows me to do both.

 

Survey: Strong schools key to retaining Cleveland residents

 

 

CLEVELAND -- A first-of-its kind survey by Cleveland State University of middle-class Cleveland residents indicates that an effective public school in their neighborhoods could influence them to remain living in the city.

 

In research conducted by a team at Cleveland State University's Levin College of Urban Affairs, 271 residents of Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit Shoreway and Downtown were interviewed about their attitudes toward the Cleveland Metropolitan School District as well as their future residential plans...

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/education/education_article.aspx?storyid=170351&catid=35

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson says schools need fixed first

 

Frank Jackson had every intention of using a meeting with a reporter to advance his administration's strategy for attracting new public and private investment to the city.

 

And for much of the 90-minute interview in his corner office in Cleveland City Hall, the city's mayor laid out a vision for development — much of it facing Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga River — that he hopes will follow the more than $1 billion in downtown construction already under way or expected in the form of the Flats East Bank mixed-use project, the convention center/medical merchandise mart and the planned casino...

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110117/SUB1/301179995

 

Parents lived near Cleveland; father went to CSU, worked downtown. When they married, they immediately found a good suburban school system and settled there.

 

It's not just a factor, for many, it's *the* factor. Dad commuted a stupid distance every day so I'd have a good public school system.

Yep, and there's schools in Cleveland, including in the public school system, that are at least as good as any suburban schools. The Cleveland School of the Arts draws kids FROM the suburbs. Several West Park elementary schools rate as high as their suburban counterparts. Outside the public school system, the Urban Community School has a multi-year waiting list.

 

Perception usually takes time to catch up to reality, especially in a city covered by the PD where few of the reporters live in the city and few of the editors even live in Cuyahoga County.

I went to Cincinnati public schools until 6th grade before moving to the east side burbs of Cleveland.  My parents had no problem sending me to Cinci public schools but they would never have sent me to Cleveland public schools.  I think the key difference were the magnet schools available in Cincinnati.  I know many will complain that the children left behind in normal non-magnet schools are being ignored, but magnet schools are what keep many middle class Cincinnati families in the city.  I think a magnet school shared between Cleveland Heights and Cleveland would be a good start.  I think that a shared magnet program at John Hay in University Circle would be successful for both cities.  Cleveland Heights is on the edge as far as many families wanting to send their kids to its schools any more and I think they would benefit from something like this.  It would really only take one good magnet middle school/high school and a couple of decent elementary schools to "fix the system". 

There are good neighborhood schools in the Cleveland district.  If you must be in a system where every single school is a high performer, CMSD isn't for you.  The district really needs to do a better job of advertising which schools are being rated "excellent" or "effective" while continuing to address the issues at under-performing schools.  To illustrate what I'm talking about, look at this story posted above:

 

Survey: Strong schools key to retaining Cleveland residents

 

 

CLEVELAND -- A first-of-its kind survey by Cleveland State University of middle-class Cleveland residents indicates that an effective public school in their neighborhoods could influence them to remain living in the city.

 

In research conducted by a team at Cleveland State University's Levin College of Urban Affairs, 271 residents of Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit Shoreway and Downtown were interviewed about their attitudes toward the Cleveland Metropolitan School District as well as their future residential plans...

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/education/education_article.aspx?storyid=170351&catid=35

 

I know a woman who was part of the research team at CSU that did this study.  She wrote her PhD thesis on how the quality of neighborhood schools affects whether middle class families choose to remain in that neighborhood.  She was also unaware that Tremont Montessori was rated "excellent" by the state last year.  I blame the district for that.

I blame the district for that.

 

Sad but true. When I wrote an article last year about how West Park schools scored on the state's report card, I could not get the information from the school district's PR people. Amazingly, I had to get it from the PD's database which it got from the state.

 

And five of those West Park schools were rated as "effective" or "excellent" by the state, too.

 

EDIT: Here's the article I wrote.....

http://www.cleveland.com/sunpostherald/index.ssf/2010/09/cleveland_schools_see_improvem.html

There are good neighborhood schools in the Cleveland district.  If you must be in a system where every single school is a high performer, CMSD isn't for you.  The district really needs to do a better job of advertising which schools are being rated "excellent" or "effective" while continuing to address the issues at under-performing schools.  To illustrate what I'm talking about, look at this story posted above:

 

Survey: Strong schools key to retaining Cleveland residents

 

 

CLEVELAND -- A first-of-its kind survey by Cleveland State University of middle-class Cleveland residents indicates that an effective public school in their neighborhoods could influence them to remain living in the city.

 

In research conducted by a team at Cleveland State University's Levin College of Urban Affairs, 271 residents of Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit Shoreway and Downtown were interviewed about their attitudes toward the Cleveland Metropolitan School District as well as their future residential plans...

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/education/education_article.aspx?storyid=170351&catid=35

 

I know a woman who was part of the research team at CSU that did this study.  She wrote her PhD thesis on how the quality of neighborhood schools affects whether middle class families choose to remain in that neighborhood.  She was also unaware that Tremont Montessori was rated "excellent" by the state last year.  I blame the district for that.

 

I think part of the problem in a district as big as Cleveland is that while there are a lot of good magnet school options, some of these have limited enrollment and other variables at play.  Let's say you get your child into one of these schools, but if one small thing changes with funding or something else your child could be very easily forced to attend what is deemed to be a less-desirable school.  I think that may be the fear with many families.  In suburban districts, there tends to be more stability, less "shopping" necessary for schools, and families tend to believe that they're going to know what they're going to get.  (Although I think back to the Coventry Elementary School closing in CH-UH as an example of how it doesn't always work that way in the suburbs, either.)

 

Just a hypothesis.

Retiring Cleveland schools workers paid nearly $5 million severance

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland Municipal School District, scratching for every penny, could use the nearly $5 million paid to employees who have retired since last summer.

 

Records show that 269 employees cashed in that amount of accumulated vacation and sick leave since the fiscal year started July 1. Topping the list are two administrators who each collected about $83,000, one after working in the system for four years.

 

Nearly 70 percent of the employees picked up at least $10,000 in what the district calls severance; more than 40 percent received $20,000 or more.

 

All redeemed the time based on their final pay rates, no matter when during their careers the leave was accumulated. At least 24 employees who retired were rehired, a practice popularly known as "double dipping."

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/retiring_cleveland_schools_wor.html

^Looks like the non-union white collars made out the best.... again.

 

We really need to end double dipping BTW.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/cleveland_school_board_selects.html

Cleveland School Board names Eric Gordon its new CEO

 

 

Good luck Eric.

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson proposes sweeping plan to improve education for city students

Published: Tuesday, February 07, 2012, 6:00 AM    Updated: Tuesday, February 07, 2012, 6:02 AM

By Patrick O'Donnell, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio --

 

Mayor Frank Jackson hopes to triple the number of Cleveland students attending good schools by throwing out union rules governing teacher pay and layoffs, partnering more with high-performing charter schools and giving successful district schools more flexibility in how they do their jobs.

 

Jackson's plan (pdf), presented to teachers, city council and local legislators Monday night, also calls for changes in state law that would apply only to Cleveland and for Cleveland voters to approve a tax increase in November.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/cleveland_mayor_frank_jackson_26.html

 

Link to pdf:  http://media.cleveland.com/metro/other/ClevelandPlanFinal.pdf

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

That plan doesn't sound that bad. The system is clearly broken. I think its better then leaving things as they are.

That plan doesn't sound that bad. The system is clearly broken. I think its better then leaving things as they are.

 

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.

Im glad they are atleast trying instead of just sitting around and letting things continue as they are, which is failing.

Im glad they are atleast trying instead of just sitting around and letting things continue as they are, which is failing.

 

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.

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.

 

This is the heart of the issue, but somehow, most people don't get it.  There is wayyyy too much emphasis placed on the role of the district and the teachers on student performance.  They certainly do have an impact, but they're not as big as most people seem to think.

 

I totally understand why Jackson is doing this, though.  The biggest single factor that keeps families fleeing for the suburbs is the school district, and people want "accountability" from the leadership.  I think his heart is in the right place, and I agree with some of the proposed ideas (year-round school, flexible hours, even the boarding schools.)  To the extent that the district can mitigate the influence of a poor home environment, those are impactful ideas.

 

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.

 

I'm really interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this (if you feel like typing that much!)

That plan doesn't sound that bad. The system is clearly broken. I think its better then leaving things as they are.

 

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.

 

Maybe, but the existing system is a long-running "experiment" on the efficacy of non-merit pay, and the results are clearly negative.  I'll take "mixed" over that.

 

The problem is that many teachers don't get into teaching for the money.

 

This is a non-sequitur.  If it's true (and I have my doubts about that, given that the teachers' unions seem almost 100% interested in pay and benefits rather than in other things that would be more prominent if teachers were not in it for the money), then they would not care whether compensation was merit-based or not.  If it's not true, then merit pay is essential to attracting and retaining better teachers.

 

From personal experience, I also know that my high school district frequently lost good teachers to better-paying districts; it never lost good teachers to lower-paying school districts just because of some intangible benefit of teaching at the latter.

 

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.

 

The good ones, particularly the good young ones (i.e., the ones screwed the most by the seniority system), already leave at the first suburban job offer they get.  You can't use a drawback of the existing system as an argument against changing the system.

 

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.

 

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that any magic wand will make everything better.  Even the most dedicated institutional reformers acknowledge the cultural challenges faced by inner city schools, which cannot be entirely addressed by government action.  Nevertheless, the fact that reform will not solve everything is not an argument against it: The inability to do everything is never an excuse for doing nothing.

Maybe, but the existing system is a long-running "experiment" on the efficacy of non-merit pay, and the results are clearly negative.  I'll take "mixed" over that.

 

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?

 

This is a non-sequitur.  If it's true (and I have my doubts about that, given that the teachers' unions seem almost 100% interested in pay and benefits rather than in other things that would be more prominent if teachers were not in it for the money), then they would not care whether compensation was merit-based or not.  If it's not true, then merit pay is essential to attracting and retaining better teachers.

 

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.

 

From personal experience, I also know that my high school district frequently lost good teachers to better-paying districts; it never lost good teachers to lower-paying school districts just because of some intangible benefit of teaching at the latter.

 

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.

 

The good ones, particularly the good young ones (i.e., the ones screwed the most by the seniority system), already leave at the first suburban job offer they get.  You can't use a drawback of the existing system as an argument against changing the system.

 

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.

 

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that any magic wand will make everything better.  Even the most dedicated institutional reformers acknowledge the cultural challenges faced by inner city schools, which cannot be entirely addressed by government action.  Nevertheless, the fact that reform will not solve everything is not an argument against it: The inability to do everything is never an excuse for doing nothing.

 

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.

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.

While the Cleveland school could use a lot of improvement, there are children who get good grades and go on to college, including some good ones. I've known Cleveland school teachers, parents and even some students, and to me the biggest problem isn't the school board, the principals or the teachers. It's the parents. Far too many parents look upon the schools to do their parenting for them, and to provide the bulk of the student's education.

 

One of my friends who taught at an elementary school in Glenville (which is one of the more stable inner-city neighborhoods) was horrified that when the school asked for a dozen parents to help volunteer to be student monitors during a field trip, only one parent responded. Another time, they did a survey and asked parents who is the most important person to their child's education, and a very small percentage responded "parents."

 

Until that culture changes, it matters less what the mayor, the school board or anyone else in an official capacity does.

the biggest problem isn't the school board, the principals or the teachers. It's the parents. Far too many parents look upon the schools to do their parenting for them, and to provide the bulk of the student's education.

 

Exactly.  Everyone knows this is the core of the problem at every underperforming urban school across America.  New schools, more computers, more teacher education, etc is not going to change any of that. 

 

So knowing this is the real problem, why isn't it being faced head on by our leaders?  Why instead is the conversation being focused on new buildings, new CEO's, lower teacher to student ratios, new technology, different testing standards....

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 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.

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 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.

But its not all the parents fault. I know a child who went to charter school and was a slow learner. In second grade the very involved mother switched the child into CMSD for a reason I cannot remember, and the child had to skip to the fourth grade because of his level of intelligence. So the standard of knowledge for a second grader at the charter school was equal to the standard of knowledge of a fourth grader at CSMD.

But its not all the parents fault. I know a child who went to charter school and was a slow learner. In second grade the very involved mother switched the child into CMSD for a reason I cannot remember, and the child had to skip to the fourth grade because of his level of intelligence. So the standard of knowledge for a second grader at the charter school was equal to the standard of knowledge of a fourth grader at CSMD.

 

Nothing is "all" one thing or another.

 

My point is that this year's 10-year plan to remake the school district anymore than the last one. It may help. It may target some of the problem areas. But the most important persons to a child's education is the parents. And I think you will discover there is a marked difference between the parental involvement of students in urban/poor vs. suburban/rural/wealthier districts.

 

But what politician is going to issue a plan to tell parents how to raise their kids and expect to be re-elected? Yet politicians can ask Americans to give their lives for their country and still get re-elected....

So the standard of knowledge for a second grader at the charter school was equal to the standard of knowledge of a fourth grader at CSMD.

 

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.

Maybe, but the existing system is a long-running "experiment" on the efficacy of non-merit pay, and the results are clearly negative.  I'll take "mixed" over that.

 

You'd have a point if you can link the school system's failures or shortcomings to teacher performance, which I don't think you can without 'mixed' results.

 

 

If it's true (and I have my doubts about that, given that the teachers' unions seem almost 100% interested in pay and benefits rather than in other things that would be more prominent if teachers were not in it for the money)

 

Not true.  Absolutely not true.  Classroom size, course material budgets, safety, and testing are just a few issues that Teachers unions use their collective efforts to improve year in and year out.

 

This whole idea that unions are just a bunch of greedy bullies runs contra to the fact that unions were created to collectively fight back against greedy bullies.   

 

Maybe, but the existing system is a long-running "experiment" on the efficacy of non-merit pay, and the results are clearly negative.  I'll take "mixed" over that.

 

You'd have a point if you can link the school system's failures or shortcomings to teacher performance, which I don't think you can without 'mixed' results.

 

Of course if I accept that rule, then nothing will ever change because the shortcomings will never be attributable to one single cause.

 

The establishment does not get a presumption in its favor.  Not in politics.  This isn't a courtroom.  Therefore, why don't you prove that merit pay is a bad idea?

But what politician is going to issue a plan to tell parents how to raise their kids and expect to be re-elected? Yet politicians can ask Americans to give their lives for their country and still get re-elected....

 

I think this is the lynchpin of the argument.  In a few hours, this forum discussion already got sidetracked by talking about teachers unions, class sizes, standardized testing, etc, yet everyone agrees parental involvement is #1 factor in a child's success in school. 

 

Hmmm....  what could possibly motivate these people to be more involved with their children's educations.....

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 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.

 

 

First off, thanks for answering. Second, I should preface my comments with: My wife works tirelessly as a teacher and an administrator at a public charter school.  While the school does center on some interesting educational methods, overall it's a pretty normal, but with smaller class sizes.

 

So I am biased. But I also have a good knowledge of the teachers and students that are so important in her life. I grade their papers, and as an aside, I know right quick which students have parent(s) that value education.

 

Not every kid is cut out for public school. Heck, not every teacher is cut out for public school. So if a public charter is offering

 

- something outside the box

- something that works

- and parents see that school as an attractive option

 

then it just doesn't seem right to deny them that opportunity.

^You grade their papers?

 

Therefore, why don't you prove that merit pay is a bad idea?

 

For teachers, I don't know if I can.  For other public employees, particularly safety forces, history has already proven that it leads to corruption and chronyism.

 

And, to be clear, it is not the CONCEPT of merit pay which I have a problem with.  The concern is how do you accurately and fairly measure merit in the teaching profession.  If you show me a good merit system, I would be interested to look at it.  If you tell me we will measure merit of teachers largely based on standardized test results, I'll be adamant against it.

^ sure I grade papers! Believe me, it's pretty humbling when I need the answer key for 3rd grade vocabulary questions.

 

^ Gram, I cannot think of a fair, accurate and worthwhile method to measure teacher performance. I'd be fearful of even more blanket reliance on standardized testing.

^You grade their papers?

 

Therefore, why don't you prove that merit pay is a bad idea?

 

For teachers, I don't know if I can.  For other public employees, particularly safety forces, history has already proven that it leads to corruption and chronyism.

 

And, to be clear, it is not the CONCEPT of merit pay which I have a problem with.  The concern is how do you accurately and fairly measure merit in the teaching profession.  If you show me a good merit system, I would be interested to look at it.  If you tell me we will measure merit of teachers largely based on standardized test results, I'll be adamant against it.

 

How do you measure merit in any profession?

 

Is there a quantifiable way to measure a good attorney vs. a bad attorney?  (Simply avoiding malpractice suits isn't good enough to be "good.")  Probably not.  Does that lack of quantifiable measurements mean there's no such thing as better and worse attorneys?  Hardly.

 

What about a plumber, carpenter, or electrician?  Well, not flooding the building or setting it on fire is a start, but once again, even beyond that, there are clearly better and worse skilled tradesmen.  Union and other professional certifications can help distinguish some people, and those can be worth a lot, depending on how selective a given qualification is.  Beyond that, though, you have to go by reputation and other factors that quantification-obsessed people nervous.

 

The same applies to teaching.  I seriously do not understand the special treatment it gets or the special status it enjoys in some people's minds.  It is not alone among professions that make quantifying quality difficult.  Yet in all other professions, we generally trust executives to hire the right people and accept that some will get it wrong, even in cases where others can get hurt in the process (because the construction company hires a bad plumber and the house floods, or the firm hires a bad attorney and a client gets screwed, or the trucking company hires a bad driver and the customers' cargo ends up in a ditch).

 

The only way this insistence that we cannot distinguish between good and bad teachers makes any sense is as a union-generated PR campaign to protect the sinecures of the most senior members of the profession.  At the end of the day, rules as rigid as the current system only makes sense if you have absolutely zero confidence in the judgment of principals and school boards.  The alternative is that one seriously believes that every single teacher is cut from completely identical cloth and that every single teacher gains an identical amount of skill with each passing year.

 

I don't care if some teachers keep their jobs under a more flexible system because they're popular sports coaches, some keep their jobs because they're relatives of the principal, and some keep their jobs because they're better at office politics.  I would consider even that preferable to the current system.

 

At this very moment, with levies dropping like flies, there are going to be significant teacher layoffs at the end of this year.  These will almost all fall on graduates of the Class of 2008 and later.  Is that fair?  Did we really become that much bigger of idiots in the last four years that we should not bother looking at the individual aptitudes of any of our teachers and just assume that anyone who graduated after then must be the chaff that can be tossed out to balance the bottom line?

I think other professions lend themselves to result oriented analysis much easier than teaching.  I don't think you can compare teaching kids with whether you are capable of unclogging a sink.  And I'd like to see how you would perform as an attorney when your client does not get you what you need and doesn't even show up for court.  We are talking about public school teachers here and there really isn't a comparable to use.... not even their private school counterparts.

 

And you can keep parroting that 'union-generated' (fill in what's wrong with the world) BS, but these are real concerns held by many like myself who aren't in the teaching profession, aren't in any union, and are able to see past any PR no matter who is generating it.

 

You are also, consciously or not, following the script by trying to leave the impression that management cannot assess merit in deciding who to retain year in and year out.  'Bad Teacher' was a movie.  That's not real life.  If you don't do your job, the school board can fire you.  If you are a 'bad teacher', the school board can fire you.  Try being a teacher and don't show up for class, or hit a kid, or drink at your desk and then see how much your union can help you.  Of course, those are extreme examples and the board's discretion goes way beyond that in terms of finding just cause to terminate a teacher.  But that is a wholly separate issue from merit pay and the situation you brought it back to which is when a reduction in force occurs.

 

In layoff situations, then yes, one of the main purposes of the union is to protect the most senior workers and I think you know why since I trust you have read your history on this topic.

Did anyone see the news about the partnership / collaboration between Akron u and Akron city schools?

Cleveland kids' fate rests in legislators' shaky hands: Brent Larkin

When it comes to Cleveland's future, Mayor Frank Jackson's plan to save the schools isn't a matter of pass or perish.

 

But it's awfully close.

 

As Democrats and Republicans in the Ohio General Assembly begin to marshal their feeble excuses not to give Jackson the legislation he needs to implement his plan -- and they're already busy doing just that -- they should keep this in mind:

 

A "no" vote is essentially a vote in favor of Cleveland's demise. It's a vote in favor of keeping Cleveland's children mired in a life of poverty.

 

Jackson is hardly one prone to overstatement. Keep that in mind when considering what he told me last week:

"I've never had an attitude that the city is just dying away. But if we do not do this, then I don't care what other positive things we do in this city. If we do not do this and begin to achieve educational excellence, Cleveland and this region is doomed."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/cleveland_kids_fate_rests_in_l.html

The comments section after Larkin's opinion column was worth reading. 

It had more details than Larkin's editorial. 

Thanks for posting