View Full Version : Oakland plan makes teachers compete for their jobs
A New Trend for America's Future?
Oakland plan makes teachers compete for their jobs
Jill Tucker
Saturday, March 31, 2012
As part of a radical plan to reform three failing high schools in Oakland, current teachers who want to stay will have to compete for their jobs with outside applicants.
They also will have to agree to work nearly a month more each year, but the deal comes with a bigger paycheck.
The plan, which takes advantage of a small clause in the labor contract, skirts teacher seniority rights and is the latest attempt by a school district to get highly trained and reform-minded teachers in front of the most struggling students even if it means defying labor union doctrine.
In San Francisco this month, district officials skipped over less-senior teachers in 14 struggling schools when handing out pink slips.
In Los Angeles, a legal settlement last year allowed the district to spread layoffs more evenly across schools rather than rely solely on seniority. Several state legislatures across the country have banned the use of seniority in teacher layoffs.
Teacher unions see these moves as an affront to a sacred tenet of worker rights.
In Oakland on Thursday, the teachers union demanded the district rescind its plan for McClymonds, Fremont and Castlemont high schools and has filed an unfair labor practice complaint.
The superintendent is attempting to abuse a clause in the contract that allows the district to set different work requirements for "teachers on special assignment," union leaders said. It's a power struggle that will take veteran and committed teachers away from their students, said Betty Olson-Jones, president of the Oakland Education Association.
"This is really a slap in the face to our students," Olson-Jones said. "It's saying it doesn't matter who your teacher is."
District officials disagreed.
The plan isn't meant to purge the schools of teachers, but to ensure that every teacher assigned to them is committed to the hard work it will take to help struggling students succeed, Superintendent Tony Smith said.
"The kids in those schools need support, and the teachers need additional time and support to work with these kids," Smith said.
His plan would eliminate teaching positions at the three schools and replace them all with teachers designated as being on special assignment.
Those hired would be required to work an extra 18 days during the students' summer break. They'd receive an additional $5,100 on average.
The district has made it clear that those who don't want the extra workload need not apply.
By Friday afternoon, more than 100 teachers had applied for the estimated 60 positions available. Forty-five of the applications were from teachers currently at the three high schools, district officials said. The deadline for applying was 11:55 p.m. Friday.
Teachers currently at the schools who decided not to apply but wish to remain in the district will be assigned to another district school.
Earlier this week, several teachers at the schools said they wouldn't apply.
Among them was Castlemont English teacher Rodney Brown, who has been at the school six years.
"My staying at Castlemont would only be as a classroom teacher not some made-up position," he said. "I'll teach at another Oakland school."
Fremont special education teacher Moss Hahn said he also would not apply for personal and professional reasons.
He said the schools don't need new teachers; they need to restore funding for librarians, security, art, music, dance and alternative languages like French.
The superintendent's initiative "seems like a questionable remedy at best and may turn out to be a disgraceful experiment," he said.
The plan does not require approval by the school board, but its seven members could intervene, requiring the superintendent to sit down at the bargaining table with union leaders to hash out a compromise, said board member Noel Gallo.
Gallo said the board will probably raise that possibility at a future meeting.
"I think what we have right now is a great deal of division," he said. "I need to be able to reach out and work with our teachers."
Yet, the status quo hasn't worked at McClymonds, Fremont and Castlemont high schools, where test scores consistently fall among the lowest of the low in the state and where less than half the students end up with a diploma, Smith said.
As far as Smith knows, no one has ever tried a plan like his before.
"It's aggressive and different, and it's contractual," he said. "Is Oakland satisfied with what we've got? Because what we've got is from what we've done."
At a recent teacher union rally outside Fremont High School to protest the superintendent's plan, ninth-grader Clinton Brand stood with a few of his teachers.
He wasn't clear on all the details of the changes coming to his school, but he didn't like the sound of it.
"I love all my teachers," the 14-year-old said. "I don't like having to get to know new people."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/31/MN1F1NSJ0C.DTL&type=printable
As long as teachers continue to put their own interests far ahead of those of their students the overall quality of education in America is unlikely to improve.
My $0.02.
GratefulCitizen
03-31-2012, 16:00
As long as teachers continue to put their own interests far ahead of those of their students the overall quality of education in America is unlikely to improve.
My $0.02.
Why is it the teacher's responsibility?
If parents are worried about their children's education, then they should take the matter into their own hands rather than outsourcing it.
As long as teachers continue to put their own interests far ahead of those of their students the overall quality of education in America is unlikely to improve.
My $0.02.
Or make it their best interest to improve the quality of education. Private schools seem to do this well. The idea that their employment depends on quality of education helps.
Edit: I've posted my intro several months ago. It says I have one post but that is not true. Will post another intro if necessary.
Surf n Turf
03-31-2012, 17:47
Food for thought :mad:
SnT
When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."
- Albert Shanker
President, United Federation Of Teachers, (1964-1984)
http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=10970
"The superintendent is attempting to abuse a clause in the contract that allows the district to set different work requirements for "teachers on special assignment," union leaders said. It's a power struggle that will take veteran and committed teachers away from their students, said Betty Olson-Jones, president of the Oakland Education Association."
"This is really a slap in the face to our students," Olson-Jones said. "It's saying it doesn't matter who your teacher is."
I gathered it to say that someone DOES think it matters who your teacher is. For years now here in Iowa the answer seems to always be throw more money at education, trouble is the worse teacher in the system makes the same as the best one. Gotta start somewhere when it comes to addressing this issue, sounds to me if they are off to a good start in Oakland.
The Reaper
03-31-2012, 22:15
Accountability. Responsibility. Respect.
Foreign concepts to the unions. And some educators who probably shouldn't be teaching.
TR
FWIW, as long as I can remember, many aspiring and current graduate students are quick to aver that teaching assistants should unionize. They talk about respect, collective bargaining rights, and tax exemptions, but they rarely mention accountability or responsibility.
Thanks to a petition launched by the current administration (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/restore-tax-exempt-status-graduate-and-postdoc-stipends-gradtax/NrB1FcZn?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl), these discussions are heating up a bit in various areas of cyberspace. The needs and concerns of undergraduates are not mentioned. Many TAs/GSIs act as if being entrusted with the education of young people is an inconvenience. (I guess supporting undergraduates gets in the way of OWS activity.)
Members of this contingent are quick to complain when they get burned by professors. But it is their job to help us, they lament. Yet, they don't seem to realize that their professors have the same sensibilities towards teaching and mentoring that they want to codify through unionization.
(I might be a little bitter.)
In response to the OP regarding trends in education - "George Carlin must be rolling over in his grave..."
More PC BS run amok...is it any wonder why some of the younger folks look to big government for the answers...what can't they control...was the test maker's tone a little too gruff?
War On Words: NYC Dept. Of Education Wants 50 ‘Forbidden’ Words Banned From Standardized Tests
'Dinosaur,' 'Birthday,' 'Halloween,' 'Poverty,' 'Divorce' Among Those Suggested
March 26, 2012 7:04 PM
The New York City Department of Education is waging a war on words of sorts, and is seeking to have words they deem upsetting removed from standardized tests.
Fearing that certain words and topics can make students feel unpleasant, officials are requesting 50 or so words be removed from city-issued tests.
The word “dinosaur” made the hit list because dinosaurs suggest evolution which creationists might not like, WCBS 880′s Marla Diamond reported. “Halloween” is targeted because it suggests paganism; a “birthday” might not be happy to all because it isn’t celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Julie Lewis’ family celebrates Christmas and Kwanzaa, but she told CBS 2′s Emily Smith she wants her children to appreciate and learn about other holidays and celebrations.
“They’re going to meet people from all walks of life and they’re going to have to learn to adjust,” Lewis said.
Words that suggest wealth are excluded because they could make kids jealous. “Poverty” is also on the forbidden list. That’s something Sy Fliegal with the Center for Educational Innovation calls ridiculous.
“The Petersons take a vacation for five days in their Mercedes … so what? You think our kids are going to be offended because they don’t have a Mercedes? You think our kids are going to say ‘I’m offended; how could they ask me a question about a Mercedes? I don’t have a Mercedes!’” Fliegal said.
In a throwback to “Footloose,” the word “dancing” is also taboo. However, there is good news for kids that like “ballet”: The city made an exception for this form of dance.
Also banned are references to “divorce” and “disease,” because kids taking the tests may have relatives who split from spouses or are ill.
Some students think banning these words from periodic assessment tests is ridiculous.
“If you don’t celebrate one thing you might have a friend that does it. So I don’t see why people would find it offensive,” Curtis High School Sophomore Jamella Lewis told Diamond.
Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott said the DOE is simply giving guidance to the test developers.
“So we’re not an outlier in being politically correct. This is just making sure that test makers are sensitive in the development of their tests,” Walcott said Monday.
To which Fliegal responded: “It’s all of life! I don’t know how they figure out what not to put on the list. Every aspect of life is on the list.”
There are banned words currently in school districts nationwide. Walcott said New York City’s list is longer because its student body is so diverse.
George Carlin is rolling over in his grave.
The New York City Department of Education is waging a war on words of sorts, and is seeking to have words they deem upsetting removed from standardized tests.
Fearing that certain words and topics can make students feel unpleasant, officials are requesting 50 or so words be removed from city-issued tests.
The word “dinosaur” made the hit list because dinosaurs suggest evolution which creationists might not like, WCBS 880′s Marla Diamond reported. “Halloween” is targeted because it suggests paganism; a “birthday” might not be happy to all because it isn’t celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Julie Lewis’ family celebrates Christmas and Kwanzaa, but she told CBS 2′s Emily Smith she wants her children to appreciate and learn about other holidays and celebrations.
“They’re going to meet people from all walks of life and they’re going to have to learn to adjust,” Lewis said.
Words that suggest wealth are excluded because they could make kids jealous. “Poverty” is also on the forbidden list. That’s something Sy Fliegal with the Center for Educational Innovation calls ridiculous.
“The Petersons take a vacation for five days in their Mercedes … so what? You think our kids are going to be offended because they don’t have a Mercedes? You think our kids are going to say ‘I’m offended; how could they ask me a question about a Mercedes? I don’t have a Mercedes!’” Fliegal said.
In a throwback to “Footloose,” the word “dancing” is also taboo. However, there is good news for kids that like “ballet”: The city made an exception for this form of dance.
Also banned are references to “divorce” and “disease,” because kids taking the tests may have relatives who split from spouses or are ill.
Some students think banning these words from periodic assessment tests is ridiculous.
“If you don’t celebrate one thing you might have a friend that does it. So I don’t see why people would find it offensive,” Curtis High School Sophomore Jamella Lewis told Diamond.
Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott said the DOE is simply giving guidance to the test developers.
“So we’re not an outlier in being politically correct. This is just making sure that test makers are sensitive in the development of their tests,” Walcott said Monday.
To which Fliegal responded: “It’s all of life! I don’t know how they figure out what not to put on the list. Every aspect of life is on the list.”
There are banned words currently in school districts nationwide. Walcott said New York City’s list is longer because its student body is so diverse.
Here is the complete list of words that could be banned:
Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)
Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs
Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)
Bodily functions
Cancer (and other diseases)
Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)
Celebrities
Children dealing with serious issues
Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)
Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)
Crime
Death and disease
Divorce
Evolution
Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes
Gambling involving money
Halloween
Homelessness
Homes with swimming pools
Hunting
Junk food
In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge
Loss of employment
Nuclear weapons
Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)
Parapsychology
Politics
Pornography
Poverty
Rap Music
Religion
Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)
Rock-and-Roll music
Running away
Sex
Slavery
Terrorism
Television and video games (excessive use)
Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)
Vermin (rats and roaches)
Violence
War and bloodshed
Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
Oakland USD is a f'ing disaster. I have lived in Oakland, and could tell what day of the month it was based on the amount of gunfire- welfare payments seems to get the whole town riled up. I have taught at Oakland Tech. HS and worked with the students who care and struggle against some real long odds, and some who come to school only because they can sell more drugs there than on the street corner. The state of CA took the district over for poor performance about 8 years ago and nothing improved at all.
The changes discussed are good, but it is all the union's fault for not acknowledging that some teachers simply suck at teaching. This community above most others understands this. Teaching- no matter the subject- is a difficult task requiring lots of planning and preparation. It also requires a student who has some- not lots, but some- desire to learn. So much of teaching in Oakland is about PERSEC and checking your six that (for all people on campus, teachers, students, and all staff) the fundemental stuff of teaching is lost.
A good friend of mine works there and he told me the following. This reapply process is going to allow the principals to cut some really crappy teachers out. Also most teachers will keep their jobs and some-those on the bubble - will get transferred in exchange for keeping their jobs. All sounds good to me until you realize that Oakland high schools have to hire about 25% of their teaching staff new every year. At some point the supply demand curve will limit the ability to cull all the crap.
Signed,
One of the few non union teachers in California. An angry one at that....
"One of the few non union teachers in California. An angry one at that.... "
Diablo, you got balls! Because.....................
1. Anyone who would teach in Oakland would have to have them.
2. You are one of the few not throwing your hard earned money down that rathole called union dues.
I take it California is not a closed shop state? I live in a "right to work" state and can really appreciate the fact that I cannot be forced to pay dues. Good for you.
Entire post.
How does referencing Carlin square with your admiration for President Reagan when the former offered a scathing assessment of the latter <<LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlKMy65dyz4)>>?:rolleyes:
How does referencing Carlin square with your admiration for President Reagan when the former offered a scathing assessment of the latter <<LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlKMy65dyz4)>>?:rolleyes:
I don't take myself too seriously.
Try it.
Nice cross thread post though.
And George Carlin made me laugh as a kid.
YMMV
I don't take myself too seriously.
Try it.You don't want to be taken seriously. Okay.
You don't want to be taken seriously. Okay.
Have you tried decaf?
How does referencing Carlin square with your admiration for President Reagan when the former offered a scathing assessment of the latter <<LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlKMy65dyz4)>>?:rolleyes:
I was on my IPhone most of yesterday so I couldn't sit down and write a longer response.
George Carlin was a comedian and satirist whose frequent target was language - one bit he performed was the infamous "7 Words You Can Never Say On Television" - Carlin was quoted in the subject article regarding the word police censuring certain words used in standardized testing. Given the bit, Carlin's special focus on language throughout his comedic career, and given Carlin's famous irreverence for the PC - I suspect that the author of the subject article found the reference appropriate.
George Carlin was irreverent and made me laugh as a kid.
Ronald Reagan is/was an immense figure and leader and makes me smile to this day.
I still think you should consider decaf.:)
Badger52
04-02-2012, 07:07
Teachers' unions (and others "in solidarity") have spared no expense in funding the recall effort against our current Gov. (Signatures acquired, there will be a recall.) Their prime candidate is a current state politico who even the left-leaning Milwaukee paper has stated is in a menage a trois with the unions and the UW-system mandarins. She is "their" candidate.
Fly now in their ointment is previous (somewhat) centrist Dem Governor candidate (Mayor of Milwaukee) who was narrowly beaten by Walker during the election. And he has said he's not going to commit to saying that all previous decisions regarding collective-bargaining rights would necessarily be thrown out. (Milwaukee proper is typically quite "blue" but the surrounding counties are VERY red.)
So this is likely to be an election option that will pop some more star clusters on the unions' motives & TTPs. They have alot at stake in their mind and are worried that alot of passers-by who signed the petition did so because they just thought it would be the decent thing to do or because it was a fad & made the signer feel empowered. How they vote may be another matter, especially with another Dem candidate who has immediate name recognition.
Imagine the union politburo being concerned about someone's purity of motive.
:rolleyes:
GratefulCitizen
04-02-2012, 09:18
The problem with the public school system is the "public" part.
Government does few things well.
If the schools could not acquire their revenue by force (government), they would have to earn their revenue by providing results.
Market forces would cause ineffective schools to go out of business.
Badger52
04-02-2012, 11:14
The problem with the public school system is the "public" part.Agree. In the 45-50yrs ago category I consider myself blessed to have had what I consider an outstanding education in the public school system, and a variety of factors hence have probably contributed to the demise of actual useful subject matter.
Kids who were held back weren't discarded, they were mentored to get them back where they should be. But not meeting the standard meant not going forward just to avoid someone's feelings.
Having said that, nowadays, I'm grateful that for the most part my granddaughters have been home-schooled. They are little geniuses able to talk with you substantively on a wide-range of subjects and still have some playful out of the box thinking on tap. One of them was the only 1 in the family, including adults, to score decently on Richards' "put the giraffe in the refrigerator" test. I can't wait to see what that one comes back from Space Camp with...
:D
Why is it the teacher's responsibility?
If parents are worried about their children's education, then they should take the matter into their own hands rather than outsourcing it.
I would imagine someone doing this would have to be a true educational "renaissance man" to possess an in-depth understanding of all subjects, especially when the student reaches high school level work.
Why is it the teacher's responsibility?
If parents are worried about their children's education, then they should take the matter into their own hands rather than outsourcing it.
Easier said than done, when you have both parents working in order to pay the bills.
GratefulCitizen
04-02-2012, 22:02
Easier said than done, when you have both parents working in order to pay the bills.
Not advocating a particular method.
Trying to illuminate a principle: responsibility and authority are equivalent ideas.
The parent has the responsibility/authority when it comes to their children's education.
In practice, experts are used.
I'm not averse to outsourcing in order to take advantage of expertise.
I'm against fully outsourcing the authority/responsibility.
When a parent turns over their child to a teacher/system, they delegate authority to that teacher/system.
Nothing wrong with delegation.
The problem comes from lacking clear "parents' intent".
If a there is no clear intent, authority gets ceded rather than delegated.
When something goes awry, the blame game insues and solutions are elusive.
Even with clear intent, the parent only has authority over their children, not the system, and must operate within this reality.
If the system fails to serve the parents' intent, authority must be revoked.
This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition; it can be done in differing degrees and through different methods.
If a given system/teacher doesn't serve the parents' intent, it doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with the system/teacher.
It just happens to be a mismatch.
If an acceptable fit cannot be made (perhaps the child needs to adjust...), parents' should unapologetically revoke authority and find a better fit.
This is what I mean by "take the matter into their own hands".
Sometimes parents find themselves in circumstances where authority is not easily revoked.
These circumstances are usually 2nd/3rd order consequences of decisions they made serving other interests.
No need for anyone to kick themselves over this.
Just mitigate the circumstances as much as is feasible and start making decisions which will serve "parents' intent" down the road.
Doesn't matter whose "fault" it is.
Solutions are always easier to find in controlling our own behavior than that of others.
Entire post.Where in this matrix of authority do the interests of children fit? Is the purpose of education in America to empower students so they can make informed decisions about their own lives, or to indoctrinate them so they will live their lives as others see fit?
At some point they might benefit from learning how to interact with their peers and different types of authority figures. Does having a central authority figure that is dual hatted enable or diminish a child from eventually developing the ability to say "no"?
Moreover, what does it say of the value of unions if one opts out from participating in a sector of American society that is increasingly unionized? Is the slogan "Work Union. Live Better"? Or is it "Work Union. Live Lives That Undermine Public Confidence In Unions."
PedOncoDoc
04-03-2012, 04:28
Where in this matrix of authority do the interests of children fit? Is the purpose of education in America to empower students so they can make informed decisions about their own lives, or to indoctrinate them so they will live their lives as others see fit?
Is that not what parenting of young children is about?
Or do you prefer the Lord of the Flies approach? :munchin
Badger52
04-03-2012, 05:16
Moreover, what does it say of the value of unions if one opts out from participating in a sector of American society that is increasingly unionized? Is the slogan "Work Union. Live Better"? Or is it "Work Union. Live Lives That Undermine Public Confidence In Unions."
- Not much.
- A narrow interest like a union, fully participated in, requires some kool-aid be drunk. And, admittedly from an outside perspective, certainly seems to desire or require one's abrogation of independent action that diverges from the collective interest - as defined by the "more equal ones" at the top. If a union member feels they "live better" by being told who to vote for or, when out of work (hmm, the union couldn't help with that one), told to get on a bus to demonstrate in another state for a completely different union they should just accept their role as slaves - or leave. I personally define "live better" differently; but whatever floats your boat.
- I use the word 'confidence' differently. But I'd certainly accept that 'trust' is lost when the rabid interest becomes so blatantly about money funneled to the top. In the situation here in this state it's nothing about true "rights" (they didn't really exist, so nothing was really taken away). It's about the union wanting to hold onto the massively monopolistic money-maker they had which bankrolls many national level interests. To their consternation many members have put down the kool-aid - lots at stake. Anything that threatens the continued flow of rice into the bowl is evil. When the curtain is pulled back on such a motive public trust is degraded.
Badger52
04-03-2012, 11:21
MTEA members vote down 2.6% salary contribution
By Erin Richards of the Journal Sentinel
April 3, 2012
Almost 2,300 members of the Milwaukee teachers union voted against a proposal to contribute a week's worth of their pay - or 2.6% of their salary - to Milwaukee Public Schools to help reduce burgeoning class sizes, according to an email from the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association.
The notification from the MTEA late Monday night said that with a total of 3,931 members voting, 1,635 supported the MPS Children's Week measure and 2,296 voted against it.
Voting took place between March 28 and 30.
“Over the course of the last several weeks, I have spoken with hundreds of MTEA members about this issue,” Bob Peterson, MTEA president, said in a statement. “I heard again and again from members, especially those with outstanding student loans, who said that as a result of financial sacrifices they have already made to the district (like actually contributing to their health insurance & pension fund), they simply could not make the kind of additional contributions that were proposed."
Peterson also penned a letter to members about the outcome of the vote.
The MTEA said that according to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the most recent state budget will reduce revenue for MPS by $90 million next school year, on top of a $70 million cut this year.
The Children's Week campaign was intended to show that teachers were willing to contribute a part of their salary - which essentially would have meant giving up the raise they had coming in the current contract, which is viable for teachers until the summer of 2013 - in order to help keep class sizes at a more reasonable level.
The campaign aimed to enlist community support by asking businesses and even residents to similarly donate a week's worth of their salary to the struggling urban district.
It was a bold move by union leadership to build goodwill in the community, but the decision of the majority of voting union members indicates many educators weren't willing to get behind that type of strategy.
LINK to Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/145877085.html)
I find this interesting since several large school districts in the state have been able to show impending surpluses, not being shackled to buying health insurance from the WEAC monopoly. I suppose the additional reform of requiring unions to allow all members to vote individually on such matters is hammer or nail depending upon where one sits.
Is that not what parenting of young children is about?
Or do you prefer the Lord of the Flies approach? :munchinDoc--
The point I'm raising is that at some point, a kid is going to be under the authority of others (unless he/she lives on a commune): a coach, a teacher, a supervisor, a boss, or a team leader.
The question I'm asking are these. First, is an effort centered around establishing and maintaining parental authority above all else going to position a kid to deal with other types of authority? Second, what happens if/when a kid is ready to go beyond his teacher's lessons when that teacher is a parent who is focused on maintaining authority?
In my experience, students have a hard enough time when their educational goals go against a parents' preferences. What might this dynamic be like when the parent is also the teacher?
PedOncoDoc
04-04-2012, 02:11
Doc--
The point I'm raising is that at some point, a kid is going to be under the authority of others (unless he/she lives on a commune): a coach, a teacher, a supervisor, a boss, or a team leader.
The question I'm asking are these. First, is an effort centered around establishing and maintaining parental authority above all else going to position a kid to deal with other types of authority? Second, what happens if/when a kid is ready to go beyond his teacher's lessons when that teacher is a parent who is focused on maintaining authority?
In my experience, students have a hard enough time when their educational goals go against a parents' preferences. What might this dynamic be like when the parent is also the teacher?
Well taken points. As far as the child being under the authority of others, part of why my kids are in public schools is so they can learn to deal with people with other viewpoints and priorities, and to respect authority, but know when to stand up for themselves. My wife and I have told my son that if he gets in trouble for doing the right thing, we will support him 100% - and we have.
A huge part of parenting is being willing to let a kid find his/her own path. This requires a certain amount of selflessness. The primary goal is not maintaining authority, it is building a moral construct within a child to help them learn to make good decisions and be a productive member of society. The enforcement of a parent's authority should be evident when a child is in need of a course correction when he/she makes decisions that can spiral into deliquancy/criminal behavior, not when a child shows aptitude/interest in activities that are not problematic, but are things the parent would not choose for himself.
Do you have children, or are you touting theory? A certain amount of "field experience" gives one's thoughts about parenting more weight with me.
Well taken points. As far as the child being under the authority of others, part of why my kids are in public schools is so they can learn to deal with people with other viewpoints and priorities, and to respect authority, but know when to stand up for themselves. My wife and I have told my son that if he gets in trouble for doing the right thing, we will support him 100% - and we have.
A huge part of parenting is being willing to let a kid find his/her own path. This requires a certain amount of selflessness. The primary goal is not maintaining authority, it is building a moral construct within a child to help them learn to make good decisions and be a productive member of society. The enforcement of a parent's authority should be evident when a child is in need of a course correction when he/she makes decisions that can spiral into deliquancy/criminal behavior, not when a child shows aptitude/interest in activities that are not problematic, but are things the parent would not choose for himself.
Do you have children, or are you touting theory? A certain amount of "field experience" gives one's thoughts about parenting more weight with me.Doc--
I don't have kids. But I don't believe I'm merely "touting' theory." (And also,the focus of my questions in my previous two posts are rooted in the area of educating young people, not raising them.)
My views are primarily shaped by (a) my own experiences with my parents and also getting to see different parenting styles as I grew with friends, and (b) my experiences in the Ivory Tower.
In regards to the former (a), I received a lot of, ah, push back, from a parent for wanting to study history (but I'm not bitter) and receiving more support from the parents of friends who also took their educations seriously. In regards to the latter (b), I have had students who faced daunting challenges because their coursework collided with the views of a parent, and I have heard second-hand a depressingly large number of anecdotes by undergraduates about the grief they received from their parents for wanting to focus on their school work. (I'm a historian, not a social worker, dammit.)
To be clear, I have encountered undergraduates whose difficulties in adjusting to college because they were badly shortchanged in their previous educational experiences. And I put those failings on teachers. (If a college freshman doesn't know the difference between a novel and a work of non-fiction or can not respond to a question as simple as "What do you think?" several someones have screwed up multiple times.)
And, as I've railed in earlier posts, IMO, there's a terrible disconnect between the goals professors and graduate students on the one hand and the needs of their students--and American society more generally on the other. Eggheads complain about the job market, the working conditions, and the lack of respect they receive from students and from the general population yet when you suggest to them that they look in the mirror for the reasons, they get snitty. How about that.
Yet, I don't think the solution is for more and more parents to wear two hats and pull their kids out of the mix. As a nation, we're either going to get there together or we're not going to get there at all.
YMMV.
PedOncoDoc
04-04-2012, 03:33
In regards to the former (a), I received a lot of, ah, push back, from a parent for wanting to study history (but I'm not bitter) and receiving more support from the parents of friends who also took their educations seriously. In regards to the latter (b), I have had students who faced daunting challenges because their coursework collided with the views of a parent, and I have heard second-hand a depressingly large number of anecdotes by undergraduates about the grief they received from their parents for wanting to focus on their school work. (I'm a historian, not a social worker, dammit.)
Again - well taken points. I initially started my undergraduate studies in mechanical engineering due to pressure from my parents. I was unhappy with the career opportunities that engineering afforded me due to a lack of passion, and felt lost in my studies due to my dissatisfaction. I remember sitting my parents down to tell them I was trasnferring universities and pursuing pre-med. While they were not happy with me and disagreed with my plan to pursue medicine, they understood and respected my decision because I showed them I had put a lot of thought into the change in focus of study and they respected my choice.
To be clear, I have encountered undergraduates whose difficulties in adjusting to college because they were badly shortchanged in their previous educational experiences. And I put those failings on teachers. (If a college freshman doesn't know the difference between a novel and a work of non-fiction or can not respond to a question as simple as "What do you think?" several someones have screwed up multiple times.)
Kids having a hard time adjusting to college life is a failure of both their education and their parents. Children need to learn discipline in order to balance the social development/freedom they have at college with the academic/intellectual responsibilities they have to their education. This requires the student to make responsible choices about when to go exercise, hang out with friends, etc., with the need to complete their school work and study on their own time. I believe that most of this discipline is learned outside of the classroom and needs to be modeled/taught at home when the child wants to go hang out with their friends but has a report due or an upcoming test. IMHO, parents need to be actively involved in their children's education in order for the child to succeed, and to set them up for success in a college environment where they will not have their parents keeping them on-task.
The inability to think critically is a failing both at school and at home IMHO. Every decision a child makes on their own is an opportunity to teach/learn - both inside and outside a classroom. Debriefing after an independently made decision can help a child vocalize their motivations/thought processes for making the decision and explore alternative courses of action that they may not have realized were options. This can also be a chance to discuss first and second order effects of decisions to help a child go beyond concrete thinking. A parents can just as easily ask a child "What do you think?" in a non-academic setting to help encourage a child to think critically about themselves, their choices, and about social issues and form their own opinions. Both the teacher and the parent have to be willing to accept when a child comes to a decision/conclusion that may not be the same as his/her own if it is a valid decision, and be willing to discuss the disagreement with the child - not to change the child's mind, but to help them understand why they have made that opinion/decision.
And, as I've railed in earlier posts, IMO, there's a terrible disconnect between the goals professors and graduate students on the one hand and the needs of their students--and American society more generally on the other. Eggheads complain about the job market, the working conditions, and the lack of respect they receive from students and from the general population yet when you suggest to them that they look in the mirror for the reasons, they get snitty. How about that.
The job of a parent and a teacher is not to push his/her agenda. It is to help the child learn to make informed decisions, find internal motivation and, ultimately, to become a productive, contributing member to society.
Regarding the lack of respect for their teachers, it is learned somewhere. Where do you think this comes from?
Yet, I don't think the solution is for more and more parents to wear two hats and pull their kids out of the mix. As a nation, we're either going to get there together or we're not going to get there at all.
I don't think this is asking parents to wear two hats. On the contrary, I believe it is holding the parents to task fully wearing the hat they donned when having children - and not wearing it cocked off to one side with their pants sagging around their knees.
ZonieDiver
04-04-2012, 07:31
MTEA members vote down 2.6% salary contribution
By Erin Richards of the Journal Sentinel
April 3, 2012
The amazing part for me is that 1600 of the 3900 DID vote to forgo money in their pocket to "help kids"!
Perhaps, many of the 2300 who voted "No" had experience with their district's administration NOT following through on such things, and using the monies for other "priorities" that suddenly arise. They then see no meaningful reduction in class size, etc.
(At the same time MY district was in the third year of NO pay increases, and actual pay reductions, the "head shed" added TWO, count 'em, TWO Associate Superintendent positions (at $100,000+ each... with "all the goodies" they get.)
GratefulCitizen
04-04-2012, 10:16
Where in this matrix of authority do the interests of children fit? Is the purpose of education in America to empower students so they can make informed decisions about their own lives, or to indoctrinate them so they will live their lives as others see fit?
At some point they might benefit from learning how to interact with their peers and different types of authority figures. Does having a central authority figure that is dual hatted enable or diminish a child from eventually developing the ability to say "no"?
Moreover, what does it say of the value of unions if one opts out from participating in a sector of American society that is increasingly unionized? Is the slogan "Work Union. Live Better"? Or is it "Work Union. Live Lives That Undermine Public Confidence In Unions."
Holy historians, Batman!
It's the Riddler!
Not sure what the purpose of education in America is supposed to be.
My suggestion is that parents do as they see fit, and let other parents to the same.
I have know way of knowing for sure whether my choices as a parent are the "right" ones.
Maybe an historian will write about it someday (and another one will subsequently rewrite it...).
IMO, people should exercise the authority they actually possess if they wish to have influence in and around their lives.
Focusing on how everybody else exercises their authority "wrongly" is nothing more than a victim mentality.
But, to each his own.
YMMV.
Badger52
04-05-2012, 05:38
Perhaps, many of the 2300 who voted "No" had experience with their district's administration NOT following through on such things, and using the monies for other "priorities" that suddenly arise. They then see no meaningful reduction in class size, etc.
(At the same time MY district was in the third year of NO pay increases, and actual pay reductions, the "head shed" added TWO, count 'em, TWO Associate Superintendent positions (at $100,000+ each... with "all the goodies" they get.)Precisely sir; perfect example. The "U" here is notorious for regular fee increases, presumably to offset the ridiculous tribute & benefits paid to attract some foreign or domestic notable invited to be on the list of "look who we've got" faculty. But (classes taught / salary) yields a very small number right of the decimal point...
And without a modest-cost jr. college system to feed the 4-yr universities as many states have (which I recall in my days in CA worked pretty well) it just drives the cost of that parchment well beyond the reach of many UNLESS there are some "entitlements, please."
All that said, I still believe one of the things young folks should get mentored in is the decision off the bat to assess what it is they might like to actually DO (active verb). I strongly believe that a rote 4-yr degree is not the right fit for everyone and may indeed be a huge waste of the time & resources of ALCON. Probably if someone even suggested that in the counselling process the outcry would be "how DARE you try to keep Johnny down by suggesting he not go to college!" Don't know, just seems to me one of the dynamics in play today but I could be wrong.