I have a question. What is the purpose of public education in the United States? Is it to create children who are good at a variety of different things? Is it to socialize children? Is it to introduce them to a variety of different subjects? Is it to teach appreciation for something like Beowulf? Is it to give the parents someplace to stash the kids while they work? Is it to give students a solid foundation in a variety of subjects? I daresay, many people would admit to never having really thought about it. Under pressure, some may want to pick two or three of the above, some would say it is all of the above. Some would even add to the list.
It is the fact that many have never thought about the purpose of the school system in the US and the fact that many would add to the above list that we find ourselves in the mess that we are in. We want schools to be all things to all students. We want schools to teach everything to our kids. Just think about what we ask our schools to teach: math, English, science, history, computer, foreign languages, home economics, shop class, art, music, physical education, health, drama, and all the sub-sections of every one of these classes. Then we move to the "other" programs that schools are expected to offer: anti-bullying, problem mediation, community volunteerism, couseling, services for students with special needs, both gifted and talented and remedial, and all of the sub-headings of these. Then, we move to all of the extra-curricular activities that schools are expected to offer. Then comes the hot breakfast and lunch programs, busing, field trips, in school assemblies, activity days, the list goes on and on and on. Of course, we are happy to advertise all of the services that our kids receive. We are the proud parents in these districts who get to say, "My kids go to XYZ School and we offer everything under the sun."
Then we get a look at the bill. We realize that these services aren't really free and that our tax bills are rising steadily. At first, it may be more of an inconvenience than anything else. Then the gas prices go up. Then food prices go up. Then your salary or that of your spouse decreases or you lose it all together. Then the schools who are facing the same price increases come to you asking for more money. What then? Are you still willing to pay for all of these services? Has your definition of what public education should be changed?
Now I ask another question, why is using SB-5 to "trim the fat" so bad? OK, I hear you. "What do you mean why is that bad?! Teachers and staff are losing their jobs! There are families who are going to be devastated by this! Think of the children! etc." Very emotional responses for a very emotional situation indeed. And yes, there certainly are going to be families hurt by this. If we are to be honest about it however, many of those same families would be hurt by individual levy after individual levy failing in May and November. SB-5 just gave us one big Boogyman to aim at. After all the dust from the failed levies settled, we would be in much the same place, and perhaps worse since the remaining teachers wouldn't be paying more for their healthcare, etc.
So let's set that aside for a moment and return to the original question which is, why is "trimming the fat" such a bad thing? We hear every single year about how American schools are so far behind many of the other nations in the developed world. We hear that test scores are lagging in the very things we used to be the best in the world at, the basics. When we no longer have the money to pay for things like photography, silk screening, and Mandarin Chinese (no kidding, they are real offerings in schools) we have to focus on the basics. We have to focus on teaching our kids a solid foundation of reading, writing, math, science, and history.
Before you start throwing things at the screen and wishing ill on my family, stop and think. When you don't have the money in your home to do things like go on vacation or out to dinner, where do your funds go? Clothing, shelter, food, right? The basics. They may be tough choices, but you still have to make them or you end up buried in debt.
When you have to go back to the basics at home, what happens to your family life? More focus on what is important in your home? More closeness because you spend more time together? More strength as a unit? Do your kids learn more about life and how to handle it?
What if the same thing happens in our schools? What if we really become student centered and focus on giving them the basics of the core subjects? Will test scores improve? Will students be better at learning how to focus on their subjects? Will students and families be more responsible for what happens in their schools? I hope so. I hope that we will use this opportunity to become stronger in our foundations and to learn what is really important. I hope that communities will focus on what schools should be providing. If parents want to send their kids to silk screening or Mandarin Chinese class, great. Every parent should have that choice. The schools just can't do it anymore.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
I hope the teachers stand up for parents' rights
When exactly, did parents become idiots? Parents cannot be trusted to keep their children safe and healthy. Just take a look at the baby/booster seat laws for drivers, the helmets and knee pads for riding bikes in the driveway, and the ever popular 150 SPF sunscreen to be applied even in the dead of winter because somewhere there is the ultraviolet boogyman aiming for the children. Parents have been too cavalier for too long. The government and media, among others, have to step in.
In the words of Reverend Lovejoy's wife, "Just think of the children!"
Yes, when a person becomes a parent, we apparently abdicate the use of the logic and common sense portions of our brains and we are reduced to having parenting skills only slightly above that of most monkeys. That is, of course, unless you are a parent AND a member of the government or a governing body such as a school board. Upon holding one of these positions, you are once again granted full use of your entire brain and now know how best to raise not only your children but everyone else's as well.
What evidence do I have of this? One need look no further than some school cafeterias around the nation. The most recent crusader in the "All Parents Are Idiots" fight is Chicago's Little Village Academy. A public school, by the way. Yes, they know so well how to take care of your children that they are even relieving the well meaning but idiot parents of having to pack lunches for them. They have in fact, not only taken the responsibilty of feeding children at lunch, but they have banned the parents from doing the same. yahoo news.com says that unless the children attending Little Village Academy have a medical excuse from a doctor, they will not be permitted to eat bagged lunches from home. The excuses are for potential allergies to the food being served in the cafeteria.
Why do this? The school says (as do many who have implemented similar policies) that the students need to have well balanced meals. Meals that apparently parents are too stupid to provide, never mind the fact that many school lunch menus include items such as: cheese filled bread sticks, take out pizza, and french fries. Obviously, the lunches of champions.
Mind you, the parents are not receiving this largess for free. Oh no, dear idiot friends. Parents will have to buy these lunches for $2.25 per day. That translates to $11.25 per week or $45.00 per month.
Are we supposed to believe that parents spend $2.25 a day on a sandwich, juice or milk, a bag of cookies, a yogurt and an apple? I don't. I did that math. For all the food I just listed it costs me roughly $1.35 to send my child to school with lunch and an afternoon snack. That equates to $6.75 a week or $27.00 per month. This particular school would like me to increase my food budget for my child by $18.00 a month. It may not sound like much at the outset but think about what $18.00 can do for you. Think also about that $18.00 and multiply it by the number of kids you have. How does an extra $36.00 or $54.00 sound? What if it's more than that?
So, parents are not only expected to accept the fact that they can no longer feed their children the food they choose, but they also have to dig deeper into their wallets to do it. Are we to just say to the schools, "Oh thank you so much for taking the dreaded burden of choosing what my child eats and supplying a healthy lunch for her away from me. It was just too much to handle."? I hope not.
When parents see schools behaving this way is it any wonder that very often there is an antagonistic relationship created between parent and school? Schools tell parents that they want, nay, need the involvement of all parents in the education and formation of the students. Just don't try to feed them, or get involved with the curriculum, or ask any questions about a test or homework because, while we need your involvement, we can actually do everything better than you and if you are left to your own devices your child will be as idiotic as you are.
The bottom line is this. More and more schools are taking more and more choice away from parents while demanding more and more money from parents. At every turn, parents are patronized and told that we, the teachers and school boards know better how to deal with their children. Then, teachers and school boards wonder why they can't get parents involved in the educational process.
My hope is that the perhaps well meaning school authorities who remove more and more choice from the parents will be challenged at every turn by both parents AND teachers. My hope is that both parents and teachers across the nation will trust in their own abilities to do their respective jobs that they will stand together and say enough is enough. We are not fools who failed the food pyramid in school. We will stand together and demand that we be allowed to be responsible for our respective parenting and teaching duties.
I, for one, trust myself enough to know that I can provide a healthy meal for my child. No one need do that for me. I also trust my neighbors, colleagues and friends to do the same with their children. I hope the school authorities and teachers agree with me. If the school authorities and teachers at my child's school doubt that, they will be challenged and they will not win.
I challenge every parent and teacher to support parents' rights and to stand up and say enough. This is not, at its heart, about feeding poor helpless children. It is about putting parents into a box and demanding more and more control over the lives of their children.
In the words of Reverend Lovejoy's wife, "Just think of the children!"
Yes, when a person becomes a parent, we apparently abdicate the use of the logic and common sense portions of our brains and we are reduced to having parenting skills only slightly above that of most monkeys. That is, of course, unless you are a parent AND a member of the government or a governing body such as a school board. Upon holding one of these positions, you are once again granted full use of your entire brain and now know how best to raise not only your children but everyone else's as well.
What evidence do I have of this? One need look no further than some school cafeterias around the nation. The most recent crusader in the "All Parents Are Idiots" fight is Chicago's Little Village Academy. A public school, by the way. Yes, they know so well how to take care of your children that they are even relieving the well meaning but idiot parents of having to pack lunches for them. They have in fact, not only taken the responsibilty of feeding children at lunch, but they have banned the parents from doing the same. yahoo news.com says that unless the children attending Little Village Academy have a medical excuse from a doctor, they will not be permitted to eat bagged lunches from home. The excuses are for potential allergies to the food being served in the cafeteria.
Why do this? The school says (as do many who have implemented similar policies) that the students need to have well balanced meals. Meals that apparently parents are too stupid to provide, never mind the fact that many school lunch menus include items such as: cheese filled bread sticks, take out pizza, and french fries. Obviously, the lunches of champions.
Mind you, the parents are not receiving this largess for free. Oh no, dear idiot friends. Parents will have to buy these lunches for $2.25 per day. That translates to $11.25 per week or $45.00 per month.
Are we supposed to believe that parents spend $2.25 a day on a sandwich, juice or milk, a bag of cookies, a yogurt and an apple? I don't. I did that math. For all the food I just listed it costs me roughly $1.35 to send my child to school with lunch and an afternoon snack. That equates to $6.75 a week or $27.00 per month. This particular school would like me to increase my food budget for my child by $18.00 a month. It may not sound like much at the outset but think about what $18.00 can do for you. Think also about that $18.00 and multiply it by the number of kids you have. How does an extra $36.00 or $54.00 sound? What if it's more than that?
So, parents are not only expected to accept the fact that they can no longer feed their children the food they choose, but they also have to dig deeper into their wallets to do it. Are we to just say to the schools, "Oh thank you so much for taking the dreaded burden of choosing what my child eats and supplying a healthy lunch for her away from me. It was just too much to handle."? I hope not.
When parents see schools behaving this way is it any wonder that very often there is an antagonistic relationship created between parent and school? Schools tell parents that they want, nay, need the involvement of all parents in the education and formation of the students. Just don't try to feed them, or get involved with the curriculum, or ask any questions about a test or homework because, while we need your involvement, we can actually do everything better than you and if you are left to your own devices your child will be as idiotic as you are.
The bottom line is this. More and more schools are taking more and more choice away from parents while demanding more and more money from parents. At every turn, parents are patronized and told that we, the teachers and school boards know better how to deal with their children. Then, teachers and school boards wonder why they can't get parents involved in the educational process.
My hope is that the perhaps well meaning school authorities who remove more and more choice from the parents will be challenged at every turn by both parents AND teachers. My hope is that both parents and teachers across the nation will trust in their own abilities to do their respective jobs that they will stand together and say enough is enough. We are not fools who failed the food pyramid in school. We will stand together and demand that we be allowed to be responsible for our respective parenting and teaching duties.
I, for one, trust myself enough to know that I can provide a healthy meal for my child. No one need do that for me. I also trust my neighbors, colleagues and friends to do the same with their children. I hope the school authorities and teachers agree with me. If the school authorities and teachers at my child's school doubt that, they will be challenged and they will not win.
I challenge every parent and teacher to support parents' rights and to stand up and say enough. This is not, at its heart, about feeding poor helpless children. It is about putting parents into a box and demanding more and more control over the lives of their children.
Monday, April 4, 2011
SB-5 Allows Fair Shair Opt Out
If SB-5 survives the referendum push, it will allow teachers to opt out of even the fair share portion of union membership. For the unitiated, that means that now teachers will have a third option on the first teacher day of the year. They will be able to fully join the union, they will be able to pay only the "fair share" dues (meaning that they won't pay the political contribution part of the dues but are still under the umbrella of union negotiations), or they will be able to simply not join the unions.
What will the effect of this be? Perhaps it will mean that unions will "morph into professional associations" as Mike Bock said oin his March 3rd post. http://daytonos.com/?p=9976&cpage=1#comment-24909. While hoping Mr. Bock is correct, I am slightly more skeptical. I do not think that unions will go peacefully and quietly into the realm of "association", at least not without a fight.
I have long questioned the motives of the union itself. Not the local negotiators, but the union. We as teachers are told by our unions at contract time or when school districts have to reduce their teaching force, that teachers are not to be judged by their product, but by longevity. If the person teaching in the room next to me has been there longer, and they need to cut in our department, I loose my job first. That is regardless of the quality of my product, ie, my success in the classroom.
By spending union dollars to protect teachers who are not as qualified, it creates life long loyalty by these members. They will gladly pay their dues since they were served individually. How does this benefit the teaching profession or our end users, the students? It simply does not. It perpetuates the necessity of unions.
So, while the opportunity for the union to get out in front of this issue and turn into something that more protects both good quality teachers and students is there, I do not believe that this will happen with out an all out dog fight. Unions will spend millions of dollars in Ohio in order to convince their members that in order for them to remain as a teacher, they must remain beholden to the union itself. Teachers will be told that the only thing between them and the big bad world is the union, not their own skill and dedication.
What will the effect of this be? Perhaps it will mean that unions will "morph into professional associations" as Mike Bock said oin his March 3rd post. http://daytonos.com/?p=9976&cpage=1#comment-24909. While hoping Mr. Bock is correct, I am slightly more skeptical. I do not think that unions will go peacefully and quietly into the realm of "association", at least not without a fight.
I have long questioned the motives of the union itself. Not the local negotiators, but the union. We as teachers are told by our unions at contract time or when school districts have to reduce their teaching force, that teachers are not to be judged by their product, but by longevity. If the person teaching in the room next to me has been there longer, and they need to cut in our department, I loose my job first. That is regardless of the quality of my product, ie, my success in the classroom.
By spending union dollars to protect teachers who are not as qualified, it creates life long loyalty by these members. They will gladly pay their dues since they were served individually. How does this benefit the teaching profession or our end users, the students? It simply does not. It perpetuates the necessity of unions.
So, while the opportunity for the union to get out in front of this issue and turn into something that more protects both good quality teachers and students is there, I do not believe that this will happen with out an all out dog fight. Unions will spend millions of dollars in Ohio in order to convince their members that in order for them to remain as a teacher, they must remain beholden to the union itself. Teachers will be told that the only thing between them and the big bad world is the union, not their own skill and dedication.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
SB-5, Ohio's Attempt to Be Financially Responsible?
Ok, admittedly I am a bit late to this party since this is my first comment on SB-5 but a few things do bear saying. I am a lisenced teacher with 10 years under my belt in the public schools. While currently not employed full time by any particular district, I feel for the good teachers (and other workers) who are caught up in this mess. Most of those who are going to be affected by this particular issue have had little or nothing to do with creating it except working under the contracts and blindly accepting that those who negotiated them were being, at the very least, responsible to both the taxpayers and the workers. To quote Mel Brooks, "It stinks on ice."
It flat out stinks that over the last several decades we have managed to completely ignore our financial house. It flat out stinks that many of our current workers, especially some of those closest to retirement are going to have to make significant adjustments to their lifestyles, perhaps to the point of readjusting retirement dates (if they survive the rounds of layoffs sure to come). It also flat out stinks that people with families still to raise have to have some tough talks with their kids about what can now be afforded and what can't. Finally, it flat out stinks that many are getting a crash course in responsibility that some managed to avoid.
What? The only ones who escaped this are the big wigs in government who are trying to balance their budgets on the backs of the working class, right? Wrong. Think for a moment about who was sitting on both sides of that negotiating table in your particular area all these years. There were people on both sides of that table. Since I am feeling charitable, let's assume that everyone sitting at that table really thought that these contracts were responsible to not only the workers but also to the public who pays the bills in the end. If that is the case then NO ONE sitting at that table had the foresight to think about economic booms and busts. NO ONE sitting at that table had the economic education to think about what happens when these contracts reach critical mass and all of these bills have to be paid at once.
Now, assuming that we as a public didn't hire fools to teach and run our schools, someone had to know this was coming. How long ago did our negotiating teams know? How long ago did they knowingly begin to pass this buck to future negotiating teams? How many of the current retirees are sitting comforatbly, having raised their kids and purchased their condos in Florida or Arizona while the deals that they cut are coming back to bite the current generations? Frankly, it doesn't really matter, does it? It all still stinks.
Yes, a smelly time indeed, like a fish rotting on the dock. It doesn't change the fact that stinky little Nemo needs to be cleaned up and you and I are holding the scoop and bucket. So what are we to do? Ignore it? Deny it exsists? Scream and yell that it's not fair? Make it worse for our own kids who will be facing perhaps greater unemployment, greater school and essential services shortages, and higher taxes still? We will be sitting at retirement in our little condos or the homes we somehow managed to pay off and our kids will be living with us! What will they be able to afford? Our basements. That's what. I love my children but the time will come when they have to go and if we don't get our governmental house in order, the taxes they will be paying will mean they have to live with me and that is unacceptable!
So what is the answer? As much as we might like to seek vengence on the current office holders for not only having to bear the bad news but also carry out its remedies, we can't. Sure, SB-5 has some parts of it that are difficult to swallow. Tough medicine usually is. Some might even say that this is merely a shot at breaking up unions in general. Maybe it is. Considering the mess the unions helped get us all into, is that necessarily a bad thing? Were the unions the only culprit? Of course not. There were plenty of groups in that line.
The fact of the matter is, no matter who got us into what or why, here we are. In a great big hole. Most of us jumped right in, head first with no 'chute. I hear you, gritting your teeth at me, "So what's your solution then?" First, let's STOP DIGGING THIS HOLE. SB-5 will undoubtedly help in that regard. Asking public unions to pay for some of their healthcare and retirement is simply not avoidable. Remember, I say this as a licensed teacher. Most teachers, and I would imagine other public union members, do not pay what the private sector professions pay into their healthcare. Currently my family pays 35%, most teachers pay in the neighborhood of 10% or under. Asking for 15% under the current circumstances is reasonable.
If those effected by SB-5 don't begin to pay for some of these things, how will they be paid for? Well, most schools and cities will have to ask for more money in the form of taxes. Keeping in mind that most people who work in the private sector get benefits nowhere near those of the public sector, is it reasonable to ask them to pay higher taxes in order to cover those bills? I say no. I also venture to say that 85-90% of the levies put on the ballot statewide in the next year will fail and fail big.
It is also reasonable to ask for pay raises to be based on merit rather than simply hanging on longer than anyone else. If teachers truly care about the education and benefit of their students, then they should not be afraid to ask themselves and others to perform and perform well. We ask our students to perform well, why shouldn't we be held to those standards as well? We would not go to a restaurant where the service was slow, the food only barely edible, with hygeine standards that mimic a teenage boy's room, and then offer to pay more. Why should taxpayers be forced to do that with the people who educate their children?
So public workers, and teachers in particular, it is time to take a long hard look at what you believe about your profession. It is time to take a long look at your performance. It is also time to take a long hard look for yourself at what the unions are telling you. Decide for yourselves, not just out of fear for your wallets. You can overcome financial bumps. I encourage you to take the time to think about all the information that is being thrown at you. Analyze it for yourselves. Now let's go clean up our stinky little fish the best way we can.
It flat out stinks that over the last several decades we have managed to completely ignore our financial house. It flat out stinks that many of our current workers, especially some of those closest to retirement are going to have to make significant adjustments to their lifestyles, perhaps to the point of readjusting retirement dates (if they survive the rounds of layoffs sure to come). It also flat out stinks that people with families still to raise have to have some tough talks with their kids about what can now be afforded and what can't. Finally, it flat out stinks that many are getting a crash course in responsibility that some managed to avoid.
What? The only ones who escaped this are the big wigs in government who are trying to balance their budgets on the backs of the working class, right? Wrong. Think for a moment about who was sitting on both sides of that negotiating table in your particular area all these years. There were people on both sides of that table. Since I am feeling charitable, let's assume that everyone sitting at that table really thought that these contracts were responsible to not only the workers but also to the public who pays the bills in the end. If that is the case then NO ONE sitting at that table had the foresight to think about economic booms and busts. NO ONE sitting at that table had the economic education to think about what happens when these contracts reach critical mass and all of these bills have to be paid at once.
Now, assuming that we as a public didn't hire fools to teach and run our schools, someone had to know this was coming. How long ago did our negotiating teams know? How long ago did they knowingly begin to pass this buck to future negotiating teams? How many of the current retirees are sitting comforatbly, having raised their kids and purchased their condos in Florida or Arizona while the deals that they cut are coming back to bite the current generations? Frankly, it doesn't really matter, does it? It all still stinks.
Yes, a smelly time indeed, like a fish rotting on the dock. It doesn't change the fact that stinky little Nemo needs to be cleaned up and you and I are holding the scoop and bucket. So what are we to do? Ignore it? Deny it exsists? Scream and yell that it's not fair? Make it worse for our own kids who will be facing perhaps greater unemployment, greater school and essential services shortages, and higher taxes still? We will be sitting at retirement in our little condos or the homes we somehow managed to pay off and our kids will be living with us! What will they be able to afford? Our basements. That's what. I love my children but the time will come when they have to go and if we don't get our governmental house in order, the taxes they will be paying will mean they have to live with me and that is unacceptable!
So what is the answer? As much as we might like to seek vengence on the current office holders for not only having to bear the bad news but also carry out its remedies, we can't. Sure, SB-5 has some parts of it that are difficult to swallow. Tough medicine usually is. Some might even say that this is merely a shot at breaking up unions in general. Maybe it is. Considering the mess the unions helped get us all into, is that necessarily a bad thing? Were the unions the only culprit? Of course not. There were plenty of groups in that line.
The fact of the matter is, no matter who got us into what or why, here we are. In a great big hole. Most of us jumped right in, head first with no 'chute. I hear you, gritting your teeth at me, "So what's your solution then?" First, let's STOP DIGGING THIS HOLE. SB-5 will undoubtedly help in that regard. Asking public unions to pay for some of their healthcare and retirement is simply not avoidable. Remember, I say this as a licensed teacher. Most teachers, and I would imagine other public union members, do not pay what the private sector professions pay into their healthcare. Currently my family pays 35%, most teachers pay in the neighborhood of 10% or under. Asking for 15% under the current circumstances is reasonable.
If those effected by SB-5 don't begin to pay for some of these things, how will they be paid for? Well, most schools and cities will have to ask for more money in the form of taxes. Keeping in mind that most people who work in the private sector get benefits nowhere near those of the public sector, is it reasonable to ask them to pay higher taxes in order to cover those bills? I say no. I also venture to say that 85-90% of the levies put on the ballot statewide in the next year will fail and fail big.
It is also reasonable to ask for pay raises to be based on merit rather than simply hanging on longer than anyone else. If teachers truly care about the education and benefit of their students, then they should not be afraid to ask themselves and others to perform and perform well. We ask our students to perform well, why shouldn't we be held to those standards as well? We would not go to a restaurant where the service was slow, the food only barely edible, with hygeine standards that mimic a teenage boy's room, and then offer to pay more. Why should taxpayers be forced to do that with the people who educate their children?
So public workers, and teachers in particular, it is time to take a long hard look at what you believe about your profession. It is time to take a long look at your performance. It is also time to take a long hard look for yourself at what the unions are telling you. Decide for yourselves, not just out of fear for your wallets. You can overcome financial bumps. I encourage you to take the time to think about all the information that is being thrown at you. Analyze it for yourselves. Now let's go clean up our stinky little fish the best way we can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)