Last night the UFT Leadership voted itself the same 15% pay raise that the members received. Sounds like this is fair....Except the 15% raise to the UFT leadership came with only one minor giveback. The UFT offices will be open one hour extra once a week. Big deal! What did the members giveback for their 15% raise?
1. 37.5 minute tutoring session four days a week and you can have up to ten students for each
tutoring session. Furthermore, you can have as much as 20 students in a classroom if you
share the classroom with another teacher.
2. The introduction of administrative duties such as hallway, cafeteria, & bathroom duties.
These non-professional duties are an insult to all teachers.
3. The elimination of grievences when given a letter-to-the file.
4. The eliminating of senority transfer rights. The Open Market Transfer System will result in many of the older, more experienced teachers being forced to stay at their own schools as
principals select younger, less experienced teachers for the open teaching positions.
5. The possibility of being suspended without pay based upon a simple student accusation.
6. The giving up of three days (two for classroom instruction) making our year 190 days, the
most ever!
Now you don't need to be a rocket scientist that giving back one hour, one day a week is in no way equal to the major teacher givebacks that our leadership negotiated away.
Will Leo Casey check for Unity bathroom passes at the UFT bathroom? No!!!
Will JColletti make sure that the people using the UFT cafeteria is limited to 45 minutes? No!!
Will Peter Goodmen patrol the hallway to ensure the UFT members are in their offices? No!!
Will Randi and her leadership gang using the extra time to tutor the students? Of course not!!
In fact, except for the extra hour, one day a week, of attendance with undefined duties, the UFT leadership will be getting the same 15% as it's members. Is this fair? Of course not but this is the UFT where they are more concerned in protecting their backroom deals with the DOE (new teacher stipends, large high school discrimination, & special education bias to name a few) than protecting the teacher who pays the dues.
Where is the union that is supposed to represent the teachers and not themselves? It certainly is not the Unity faction that leads the UFT. What about the other factions (ICE, TJC, UTF)? I just don't know but my vote will go to the faction that I believe best represents the classroom teacher,
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Friday, June 16, 2006
Small School" Bias "- The DOE Lies & Our Union's Silence
The federal Department of Education is investigating the complaints filed against the New York City DOE by the Citywide Council on High Schools who claimed that the small high schools were not getting their fair share of students with disabilities and limited English skills. Obviously, the federal agency found the complaint valid and has proceeded to remedy the discrimination in enrollment practices. Even at a UFT Chapter Leader meeting the State representative stated that she was concerned about the "bias" in assigning students at the high school level.
What did the federal agency find that warrants the investigation? Well, for starters the feds used statistics that are commonly available, like the the typical large high school has a population that consists of 34% of the students with disabilities or have limited English skills. By contrast the typical small schools are limited to 12% of these students and this figure is even lower for the first three years where the small schools are allowed to further "screen out" these students. Moreover, the "not ready for promotion eigth graders" who are promoted anyway are almost always assigned to the large high schools. Finally the small schools use "skimming" to filter out unruly students and select students with involved parents. Talk about discrimination in enrollment practices. Even if you were to believe (I certaintly don't) the DOE filtered statistics, you would still find that the average large high school will have 24% of it's student population made up of special education and limited English proficiency students compared to 16% for the small schools, an 8% difference!
Incredibly, the DOE denies that they discriminate. City DOE council Michael Best claims that there was "no basis for any inappropriate findings". How could Michael Best say this when the chief executive of the DOE's small schools, Garth Harries stated that "a deliberate policy to exclude otherwise eligible students with disabilities (special education) from the small schools during the first three years of each school's existence". I guess if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth according to DOE. By the way, people who heard Mr. Harries speech believe that this exclusionary policy appears to also include the limited English proficiency applicants to the small schools.
Is our union aware of the DOE discrimination? Of course they are! Many commenters have brought up the question why the UFT has not challenged the DOE on the discrimination in enrollment practices between the small & large high schools? Why did it take an outside group to complain to the Federal agency about this exclusion policy? The UFT response? Deafening silence! It's as if the union secretly buys into the DOE discrimination. How else is one to think?
It is a pity when our uncaring union collaborates with a lying DOE to screw the teachers and the students of the large high schools in the City.
What did the federal agency find that warrants the investigation? Well, for starters the feds used statistics that are commonly available, like the the typical large high school has a population that consists of 34% of the students with disabilities or have limited English skills. By contrast the typical small schools are limited to 12% of these students and this figure is even lower for the first three years where the small schools are allowed to further "screen out" these students. Moreover, the "not ready for promotion eigth graders" who are promoted anyway are almost always assigned to the large high schools. Finally the small schools use "skimming" to filter out unruly students and select students with involved parents. Talk about discrimination in enrollment practices. Even if you were to believe (I certaintly don't) the DOE filtered statistics, you would still find that the average large high school will have 24% of it's student population made up of special education and limited English proficiency students compared to 16% for the small schools, an 8% difference!
Incredibly, the DOE denies that they discriminate. City DOE council Michael Best claims that there was "no basis for any inappropriate findings". How could Michael Best say this when the chief executive of the DOE's small schools, Garth Harries stated that "a deliberate policy to exclude otherwise eligible students with disabilities (special education) from the small schools during the first three years of each school's existence". I guess if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth according to DOE. By the way, people who heard Mr. Harries speech believe that this exclusionary policy appears to also include the limited English proficiency applicants to the small schools.
Is our union aware of the DOE discrimination? Of course they are! Many commenters have brought up the question why the UFT has not challenged the DOE on the discrimination in enrollment practices between the small & large high schools? Why did it take an outside group to complain to the Federal agency about this exclusion policy? The UFT response? Deafening silence! It's as if the union secretly buys into the DOE discrimination. How else is one to think?
It is a pity when our uncaring union collaborates with a lying DOE to screw the teachers and the students of the large high schools in the City.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
The TRS 403b (TDA) Plan Revisited
In my previous column I commented on how limited, inflexible, and uncompetitive the New York City Teachers' Annuity Plan is when compared to the New York City's 457b/401k plans. Many of the people who read that article asked me if they can start contributing to the City plans without contributing to the TDA? The answer is yes. In fact you don't have to invest a dime into the TRS TDA and uses the City plans until you max out your contribution. Interestingly, if you ask the UFT they advise you to use the City's 457b/401k plans only after you max out in the TRS 403b plan. If you are an ultra-cautious invester and selected the fixed option (8.25%) for 100% of your investment, that is good advice. However, many teachers invest into the inferior variable options and the union is more concerned with keeping teachers clueless about the TDA shortcomings than the better deal the teachers can get using the City plans.
Further, the UFT acts like they have no control over the Trustees of the fund. What a load of crap! The UFT directly elects three of the seven Board members. Moreover, any decision made by the Board Of Trustees must include one of the UFT elected menbers. Therefore, the UFT has veto power over any changes the TRS wants to do. In addition, if the UFT really wants to improve the TRS TDA they only need to propose it. All seven trustees are beholden to the UFT since the four other Trustees are appointed only after being informally approved by the UFT. Since all the Trustees serve three-year terms, any of the Trustees that disappoints the union can find themselves out of the Trustee business.
Finally, I hear rumors that the variable options will be enhanced (whatever that means). How?, when?, does it compare to the City plans? I hope it is true? However, in my case it is "seeing is believing"!
Further, the UFT acts like they have no control over the Trustees of the fund. What a load of crap! The UFT directly elects three of the seven Board members. Moreover, any decision made by the Board Of Trustees must include one of the UFT elected menbers. Therefore, the UFT has veto power over any changes the TRS wants to do. In addition, if the UFT really wants to improve the TRS TDA they only need to propose it. All seven trustees are beholden to the UFT since the four other Trustees are appointed only after being informally approved by the UFT. Since all the Trustees serve three-year terms, any of the Trustees that disappoints the union can find themselves out of the Trustee business.
Finally, I hear rumors that the variable options will be enhanced (whatever that means). How?, when?, does it compare to the City plans? I hope it is true? However, in my case it is "seeing is believing"!
Friday, June 09, 2006
A Classroom Teacher's Report Card Of The DOE
I was very amused by the June 1, 2006 letter from Chancellor Klein to the parents about the new school report card. The report card will include the school's attendance, safety, and student improvement (?), whatever that means. To compare screened schools with overcrowded large high schools is like comparing apples and oranges and the only thing they have in common are that they are fruit.
What I found really amusing is that Chancellor Klein stated that he developed this report card after asking parents, students, and teachers. Funny, I don't know of any parent, student, or classroom teacher who had any input into the plan. i would like these people to please identify themselves, if you really exist.
What I found chilling was that "experienced educators" (Tweed & their Regional flunkies) will observe the classrooms, talk to the students (yeah right) staff (principal and assistant principals, I'm quite sure thay will not be talking to the classroom teachers) and develop a "Battle Plan" (I can't wait to see this) for each student (ha, ha, ha). I just hope that the joke is not on us.
I figured it was time as an "experienced classroom teacher" to give the DOE a report card grade.
What I found really amusing is that Chancellor Klein stated that he developed this report card after asking parents, students, and teachers. Funny, I don't know of any parent, student, or classroom teacher who had any input into the plan. i would like these people to please identify themselves, if you really exist.
What I found chilling was that "experienced educators" (Tweed & their Regional flunkies) will observe the classrooms, talk to the students (yeah right) staff (principal and assistant principals, I'm quite sure thay will not be talking to the classroom teachers) and develop a "Battle Plan" (I can't wait to see this) for each student (ha, ha, ha). I just hope that the joke is not on us.
I figured it was time as an "experienced classroom teacher" to give the DOE a report card grade.
DOE's Understanding Of the High School Classroom
Calandar Year September 2005 - June 2006
********Activity************************************ Issue ************(Grade)
Teacher input into classroom policies*************** Does not understand******* (F)
Class size reductions****************************** Does not understand*******(F)
Knowledge of classroom conditions****************** Does not understand******* (F)
Student discipline problems************************ Does not understand********(F)
School overcrowding*******************************Does not understand********(F)
Promoting 8th graders without proper skills***********Does not understand********(F)
Respect for teachers******************************** Does not understand*******(F)
Based upon my report card the DOE has shown to be unaccountable and a failure when it comes to my classroom. The final grade? " F"
Class size reductions****************************** Does not understand*******(F)
Knowledge of classroom conditions****************** Does not understand******* (F)
Student discipline problems************************ Does not understand********(F)
School overcrowding*******************************Does not understand********(F)
Promoting 8th graders without proper skills***********Does not understand********(F)
Respect for teachers******************************** Does not understand*******(F)
Based upon my report card the DOE has shown to be unaccountable and a failure when it comes to my classroom. The final grade? " F"
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Our TDA (403b) Plan & It's Many Faults
In my decade of employment as a teacher I have been a willing participant in the New York City Teachers Retirement System and its 403b plan. Hereafter known as the Teachers Defined Annuity Plan or TDA. First, let me make this clear, I am not criticizing the pension, which is quite good but the TDA which, to be kind, is found to be inflexible, limited, and costly, relative to the New York City's 457b/401k plans. I believe it is time to enlighten the New York City teachers on why the TDA needs to be upgraded and improved.
Selection Limitations:
The TDA is limited to three selections. Fixed, Variable "A" (stocks), and Variable "B" (bonds). By contrast the city plans have five investment funds and nine life cycle funds. The city plans allow for more diversity in investment selections and allows the participant to be aggressive, cautious, or safe and increases the chances of a large payoff at the time of retirement.
Administrative Fees:
You would think that the TDA would have low administrative fees to manage such an old and large fund. However, believe it or not it cost each TDA participant $18 per $10,000 invested in administrative overhead for the Variable options. By contrast in cost $6 per $10,000 invested in the city plans. In other words the TDA charges three times more in administrative fees than the city plans!
Limited Transfer of Funds
The TDA does not allow more than 1/12 of the investors total Variable "A" to be transferred monthly. In other words to get out of Variable A (stocks), it would take one calander year to completely leave stocks. Not good when the stock market is going down. In fact this is down right criminal! To my knowledge, no other 403b plan limits such transfers as the TRS TDA does.
Fund Performance
The only true attractive fund is the Fixed Option. Over the last ten years the Fixed Option has returned an eye popping 8.25% and is never to fall below 7% which is backed by the State. A very good option for the very cautious investor.
The Variable "A" option is basically composed of common stocks and has had a mediocore return of 9% for the last 10 years. Many similar funds averaged 10-12% in the same time period. While the Variable "A" option is not bad, it's certainly not good. Of course, try taking your money out of Variable "A", it takes a year!
The real turkey is the Variable "B" option that is composed of bonds and other fixed-income instruments. Over the last ten years it has returned less than 5% while similar bond funds averaged 6-7%. The Variable "B" fund is a poor performer. In fact a lawsuit has been brought by investors on the poor performance of the Variable "B" option.
Financial Planner Joel L. Frank who writes for the civil service newspaper, The Chief, has stated that it would be best to terminate the TRS TDA and replace it with a more competitive & flexibile plan. I agree and request that the UFT demand significant changes to the TDA or opt out to a more competitive and flexible plan.
Selection Limitations:
The TDA is limited to three selections. Fixed, Variable "A" (stocks), and Variable "B" (bonds). By contrast the city plans have five investment funds and nine life cycle funds. The city plans allow for more diversity in investment selections and allows the participant to be aggressive, cautious, or safe and increases the chances of a large payoff at the time of retirement.
Administrative Fees:
You would think that the TDA would have low administrative fees to manage such an old and large fund. However, believe it or not it cost each TDA participant $18 per $10,000 invested in administrative overhead for the Variable options. By contrast in cost $6 per $10,000 invested in the city plans. In other words the TDA charges three times more in administrative fees than the city plans!
Limited Transfer of Funds
The TDA does not allow more than 1/12 of the investors total Variable "A" to be transferred monthly. In other words to get out of Variable A (stocks), it would take one calander year to completely leave stocks. Not good when the stock market is going down. In fact this is down right criminal! To my knowledge, no other 403b plan limits such transfers as the TRS TDA does.
Fund Performance
The only true attractive fund is the Fixed Option. Over the last ten years the Fixed Option has returned an eye popping 8.25% and is never to fall below 7% which is backed by the State. A very good option for the very cautious investor.
The Variable "A" option is basically composed of common stocks and has had a mediocore return of 9% for the last 10 years. Many similar funds averaged 10-12% in the same time period. While the Variable "A" option is not bad, it's certainly not good. Of course, try taking your money out of Variable "A", it takes a year!
The real turkey is the Variable "B" option that is composed of bonds and other fixed-income instruments. Over the last ten years it has returned less than 5% while similar bond funds averaged 6-7%. The Variable "B" fund is a poor performer. In fact a lawsuit has been brought by investors on the poor performance of the Variable "B" option.
Financial Planner Joel L. Frank who writes for the civil service newspaper, The Chief, has stated that it would be best to terminate the TRS TDA and replace it with a more competitive & flexibile plan. I agree and request that the UFT demand significant changes to the TDA or opt out to a more competitive and flexible plan.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
The Next Contract ? Read This!
Already there is talk about the next contract and the failure of the negotiation committee to have a no giveback position. While I'm not holding my breath on dynamic, classroom teacher centered negotiations, I do believe that the parameters of the next contract pattern is starting to crystalize. Unfortunatly, it will include givebacks for a raise that won't equal inflation.
What am I talking about? Buried in last week's The Chief, the civil service newspaper, in the for the record section was the City's preliminary proposal to DC 37. It included a 3.15% raise for 2007 (same as ours) and two 2% raises for 2008 & 2009. What' are the givebacks? How about paying for health insurance (TWU) and a 6% contribution for new employees to the pension plan (Tier V). While both need outside approval (health -Municipal Labor Council and pension - State legislature) it is the basis of the next "pattern".
The UFT may say loud and clear that they will not agree to any City proposals for more time and a sixth teaching period, it is interesting that they are very quiet about other givebacks like paying for health and a new pension tier for new employees. Further, it is interesting that the UFT are not talking about takebacks. First, the contract negotiations must include getting back the days before Labor Day. The giving up of these days was a travisty and must be eliminated in the next contract. My previous articles have talked about the other takebacks and needs not be repeated here.
Finally, it is very important that the next leader of the UFT represent the classroom teacher and not the lawyer elite. While I'm interested that a candidate is coming forward to contest for the UFT presidency. I need to be convinced that this candidate is not an idologue and is a true champion of the classroom teacher.
What am I talking about? Buried in last week's The Chief, the civil service newspaper, in the for the record section was the City's preliminary proposal to DC 37. It included a 3.15% raise for 2007 (same as ours) and two 2% raises for 2008 & 2009. What' are the givebacks? How about paying for health insurance (TWU) and a 6% contribution for new employees to the pension plan (Tier V). While both need outside approval (health -Municipal Labor Council and pension - State legislature) it is the basis of the next "pattern".
The UFT may say loud and clear that they will not agree to any City proposals for more time and a sixth teaching period, it is interesting that they are very quiet about other givebacks like paying for health and a new pension tier for new employees. Further, it is interesting that the UFT are not talking about takebacks. First, the contract negotiations must include getting back the days before Labor Day. The giving up of these days was a travisty and must be eliminated in the next contract. My previous articles have talked about the other takebacks and needs not be repeated here.
Finally, it is very important that the next leader of the UFT represent the classroom teacher and not the lawyer elite. While I'm interested that a candidate is coming forward to contest for the UFT presidency. I need to be convinced that this candidate is not an idologue and is a true champion of the classroom teacher.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Education On The Cheap - You Get What You Pay For
If it wasn't so sad I would laugh how Mayor Mike Bloomberg keeps calling himself "the education mayor". Mayor Bloomberg, like the mayors before him, have shortchanged the NYC public schools of badly need funds and failed to retain teachers due to salary and classroom conditions. Who suffers the most? You guessed it, the student! Bloomberg has put in charge of the Department Of Education (DOE) non educators who are clueless on what goes on in a school, never mind the classroom. These non-educators are lead by the anti-teacher chancellor, Joel Klein who believes good teaching is done by micromanaging the classroom. Let's look at what's needed for a successful classroom and see how Mayor Bloomberg & Chancellor Kein have addressed these issues.
Class Size:
Every study has shown that the lower the class sizes, the better the students do on high-stakes testing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a smaller class size comes with it less noise, more interaction with the teacher, and a better understanding between student and teacher. Despite an overwellming majority of New York City residents who want lower class sizes, Mayor Bloomberg refused to lower class sizes. When the City Council added money to lower class sizes in the early grades, Mayor Bloomberg & Chancellor Klein instead used the money for non-classroom uses. Furthermore, Mayor Bloomberg has gone to court to fight a charter proposal for lower class sizes supported by administrators, teachers, and parents.
Unenforced Student Discipline Codes:
Student discipline codes are so vague that many administrators try to convience the teacher to withdraw their complaints. Further, school principals try to minimize student actions so that they don't have to report the incidents to the DOE. The combination of both issues empower the student and makes classroom management an issue even for the experienced teacher.
Classroom Infrastructure:
Many schools are in terrible shape, with rats, mice, and roaches. Air conditioning? Yeah right!
how could any mayor who claims he cares about the students allow summer school in stifling hot classrooms? Many schools still have the old chalkboards with cracks and holes in them. Technology? You must be kidding. My school was wired for wireless, the problem there are no computers to put into the classroom! The student desks in some schools are 40 years old and are in terrible shape. It is a wonder that the children learn as well as they do with the poor classroom environment their subject to.
Classroom Supplies:
All teachers in the New York City public schools suffer from inadequate supplies. Lack of a working photocopying machine, paper, chalk, testing materials, and other classroom needs are sorely lacking in the NYC classroom.
Classroom Micromanagement:
DOE has imposed a "one-size-fit-all" approach to classroom teaching rather then letting teachers teach how they see fit. Only the classroom teacher understands his/her students. However, DOE and Columbia's Teacher College believe their cookie cutter approach is the flavor of the day and has been imposed on many of the schools in the city.
Teacher Disrespect:
Never has teacher disrespect been greater than under the Bloomberg/Klein administration. The micromanagement of the classroom, the imposing of non-professional duties, and their gotcha mentality when teachers are at odds with the administration. Teachers are rarely, if ever consulted on classroom issues and their voices are ignored when problems arise. Further, teachers are no longer allowed to grieve letters to their file and are subject to 90-day unpaid suspension based upon student accusations.
Teacher Salary:
The city has been using a policy of "pattern bargaining" which they select the weakest union and work out a contract. This contract is the "pattern" and is the framwork of all other union contracts. Therefore, city workers are falling behind others in wages. The result is that city teachers average between 15-35% below the surrounding suburbs. In other words the city teachers must fund their own raises by giving up time, days, duties, protections, or a combination of all.
The Result:
A school system that is struggling with low teacher morale and a teacher retention problem. Boring and overcrowded classes and poor student discipline codes can only result in a school system that is doomed to failure and unable to fulfill its mandate to educate all students.
As long as the Mayor of New York City follows the principles of "education on the cheap" improvements in student performance will not improve above the present levels.
My thanks to nyc educator for the comment "education on the cheap".
Class Size:
Every study has shown that the lower the class sizes, the better the students do on high-stakes testing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a smaller class size comes with it less noise, more interaction with the teacher, and a better understanding between student and teacher. Despite an overwellming majority of New York City residents who want lower class sizes, Mayor Bloomberg refused to lower class sizes. When the City Council added money to lower class sizes in the early grades, Mayor Bloomberg & Chancellor Klein instead used the money for non-classroom uses. Furthermore, Mayor Bloomberg has gone to court to fight a charter proposal for lower class sizes supported by administrators, teachers, and parents.
Unenforced Student Discipline Codes:
Student discipline codes are so vague that many administrators try to convience the teacher to withdraw their complaints. Further, school principals try to minimize student actions so that they don't have to report the incidents to the DOE. The combination of both issues empower the student and makes classroom management an issue even for the experienced teacher.
Classroom Infrastructure:
Many schools are in terrible shape, with rats, mice, and roaches. Air conditioning? Yeah right!
how could any mayor who claims he cares about the students allow summer school in stifling hot classrooms? Many schools still have the old chalkboards with cracks and holes in them. Technology? You must be kidding. My school was wired for wireless, the problem there are no computers to put into the classroom! The student desks in some schools are 40 years old and are in terrible shape. It is a wonder that the children learn as well as they do with the poor classroom environment their subject to.
Classroom Supplies:
All teachers in the New York City public schools suffer from inadequate supplies. Lack of a working photocopying machine, paper, chalk, testing materials, and other classroom needs are sorely lacking in the NYC classroom.
Classroom Micromanagement:
DOE has imposed a "one-size-fit-all" approach to classroom teaching rather then letting teachers teach how they see fit. Only the classroom teacher understands his/her students. However, DOE and Columbia's Teacher College believe their cookie cutter approach is the flavor of the day and has been imposed on many of the schools in the city.
Teacher Disrespect:
Never has teacher disrespect been greater than under the Bloomberg/Klein administration. The micromanagement of the classroom, the imposing of non-professional duties, and their gotcha mentality when teachers are at odds with the administration. Teachers are rarely, if ever consulted on classroom issues and their voices are ignored when problems arise. Further, teachers are no longer allowed to grieve letters to their file and are subject to 90-day unpaid suspension based upon student accusations.
Teacher Salary:
The city has been using a policy of "pattern bargaining" which they select the weakest union and work out a contract. This contract is the "pattern" and is the framwork of all other union contracts. Therefore, city workers are falling behind others in wages. The result is that city teachers average between 15-35% below the surrounding suburbs. In other words the city teachers must fund their own raises by giving up time, days, duties, protections, or a combination of all.
The Result:
A school system that is struggling with low teacher morale and a teacher retention problem. Boring and overcrowded classes and poor student discipline codes can only result in a school system that is doomed to failure and unable to fulfill its mandate to educate all students.
As long as the Mayor of New York City follows the principles of "education on the cheap" improvements in student performance will not improve above the present levels.
My thanks to nyc educator for the comment "education on the cheap".
Sunday, May 21, 2006
It's Time For Takebacks In the Next Contract
Last week New York City and the Police Union started contract negotiations and this appears to be the time for the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) to start formalizing their own contract position. Yes, we have a 350 member negotiating committee. However, when the actual negotiations with the City & DOE start, it will be led by the same old people who have little interest in what is important to the classroom teacher. Therefore, it is time to put my union on notice that as a classroom teacher, this is what I expect of them.
No Givebacks
There will be no givebacks, none whatsoever! This is a non-negotiable issue and even if we are to be without a contract for years, so be it. Any union official who accepts talk of a giveback should be fired, or at least suspended for 90 days without pay for union misconduct. I would only be too happy to be on that board.
No PERB
We should have learned our lesson by now. PERB does not take into account the unique differences between unions. Therefore, pattern bargining is used as the basis for any contract. No accepting the pattern and no PERB!
Salary Parity
The next contract should include the provision that the NYC teacher salary, from top to bottom, reflect the Metropolitan Area teacher salary. In particular, the adjoining counties of Nassau & Westchester. This cannot be done? They did this in Yonkers in the 90's because of teacher retention problems and Yonkers was in worse financial shape than NYC.
Salary Adjustments
Make the salary steps more fair for the 5 to 10 year teacher. The lack of a step increase for this group is a significant factor in teacher retention.
City/DOE Match In The TDA
The UFT should demand a minimum of a 3% employer match for teacher contributions in the 403b plan. This is a reasonable demand as many large employers provide matching funds to encourage employee participation.
School Year Limits
The UFT must demand a limit of 183 days as do many school districts have. Our union must stop buying into the City's position that the schools are a baby sitting service. I'm sick and tired of hearing our Union leaders whine how they have no control of the schedule. Bullshit! Having a 183 day school year limit solves that problem.
Takebacks
This is the area that we most fight to the death if necessary. It is time that the Union demand the following takebacks:
1. Eliminate the two days before Labor Day. This was a sellout by our leadership and should be eliminated in the next and all future contracts.
2. The right to grieve. This giveback by the Union was wrongheaded and needs to be reversed.
3. The elimination of the 90-day unpaid suspension for non-felony charges and legal action as well as the removal of students who make false accusations.
4. Teacher control of their classroom. No more micromanagement.
5. Rollback the the 37.5 minutes into teacher-directed activities. Be it tutoring, clubs, professional development, consuling, etc.
6. Eliminate cafeteria, hallway, and bathroom duties in the 6R. No teacher should be subject to these insulting, non-professional tasks.
Additional Items
An increase in coaching hours and per session pay. The per session pay should equal the pay of the mid-salary teacher, not the beginning teacher.
Enforceable student discipline codes with penalties when administrators don't take action.
A narrowing of the Corporal Punishment laws by eliminating the statement "and any other action as determined by the administratior".
No Givebacks
There will be no givebacks, none whatsoever! This is a non-negotiable issue and even if we are to be without a contract for years, so be it. Any union official who accepts talk of a giveback should be fired, or at least suspended for 90 days without pay for union misconduct. I would only be too happy to be on that board.
No PERB
We should have learned our lesson by now. PERB does not take into account the unique differences between unions. Therefore, pattern bargining is used as the basis for any contract. No accepting the pattern and no PERB!
Salary Parity
The next contract should include the provision that the NYC teacher salary, from top to bottom, reflect the Metropolitan Area teacher salary. In particular, the adjoining counties of Nassau & Westchester. This cannot be done? They did this in Yonkers in the 90's because of teacher retention problems and Yonkers was in worse financial shape than NYC.
Salary Adjustments
Make the salary steps more fair for the 5 to 10 year teacher. The lack of a step increase for this group is a significant factor in teacher retention.
City/DOE Match In The TDA
The UFT should demand a minimum of a 3% employer match for teacher contributions in the 403b plan. This is a reasonable demand as many large employers provide matching funds to encourage employee participation.
School Year Limits
The UFT must demand a limit of 183 days as do many school districts have. Our union must stop buying into the City's position that the schools are a baby sitting service. I'm sick and tired of hearing our Union leaders whine how they have no control of the schedule. Bullshit! Having a 183 day school year limit solves that problem.
Takebacks
This is the area that we most fight to the death if necessary. It is time that the Union demand the following takebacks:
1. Eliminate the two days before Labor Day. This was a sellout by our leadership and should be eliminated in the next and all future contracts.
2. The right to grieve. This giveback by the Union was wrongheaded and needs to be reversed.
3. The elimination of the 90-day unpaid suspension for non-felony charges and legal action as well as the removal of students who make false accusations.
4. Teacher control of their classroom. No more micromanagement.
5. Rollback the the 37.5 minutes into teacher-directed activities. Be it tutoring, clubs, professional development, consuling, etc.
6. Eliminate cafeteria, hallway, and bathroom duties in the 6R. No teacher should be subject to these insulting, non-professional tasks.
Additional Items
An increase in coaching hours and per session pay. The per session pay should equal the pay of the mid-salary teacher, not the beginning teacher.
Enforceable student discipline codes with penalties when administrators don't take action.
A narrowing of the Corporal Punishment laws by eliminating the statement "and any other action as determined by the administratior".
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
The Department Of Education's Student Discipline Code - What A Joke!
A major reason that schools are struggling with student discipline is the Department of Education's (DOE) unwillingness to hold students accountable for their actions. Before Tweed came about the old Board of Education would transfer problem students from their home school and admiring friends to a school where the student would travel long distances and have no friends to help cause trouble. In turn, that school would send their problem students to the first school. This involuntary transfer system, while not perfect, had the desired effect by isolating the troubling student and removing from the school the worst discipline problems. This consequence was not lost on many students and after the removal of these problem students, the school would settle down into a more academic environment.
However, the Tweed DOE does not allow for involuntary transfers anymore. A problem student can rape, rob, assualt, threaten, and commit all sorts of crimes. Once that student has completed their suspension/sentence, they go right back to their school and hookup with their friends to reap more havoic upon the student population. Incredible you say. Well believe it. Under the Tweed DOE the rights of the one is more important than the rights of the many. Is it any wonder that the New York Public School System suffers from academic problems? It's tough for even the best teachers to maintain classroom control and an academic environment when these students reappear from prison and threatens both the students and the teacher.
Another problem is student violations of the student discipline code that does not have a consequence to the student's continued disregard of the regulations. Here is a typical example from my school.
My school has a three strikes and your out policy. On the third strike the student gets a week of after-school detention (ASD) which all students hate. Sounds good? Well, here is the problem. What if the student does not want to attend the ASD? Well in my school nothing and the street-wise delinquents know it. The DOE has told school administrators that they cannot add ASD to students who refuse to go to ASD in the first place. Instead they want the schools to offer more consuling and understanding of these poor souls. Remember, under their oversight no child is bad, only misunderstood. Of course they don't have to deal with them.
Further, the DOE emphasizes attendance over school safety. It's more important to get the delinquents in school then to provide a safe, academic environment to the rest of the student body. So what that the school's resources are eaten up by increasing school safety officers, deans, and hallway aides that could be used in the classroom. The DOE does not care. No , their prority is to improve attendance and get as much money from the State as possible. Academics? Don't bother the DOE with that, that's the classroom teacher's responsibility. A case in point. In the high schools the students must report to school for the morning of June 14th even though the afternoon Regents are that day. Will there be any classroom teaching? Of course not and the DOE knows that. They just want to squeeze money from the State. This shows all to well the DOE priority, attendance!
As a classroom teacher the worst enemy of good academic performance is not the right-wing voucher supporters or the left-wing political correctness crowd, its the Tweed DOE who stifles a true learning environment by placing problem students back into their old schools and pushing attendance over school safety.
However, the Tweed DOE does not allow for involuntary transfers anymore. A problem student can rape, rob, assualt, threaten, and commit all sorts of crimes. Once that student has completed their suspension/sentence, they go right back to their school and hookup with their friends to reap more havoic upon the student population. Incredible you say. Well believe it. Under the Tweed DOE the rights of the one is more important than the rights of the many. Is it any wonder that the New York Public School System suffers from academic problems? It's tough for even the best teachers to maintain classroom control and an academic environment when these students reappear from prison and threatens both the students and the teacher.
Another problem is student violations of the student discipline code that does not have a consequence to the student's continued disregard of the regulations. Here is a typical example from my school.
My school has a three strikes and your out policy. On the third strike the student gets a week of after-school detention (ASD) which all students hate. Sounds good? Well, here is the problem. What if the student does not want to attend the ASD? Well in my school nothing and the street-wise delinquents know it. The DOE has told school administrators that they cannot add ASD to students who refuse to go to ASD in the first place. Instead they want the schools to offer more consuling and understanding of these poor souls. Remember, under their oversight no child is bad, only misunderstood. Of course they don't have to deal with them.
Further, the DOE emphasizes attendance over school safety. It's more important to get the delinquents in school then to provide a safe, academic environment to the rest of the student body. So what that the school's resources are eaten up by increasing school safety officers, deans, and hallway aides that could be used in the classroom. The DOE does not care. No , their prority is to improve attendance and get as much money from the State as possible. Academics? Don't bother the DOE with that, that's the classroom teacher's responsibility. A case in point. In the high schools the students must report to school for the morning of June 14th even though the afternoon Regents are that day. Will there be any classroom teaching? Of course not and the DOE knows that. They just want to squeeze money from the State. This shows all to well the DOE priority, attendance!
As a classroom teacher the worst enemy of good academic performance is not the right-wing voucher supporters or the left-wing political correctness crowd, its the Tweed DOE who stifles a true learning environment by placing problem students back into their old schools and pushing attendance over school safety.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Cellphones In Schools - My Opinion
The most heated arguments in the New York City Schools is whether the students should be allowed to have cellphones in the school. School authorities have banned cellphones because of its abuse by students. Cellphones have been used to cheat on tests, take pictures of girls undressing in the locker room, drug transactions, organizing gang fights, and distrupting classroom learning. Moreover, there has been a rise in school crime due to the thefts of ipods and cellphones. However, most parents think its a terrible idea for New York City to ban cellphones in schools. Since 9/11 parents claim that they are very concerned that their children are safe. Too bad that concern doesn't extend to open school night when the parents fail to show up or when you contact them about their child's academics or behaviour. Despite my skepticism of parents they are right, students should have the right to cellphones in school. However, they should be hidden and off/vibrate. Many students need to contact parents after school or during after school activites. it's also a real piece of mind for parents knowing where their child is.
What should be the consequences be for a cellphone going off or being used in school?
First, automatic confiscation of the cellphone and a parent retrival. parents hate to go to school to pick up cellphones in my school. I'm sure its the same everywhere.
Second, follow the first procedure and add a 3-5 day after school detention penalty. Any student who does not show up to after school detetion is given two extra days of after school detention for every day missed. Historically, students hate after school detention and will do anything to avoid it.
Third, add a two week suspension and loss of team or club privilages for the season. Of course after they finished completing procedure two again.
Finally, if the student continues to flaunt the cellphone rules, the student is given a long-term suspension (home instruction) and an involuntary transfer to another school if possible.
Sounds simple, its not. In New York City the Department Of Education tends to ignore or not enforce student discipline codes. Therefore, administrators and school safety officials are reluclent to take away cellphones. Consequently, teachers are left to try to enforce the rules without school support. The result, many teachers just give up and hope the cellphones don't cause too much disruption in the classroom. In my opinion the cellphone ban must stay in place unless and until the school student disciplines codes are enforced.
What should be the consequences be for a cellphone going off or being used in school?
First, automatic confiscation of the cellphone and a parent retrival. parents hate to go to school to pick up cellphones in my school. I'm sure its the same everywhere.
Second, follow the first procedure and add a 3-5 day after school detention penalty. Any student who does not show up to after school detetion is given two extra days of after school detention for every day missed. Historically, students hate after school detention and will do anything to avoid it.
Third, add a two week suspension and loss of team or club privilages for the season. Of course after they finished completing procedure two again.
Finally, if the student continues to flaunt the cellphone rules, the student is given a long-term suspension (home instruction) and an involuntary transfer to another school if possible.
Sounds simple, its not. In New York City the Department Of Education tends to ignore or not enforce student discipline codes. Therefore, administrators and school safety officials are reluclent to take away cellphones. Consequently, teachers are left to try to enforce the rules without school support. The result, many teachers just give up and hope the cellphones don't cause too much disruption in the classroom. In my opinion the cellphone ban must stay in place unless and until the school student disciplines codes are enforced.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
The Abuse Of The Classroom Teacher & My Union's Poor Priorities
At this week's delegate meeting you would expect that the big issues would be teacher retention, classroom conditions, and improvements in teacher benefits, and salary in the upcoming negotiations. However, my union leaders of the UFT seems to have their priorities in a different direction. What are these priorities? The war in Iraq, Darfur, and same-sex marriage. While I may support two of the three issues the UFT supports, I question why am I paying $83.34 monthly in union dues for issues unrelated to classroom teaching?
In the New York City schools there is a culture of disrespect of the classroom teacher that is encouraged by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and their pet anti-education newspapers, the New York Post, The Daily News, and the New York Sun. This culture of disrespect is very obvious as the DOE will get the three newspapers to publish headline articles about teacher misconduct while allowing the DOE to hide similiar misconduct by DOE educrats and administrators. When they do appear in the newspapers its usually well after the DOE employee has resigned or retired and is associated with a small article well inside the paper.
The DOE "rubber rooms", where teachers accused of misconduct are bursting at the seams as even the smallest infraction of the vague rules can get a teacher removed from the school. Further, any questioning of an administrator's action could get you a discipline Letter-To-a-File (LIF) that cannot be grieved. The DOE, increasingly lead by lawyers & business people who have little knowledge of schools and the classroom will mandate edicts that make no sense and when knowledgeable people question the DOE actions they are dismissed as malcontents or ignored. With the DOE abuse of the classroom teacher you would think our so-called powerful union would be on the front lines and counter the DOE attack of our schools? However, we are talking about the UFT whose leaders haven't been in the classroom in decades and have obviously forgot how it was there. Unfortunantly, for the classroom teacher our union is more interested in world events then school issues.
What should our union priorities be? Here is what I and many other classroom teachers think.
First, Let teachers teach as they see fit for the best academic results for their students. Eliminate the "one size fits all" approach that has strangled innovative teaching and make student learning boring.
Second, eliminate the mindless micromanagement of the classroom and curriculum. If the classroom teacher has to worry about the rugs, the bulliten board, and test preparation, where is the time for student learning?
Third, enforce student discipline codes. In many schools enforcing discipline codes can get the principal a visit from the DOE on why can't you control your school? The result is that the administrators are reluctlent to try to suspend students for non-criminal actions. Therefore, the classroom teacher feels that the school has no consequences for student misbehavior.
Fourth, ensure that "not ready to be promoted" eigth graders" be directed to alternate high schools where they can get the extra academic help they need rather than dumping them in the large comprehensive high schools where they are doomed to failure.
Fifth, stop the mindless persuit of small and or charter schools at the expense of the larger public schools. At the high school level the small schools are allowed to "screen the 8th graders". to ensure that they get the smallest percentage of the weakest students and no obvious discipline problems. This unequal selection process causes the large comprehensive high schools to compare unfavorably to the other schools and results in poor grades for those schools.
Sixth, ensure that all schools are air conditioned, especially if they are used for summer schools. The union's silence on using hot classrooms for summer programs is puzzling.
There are others, but suffice to say my union's priorities should be on the six issues I have listed above. World issues are important, as are social issues. However, until the UFT solves the problems in the classroom they should be using the dues money to improve the teaching conditions not non-education issues.
In the New York City schools there is a culture of disrespect of the classroom teacher that is encouraged by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and their pet anti-education newspapers, the New York Post, The Daily News, and the New York Sun. This culture of disrespect is very obvious as the DOE will get the three newspapers to publish headline articles about teacher misconduct while allowing the DOE to hide similiar misconduct by DOE educrats and administrators. When they do appear in the newspapers its usually well after the DOE employee has resigned or retired and is associated with a small article well inside the paper.
The DOE "rubber rooms", where teachers accused of misconduct are bursting at the seams as even the smallest infraction of the vague rules can get a teacher removed from the school. Further, any questioning of an administrator's action could get you a discipline Letter-To-a-File (LIF) that cannot be grieved. The DOE, increasingly lead by lawyers & business people who have little knowledge of schools and the classroom will mandate edicts that make no sense and when knowledgeable people question the DOE actions they are dismissed as malcontents or ignored. With the DOE abuse of the classroom teacher you would think our so-called powerful union would be on the front lines and counter the DOE attack of our schools? However, we are talking about the UFT whose leaders haven't been in the classroom in decades and have obviously forgot how it was there. Unfortunantly, for the classroom teacher our union is more interested in world events then school issues.
What should our union priorities be? Here is what I and many other classroom teachers think.
First, Let teachers teach as they see fit for the best academic results for their students. Eliminate the "one size fits all" approach that has strangled innovative teaching and make student learning boring.
Second, eliminate the mindless micromanagement of the classroom and curriculum. If the classroom teacher has to worry about the rugs, the bulliten board, and test preparation, where is the time for student learning?
Third, enforce student discipline codes. In many schools enforcing discipline codes can get the principal a visit from the DOE on why can't you control your school? The result is that the administrators are reluctlent to try to suspend students for non-criminal actions. Therefore, the classroom teacher feels that the school has no consequences for student misbehavior.
Fourth, ensure that "not ready to be promoted" eigth graders" be directed to alternate high schools where they can get the extra academic help they need rather than dumping them in the large comprehensive high schools where they are doomed to failure.
Fifth, stop the mindless persuit of small and or charter schools at the expense of the larger public schools. At the high school level the small schools are allowed to "screen the 8th graders". to ensure that they get the smallest percentage of the weakest students and no obvious discipline problems. This unequal selection process causes the large comprehensive high schools to compare unfavorably to the other schools and results in poor grades for those schools.
Sixth, ensure that all schools are air conditioned, especially if they are used for summer schools. The union's silence on using hot classrooms for summer programs is puzzling.
There are others, but suffice to say my union's priorities should be on the six issues I have listed above. World issues are important, as are social issues. However, until the UFT solves the problems in the classroom they should be using the dues money to improve the teaching conditions not non-education issues.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
New York City & Teachers Union Agree On a Bonus & Housing Subsides For New Teachers To the System What A Deal, Or Is It?
The New York City Department Of Education (DOE), with the approval of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) have started a 1.5 million dollar program that will pay a $5,000 bonus and up to $400 a month rent subsidy for up to two years for math, science, & special education teachers who join the New York City school system. That is $14,600 to join the "smartest" (the DOE logo for NYC teachers). What a wonderful deal you think? I think not. First, you are placed in the "worst schools" and are committed to teach for a minimum of three years. Second, you will find that the average studio apartment in bad neighbourhoods in NYC is $1,000+ monthly and in the more desirable neighborhoods $2,000+! Third, be prepared to sleep on a friend's couch or on the streets and don't get sick because it can take up to six months to be put on the payroll. Finally, if you quit before the three years are up (and many do), be prepared to reinburse the City of New York for the bonus and housing subsidies. The program doesn't sound as good as you thought huh?
How about the classroom conditions you will encounter in the "worst schools" you will be assigned to? You will be given the most wonderful students. The ones who test well below average academically, who are disruptive, and disrespectful to adults, including teachers, and yes you! How about school discipline you say? Well the DOE does not enforce student discipline, you might hurt their self esteem. However, the DOE will go overboard and charge you with discipline infractions in a moment. You told her she looks nice in that outfit (sexual harrassment/proposition). You told him that was a stupid thing to do when he sent a spitball that just missed your eye (corporal punishment) and you just earned a 90-day unpaid suspension at the "rubber room". Better yet, being untenuried they will most certainly fire you and demand payment of the bonus and housing subsides.
Still interested? Good! how about parent involvement. Maybe they can help you? At the middle school and most certainly at the high school level the parent (if there is one) has long ago given up on the child. It's like spitting into the wind. It will only get you slimed.
How about those wonderful administrators. Won't they help you? Duh, the reason these schools are the "worst" is because they are the dumping ground for bad administrators. They were bad teachers who couldn't or wouldn't deal with the classroom and please don't ask them to help you in the classroom. They can't stand being in the classroom that is why they are administrators!
Maybe if your real lucky you will get one of the DOE Leadership Academy principals. You know the ones with little if any classroom experience, poor interpersonal skills, and clueless of how a school operates. Why are you lucky? Well when the LIS is scheduled to visit the Leadership Acadamy principal is allowed to pay you $37.96 an hour for up to 4 hours to fix up your classroom! What a bonanza!
You still want the job? Congratulations, you will get the maximum amount of students the contract allows (34 for general education classes). You will be required to buy many of your own classroom supplies. Photocopying? Go to Staples or Kinkos for photocopying on your own dime. Air conditioning? You will be lucky to have heat in the winter. Your own classroom? Fat chance, expect to have three or even four different rooms and don't dare be late to class otherwise, a reprimand with a Letter-To-The-File (LIF) that will land in your personnel file for Life. Finally, don't bother to shine by being innovative. You will be micromanaged, told what to teach, how to teach it, and when to teach it. You talked one minute over the time for talking? Your LIS will gently pull you aside and let you know to follow the script "AND DON'T DO IT AGAIN OR ELSE ANOTHER LIF FOR LIFE! Further, make sure your student work is hung up, no matter how bad it is. You don't want to hurt their self esteem do you? Finally, I'm sure you can't wait to pitch in and do cafeteria duty (ducking food thrown at you) or potty patrol (hanging out at the bathroom). What a wonderful job for an adult with a Masters degree!
You changed your mind? Your going to the suburbs where there are 22 students to a classroom, adequate supplies, fair and enforced student discipline codes, your own parking space, good administrators, involved parents, and for more money? I don't understand why your giving up all the advantages the City of New York is offering you? Don't worry, I'm sure their will be some unlucky loser who will take the NYC offer only to leave because of how the DOE treats its teachers.
Good luck and I wish you well.
How about the classroom conditions you will encounter in the "worst schools" you will be assigned to? You will be given the most wonderful students. The ones who test well below average academically, who are disruptive, and disrespectful to adults, including teachers, and yes you! How about school discipline you say? Well the DOE does not enforce student discipline, you might hurt their self esteem. However, the DOE will go overboard and charge you with discipline infractions in a moment. You told her she looks nice in that outfit (sexual harrassment/proposition). You told him that was a stupid thing to do when he sent a spitball that just missed your eye (corporal punishment) and you just earned a 90-day unpaid suspension at the "rubber room". Better yet, being untenuried they will most certainly fire you and demand payment of the bonus and housing subsides.
Still interested? Good! how about parent involvement. Maybe they can help you? At the middle school and most certainly at the high school level the parent (if there is one) has long ago given up on the child. It's like spitting into the wind. It will only get you slimed.
How about those wonderful administrators. Won't they help you? Duh, the reason these schools are the "worst" is because they are the dumping ground for bad administrators. They were bad teachers who couldn't or wouldn't deal with the classroom and please don't ask them to help you in the classroom. They can't stand being in the classroom that is why they are administrators!
Maybe if your real lucky you will get one of the DOE Leadership Academy principals. You know the ones with little if any classroom experience, poor interpersonal skills, and clueless of how a school operates. Why are you lucky? Well when the LIS is scheduled to visit the Leadership Acadamy principal is allowed to pay you $37.96 an hour for up to 4 hours to fix up your classroom! What a bonanza!
You still want the job? Congratulations, you will get the maximum amount of students the contract allows (34 for general education classes). You will be required to buy many of your own classroom supplies. Photocopying? Go to Staples or Kinkos for photocopying on your own dime. Air conditioning? You will be lucky to have heat in the winter. Your own classroom? Fat chance, expect to have three or even four different rooms and don't dare be late to class otherwise, a reprimand with a Letter-To-The-File (LIF) that will land in your personnel file for Life. Finally, don't bother to shine by being innovative. You will be micromanaged, told what to teach, how to teach it, and when to teach it. You talked one minute over the time for talking? Your LIS will gently pull you aside and let you know to follow the script "AND DON'T DO IT AGAIN OR ELSE ANOTHER LIF FOR LIFE! Further, make sure your student work is hung up, no matter how bad it is. You don't want to hurt their self esteem do you? Finally, I'm sure you can't wait to pitch in and do cafeteria duty (ducking food thrown at you) or potty patrol (hanging out at the bathroom). What a wonderful job for an adult with a Masters degree!
You changed your mind? Your going to the suburbs where there are 22 students to a classroom, adequate supplies, fair and enforced student discipline codes, your own parking space, good administrators, involved parents, and for more money? I don't understand why your giving up all the advantages the City of New York is offering you? Don't worry, I'm sure their will be some unlucky loser who will take the NYC offer only to leave because of how the DOE treats its teachers.
Good luck and I wish you well.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Marriage & Men Why It Is Important For Our Society
Many people seem to downplay the social unraveling of our society. Some cry racism. Others yell it's the seperation of the classes. While, our politicians decry issues based upon being a Republican versus being a Democrat. However, all seem to tiptoe around the major problem with our society; The avoidance of men to marry. This problem is especially true in the black community. An article in Ebony magazine stated that only 41% of black men married (The rest of the nation it is 62%). Interestingly during Martin Luther King's Civil Rights campaign in the 1960's, the number was 70%! (The numbers for the rest of the population was 90% ). Therefore, there has been a 42% reduction in married men as a percentage of the population. While the decrease is most obvious in the black community, this problem cuts across all racial and social lines. Why is this a societal problem?
First, studies have shown married men are less violent.
Second, married men tend to be more responsible and share responsibilities with the female in child rearing. The acceptance of responsibility by the male encourages them to make decisions that are best for the family.
Third, married men add income to the family unit by having a job and freeing the female to join the work force. This will increase the income of the family unit and resist temptation to engage in illegal behavior.
Fourth, married men are less likely to end up in jail. Interestingly, married women are rarely subject to jail as most of the female prisoners are unmarried.
Fifth, and I believe most importantly that married men are role models to their children. It is no accident that 90% of the men and 67% of the women in jail come from single parent (mother) households. You can spin this statistic any way you like but the lack of a father as a role model is a major contributor to criminal behavior.
Another element is the high school dropout rate. The average female dropout makes $13,288 annualy, less than the poverty rate. While the male dropout does slightly better $16,345 . (The poverty rate is $14,000 per year). Children growing up in these households are in grave danger of dropping out themselves. According to Time magazine children of parents that dropout are six times more likely to dropout themselves. The risk is probably higher if it is a single parent household.
Bill Cosby, in his speech in New Orleans in March of 2006, made it clear that the community needs to straighten out their morale compass before complaining about government inaction in the wake of Katrina. He cited the large numbers of 12 & 13 year old girls inpregnated by young men, males who refuse to lay down family roots by marrying the mother and supporting their children, the community acceptance of the large percentage of students who drop out of middle and high schools with no consequences , and the acceptance of "rap music" that glorifies violence, criminality, and disrespect of females. He also stated that the family unit must be brought together if we are to make progress in our society. He meant men coming back to marriage. While he was mainly talking to the black community, he could have been speaking of society in general.
While race and income are factors in the falling percentage of married men. It is more a societal issue. It was not accepted behavior for women to have children out of wedlock and men were pressured (rightly or wrongly) to do the right thing and marry the mother of the child. Now, in many communities, the married women is a minority and an unmarried women with children are not only accepted but are a majority! While welfare programs were the initial cause of this change in society, under the Clinton Administration and State changes, welfare no longer encourages behaviors like teenagers being rewarded for having kids by giving them their own apartment and welfare and going after the father who can pay for the child's support. However, it appears the damage to society was already done by decades of easy welfare benefits.
The leaders of our nation must get together and encourage men to buy into marriage and discourage the irresponsible behavior that seems to be prevalent in many communities. How can this be done? Penalties for dropping out of school, increase in vocational education, parenting classes, tax breaks for married couples, stricter rules and penalties on child payments, and other incentives that encourages marriage. I'm sure there are many more ideas and they should be fully explored and implemented if they work.
First, studies have shown married men are less violent.
Second, married men tend to be more responsible and share responsibilities with the female in child rearing. The acceptance of responsibility by the male encourages them to make decisions that are best for the family.
Third, married men add income to the family unit by having a job and freeing the female to join the work force. This will increase the income of the family unit and resist temptation to engage in illegal behavior.
Fourth, married men are less likely to end up in jail. Interestingly, married women are rarely subject to jail as most of the female prisoners are unmarried.
Fifth, and I believe most importantly that married men are role models to their children. It is no accident that 90% of the men and 67% of the women in jail come from single parent (mother) households. You can spin this statistic any way you like but the lack of a father as a role model is a major contributor to criminal behavior.
Another element is the high school dropout rate. The average female dropout makes $13,288 annualy, less than the poverty rate. While the male dropout does slightly better $16,345 . (The poverty rate is $14,000 per year). Children growing up in these households are in grave danger of dropping out themselves. According to Time magazine children of parents that dropout are six times more likely to dropout themselves. The risk is probably higher if it is a single parent household.
Bill Cosby, in his speech in New Orleans in March of 2006, made it clear that the community needs to straighten out their morale compass before complaining about government inaction in the wake of Katrina. He cited the large numbers of 12 & 13 year old girls inpregnated by young men, males who refuse to lay down family roots by marrying the mother and supporting their children, the community acceptance of the large percentage of students who drop out of middle and high schools with no consequences , and the acceptance of "rap music" that glorifies violence, criminality, and disrespect of females. He also stated that the family unit must be brought together if we are to make progress in our society. He meant men coming back to marriage. While he was mainly talking to the black community, he could have been speaking of society in general.
While race and income are factors in the falling percentage of married men. It is more a societal issue. It was not accepted behavior for women to have children out of wedlock and men were pressured (rightly or wrongly) to do the right thing and marry the mother of the child. Now, in many communities, the married women is a minority and an unmarried women with children are not only accepted but are a majority! While welfare programs were the initial cause of this change in society, under the Clinton Administration and State changes, welfare no longer encourages behaviors like teenagers being rewarded for having kids by giving them their own apartment and welfare and going after the father who can pay for the child's support. However, it appears the damage to society was already done by decades of easy welfare benefits.
The leaders of our nation must get together and encourage men to buy into marriage and discourage the irresponsible behavior that seems to be prevalent in many communities. How can this be done? Penalties for dropping out of school, increase in vocational education, parenting classes, tax breaks for married couples, stricter rules and penalties on child payments, and other incentives that encourages marriage. I'm sure there are many more ideas and they should be fully explored and implemented if they work.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Schools Are To Be Graded - A Tale Of Two Schools
The New York City Department of Education (DOE) has decided to grade the public schools based upon testing, attendance, school safety, and even parental involvement. Sounds good right! How can anybody be against a school report card? Well welcome to Chancellor Klein's world of education where he and his non-educators are pushing charter schools, failing that, the next best thing is small schools. The step child in Klein's world is the large comprehensive high schools, steeped in tradition and fame. This story is about two high schools. One a large comprehensive high school the other a small high school with a theme for social justice.
The large comprehensive school, lets call it Pierce high school, has been overcrowded for the past three years as other large schools have closed and the students not selected to the newly-created small schools are dumped into the school. By contrast the small high school , the school of Social Justice, has "screened their students" and does not suffer from overcrowding. Let's get to the statistics.
Attendance:
Pierce high school has a 80% attendance rate while the school for Social Justice had a 93% attendance rate. However, if you dig into the statistics the incoming 8th graders going into the school of Social Justice had a 94% attendance rate compared to a 81% attendance rate for Pierce high school. In reality, the school attendance rates reflect the attendance rate of the middle school students entering the two schools.
Weak Students:
The weakest students in the New York City school system are level 1 students. These are students that test well-below accepted standards. The school for Social Justice has only 10% of the incoming class as level 1 students while Pierce high school was required to accept 35% of the incoming freshmen as level 1 students. Further, of the level 1 students the school of Social Justice took in they made sure that there were no disciplinary problems among them. By contrast Pierce high school had no such discrestion.
Special Needs Children:
On a percentage basis Pierce high school admitted three times as many special needs children than the school of Social Justice. Historically, special needs students don't do as well as other students. These special needs chiildren range from disciplinary problems, slow learners, limited english language students, and emotionally reactive students.
Class Sizes:
The average class size at Pierce high school is 32 students per classroom. At the school of Social Justice the average is 20 students per class. All studies show that when it comes to education; class size matters!
Social Promotion:
Despite DOE denials eigth graders that are labled "promotion in doubt" are promoted anyway and end up in the large comprehensive high schools where that are doomed to failure as they are unready to do high school academics. The small schools like the school of Social Justice rarely, if ever, admit these students.
School Safety:
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that the more overcrowded the school, the more incidents of bumping and shoving there will be. Unfortunantly, some of the pushing and shoving breaks into fights. The result, a safety report is issued. Large overcrowded high schools will always have more safety incidents than a small school. At Pierce high school not only is it a day school but a regional night school as well. Further, the regional Truency Center is located at the school. According to the DOE all incidents that happen during night school or in the Truency program is assigned to Pierce high school. Not fair you say? Who says it needs to be fair? This is how DOE works.
The report card? Can Pierce high school really compete with the school of Social Justice? I can only bring up the statement the late Rodney Dangerfield said " Its like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest". The answer is no.
The large comprehensive school, lets call it Pierce high school, has been overcrowded for the past three years as other large schools have closed and the students not selected to the newly-created small schools are dumped into the school. By contrast the small high school , the school of Social Justice, has "screened their students" and does not suffer from overcrowding. Let's get to the statistics.
Attendance:
Pierce high school has a 80% attendance rate while the school for Social Justice had a 93% attendance rate. However, if you dig into the statistics the incoming 8th graders going into the school of Social Justice had a 94% attendance rate compared to a 81% attendance rate for Pierce high school. In reality, the school attendance rates reflect the attendance rate of the middle school students entering the two schools.
Weak Students:
The weakest students in the New York City school system are level 1 students. These are students that test well-below accepted standards. The school for Social Justice has only 10% of the incoming class as level 1 students while Pierce high school was required to accept 35% of the incoming freshmen as level 1 students. Further, of the level 1 students the school of Social Justice took in they made sure that there were no disciplinary problems among them. By contrast Pierce high school had no such discrestion.
Special Needs Children:
On a percentage basis Pierce high school admitted three times as many special needs children than the school of Social Justice. Historically, special needs students don't do as well as other students. These special needs chiildren range from disciplinary problems, slow learners, limited english language students, and emotionally reactive students.
Class Sizes:
The average class size at Pierce high school is 32 students per classroom. At the school of Social Justice the average is 20 students per class. All studies show that when it comes to education; class size matters!
Social Promotion:
Despite DOE denials eigth graders that are labled "promotion in doubt" are promoted anyway and end up in the large comprehensive high schools where that are doomed to failure as they are unready to do high school academics. The small schools like the school of Social Justice rarely, if ever, admit these students.
School Safety:
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that the more overcrowded the school, the more incidents of bumping and shoving there will be. Unfortunantly, some of the pushing and shoving breaks into fights. The result, a safety report is issued. Large overcrowded high schools will always have more safety incidents than a small school. At Pierce high school not only is it a day school but a regional night school as well. Further, the regional Truency Center is located at the school. According to the DOE all incidents that happen during night school or in the Truency program is assigned to Pierce high school. Not fair you say? Who says it needs to be fair? This is how DOE works.
The report card? Can Pierce high school really compete with the school of Social Justice? I can only bring up the statement the late Rodney Dangerfield said " Its like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest". The answer is no.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Boys And Pencils
In my decade-long teaching career there has been one recurring theme. That is approximately 25% of the boys in my classes do not bring pencils for their scantron-based science test. What is that about boys and pencils? Well, being a scientist I did a limited study, based upon the 125 students I have in the classroom (62 girls, 63 boys). The results were as follows:
Boys don't bring pencils because it's not cool to carry a pencil!
Girls carry pencils because it's important to be prepared.
Secondary issues were:
Boys just plain forget to bring one or claim they lost it.
Girls almost always have a pocketbook with them and having a pencil in it is no big deal. In fact, many girls carry two pencils with them and usually give one to the boy. No, I didn't question the girls with two pencils why they carry two. Maybe that will be my next study.
How can you correct the boy/pencil problem? I came up with a novel way of handling this issue. First, you need to understand the mind of a male high school student. They want to impress the girls! No male high schooler wants to be called irresponsible or immature in front of the girls, especially by teachers that are respected by the students. Second, you need them to understand that responsible behavior is rewarded with good grades and respect from others. That means having individual meeting with them and letting them know that high school girls are always looking for the boys that shows promise as an adult (not always true, but most of the boys believe that anyway) and that colleges are always looking for the good student. Finally, all boys want respect from their peers and the adults they interact with. Even the more obnoxious boys crave respect. The ultimate form of respect for a teenage boy is being told he is maturing into a man.
My solution? Is to equate the pencil with manhood. I simply tell my students that the boys who have pencils are real men, responsible, and respected. The boys who don't bring pencils? I tell them that their still boys and not mature enough to be considered a man and have the responsibilities of middle schoolers. This illicits laughter by the girls in the classroom and yes, embarasses the boys. The next test and every test after, all the boys magically have pencils. Is this corporal punishment? Noooooooo! It is an effective teaching technique that is not racist, religious, cultural, or biased in any way. It is based upon personal responsibility and the tools that all students must have in a school setting. Than again, its a rare female that fails to have a pencil with her.
Boys don't bring pencils because it's not cool to carry a pencil!
Girls carry pencils because it's important to be prepared.
Secondary issues were:
Boys just plain forget to bring one or claim they lost it.
Girls almost always have a pocketbook with them and having a pencil in it is no big deal. In fact, many girls carry two pencils with them and usually give one to the boy. No, I didn't question the girls with two pencils why they carry two. Maybe that will be my next study.
How can you correct the boy/pencil problem? I came up with a novel way of handling this issue. First, you need to understand the mind of a male high school student. They want to impress the girls! No male high schooler wants to be called irresponsible or immature in front of the girls, especially by teachers that are respected by the students. Second, you need them to understand that responsible behavior is rewarded with good grades and respect from others. That means having individual meeting with them and letting them know that high school girls are always looking for the boys that shows promise as an adult (not always true, but most of the boys believe that anyway) and that colleges are always looking for the good student. Finally, all boys want respect from their peers and the adults they interact with. Even the more obnoxious boys crave respect. The ultimate form of respect for a teenage boy is being told he is maturing into a man.
My solution? Is to equate the pencil with manhood. I simply tell my students that the boys who have pencils are real men, responsible, and respected. The boys who don't bring pencils? I tell them that their still boys and not mature enough to be considered a man and have the responsibilities of middle schoolers. This illicits laughter by the girls in the classroom and yes, embarasses the boys. The next test and every test after, all the boys magically have pencils. Is this corporal punishment? Noooooooo! It is an effective teaching technique that is not racist, religious, cultural, or biased in any way. It is based upon personal responsibility and the tools that all students must have in a school setting. Than again, its a rare female that fails to have a pencil with her.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Seventeen and No Credits
The New York City Department Of Education's (DOE) policy on teenagers who are seventeen and are classified as a freshmen creditwize is a danger for all high school students who want to learn. The DOE has stated that the New York City high schools cannot remove a student from a school due to academic non-performance until their eighteenth birthday. Therefore, the student(?) is allowed to disrupt classrooms, disrespect staff, and walk the halls without any consequences. In fact, under DOE rules trying to suspend a student for academic non-performance or minor behavioral infractions is almost impossible. As the DOE educrats sit in their ivory walled Tweed offices and dictate policy that have no basis in reality, the schools must deal with this very real threat to learning.
Ask any school Dean and they will tell you that many of the problems in the high schools can be traced to the older students with little or no credits. In the past, the city had special schools for these children and others were sent to a different school, usually across the borough so that they couldn't hang with their posse. However, the DOE has limited alternative schools and eliminated transfers to other schools. The result? These students are free to prey on the student population of their home school.
Many of these students are academic non-performers and in the past would have gone into vocational schools. However, under the misguided philosiphy that all children are academic learners these students are frustrated and cannot compete with the other students so they disrupt the school. Some of the worst end up committing crimes and are sent to jail, only to return to the home school on their release.
Finally, the child advocates run roughshot over the school system by threatening to sue the city if they try to remove dangerous students from the school setting. These child advocates have even been known to threaten schools with lawsuits that try to enforce afterschool detention programs. In other words there may be no consequences for the actions of these students.
If we are to take back our high schools the first thing that most be done is to remove the older students who are operating with freshmen credits and send them to a work or vocational program. This would be a win-win situation with the student finally getting focus and a career and the school proceeding with their mission of graduating as many students as possible while providing a safe learning environment
Ask any school Dean and they will tell you that many of the problems in the high schools can be traced to the older students with little or no credits. In the past, the city had special schools for these children and others were sent to a different school, usually across the borough so that they couldn't hang with their posse. However, the DOE has limited alternative schools and eliminated transfers to other schools. The result? These students are free to prey on the student population of their home school.
Many of these students are academic non-performers and in the past would have gone into vocational schools. However, under the misguided philosiphy that all children are academic learners these students are frustrated and cannot compete with the other students so they disrupt the school. Some of the worst end up committing crimes and are sent to jail, only to return to the home school on their release.
Finally, the child advocates run roughshot over the school system by threatening to sue the city if they try to remove dangerous students from the school setting. These child advocates have even been known to threaten schools with lawsuits that try to enforce afterschool detention programs. In other words there may be no consequences for the actions of these students.
If we are to take back our high schools the first thing that most be done is to remove the older students who are operating with freshmen credits and send them to a work or vocational program. This would be a win-win situation with the student finally getting focus and a career and the school proceeding with their mission of graduating as many students as possible while providing a safe learning environment
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Latina Students and High School Sports - Why are so Few Participating?
In my decade-long time as the girls' varsity soccer coach I have always had between five and eight players of hispanic heritage. However, despite my best efforts to recruit them, I am down to three, with two seniors having been on my team since freshmen year. Checking with other coaches in my and other schools the lack of Latina girls in sports appears to be a very disturbing trend. Sure, you can still find many Latina girls on some teams where the school is almost totally Hispanic. However, for the most part it appears that the percentage of Latina girls on a team is much lower than the school's population. What can be causing this problem? There are probably many reasons or combinations. I will try to pick out what I think are the problems, based upon my discussions with ESL, ELL, and other teachers.
1. Home Life: Many Latina girls are expected to do the chores that their mothers used to do. Cooking, cleaning, and supervizing younger family members. This may be due to an increasing lack of a father in many families making the mother the sole bread winner and the teenage girl then takes over the role of the mother.
2. Increasing ineligibility of their boyfriends to play soccer due to poor grades. Unlike many other cultures there appears to be a link between the Latina girl's decision to play/not to play soccer based upon their boyfriend's participation. Why are the Latina girls different? I asked that question to one of the Latina guidance officers. Her response was that Latina girls are very loyal to their boyfriends and won't play soccer if the boyfriend can't/won't. Again the increasing lack of a father in the household may be part of the reason on why boys are not doing well in school.
3. Finally, the attractiveness of many types of expensive items in a typical teenage girl's possesion (all cultures). Ipods, picture cell phones, and computers are all a necessity for the typical teenager and usually for a teenager to have these items they need a part-time job. This means that the opportunity to participate in after school activities are eliminated. Combined with the other two reasons, this reduces the students available for sports.
Are there any solutions to the dwindling participation of Latina girls in sports? More intact family structure. Aggressive recruiting at Freshmen orientation, and last, but not least, a targeted program to encourage all girls' to join after school activites by showing the girls the advantages of joining a team.
a. Better self-esteem
b. Working well with teammates
c. Have better quality friends
d. More respect from other students
e. Social bonding with team members
In conclusion, it will take a very aggressive effort if we are to stop and reverse the loss of Latina girls' in after-school activities.
1. Home Life: Many Latina girls are expected to do the chores that their mothers used to do. Cooking, cleaning, and supervizing younger family members. This may be due to an increasing lack of a father in many families making the mother the sole bread winner and the teenage girl then takes over the role of the mother.
2. Increasing ineligibility of their boyfriends to play soccer due to poor grades. Unlike many other cultures there appears to be a link between the Latina girl's decision to play/not to play soccer based upon their boyfriend's participation. Why are the Latina girls different? I asked that question to one of the Latina guidance officers. Her response was that Latina girls are very loyal to their boyfriends and won't play soccer if the boyfriend can't/won't. Again the increasing lack of a father in the household may be part of the reason on why boys are not doing well in school.
3. Finally, the attractiveness of many types of expensive items in a typical teenage girl's possesion (all cultures). Ipods, picture cell phones, and computers are all a necessity for the typical teenager and usually for a teenager to have these items they need a part-time job. This means that the opportunity to participate in after school activities are eliminated. Combined with the other two reasons, this reduces the students available for sports.
Are there any solutions to the dwindling participation of Latina girls in sports? More intact family structure. Aggressive recruiting at Freshmen orientation, and last, but not least, a targeted program to encourage all girls' to join after school activites by showing the girls the advantages of joining a team.
a. Better self-esteem
b. Working well with teammates
c. Have better quality friends
d. More respect from other students
e. Social bonding with team members
In conclusion, it will take a very aggressive effort if we are to stop and reverse the loss of Latina girls' in after-school activities.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Bill O'Reilly's Interview With John Stossel - Where Was Randi???
I am a casual viewer of Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox cable and was shocked to see that teachers-bashing 20-20 reporter, John Stossel was trying to explain why he wrote the piece that dissed the New York City public school teachers. However, even more shocking was Randi Weingarten's failure to accept the invite to debate Stossel. In fact, no UFT representative showed up! It was left to O'Reilly to question Stossel. To be fair O'Reilly did question Stossel about his statistics and teacher incompetence. Further, O'Reilly did defend teachers when he brought up the student culture, class values, and using tests that compared different community schools rather than the same type of schools. Finally, O'Reilly informed Stossel how clueless parents are to what goes on in the schools. This seemed to have caught Stossel off guard.
While, Bill O'Reilly, did not protect the public school teacher, he did not buy into Stossel's voucher rap either. He seemed to me to have been "Fair & Balanced" in his interview and it is too bad that Randi Weingarten did not see fit to debate Stossel on an equal footing. It's a pity, this was the chance Randi needed, she claimed she was edited by 20-20 and came off badly. In my view Randi has come up worse for not defending the teachers she is supposed to represent.
While, Bill O'Reilly, did not protect the public school teacher, he did not buy into Stossel's voucher rap either. He seemed to me to have been "Fair & Balanced" in his interview and it is too bad that Randi Weingarten did not see fit to debate Stossel on an equal footing. It's a pity, this was the chance Randi needed, she claimed she was edited by 20-20 and came off badly. In my view Randi has come up worse for not defending the teachers she is supposed to represent.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
NYC Public Schools & The Absent Father
The New York Daily News published an article today about the low high school graduation rates of boys in the New York City high schools. The article by Kathleen Lucadamo stated that the four year graduation rate for girls was 50% compared to a 37% graduation rate for boys. Further, the article showed that the high school dropout rate was 13% for girls compared to 17% for boys. When you consider the pregnent girls usually do not graduate in four years, you would think the dropout rate for girls would be much higher than boys. The article compared the fourth-grade and eigth-grade students that were able to meet the New York State reading and math standards and found that the fourth-grade girls averaged 10% higher and eigth grade girls 8% higher in the reading test and yes the girls averaged 4% higher on the math tests for the two grades. Why are boys faring so poorly in the New York City public schools?
First, the article stated some of the blame lies in the absence of male elementary school teachers to serve as role models for the boys. Second, is the emphasis on testing. The article states that testing means a more structured classroom and boys don't respond well to a structured environment. Therefore, they don't test as well as girls. Third, the emphasis on academics mean less time for recess and physical education which is an outlet for the energy that boys need to release. Fourth, school has become more academic and less vocational which affects more boys than girls. While all of these factors may (or may not) have an effect on the boys poor performance in school the main reason is being overlooked. The absence of a father in the family structure.
A liberal radio talk host, Sam Greenfield, stated that 90% of all men in prison came from a single family household, a shockingly high figure. It is safe to say very few of these single family households are headed by fathers. The importance of a biological father in the family unit has been time and again shown to be extremely important, especially to boys. However, for some reason it seems not to be politically correct to bring this up when talking about education. Ask any dean when they deal with problem boys how few have biological fathers in their family unit. Yet we seem to ignore this very important factor. Is it just coincidence that as an increase in the percentage of single mother headed households occur the boys are falling behind the girls in school? I don't think so.
Is it any wonder that the boys are doing poorly in school? Look who they have as a role model? A father that has abandoned the family, probably not financially supporting the children, and maybe in jail or disappeared? The pity is that many educators tiptoe around this reason why many boys are doing poorly in school. They bring up nebulous factors (lack of male teachers in the elementary schools-always been that way) and trying to connect two independent factors (testing and physical activity- a real streach). While I do agree that the lack of vocational courses can affect boys more than girls, the lack of a father is by far is the real cause of the poor educational results for boys.
It is time that the political, community, and educational leaders stop their grandstanding and take on the real cause of the boys poor performance in schools. The absent father in the family structure!
First, the article stated some of the blame lies in the absence of male elementary school teachers to serve as role models for the boys. Second, is the emphasis on testing. The article states that testing means a more structured classroom and boys don't respond well to a structured environment. Therefore, they don't test as well as girls. Third, the emphasis on academics mean less time for recess and physical education which is an outlet for the energy that boys need to release. Fourth, school has become more academic and less vocational which affects more boys than girls. While all of these factors may (or may not) have an effect on the boys poor performance in school the main reason is being overlooked. The absence of a father in the family structure.
A liberal radio talk host, Sam Greenfield, stated that 90% of all men in prison came from a single family household, a shockingly high figure. It is safe to say very few of these single family households are headed by fathers. The importance of a biological father in the family unit has been time and again shown to be extremely important, especially to boys. However, for some reason it seems not to be politically correct to bring this up when talking about education. Ask any dean when they deal with problem boys how few have biological fathers in their family unit. Yet we seem to ignore this very important factor. Is it just coincidence that as an increase in the percentage of single mother headed households occur the boys are falling behind the girls in school? I don't think so.
Is it any wonder that the boys are doing poorly in school? Look who they have as a role model? A father that has abandoned the family, probably not financially supporting the children, and maybe in jail or disappeared? The pity is that many educators tiptoe around this reason why many boys are doing poorly in school. They bring up nebulous factors (lack of male teachers in the elementary schools-always been that way) and trying to connect two independent factors (testing and physical activity- a real streach). While I do agree that the lack of vocational courses can affect boys more than girls, the lack of a father is by far is the real cause of the poor educational results for boys.
It is time that the political, community, and educational leaders stop their grandstanding and take on the real cause of the boys poor performance in schools. The absent father in the family structure!
Thursday, March 02, 2006
DOE's Assault On The Large High Schools
In New York City, like most of the country "education reform" in the form of small schools is all the rage. The Department of Education (DOE) has touted the small school craze at the expense of the large traditional high schools in the city. It is common knowledge that small schools allow for a closer relationship between the students and staff and increases attendance when compared to the large high schools. However, there has been no long-term study showing that the academic performance in a small school environment is any better than in a similar large high school. In fact, when class size, economic, and community characteristics are similar in the two type of schools, there are little differences in the academic performance of the students. DOE however, has found a devious method to ensure that the student performance in a small school is statistically superior when compared to the large schools. How did DOE do this? They spiked the data to ensure the desired results.
First, the DOE took attendance figures that showed that the small schools had a 15% increase in attendance rates than the large high schools. However, what DOE failed to report that the 8th graders entering the small schools had a 91% attendance rate compared to a 81% attendance rate for the 8th graders attending the large high schools. The 5% difference can be attributed to the large school having more special needs students and poor academically performing students which will be bought up later in this article. Consequently, the small schools really did not show an improvement in attendance rates when compared to the large high schools.
Second, The small schools had a lower percentage of Special Needs Students (Special Education, Physical and Mental disabilities, and Non-English Speakers). The small schools averaged 12% of the student population in this category while the large high schools had 34%! Somehow the DOE failed to account for this difference in the student population of the two types of schools.
Third, the academic performance of the small schools showed a slight improvement over the large schools, based upon incomplete data (many of the small schools have not had a full four year graduation cycle). However, what DOE didn't tell the media was that the 8th graders entering the small schools averaged 15 points higher on the mandated English test and 20 points higher on the mandated Math test, when compared to the 8th graders entering the large high schools
Fourth, in New York State the students are classified by how well they do on state tests for English and Math. Students well below normal are level 1, students below normal are level 2, and students at or above normal are level 3. Interestingly the small schools, when compared to the large high schools had less level 1 students (poor academic performers) and more level 3 students. Listed below are the statistics.
Small Schools........................... Large High Schools
Level ............1.......... 2.......... 3 Level....... 1........ 2........ 3
English........ 10%.... 73% ....17% English... 35%... 56%... 8%
Math............ 38%.... 48%... 14% Math...... 64% ....30% ...6%
Fifth, Despite denials from DOE, the small school class sizes are capped (13-20 students per class) at levels below those found in the large high schools (30 students per class). Almost all studies show that the smaller the class size, the better the student academic performance. Furthermore, the small schools are allowed to screen the entering 9th graders to ensure the best possible student body, something the large high schools are not allowed to do. This screening is clearly reflected in the data above.
Finally, as more and more large high schools close down and the rich history and tradition with it, the excess students who do not get into the small schools (usually the weakest academic performers) are dumped into the already overcrowded large high schools further weakening the academic performance of the schools. The result, a new crop of small schools replace these high schools and the beat goes on.
I would like to thank Jonathan H., a chapter leader in a small Bronx high school for the statistics found in this article. Jonathan's article and comments can be found in Edwiz.
First, the DOE took attendance figures that showed that the small schools had a 15% increase in attendance rates than the large high schools. However, what DOE failed to report that the 8th graders entering the small schools had a 91% attendance rate compared to a 81% attendance rate for the 8th graders attending the large high schools. The 5% difference can be attributed to the large school having more special needs students and poor academically performing students which will be bought up later in this article. Consequently, the small schools really did not show an improvement in attendance rates when compared to the large high schools.
Second, The small schools had a lower percentage of Special Needs Students (Special Education, Physical and Mental disabilities, and Non-English Speakers). The small schools averaged 12% of the student population in this category while the large high schools had 34%! Somehow the DOE failed to account for this difference in the student population of the two types of schools.
Third, the academic performance of the small schools showed a slight improvement over the large schools, based upon incomplete data (many of the small schools have not had a full four year graduation cycle). However, what DOE didn't tell the media was that the 8th graders entering the small schools averaged 15 points higher on the mandated English test and 20 points higher on the mandated Math test, when compared to the 8th graders entering the large high schools
Fourth, in New York State the students are classified by how well they do on state tests for English and Math. Students well below normal are level 1, students below normal are level 2, and students at or above normal are level 3. Interestingly the small schools, when compared to the large high schools had less level 1 students (poor academic performers) and more level 3 students. Listed below are the statistics.
Small Schools........................... Large High Schools
Level ............1.......... 2.......... 3 Level....... 1........ 2........ 3
English........ 10%.... 73% ....17% English... 35%... 56%... 8%
Math............ 38%.... 48%... 14% Math...... 64% ....30% ...6%
Fifth, Despite denials from DOE, the small school class sizes are capped (13-20 students per class) at levels below those found in the large high schools (30 students per class). Almost all studies show that the smaller the class size, the better the student academic performance. Furthermore, the small schools are allowed to screen the entering 9th graders to ensure the best possible student body, something the large high schools are not allowed to do. This screening is clearly reflected in the data above.
Finally, as more and more large high schools close down and the rich history and tradition with it, the excess students who do not get into the small schools (usually the weakest academic performers) are dumped into the already overcrowded large high schools further weakening the academic performance of the schools. The result, a new crop of small schools replace these high schools and the beat goes on.
I would like to thank Jonathan H., a chapter leader in a small Bronx high school for the statistics found in this article. Jonathan's article and comments can be found in Edwiz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
