Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts

Home » Posts filed under education

New Jersey's Gov. Christie Gets to Work on Education Reform

Earlier in January, at his State of the State Address, Gov. Chris Christie took aim at NJ's education crisis. "Perhaps the biggest thing of all for the future of our State," Christie stated, referring to education reform. The outspoken NJ Governor pointed out the success of the Robert Treat Academy, a successful charter school in Newark. In addition to the six new charter schools approved this year, an additional 23 more are slated for development, bringing the total number in the state to 99.

Christie has made charter schools and school choice a centerpiece to his education reform plan. In fact, just yesterday the Governor introduced the documentary, Waiting For "Superman," to lawmakers at a NJ screening. After the film, Christie announced a partnership with Harlem Children's Zone, the charter school featured in the film.

But charters and school choice are not the only changes he would like to initiate.

At his State of the State address, Christie said, "The time for a national conversation on tenure is long past due." The notion of tenure reform is already a polarizing idea, but Gov. Christie seems prepared to eliminate tenure altogether. "Teaching," he stated, "can no longer be the only profession where you have no rewards for excellence and no consequences for failure to perform."

As he takes on education reform in New Jersey, the whole nation is no doubt paying attention to what Gov. Christie does...and the results he ends up with. Will his reliance on charter schools be the answer NJ needs? And if successful, can those results be replicated in other states? Is cutting tenure and rewarding good teachers an effective route to education reform? Tell me what you think about Chris Christie and his plan for reforming education in NJ.

Posted in: | 0 comments | |  

Are We Just Harvesting Rotten Apples?


I think every reasonable person in this country agrees that education in America is a mess. The debate over education instead revolves around what or who is to blame and how to fix it.

The easy scapegoat is always poverty but in reality the biggest problem is complete mismanagement on the part of the government. The federal government has shown time and again they are not to be trusted with our childrens' education. Almost every time Secretary of Education Arne Duncan opens his mouth, I feel nauseous. Yesterday in the Washington Post, Duncan authored an OpEd on school reform where he discussed the failures of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and various other areas the government has failed to fix education with its tinkering. His solution? More tinkering, naturally.

What's especially troubling is both parties seem to accept federal government oversight as the answer to our education problems. While government officials involved in education claim states should have more flexibility to manage their education systems, federal requirements on food and funding certainly limit a state's ability to govern its own education, not to mention the ridiculous use of standardized testing that forces teachers to teach to a test rather than the needs of their specific class. Duncan claims Republicans and Democrats alike want to "fix NCLB" but why fix something that never worked in the first place? Forget about fixing it, get rid of NCLB altogether. Does NCLB (or it's replacement, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) contain anything that makes bad teachers accountable? Does it effectively deal with the problems caused by teacher unions? Does it provide for better parental choice? Does NCLB or ESEA allow the state to decide what's best on a local level so they can deal directly with specific problems in each district? Does it hold bad parents accountable? The answer to most, if not all of these questions is "no" and our education crisis won't be repaired until those issues are addressed successfully.

None of this is meant to trivialize the negative impact poverty has on education. Poor students certainly have a greater socioeconomic burden to overcome but of all the problems in our education system, poverty is the easiest hurdle to overcome. You don't need money to study or help your kids with homework or take advantage of a teacher's willingness to spend extra time with a struggling student.

In her opinion piece yesterday, Valerie Strauss placed a large amount of blame not only on poverty but also upon all of us who are not impoverished. The fact that most people with children are struggling to raise their own kids was lost on Strauss as she pointed a finger at them for not caring enough about other peoples' kids. Yes, there are a lot of families living in or at near poverty levels but where is all the money for entitlement programs going if not to feed, clothe and house these poor families? How much more are Americans expected to give to others outside their household?

The song and dance over poverty being the root cause of poor education needs to come to an end if we are going to realistically and successfully deal with the problem. Lots of poor kids with the proper parenting still perform well in school. It is a parent's responsibility to work with their kid's teachers to insure he or she is learning in school.

Strauss claims we "demonize teachers," unfairly blaming them for a child's poor performance. She is only partially correct here. Most people don't blame teachers in general for education problems but rather place the blame on bad teachers and the system's refusal to dismiss these bad teachers. Teacher unions have consistently fought to weaken teacher appraisal, protect tenure, and even fight against a bonus award program that reward teachers financially for higher performance. All this has done is place more burden on good teachers while protecting bad teachers and ultimately doing a massive disservice to our students.

Strauss also supported pay increases for teachers, prioritizing national pre-kindergarten classes, and increase funding for public schools. Naturally she offers no suggestions on just how we afford these increases though I guess she expects those careless Americans she referred to at the beginning of her article to foot the bill via increased taxes.

Poverty is certainly a problem in our country and there's little doubt that poor kids will have a harder time in school. With that understanding, parents should know they will have to work harder and longer with their kids. School administrators will have to create curricula that has the flexibility to cater to students from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. Teacher unions need to work at protecting good teachers and allowing schools to weed out the bad ones via teacher evaluations. And government needs to step aside and allow all of the parties listed above to do their part without burdensome limitations.

Posted in: , | 0 comments | |  

When Federal Oversight Doesn't Work Try More Federal Oversight

Talk about a warped view of reality. I just read Dana Goldstein's article about the Department of Education and how the Tea Party is out to destroy education reform.

Ms. Goldstein writes about "the latest small gov't fad" that could have a devastating effect on reform. Nevermind the fact that the Department of Education has been influencing and controlling our schools for ages. Forget about the reality that in the past couple decades we've seen federal influence on our schools increase while the quality of education has decreased. Put logic and reason out of your mind and just increase the scope of federal influence over education...it hasn't worked in current doses so just up the prescription!

The Dept. or Ed has shown its uselessness and its time we all wake up to the realization that our nation's school crisis needs to be addressed on local, city, and state levels, catering to the specific needs of specific school districts. Don't believe me? Look at homeschooling success rates and the success of Charter schools, like Harlem Children's Zone.

Ms. Goldstein's article is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on The Daily Beast. The author refers to recent popularity for small gov't as "the latest small gov't fad"? A fad...really? How about that 200 year old document called the Constitution of the United States, which contains the 10th Amendment? Perhaps she hasn't read it and therefore doesn't know the 10th Amendment grants states the right to govern themselves in regard to things like education.

The author refers to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the fact that the U.S. and Somalia are the only two nations that have not signed on...but who cares which nations have signed it? In the U.S., again, we follow this thing called the Constitution. We should refer to that document for guidance and not the whims of other nations. Maybe Ms. Goldstein should spend more time reading this nation's founding documents rather than focusing on U.N. conventions?

She also referred to parental rights by placing the phrase in quotations...so is she trying to suggest the right to raise your child as you see fit is not a legitimate right?

Naturally, Ms. Goldstein has not failed to use classist divisiveness. What's her point regarding a statistic that successfully home schooled students come from more affluent families? Should these more affluent families not have the right to teach their children in a successful style simply because other families can't afford the same method? When do successful families stop being punished for their success?

How a parent raises a child - including educating that child - is a personal decision. Our public school systems are a mess and nobody denies that reform is necessary but I hardly think more federal oversight is the reform we need. Federal oversight hasn't helped so far, why would any logical person think MORE federal oversight will do the trick? To spin the Tea Party's concern for a failing education system as an attempt to destroy reform is absolutely incredulous. The fact is, when compared to other developed nations, with federal oversight of our education system we've managed to rank 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. Federal government has proven it is a failure at education reform and our kids can't afford to give them another chance.

Posted in: , , | 0 comments | |  

Marketing Class



From Fox News to local news to Time Magazine, the topic of advertising in schools is being debated all over the country. Yet, if you walk through any school in America you'll see kids with the latest technological gadget, the most current cell phone, and designer (or at least imposter designer) bags. These are not children who have been shielded from commercials or the products they advertise. Why then is there a growing debate across the nation revolving around corporate advertisements on school property?

In a time of school cut-backs and teacher layoffs, money is desperately needed in many public school districts. Advertising dollars have been a Godsend to many struggling schools, with administrators saying the advertisements provide the much needed funds to keep vital programs alive and good teachers employed in these tough economic times. On the opposite side, critics are claiming our schools should not be in the business of promoting brand names to our impressionable, young children. Who's right?

There are a limited number of options for funding public schools and obviously the current method is broken if schools are so hard up for cash. Local property taxes are a major source of funding for schools but state funds are another big source of support. Money on the state level comes from a variety of sources, such as sales and gasoline taxes. The only way to get more money from these sources is to raise taxes or cut other programs. Another option is for the school to make more money or cut costs. School fundraising raises enough to buy new uniforms for the band or football team but not enough to keep teachers employed. That's where the ads come in and, if you asked me (which you didn't but since you're reading this you are kind of enough to entertain my opinion), ads are a great way to get money.

Corporations are happy to pay a fee to plaster buses, lockers, and cafeterias with advertisements promoting their brands and services. Some schools have offered up their roof for billboard space, advertising to the passengers of low flying planes. In my opinion, there is no real down side to this. Corporations become moderately invested in a school, perhaps making them more likely to offer charitable gifts and donations to the school, and the school gets a shot of some necessary funding...keeping the very necessary teachers they may have laid off otherwise.

In most cases, these kids are going home from school to watch tv or surf the internet. They are going to the mall with their friends. In other words, they are not being harmed by a few more ads at school. However, if they lose their favorite teacher (or their least favorite but most effective one), they could be having some harm done. I think funding an education is far more important than pretending our kids are not already living in a commercial world. I don't believe in redistribution of wealth but I do believe that a good education should be a top priority of any community. If funding that education comes from advertising dollars, so be it. It beats having a bunch of uneducated kids who've managed to avoid seeing a few more advertisements during their day.

Posted in: | 0 comments | |  

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)