Or: While I Admit the Persistently Problematic Issues Underlying Cat Macro Grammar, I Find Cat Macros Funny Enough to Borrow Their Structure; Alas, I Remain Unable to Utilize Their Non-Standard Grammar.
For all the alarmist rhetoric around tenure, one thing that's really really really really awesome about tenure (which I totally have...as you can see, I have not one whit of a problem with Valley Speak) is that it means I don't feel any particular need to keep my smart mouth shut.
Realistically, the number of Kindergarten teachers in SFUSD is not enormously large; the number of Kindergarten teachers in SFUSD at high-needs schools is even smaller. It would not be that difficult to find out who I am, and it's not like I'm hiding my identity or the school at which I teach. And why do I feel free to do that? I have tenure! La la la la la.
Teacher free speech rights are constrained within the classroom and without it as well. Moreover, I have actually witnessed vindictive administrators moving against high-quality teachers because those teachers had the very bad idea to explain that Open Court had some issues. (This did not happen in SFUSD.)
If you teach Open Court (California Edition) to the manual in Kindergarten, the kids get their last letter sound at the end of May. This is utter insanity. By the end of May, students will have finished off many of their End of Year assessments, and unless they picked up the last letter sounds on their own, they will have a lot of Open Court-caused misses on their assessments.
Additionally, Open Court's literature selections are...well. Let's just say that an Open Court trainer told me once that the purpose of reading these selections was not that students would enjoy them; no, it was to practice reading strategies. After all, we all have to do things we don't enjoy, right?
Dorothy Parker wrote a review of an A.A. Milne play wherein she claims to have shot herself in the head during a particularly twee scene. This is where I wanted to do likewise. I mean, this idea is wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to unpack it without instruments of self-harm near at hand.
And I'm not even getting into the Massive Flaw of Open Court: that it was written by Louisa Cook Moats, a woman who believes in the Language Deficit Hypothesis. You know, a hypothesis absolutely destroyed by William Labov in the 1950s. (Fun Fact: Vocabulary Deficits Don't Exist, Either...Unless You Don't Know the Difference Between 'Difference' and 'Deficit'.)
Okay anyway, so this teacher I knew questioned Open Court in front of an administrator. Her comments were pretty mild and had teachers nodding all over the place. When the administrator moved to shut her up, I also said some anti-Open Court things, and another teacher commented that the Louisa Cook Moats article we had just read had an underlying racist ideology of language. (Teachers are smart.)
The administrator blew a gasket. The kind where everybody in the room gets a letter in the file and the principals of the offending teachers get a phone call. (This administrator ended up working for SCOE and warned a trainer I had later about me and wanted to check my homework for that trainer. This backfired astoundingly, but I digress yet again.)
So we have three naughty teachers. Two of the naughty teachers have tenure and full credentials. One of the naughty teachers does not. That naughty teacher is laid off at the end of the year. When it ends up that her position still exists and she is the most senior person laid off, she is not offered her job back because she was so naughty they fired her for cause (mouthing off to administrators). Since we shared a room doing AM/PM Kindergarten, this means I teach two classes a day until they come up with someone to fill the position: a first year, uncredentialed newbie who is so low-functioning that she cannot bother coming to school before 10:30am.
Anyway, without tenure I sure wouldn't have a not-very-secret blog and I sure wouldn't be mouthing off to the BoE. But I have it. I suppose I should worry about anti-tenure forces and caches and all that, but honestly? The Jeremy's new arrivals email looked promising and that's far more interesting than playing hide-the-opinion on the internet.
31 July 2010
28 July 2010
Strapping on helmet.
Living three blocks from school and possessing a full set of keys, I don't really have a whole lot of excuses not to work over the summer (except burnout avoidance). Throughout June and into July, I was caring for our late-blooming silkworms so I went in every couple of days.
I haven't been to school for three weeks. The administrative staff is back in today, and so am I. Something nifty is happening, so there will be a lot of people there, but it is still a little jarring.
I haven't been to school for three weeks. The administrative staff is back in today, and so am I. Something nifty is happening, so there will be a lot of people there, but it is still a little jarring.
22 July 2010
On Starting Out
Earlier this month, I spoke on a panel with some other teachers for an audience of education reformers. The topic was SFUSD, with a focus on the current strategic plan ("Beyond the Talk: Two Years In and We're Still Just Talking"). Needless to say, I had quite a lot of opinions on the issue and I aired these at some length to an audience that seemed receptive. At least they gasped at all the right parts, like where I ran down the school demographics and statistics, noted our #1 (in layoffs) status and then stated that these factors left me leery of the will behind the strategic plan.
Anyway, one of the other things I said was that I thought SFUSD would be a very difficult district in which to start one's teaching career. I didn't, for the record. When I got to SFUSD, I had a credential, done teacher training, had student teachers, done education research, all that noise. I knew what I was doing. So while I had to deal with the eccentricities of a new district, the vagaries of a mammoth district and the specific drama that is SFUSD I could go into my classroom and do my job.
Even better, I could do my job with none of the unpleasant nonsense of Reading First mandates, scripted math curricula (they even give you lines for the wrong answers they predict students will give!) and whatnot. If my students had mastered rhyming, I didn't have to teach it for seventy four more days. If the unit on wood went so well that we needed to stop and do a little carpentry art for a week, we could. We could even TAKE FIELD TRIPS (providing they were within city limits and free, but all the same! FIELD TRIPS).
On the other hand, there are some flaws in this model even for the veteran. Finding teachers with whom to collaborate could be a bit difficult - it took me a year to get a good buddy system going. Since I no longer used the purchased language arts program and there is no district language arts assessment, I had to come up with my own (or not assess at all, I suppose, but life is easier when you know what the kids know and don't know. They're not bored or lost, so their engagement is higher and the management is smooth).
But imagine this system as a first year teacher: worse, as a first year, uncredentialed teacher. A credential may give you very little in practical technique, but you will have at least a student teaching experience upon which you can draw. I can't imagine what this would be like. Of course, some schools probably have more cohesive programs (but not many) and at my school the grade levels are tight team projects so that even the greenest newbie can get some assistance (this I know is far less true at most SFUSD schools and generally not that true at Kindergarten, although I have no idea why).
The lack of support system is brutal for the newbie - and these teachers invariably start at high-needs schools, where there are fewer supports and higher concentrations of early-career teachers. And high-needs teaching is never easy: I have ten years in doing it, and I'm really good, but my job is not easy. Fun, yes. Exciting, yes. An intellectual challenge, oh yes. But it is not easy.
So you have the neediest teachers at the hardest schools having exceptionally hard times - the kind of experience that means burn out even if you do survive a layoff cycle. There just isn't a safety net in SFUSD.
Based on what the reformers told me later, SFUSD seems to know that there is a lot of site-based freedom. However, they seem less interested in building a safety net than building a boot camp - or maybe they just can't see a middle ground. I do suspect this will be the big tension of the whole "re-design" this year.
Anyway, one of the other things I said was that I thought SFUSD would be a very difficult district in which to start one's teaching career. I didn't, for the record. When I got to SFUSD, I had a credential, done teacher training, had student teachers, done education research, all that noise. I knew what I was doing. So while I had to deal with the eccentricities of a new district, the vagaries of a mammoth district and the specific drama that is SFUSD I could go into my classroom and do my job.
Even better, I could do my job with none of the unpleasant nonsense of Reading First mandates, scripted math curricula (they even give you lines for the wrong answers they predict students will give!) and whatnot. If my students had mastered rhyming, I didn't have to teach it for seventy four more days. If the unit on wood went so well that we needed to stop and do a little carpentry art for a week, we could. We could even TAKE FIELD TRIPS (providing they were within city limits and free, but all the same! FIELD TRIPS).
On the other hand, there are some flaws in this model even for the veteran. Finding teachers with whom to collaborate could be a bit difficult - it took me a year to get a good buddy system going. Since I no longer used the purchased language arts program and there is no district language arts assessment, I had to come up with my own (or not assess at all, I suppose, but life is easier when you know what the kids know and don't know. They're not bored or lost, so their engagement is higher and the management is smooth).
But imagine this system as a first year teacher: worse, as a first year, uncredentialed teacher. A credential may give you very little in practical technique, but you will have at least a student teaching experience upon which you can draw. I can't imagine what this would be like. Of course, some schools probably have more cohesive programs (but not many) and at my school the grade levels are tight team projects so that even the greenest newbie can get some assistance (this I know is far less true at most SFUSD schools and generally not that true at Kindergarten, although I have no idea why).
The lack of support system is brutal for the newbie - and these teachers invariably start at high-needs schools, where there are fewer supports and higher concentrations of early-career teachers. And high-needs teaching is never easy: I have ten years in doing it, and I'm really good, but my job is not easy. Fun, yes. Exciting, yes. An intellectual challenge, oh yes. But it is not easy.
So you have the neediest teachers at the hardest schools having exceptionally hard times - the kind of experience that means burn out even if you do survive a layoff cycle. There just isn't a safety net in SFUSD.
Based on what the reformers told me later, SFUSD seems to know that there is a lot of site-based freedom. However, they seem less interested in building a safety net than building a boot camp - or maybe they just can't see a middle ground. I do suspect this will be the big tension of the whole "re-design" this year.
21 July 2010
For the record.
The purpose of this blog is largely to keep my endless teacher blathering off my facebook page.
That said, dang. Open Court is watching you.
That said, dang. Open Court is watching you.
Guide to School Personnel: Team Kindergarten
I know there are bright young Kindergarten teachers out there, just starting their careers...but I don't know any. Kindergarten teachers always seem to be in their late twenties or older. I think this is because Kindergarten really is different. It's not like teaching any other elementary grade, and you either like it or loathe it. The people who like it will never leave, and those who don't will flee as soon as possible.
I think Kindergarten used to get more than its fair share of burnt-out teachers, too. Old-school Kindergarten is just alphabet, singing and playtime, right? And those things aren't HARD, are they? (Note world-weary, dripping sarcasm.) So if you have a veteran who really needs a career change or a couple years in the book room, put that person at Kindergarten if you're too lazy to deal with the paperwork of evaluations and documentations and all that stuff.
These days, that doesn't really work anymore. Kindergarten has some serious academic standards, and in SFUSD it's full day. You are going to spend a lot of time crawling on the floor. You will teach reading and also nose-blowing technique. Shoes will be tied until you develop carpal tunnel. It is not a job for the weak.
However, Kindergarten teacher fashion still branches down just two paths: Pooh Bear and Anti Pooh Bear.
Pooh Bear Kindergarten fashion is the home of your fabric painted sweatshirts, your wooden jewelry, your Disneyland memorabilia. Denim is popular, and relaxed-fit is assumed no matter what the body type of the wearer. These Kindergarten teachers have special clothing for at least seventy three holidays, some of which are extremely esoteric and known only to other Kindergarten teachers. These teachers tend to make extremely cute parent presents.
Anti Pooh Bear teachers buy each other sweatshirts with cats on them as gag gifts. This can lead to acrimony. They know when the next Target and/or H&M designer collaboration is coming out and they have an opinion on it. They tend to be really excellent shoppers and scroungers, which leads to very interesting and well-equipped classrooms and projects. They have a favorite designer and are eagerly awaiting Sarah Burton's first collection as creative director at Alexander McQueen.
Needless to say, I am absolutely of the latter group.
I think Kindergarten used to get more than its fair share of burnt-out teachers, too. Old-school Kindergarten is just alphabet, singing and playtime, right? And those things aren't HARD, are they? (Note world-weary, dripping sarcasm.) So if you have a veteran who really needs a career change or a couple years in the book room, put that person at Kindergarten if you're too lazy to deal with the paperwork of evaluations and documentations and all that stuff.
These days, that doesn't really work anymore. Kindergarten has some serious academic standards, and in SFUSD it's full day. You are going to spend a lot of time crawling on the floor. You will teach reading and also nose-blowing technique. Shoes will be tied until you develop carpal tunnel. It is not a job for the weak.
However, Kindergarten teacher fashion still branches down just two paths: Pooh Bear and Anti Pooh Bear.
Pooh Bear Kindergarten fashion is the home of your fabric painted sweatshirts, your wooden jewelry, your Disneyland memorabilia. Denim is popular, and relaxed-fit is assumed no matter what the body type of the wearer. These Kindergarten teachers have special clothing for at least seventy three holidays, some of which are extremely esoteric and known only to other Kindergarten teachers. These teachers tend to make extremely cute parent presents.
Anti Pooh Bear teachers buy each other sweatshirts with cats on them as gag gifts. This can lead to acrimony. They know when the next Target and/or H&M designer collaboration is coming out and they have an opinion on it. They tend to be really excellent shoppers and scroungers, which leads to very interesting and well-equipped classrooms and projects. They have a favorite designer and are eagerly awaiting Sarah Burton's first collection as creative director at Alexander McQueen.
Needless to say, I am absolutely of the latter group.
18 July 2010
Let's be bold. REALLY BOLD.
I have been an avid reader of SFUSD BoE agendas for years. I consider this part of being an informed educator. If I want to advocate for my students, it's good to have the facts. Board resolutions also help identify key buzzwords; if you want someone to take what you're saying seriously, it helps to align it to their priorities and their language.
Not to mention, it knocks Deputy Superintendent Leigh off his "This money stuff is too complicated for your little teacher brain to understand" game when you can ask some esoteric question about funding streams.
This year I also became an avid public commenter and organizer of public comments at Board meetings. My role was to make sure we'd get an early speaking slot (we were often first because I called ahead) and to organize our key themes so that we got as many across in a pooled-time comment as possible. I helped write public comments and add key facts and figures that supported our arguments and made sure we would have large banners and big turnouts.
GOOD TIMES.
Despite the fact that we were not ever that successful in our comments and the remarkable rudeness of our Board and Superintendent (many of whom really need to stop texting when teachers are talking, and talking audibly and laughing when a teacher is crying at the podium is poor form), we did win some big points.
For instance, it was fun having principals and other District staff call the school or email on the down low to let us know that they loved us and encouraged us to keep up the pressure. I was not the only person who noticed Superintendent Garcia saying "That's not true!" when one of our teachers quoted from his own strategic plan. I heard that Gentle Blythe was not too enthusiastic about the "SFUSD saves teachers' jobs" story in the Chronicle being illustrated by...a big picture of protesting teachers from my school. And we all got rehired in the end - with some comments being made to various individuals that we'd been so noisy that big layoffs at our school were politically unwise (also legally unwise, but I digress).
Another outcome was that I got to mouth off to Deputy Secretary of Education Tony Miller. But he had it coming.
What I learned from Tony Miller was that the administration apparently feels it needs to "be bold" in transforming failing schools. Apparently, "boldness" is defined as the transformation-closure-charter-turnaround models proposed for persistently low-achieving schools.
So boldness, in essence, is reconstitution. Boldness is getting rid of the teachers and administration. Boldness is charter schooling.
Boldness is bunk.
Those aren't bold solutions! Those are same old, same old. Reconstitution doesn't work. Charters aren't more successful than non-charters. And administrator shifting, teacher transfer - it's been done. It doesn't work.
Real boldness would mean real change. It would mean dealing with infrastructure and equity issues that lead some schools down the road to failure. Over a quarter of California's schools have endemic vermin infestation, for instance. About the same number have failing physical plants. My school has mice and ants. We can't hang things on many walls in my classroom because of encapsulated asbestos. Two of the windows have been broken for years, and paint is peeling everywhere. There are holes in some walls. I had no heat in my classroom for over a week this winter. I run the sink and fountain in my room every day for two minutes to clear the lead pipes. And my school is in good condition compared to those on the SIG list.
You know what would be bold? A school rebuilding campaign.
Eighty percent of my students live in poverty. Many have persistent food insecurity. There is no grocery store in my community. Many of my students have health problems associated with poor nutrition: anemia, vision problems, insulin resistance.
You know what would be bold? A major increase to the Federal School Lunch Program and a community garden initiative.
California state funding per pupil has dropped nearly two thousand dollars over the past two years. At my school, we ran out of yellow construction paper in February and sentence strips in December. By March, we were on the last bits of copy paper and the laminator was out of commission. Field trips were out of the question. I spent several thousand dollars of my own money on my classroom and wrote twenty grants on my own time.
You know what would be bold? A radically equitable funding system that provided additional money to high-needs schools.
Not to mention, it knocks Deputy Superintendent Leigh off his "This money stuff is too complicated for your little teacher brain to understand" game when you can ask some esoteric question about funding streams.
This year I also became an avid public commenter and organizer of public comments at Board meetings. My role was to make sure we'd get an early speaking slot (we were often first because I called ahead) and to organize our key themes so that we got as many across in a pooled-time comment as possible. I helped write public comments and add key facts and figures that supported our arguments and made sure we would have large banners and big turnouts.
GOOD TIMES.
Despite the fact that we were not ever that successful in our comments and the remarkable rudeness of our Board and Superintendent (many of whom really need to stop texting when teachers are talking, and talking audibly and laughing when a teacher is crying at the podium is poor form), we did win some big points.
For instance, it was fun having principals and other District staff call the school or email on the down low to let us know that they loved us and encouraged us to keep up the pressure. I was not the only person who noticed Superintendent Garcia saying "That's not true!" when one of our teachers quoted from his own strategic plan. I heard that Gentle Blythe was not too enthusiastic about the "SFUSD saves teachers' jobs" story in the Chronicle being illustrated by...a big picture of protesting teachers from my school. And we all got rehired in the end - with some comments being made to various individuals that we'd been so noisy that big layoffs at our school were politically unwise (also legally unwise, but I digress).
Another outcome was that I got to mouth off to Deputy Secretary of Education Tony Miller. But he had it coming.
What I learned from Tony Miller was that the administration apparently feels it needs to "be bold" in transforming failing schools. Apparently, "boldness" is defined as the transformation-closure-charter-turnaround models proposed for persistently low-achieving schools.
So boldness, in essence, is reconstitution. Boldness is getting rid of the teachers and administration. Boldness is charter schooling.
Boldness is bunk.
Those aren't bold solutions! Those are same old, same old. Reconstitution doesn't work. Charters aren't more successful than non-charters. And administrator shifting, teacher transfer - it's been done. It doesn't work.
Real boldness would mean real change. It would mean dealing with infrastructure and equity issues that lead some schools down the road to failure. Over a quarter of California's schools have endemic vermin infestation, for instance. About the same number have failing physical plants. My school has mice and ants. We can't hang things on many walls in my classroom because of encapsulated asbestos. Two of the windows have been broken for years, and paint is peeling everywhere. There are holes in some walls. I had no heat in my classroom for over a week this winter. I run the sink and fountain in my room every day for two minutes to clear the lead pipes. And my school is in good condition compared to those on the SIG list.
You know what would be bold? A school rebuilding campaign.
Eighty percent of my students live in poverty. Many have persistent food insecurity. There is no grocery store in my community. Many of my students have health problems associated with poor nutrition: anemia, vision problems, insulin resistance.
You know what would be bold? A major increase to the Federal School Lunch Program and a community garden initiative.
California state funding per pupil has dropped nearly two thousand dollars over the past two years. At my school, we ran out of yellow construction paper in February and sentence strips in December. By March, we were on the last bits of copy paper and the laminator was out of commission. Field trips were out of the question. I spent several thousand dollars of my own money on my classroom and wrote twenty grants on my own time.
You know what would be bold? A radically equitable funding system that provided additional money to high-needs schools.
15 July 2010
My Summer Vacation is UPDATED.
is not over yet, but the back to school sales have sure picked up. Anyway, I have:
- Had
threeFOUR fairly large grants funded on Donors' Choose. I have a nice new set of art supplies, fourteen language arts games and kits, a workbench and tools, and a puppet theatre and all kinds of extras being delivered next year. - Met with someone who's running for school board.
- Spoke on a panel for some education reformers. Deformed reform.
- Met with some Teach for America people about My Issues with Their Programming.
- Discussed My Issues on the phone with some national office Teach for America people.
- Made several hundred math counters out of Sculpey.
- Made dollhouse food out of Sculpey.
- Made beads out of Sculpey.
- Watched a lot of footy.
- Received not one but two Bafana Bafana jerseys as gifts.
- Used lack of television to justify watching footy at the houses of friends and relatives.
- Trolled their closets for classroom donations.
- Friends and relatives felt unable to stop me because I thoughtfully carried a vuvuzela.
- And I know how to use it.
- Came up with a dollhouse.
- Used all saved-up World Cup vacation money purchasing salvage couture clothing.
- Justified same as supporting fair trade labor, DIY ethic, etc.
- Purchased a large wooden kitchen for classroom.
- Justified same by not purchasing fabulous sale silk cape.
- Managed not to justify further clothing purchases by noting that I did not purchase said cape.
- Had all the doctors appointments I neglected over the year.
- Made a brand-new set of alphabet discrimination materials for students who need extra support in visual processing.
ScheduledHAD necessary surgery (also neglected).- Volunteered at two local organizations.
Shoes for the First Day of School.
I really should write a post on teacher fashion. I am eminently qualified to do this.
12 July 2010
Oh please, none of these.
SFUSD laid off eleven of fifteen teachers at my site this year, all of whom were eventually offered their jobs back. Of course, if you wait until the beginning of July to offer everyone's job back, some people leave: they actually need to be employed. So they find new jobs.
I think we can take it as a given that SFUSD will place elementary education TFAers in classrooms. I floated my TFA proposal (that they should be assigned to high-performing west side schools while veterans take the southeast side) by a prospective Board member last week and she seemed to dig it, but no dice for this year.
I have a huge issue with this, because in essence what TFA is doing is saving SFUSD's ass from a Williams complaint. If TFA refused SFUSD elementary education candidates, more credentialed teachers would get their jobs back sooner or not be laid off at all. TFA is Plan B for when teachers leave.
Given the latest studies on TFA (academic results: bad, retention: worse - and worse than other new teachers' retention rates) it's not really a point of pride to have them. Moreover, it's unfair to our students. They get to be someone's training class, and TFAers don't stay and build relationships with families - the kind that take more than a year and make a big difference. Nor is it fair to me: when you have uncredentialed newbies, site professional development must prioritize their needs. That makes sense, but those of us who have been teaching for years also need to grow, and our PD needs are different. They don't get met, so we either a. stagnate b. redesign the wheel testing "new" stuff or c. spend a healthy proportion of our salary that would be much better spent purchasing fantastic clothing on professional development.
Anyway, this is from the New York Times' latest Best-and-Brightest Piece.
Lilianna Nguyen, a recent Stanford graduate, dressed formally in high heels, was trying to teach a sixth-grade math class about negative numbers. She’d prepared definitions to be copied down, but the projector was broken.
This is not a productive method of teaching. Copying definitions does not teach anything. Also, does this classroom lack blackboards? Could she not photocopy her notes, group the students and have them jigsaw definitions - or rephrase them in their own words to teach the class? Newbies don't have pockets filled with Plan Bs. This makes it difficult for them, and they're out of their element. Things tend to go badly and end with management issues because the flow is poor.
...Copying definitions, though? Management will ALWAYS be bad with that kind of nonsense.
She’d also created a fun math game, giving every student an index card with a number. They were supposed to silently line themselves up from lowest negative to highest positive,
Dude.
Don't lie.
That is not a fun game. It is a boring game...unless someone manages to start a fight. That'd be cool.
It is also a discipline nightmare: that many students? In one line? Interacting? I predict pushing, with a side of shoving. Also probably some running.
You can get away with this kind of thing, mind you, but your ground expectations need to be tight. They need to include things like "When I say integer, stand up and tuck in your chair...don't forget your personal space bubble. If you pop someone's bubble, you are out and must sit down until I give you a signal..."
Also, this game is not very...well, learning. Everyone only gets one try. It's easy to help someone else out. A more interesting variant might require that some kids can't show their numbers but can only say "greater" or "less than" or something. Real world data might be interesting here, too: temperatures of planets in our solar system, I dunno.
(True story: I taught the scientific method to 6th graders by standing in front of the room claiming with a straight face that ketchup was made from blood, up to and including an exchange where a kid offered to go to the cafeteria to get some ketchup to prove it wasn't blood and I said to also bring a knife to prove that it was. Oh, don't worry: I didn't actually give him a hall pass. Anyway, best lesson ever? No, of course not. Did they get the difference between a hypothesis and some crazy shit you just thought up? Yes. Also, I can get away with this kind of stuff because I am harmless and sixth graders are generally not sure if I am schizo or just ADHD.)
but one boy kept disrupting the class, blurting out, twirling his pen, complaining he wanted to play a fun game, not a math game.
I am so with this kid.
Check how bad the management is, though: he's doing this IN FRONT OF A REPORTER. Either the kid is incredibly fearless or things in this classroom have degenerated to open warfare.
“Why is there talking?” Ms. Nguyen said. “There should be no talking.”
Yeah, that'll stop the talking. Oh, and raise your hand if you can hear the voice she used in your head. I totally could. Moreover, if the kid is clowning around IN FRONT OF A REPORTER, he needs a different plan than whatever you've got going on, and probably that needs to be a personal conference.
Oh, and no talking EVER? Did you tell them they had to do the game with no talking, or did you forget that and assume that they would give it to you for free?
“Do I have to play?” asked the boy.
That suggests she could still get somewhere with this kid. This isn't total rebellion: he's not refusing to play. He's just whining.
“Do you want to pass summer school?” Ms. Nguyen answered.
This could be a light and funny rhetorical question between a teacher and a pupil with a good relationship, or it could be an outright threat. A simple "Yes." would have been much better. After all, some kids will freely answer such a question with "No." And honestly, nothing in this exchange suggests a good relationship between Ms. Nguyen and Bad Boy X.
The boy asked if it was O.K. to push people to get them in the right order.
I will assume this was said in a smarmy way, but honestly: fair question! It also suggests that he knows (or thinks he knows) how to order integers by size. Kids who are above whatever you are teaching have far too much time to think up ways to bug you, like calling your boring game boring.
“This is your third warning,” Ms. Nguyen said. “Do not speak out in my class.”
So is the rule no talking? Because she answered him when he asked if he had to play. Or is it "No speaking out"? Also, what happens after three warnings?
Okay, I'm being very nit-picky, but honestly? America's best and brightest need to stop avoiding the job market in America's neediest classrooms. I have my own class, and I don't have enough time to teach them how to teach every day.
I think we can take it as a given that SFUSD will place elementary education TFAers in classrooms. I floated my TFA proposal (that they should be assigned to high-performing west side schools while veterans take the southeast side) by a prospective Board member last week and she seemed to dig it, but no dice for this year.
I have a huge issue with this, because in essence what TFA is doing is saving SFUSD's ass from a Williams complaint. If TFA refused SFUSD elementary education candidates, more credentialed teachers would get their jobs back sooner or not be laid off at all. TFA is Plan B for when teachers leave.
Given the latest studies on TFA (academic results: bad, retention: worse - and worse than other new teachers' retention rates) it's not really a point of pride to have them. Moreover, it's unfair to our students. They get to be someone's training class, and TFAers don't stay and build relationships with families - the kind that take more than a year and make a big difference. Nor is it fair to me: when you have uncredentialed newbies, site professional development must prioritize their needs. That makes sense, but those of us who have been teaching for years also need to grow, and our PD needs are different. They don't get met, so we either a. stagnate b. redesign the wheel testing "new" stuff or c. spend a healthy proportion of our salary that would be much better spent purchasing fantastic clothing on professional development.
Anyway, this is from the New York Times' latest Best-and-Brightest Piece.
Lilianna Nguyen, a recent Stanford graduate, dressed formally in high heels, was trying to teach a sixth-grade math class about negative numbers. She’d prepared definitions to be copied down, but the projector was broken.
This is not a productive method of teaching. Copying definitions does not teach anything. Also, does this classroom lack blackboards? Could she not photocopy her notes, group the students and have them jigsaw definitions - or rephrase them in their own words to teach the class? Newbies don't have pockets filled with Plan Bs. This makes it difficult for them, and they're out of their element. Things tend to go badly and end with management issues because the flow is poor.
...Copying definitions, though? Management will ALWAYS be bad with that kind of nonsense.
She’d also created a fun math game, giving every student an index card with a number. They were supposed to silently line themselves up from lowest negative to highest positive,
Dude.
Don't lie.
That is not a fun game. It is a boring game...unless someone manages to start a fight. That'd be cool.
It is also a discipline nightmare: that many students? In one line? Interacting? I predict pushing, with a side of shoving. Also probably some running.
You can get away with this kind of thing, mind you, but your ground expectations need to be tight. They need to include things like "When I say integer, stand up and tuck in your chair...don't forget your personal space bubble. If you pop someone's bubble, you are out and must sit down until I give you a signal..."
Also, this game is not very...well, learning. Everyone only gets one try. It's easy to help someone else out. A more interesting variant might require that some kids can't show their numbers but can only say "greater" or "less than" or something. Real world data might be interesting here, too: temperatures of planets in our solar system, I dunno.
(True story: I taught the scientific method to 6th graders by standing in front of the room claiming with a straight face that ketchup was made from blood, up to and including an exchange where a kid offered to go to the cafeteria to get some ketchup to prove it wasn't blood and I said to also bring a knife to prove that it was. Oh, don't worry: I didn't actually give him a hall pass. Anyway, best lesson ever? No, of course not. Did they get the difference between a hypothesis and some crazy shit you just thought up? Yes. Also, I can get away with this kind of stuff because I am harmless and sixth graders are generally not sure if I am schizo or just ADHD.)
but one boy kept disrupting the class, blurting out, twirling his pen, complaining he wanted to play a fun game, not a math game.
I am so with this kid.
Check how bad the management is, though: he's doing this IN FRONT OF A REPORTER. Either the kid is incredibly fearless or things in this classroom have degenerated to open warfare.
“Why is there talking?” Ms. Nguyen said. “There should be no talking.”
Yeah, that'll stop the talking. Oh, and raise your hand if you can hear the voice she used in your head. I totally could. Moreover, if the kid is clowning around IN FRONT OF A REPORTER, he needs a different plan than whatever you've got going on, and probably that needs to be a personal conference.
Oh, and no talking EVER? Did you tell them they had to do the game with no talking, or did you forget that and assume that they would give it to you for free?
“Do I have to play?” asked the boy.
That suggests she could still get somewhere with this kid. This isn't total rebellion: he's not refusing to play. He's just whining.
“Do you want to pass summer school?” Ms. Nguyen answered.
This could be a light and funny rhetorical question between a teacher and a pupil with a good relationship, or it could be an outright threat. A simple "Yes." would have been much better. After all, some kids will freely answer such a question with "No." And honestly, nothing in this exchange suggests a good relationship between Ms. Nguyen and Bad Boy X.
The boy asked if it was O.K. to push people to get them in the right order.
I will assume this was said in a smarmy way, but honestly: fair question! It also suggests that he knows (or thinks he knows) how to order integers by size. Kids who are above whatever you are teaching have far too much time to think up ways to bug you, like calling your boring game boring.
“This is your third warning,” Ms. Nguyen said. “Do not speak out in my class.”
So is the rule no talking? Because she answered him when he asked if he had to play. Or is it "No speaking out"? Also, what happens after three warnings?
Okay, I'm being very nit-picky, but honestly? America's best and brightest need to stop avoiding the job market in America's neediest classrooms. I have my own class, and I don't have enough time to teach them how to teach every day.
04 July 2010
California Educator Arrives!
Last issue, I learned about QEIA schools. I like the QEIA program - more money and smaller classes are always good - but the school they picked to highlight as a QEIA success was Miraloma Elementary.
Miraloma sure is successful, but I think its overwhelming demographic shift - about 20% of its students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, which is way below district averages - may be the determing factor there. The school used to draw heavily from Hunters' Point; it now is hugely oversubscribed so doesn't really pull from its B Zone (that program is over now anyway under the new assignment system).
Worst of all, the article did get into the lower performance at the upper grades...without mentioning that they have the majority of poor children of color (next year, Miraloma will largely be a white school as the last heavily B Zone class has gone on to middle school).
I find that intellectually dishonest.
This month, I was not surprised to find that the CTA doesn't support Steinberg's tenure tweak. That's fine; seniority is an important union tenet. I think it's perhaps not the brightest thing politically: Barr's proposal is poison and I suspect the RTTT districts will not play nice with regards to test performance and pay/tenure. Still, I hold all kinds of unlikely positions and generally shake my fist at political expedience. I find it irksome. And the critical problem is indeed school funding. You can't starve a system into layoffs. We need to layoff no teachers. It really is that simple.
That said, teacher layoffs are an equity issue. We went a big 11 for 15 this year: eleven out of fifteen teachers laid off. Needless to say, when your cuts inequitably hit the hard to staff schools - you know, the ones where the teachers get extra money because you can't find teachers who are willing to work there - you are making your own problem worse. I got into it with my Mighty Union Semi-Progressive Caucus at a Board Meeting because I stated mildly that I strongly feel the union has no coherent racial and class analysis guiding how we work. (The response of our unions VP: "I'm not going to let you race bait me! And the VP for Paras isn't white!" ...yeah, really. That's what she said. Do you think she has black friends? Because I totally do.)
What is killing me on this one, though, is that the CTA is now claiming that the Ed Code allows for tenure skipping for equal protection/equity reasons. This is the current thinking in the UCLA case, but it's generally been the stated non-opinion of the union and the School District (in fact, due to the ongoing advocacy by our staff, SFUSD Legal ended up having to come up with an opinion on that. They found there was no equal opportunity skip allowed, or if there was the class was too big for them to bother, or something. If anyone wanted more information, they'd have to get some consultants off the General Fund as usual. This led to a member of the School Board walking awfully close to calling me a liar, but that's cool. I won in the end, didn't I?).
Also, they're arguing this is a teacher blame thing, and honestly? It's not. We have a system that guarantees constant turnover at high-needs schools. They get fewer resources and less-senior teachers, and the churn is unending. TFA exacerbates this locally, too.
It's not the CTA's position but its framing that's bothering me. After all, I have not yet forgiven the CTA for:
1. Uni-Serv Director to Site Rep Council/Exec Board, ARUSD: "We've decided that while our official position on the recall is NO, it's just not a popular stance so we won't be doing any door-to-door or get out the vote on it."
2. Agreeing to the Groper's "I steal your money with your consent and I promise to pay it back on...oh, let me see here...on the 12th of Never. But I'll totally give you interest when I do!"
However, framing this as an issue of simple tenure is, again, intellectually dishonest. It also has the effect of positioning the union against high-need schools' stability. That does not support union/community relations - and those are important. We're spending far too much energy in Sacramento or capitulating to our own Districts (hi, terrible new contract!) that we could spend working with parents: the working class and the employing class have nothing in common, after all, and to me that means I need to have more allegiance to my school community than to supporting the current system in any way.
Miraloma sure is successful, but I think its overwhelming demographic shift - about 20% of its students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, which is way below district averages - may be the determing factor there. The school used to draw heavily from Hunters' Point; it now is hugely oversubscribed so doesn't really pull from its B Zone (that program is over now anyway under the new assignment system).
Worst of all, the article did get into the lower performance at the upper grades...without mentioning that they have the majority of poor children of color (next year, Miraloma will largely be a white school as the last heavily B Zone class has gone on to middle school).
I find that intellectually dishonest.
This month, I was not surprised to find that the CTA doesn't support Steinberg's tenure tweak. That's fine; seniority is an important union tenet. I think it's perhaps not the brightest thing politically: Barr's proposal is poison and I suspect the RTTT districts will not play nice with regards to test performance and pay/tenure. Still, I hold all kinds of unlikely positions and generally shake my fist at political expedience. I find it irksome. And the critical problem is indeed school funding. You can't starve a system into layoffs. We need to layoff no teachers. It really is that simple.
That said, teacher layoffs are an equity issue. We went a big 11 for 15 this year: eleven out of fifteen teachers laid off. Needless to say, when your cuts inequitably hit the hard to staff schools - you know, the ones where the teachers get extra money because you can't find teachers who are willing to work there - you are making your own problem worse. I got into it with my Mighty Union Semi-Progressive Caucus at a Board Meeting because I stated mildly that I strongly feel the union has no coherent racial and class analysis guiding how we work. (The response of our unions VP: "I'm not going to let you race bait me! And the VP for Paras isn't white!" ...yeah, really. That's what she said. Do you think she has black friends? Because I totally do.)
What is killing me on this one, though, is that the CTA is now claiming that the Ed Code allows for tenure skipping for equal protection/equity reasons. This is the current thinking in the UCLA case, but it's generally been the stated non-opinion of the union and the School District (in fact, due to the ongoing advocacy by our staff, SFUSD Legal ended up having to come up with an opinion on that. They found there was no equal opportunity skip allowed, or if there was the class was too big for them to bother, or something. If anyone wanted more information, they'd have to get some consultants off the General Fund as usual. This led to a member of the School Board walking awfully close to calling me a liar, but that's cool. I won in the end, didn't I?).
Also, they're arguing this is a teacher blame thing, and honestly? It's not. We have a system that guarantees constant turnover at high-needs schools. They get fewer resources and less-senior teachers, and the churn is unending. TFA exacerbates this locally, too.
It's not the CTA's position but its framing that's bothering me. After all, I have not yet forgiven the CTA for:
1. Uni-Serv Director to Site Rep Council/Exec Board, ARUSD: "We've decided that while our official position on the recall is NO, it's just not a popular stance so we won't be doing any door-to-door or get out the vote on it."
2. Agreeing to the Groper's "I steal your money with your consent and I promise to pay it back on...oh, let me see here...on the 12th of Never. But I'll totally give you interest when I do!"
However, framing this as an issue of simple tenure is, again, intellectually dishonest. It also has the effect of positioning the union against high-need schools' stability. That does not support union/community relations - and those are important. We're spending far too much energy in Sacramento or capitulating to our own Districts (hi, terrible new contract!) that we could spend working with parents: the working class and the employing class have nothing in common, after all, and to me that means I need to have more allegiance to my school community than to supporting the current system in any way.
28 February 2010
Positioning Problems
If SFUSD's teachers justified themselves with the righteous indignation that our Superintendent and Board do, our students would fail.
Carlos Garcia cannot leave a forum without reminding us that he is not to blame for the budget cuts. I am not to blame for the fact that all of my students live in poverty, or that five have significant mental health issues.
Regardless, I am responsible for their school success - and therefore I must be reflective, crafty, and dedicated to student mastery of material. If I take my blamelessness as an out, my students fail.
Alas, our Superintendent may not be responsible for budget cuts, but he ought to be reflective, crafty, and dedicated to going "Beyond the Talk". Unfortunately, he shows no interest in any solution other than those that are traditionally comfortable and deeply inequitable.
Our Board would like you to know that they are very dedicated to equity. That's why they have made some admirable decisions: increasing ethnic studies offerings, increasing access to AP courses, providing resources for LGBTQ students.
However, their commitment to equity is only for the easy initiatives. Desegregating schools? No. Demanding equity in cuts and layoffs? No.
If teachers took this view, we would be happy to explain our colorblindness to you. We might offer some of that "soft bigotry of low expectations", too. And our students would fail. Instead, we make our philosophy drive our decisions.
I am tired of being the District's moral courage.
Carlos Garcia cannot leave a forum without reminding us that he is not to blame for the budget cuts. I am not to blame for the fact that all of my students live in poverty, or that five have significant mental health issues.
Regardless, I am responsible for their school success - and therefore I must be reflective, crafty, and dedicated to student mastery of material. If I take my blamelessness as an out, my students fail.
Alas, our Superintendent may not be responsible for budget cuts, but he ought to be reflective, crafty, and dedicated to going "Beyond the Talk". Unfortunately, he shows no interest in any solution other than those that are traditionally comfortable and deeply inequitable.
Our Board would like you to know that they are very dedicated to equity. That's why they have made some admirable decisions: increasing ethnic studies offerings, increasing access to AP courses, providing resources for LGBTQ students.
However, their commitment to equity is only for the easy initiatives. Desegregating schools? No. Demanding equity in cuts and layoffs? No.
If teachers took this view, we would be happy to explain our colorblindness to you. We might offer some of that "soft bigotry of low expectations", too. And our students would fail. Instead, we make our philosophy drive our decisions.
I am tired of being the District's moral courage.
27 February 2010
No, Actually: I Blame You.
One board meeting earlier than necessary, the BoE voted affirmatively on the poorly-planned, mendacious layoffs proposed by SFUSD. To evince said claims:
POORLY-PLANNED: The District is unable to state what percentage of teachers would be cut in a worst-case scenario (everyone who gets a 15 March letter is laid off). The District also failed to negotiate a hard-to-staff point for hard-to-staff schools: math and science credentials get an extra point on the seniority list, but the hard-to-staff schools don't. Therefore, schools that are hard to staff and have transient teaching corps, whose teachers are getting an extra thousand bucks on their paychecks this cycle and by the nature of hard-to-staff staffing, have very low seniority...are getting laid off.
SFUSD: Wasting Prop A Money on People It's Laying Off.
MENDACIOUS: The District's layoff list names all of the Associate Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, a mess of Executive Directors, many Directors and a bunch of Program Managers. To some extent, these positions could be reduced and their holders bumped into the teaching pool, and if you think that's going to happen you must actually be Pollyanna.
Also, the District has implied that no permanent teachers will get a 15 March layoff unless they are "consolidated" (their position disappears, so they have to find a new one), but given their numbers this cannot be true. I have been told by District employees as high as Associate Superintendent that permanent teachers cannot be laid off, but that is wrong: in a catastrophic budget situation, there is a mechanism enabling such layoffs. The mechanism's conditions are met. It is disturbing to me that high-level District functionaries do not understand these issues as well as a run-of-the-mill teacher does.
The Superintendent and the Board would like you to know that they are totally blameless and committed to equity, which is why the layoff vote didn't happen until after 11pm. Before that, SFUSD committed to increasing ethnic studies and AP classes and renaming SOTA after Ruth Asawa. For what it's worth, I approve of all of these. I think the self-congratulatory pro-equity bent is compromised by layoffs that are by nature inequitable, though.
The Superintendent keeps repeating that he is absolutely blameless, and this is totally not his fault, and he doesn't want to cut one teacher, which is why his staff cannot come up with a coherent plan to present to the union, keeps increasing class sizes for next year and trying not to get anyone to notice that, and significantly increased District office staffing over the last year.
Also, the Superintendent and BoE are absolutely committed to closing the opportunity gap, which is why they are laying off teachers at high-needs schools, failing to make funding adjustments that will protect schools in poor neighborhoods, and have been threatening to sue the state for three years but...not actually suing the state.
Therefore, they are 100% in favor of 4 March demonstrations, which is why the Superintendent attempted to end same by sending out a threat letter to any school planning any kind of demonstration or organizing even off-hours participation.
Needless to say, SFUSD would prefer that no one discuss equity in budget cuts and have no plan to talk about it themselves (SFUSD: "What? How dare you ask! Don't you know: We're Beyond the Talk! Look at our five-year plan!"). Alas, it ends up that the District unfortunately hired some real radicals, who really believe in equity, and those people keep talking to the press and commenting in public forums. So far, we've managed to place quotes in the Chronicle and the New York Times, and our well-planned, easy to explain take on equity is shaping stories in the Chronicle and SFSU's paper. Seriously: so evident, clear and verifiable are our claims that we are able to change stories from "funding cuts are bad" to "funding cuts are inequitable, and SFUSD's particular cuts go against everything in its five-year plan".
Which isn't too shabby given that we are looking, site-wise, at layoff letters to at least 10 teachers and consolidation or layoff letters to at least two.
POORLY-PLANNED: The District is unable to state what percentage of teachers would be cut in a worst-case scenario (everyone who gets a 15 March letter is laid off). The District also failed to negotiate a hard-to-staff point for hard-to-staff schools: math and science credentials get an extra point on the seniority list, but the hard-to-staff schools don't. Therefore, schools that are hard to staff and have transient teaching corps, whose teachers are getting an extra thousand bucks on their paychecks this cycle and by the nature of hard-to-staff staffing, have very low seniority...are getting laid off.
SFUSD: Wasting Prop A Money on People It's Laying Off.
MENDACIOUS: The District's layoff list names all of the Associate Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, a mess of Executive Directors, many Directors and a bunch of Program Managers. To some extent, these positions could be reduced and their holders bumped into the teaching pool, and if you think that's going to happen you must actually be Pollyanna.
Also, the District has implied that no permanent teachers will get a 15 March layoff unless they are "consolidated" (their position disappears, so they have to find a new one), but given their numbers this cannot be true. I have been told by District employees as high as Associate Superintendent that permanent teachers cannot be laid off, but that is wrong: in a catastrophic budget situation, there is a mechanism enabling such layoffs. The mechanism's conditions are met. It is disturbing to me that high-level District functionaries do not understand these issues as well as a run-of-the-mill teacher does.
The Superintendent and the Board would like you to know that they are totally blameless and committed to equity, which is why the layoff vote didn't happen until after 11pm. Before that, SFUSD committed to increasing ethnic studies and AP classes and renaming SOTA after Ruth Asawa. For what it's worth, I approve of all of these. I think the self-congratulatory pro-equity bent is compromised by layoffs that are by nature inequitable, though.
The Superintendent keeps repeating that he is absolutely blameless, and this is totally not his fault, and he doesn't want to cut one teacher, which is why his staff cannot come up with a coherent plan to present to the union, keeps increasing class sizes for next year and trying not to get anyone to notice that, and significantly increased District office staffing over the last year.
Also, the Superintendent and BoE are absolutely committed to closing the opportunity gap, which is why they are laying off teachers at high-needs schools, failing to make funding adjustments that will protect schools in poor neighborhoods, and have been threatening to sue the state for three years but...not actually suing the state.
Therefore, they are 100% in favor of 4 March demonstrations, which is why the Superintendent attempted to end same by sending out a threat letter to any school planning any kind of demonstration or organizing even off-hours participation.
Needless to say, SFUSD would prefer that no one discuss equity in budget cuts and have no plan to talk about it themselves (SFUSD: "What? How dare you ask! Don't you know: We're Beyond the Talk! Look at our five-year plan!"). Alas, it ends up that the District unfortunately hired some real radicals, who really believe in equity, and those people keep talking to the press and commenting in public forums. So far, we've managed to place quotes in the Chronicle and the New York Times, and our well-planned, easy to explain take on equity is shaping stories in the Chronicle and SFSU's paper. Seriously: so evident, clear and verifiable are our claims that we are able to change stories from "funding cuts are bad" to "funding cuts are inequitable, and SFUSD's particular cuts go against everything in its five-year plan".
Which isn't too shabby given that we are looking, site-wise, at layoff letters to at least 10 teachers and consolidation or layoff letters to at least two.
Interesting Developments in School Funding
1. The Governor's proposed budget - and it is very important to remember that this budget is his proposal, and the state Legislature is not required to adopt it - requires the federal Secretary of Education handing California a waiver.
California took stimulus funding for education, and doing so required that it agree to maintain school funding at the same levels as four years prior. In the case of massive shortfalls, the state can get a waiver if the same proportional funding is maintained. Through prefunding (budgeting money for next year into the 09-10 budget, so that schools get it now but can't use it until 10-11) and changing gasoline taxes into "fees" (a change in name only that keeps these TAXES from entering the General Fund, thereby making them unavailable to Prop. 98's funding guarantees) the Governor's budget claims to do this.
This is, obviously, a scam - or at best, it uses the letter of the law to beat the hell out of the spirit. If Duncan refuses the waiver, the Governor needs to cut the cuts - $850 million need to come back into the budget.
The state Legislature is trying to come up with a way that will enable the tax/fee reversal to go through but maintain school funding through upping tax revenue; all current proposals have been threatened by veto (even the one that passed). It is a win-win for the Governor and state Dems to get an agreement here: the state Dems look tough and the Governor gets to claim he totally saved education. I do not support these: taxes are taxes are taxes, and this particular renaming also underfunds transportation infrastructure projects.
2. The ACLU is suing LAUSD. They want an injunction against layoffs at three schools in Watts based on the inequitable education created by the 2009 layoffs. Note: they're suing LAUSD, not UTLA. It is the district, not the union, that is required to create ed equity. It is the district, not the union, that decides what impact funding cuts will have. It is the district, not the union, that agrees to contracts that do not protect high-needs schools.
In short: We should be printing mass copies of the complaint, folding same into paper airplanes, and firing them at St. Carlos, the Most Blameless Superintendent Who Ever Gifted SFUSD with His Presence.
California took stimulus funding for education, and doing so required that it agree to maintain school funding at the same levels as four years prior. In the case of massive shortfalls, the state can get a waiver if the same proportional funding is maintained. Through prefunding (budgeting money for next year into the 09-10 budget, so that schools get it now but can't use it until 10-11) and changing gasoline taxes into "fees" (a change in name only that keeps these TAXES from entering the General Fund, thereby making them unavailable to Prop. 98's funding guarantees) the Governor's budget claims to do this.
This is, obviously, a scam - or at best, it uses the letter of the law to beat the hell out of the spirit. If Duncan refuses the waiver, the Governor needs to cut the cuts - $850 million need to come back into the budget.
The state Legislature is trying to come up with a way that will enable the tax/fee reversal to go through but maintain school funding through upping tax revenue; all current proposals have been threatened by veto (even the one that passed). It is a win-win for the Governor and state Dems to get an agreement here: the state Dems look tough and the Governor gets to claim he totally saved education. I do not support these: taxes are taxes are taxes, and this particular renaming also underfunds transportation infrastructure projects.
2. The ACLU is suing LAUSD. They want an injunction against layoffs at three schools in Watts based on the inequitable education created by the 2009 layoffs. Note: they're suing LAUSD, not UTLA. It is the district, not the union, that is required to create ed equity. It is the district, not the union, that decides what impact funding cuts will have. It is the district, not the union, that agrees to contracts that do not protect high-needs schools.
In short: We should be printing mass copies of the complaint, folding same into paper airplanes, and firing them at St. Carlos, the Most Blameless Superintendent Who Ever Gifted SFUSD with His Presence.
20 February 2010
Possible? I suppose. Credible? Not at all.
For the upcoming BoE meeting, SFUSD has quite a layoff/reduction list that lends itself well to claiming that 15 March letters will hit administrative offices and school staff with equally horrible outcomes.
But the idea that SFUSD will really and truly lay off four Associate Superintendents and a veritable gaggle of Directors, EDs, and Supervisors strains belief. It's hard to see this as much more than a PR move - one that I hope fails. I mean, how does the District intend to handle enrollment if the EPC has no Director - especially when planning to roll out a new assignment system?
Cross-checking proposed reductions in staff with incoming Kindergarten projections - numbers prepared by two different arms of the District for two different purposes - suggests that all District administrators are planning on 25:1 or higher next year. This is something of a surprise to me, because there has been a lot of agitation at all levels to create a proposal of furlough days that would enable holding to 20:1. (This is financially possible.)
However, it does appear that SFUSD has a layoff/cuts plan that will enable them to survive inability to come to a contract negotiation agreement with the union (or the membership voting such an agreement down). Not a plan so much maybe as a starting point.
But the idea that SFUSD will really and truly lay off four Associate Superintendents and a veritable gaggle of Directors, EDs, and Supervisors strains belief. It's hard to see this as much more than a PR move - one that I hope fails. I mean, how does the District intend to handle enrollment if the EPC has no Director - especially when planning to roll out a new assignment system?
Cross-checking proposed reductions in staff with incoming Kindergarten projections - numbers prepared by two different arms of the District for two different purposes - suggests that all District administrators are planning on 25:1 or higher next year. This is something of a surprise to me, because there has been a lot of agitation at all levels to create a proposal of furlough days that would enable holding to 20:1. (This is financially possible.)
However, it does appear that SFUSD has a layoff/cuts plan that will enable them to survive inability to come to a contract negotiation agreement with the union (or the membership voting such an agreement down). Not a plan so much maybe as a starting point.
14 February 2010
The problem with private funding and public schools
I am a repeat offender at Donors Choose - over the years, friends, strangers and foundations have chipped in (conservatively) $12,000 toward my classroom. I like Donors Choose because I pick what I want: sensory integration equipment, novel math manipulatives, art supplies, stuff for my students to take home over the summer, and so on. It's all stuff my school cannot purchase itself and mostly stuff I couldn't supply either. (Well, I could in theory blow the two thousand bucks or so I spend every year on, say, twenty backpacks, a rug and some PeaPods, but I'd rather buy ingredients for cooking and sequins and stuff like that.)
Still, the idea that teachers should rely on the good will and pocketbooks of strangers through personal initiative (mine to write a grant, funders to support it) is problematic on all kinds of levels. Aren't we supposed to be a public system, funded through the pocketbooks of strangers in the form of taxes? Is the system equitable? Are the most critical projects being funded? Do teachers have equal access to the process? Of course, these are all concerns that are ameliorated by the promise of cold, hard cash for the stuff I need. And the vast majority of donors - foundations and individuals - are doing what I consider good in the world.
I imagine that the Koret Foundation believes it is doing good by supporting the Hoover Institution's education wing and its recommendations: charter schools, vouchers, Teach for America, boot camp for Black children (quite literally: they support the OMI and figuratively in the form of KIPP), and so on. I believe that they are funding the destruction of public education and supporting racist ideology, but certainly they'd say the same of me (...do teachers count as "poverty pimps"?).
The California Teachers Empowerment Network, though...well, I'm sure that they believe they are doing great good by supporting opting out of unions. Or at least they are "empowering" teachers. Their biggest stated reason for this need to empower teachers is that the CTA put bucks behind the No on 8 Campaign. Evidently teachers were disempowered by this action. Also, they note darkly, state Superintendent Jack O'Connell helped make No on 8 commercials. So clearly, opting out of a union will tell Superintendent O'Connell and the CTA...what, exactly? That they need to get out of the business of educating voters about ballot initiatives? That de facto discrimination isn't empowering enough and we need some de jure too?
So when these guys get into putting up cash on Donors Choose, it certainly shines a rather nasty spotlight. I am still choosing the things I want for my students, but the people paying for them will use their support to shine up their credentials, then use those credentials to destroy public education.
I wish they'd stick to funding their little charter initiatives and whatnot.
Still, the idea that teachers should rely on the good will and pocketbooks of strangers through personal initiative (mine to write a grant, funders to support it) is problematic on all kinds of levels. Aren't we supposed to be a public system, funded through the pocketbooks of strangers in the form of taxes? Is the system equitable? Are the most critical projects being funded? Do teachers have equal access to the process? Of course, these are all concerns that are ameliorated by the promise of cold, hard cash for the stuff I need. And the vast majority of donors - foundations and individuals - are doing what I consider good in the world.
I imagine that the Koret Foundation believes it is doing good by supporting the Hoover Institution's education wing and its recommendations: charter schools, vouchers, Teach for America, boot camp for Black children (quite literally: they support the OMI and figuratively in the form of KIPP), and so on. I believe that they are funding the destruction of public education and supporting racist ideology, but certainly they'd say the same of me (...do teachers count as "poverty pimps"?).
The California Teachers Empowerment Network, though...well, I'm sure that they believe they are doing great good by supporting opting out of unions. Or at least they are "empowering" teachers. Their biggest stated reason for this need to empower teachers is that the CTA put bucks behind the No on 8 Campaign. Evidently teachers were disempowered by this action. Also, they note darkly, state Superintendent Jack O'Connell helped make No on 8 commercials. So clearly, opting out of a union will tell Superintendent O'Connell and the CTA...what, exactly? That they need to get out of the business of educating voters about ballot initiatives? That de facto discrimination isn't empowering enough and we need some de jure too?
So when these guys get into putting up cash on Donors Choose, it certainly shines a rather nasty spotlight. I am still choosing the things I want for my students, but the people paying for them will use their support to shine up their credentials, then use those credentials to destroy public education.
I wish they'd stick to funding their little charter initiatives and whatnot.
School Equity
I have been teaching now for...well, a whole lot of years. Eight in the classroom teaching Kindergarten, a year out of the classroom as a teacher coach/trainer, and two teaching college students. What with all of this experience, I have had an opportunity to view many, but many children, including:
a. a child who entered my classroom in March on his second try in Kindergarten. He did not know the whole alphabet and was under screening for a major speech and language disorder.
b. a child who was born exactly two minutes before the cutoff (1 December at 11:58 pm).
c. several children with major trauma backgrounds including head injuries, all of whom were homeless.
d. children in emergency foster care.
e. children in long-term foster care.
f. children who were the victim of assault or witnessed violence/murder against family members.
g. a child whose caseworker told me, "Essentially, he was raised by the television" - which explained why he had all kinds of old movie quotes in his conversational repetoire.
All of these kids learned something in my Kindergarten. Almost all of them were promoted to first grade (I retained the youngling). I referred several to counseling and exactly one for "testing" - the first child, who had not received a primary language screen but who had an extensive workup on his second language.
I have a stated anti-SST policy. I do not believe it is in the best interest of children to have a paper trail. An IEP does bring legal protection, but I have been teaching long enough to know that those protections are valid and strong only when there is institutional power backing the child. I have been seriously injured by a child in crisis. I kept that child in my classroom and promoted him to first grade. I have explored sensory integration strategies with major improvement on my own initiative to better serve high-needs children rather than IEPing them, and have created extensive case histories for their future teachers so that the same in-room modifications can be used. I have been praised by high-level administrators for "treating emotional disturbance as part of a natural spectrum".
I could go on, but here is my point: after many, many successful years in the classroom, you'd think that when I flag a kid for testing they'd take me seriously, right?
Of course, they don't. But after violence, intervention through district and private specialists (UCSF, Edgewood) and two union grievances, it ended up the child in question had major processing disorders, sensory issues requiring OT and a SIPT screen (for sensory integration disorder), and full-day special education...with or without an ED component.
Let me very clear: I cannot educate this child in a 20:1 environment. The child's sensory needs alone (low light, tactile feedback, low noise) make this impossible - let alone his well-developed strategies for negative attention if I cannot provide immediate positive attention. And despite the many, many strategies I have (even the OT person wrote that in her report), I have not found a strategy leading to the retention of more than 25% of introduced content.
Not to mention: the child is a harm to himself (poor impulse control), others (proprioceptive gaps that lead to collisions and worse) and the emotional states of other children (his presence triggers another kid in my class - one who, at five, is already engaging in self-harm and suicidal ideation - into tantrums).
Therefore, I supported moving this child to a Special Day Class, where he could receive a lowered adult-child ratio (this classroom is apparently about 3:1), pullout OT and in-class modifications (light filters, etc.). The child is bright, confident and interesting. With some modifications, he should be able to learn what he needs to learn. With some therapy, he should be able to integrate sensory information and self-regulate more easily. At his IEP meeting, we predicted he would be mainstreamable within two years.
His new teacher is an uncredentialed, first-year Teach for American. The class is at a high-needs school with strict discipline and lots of yelling - not to mention major physical plant problems (like exposed wires...always a plus for the low impulse control types, no?).
The problem is obvious, but here's my issue: How on earth does Teach for America believe that this teacher, this placement create equity? They can't possibly - or if they do, their Pollyanna ate mine for breakfast (and I'm a notorious Polly). There is no well-meaning best and brightest white kid who can handle such a placement.
This, my friends, is how our system replicates itself whilst claiming reform and change.
a. a child who entered my classroom in March on his second try in Kindergarten. He did not know the whole alphabet and was under screening for a major speech and language disorder.
b. a child who was born exactly two minutes before the cutoff (1 December at 11:58 pm).
c. several children with major trauma backgrounds including head injuries, all of whom were homeless.
d. children in emergency foster care.
e. children in long-term foster care.
f. children who were the victim of assault or witnessed violence/murder against family members.
g. a child whose caseworker told me, "Essentially, he was raised by the television" - which explained why he had all kinds of old movie quotes in his conversational repetoire.
All of these kids learned something in my Kindergarten. Almost all of them were promoted to first grade (I retained the youngling). I referred several to counseling and exactly one for "testing" - the first child, who had not received a primary language screen but who had an extensive workup on his second language.
I have a stated anti-SST policy. I do not believe it is in the best interest of children to have a paper trail. An IEP does bring legal protection, but I have been teaching long enough to know that those protections are valid and strong only when there is institutional power backing the child. I have been seriously injured by a child in crisis. I kept that child in my classroom and promoted him to first grade. I have explored sensory integration strategies with major improvement on my own initiative to better serve high-needs children rather than IEPing them, and have created extensive case histories for their future teachers so that the same in-room modifications can be used. I have been praised by high-level administrators for "treating emotional disturbance as part of a natural spectrum".
I could go on, but here is my point: after many, many successful years in the classroom, you'd think that when I flag a kid for testing they'd take me seriously, right?
Of course, they don't. But after violence, intervention through district and private specialists (UCSF, Edgewood) and two union grievances, it ended up the child in question had major processing disorders, sensory issues requiring OT and a SIPT screen (for sensory integration disorder), and full-day special education...with or without an ED component.
Let me very clear: I cannot educate this child in a 20:1 environment. The child's sensory needs alone (low light, tactile feedback, low noise) make this impossible - let alone his well-developed strategies for negative attention if I cannot provide immediate positive attention. And despite the many, many strategies I have (even the OT person wrote that in her report), I have not found a strategy leading to the retention of more than 25% of introduced content.
Not to mention: the child is a harm to himself (poor impulse control), others (proprioceptive gaps that lead to collisions and worse) and the emotional states of other children (his presence triggers another kid in my class - one who, at five, is already engaging in self-harm and suicidal ideation - into tantrums).
Therefore, I supported moving this child to a Special Day Class, where he could receive a lowered adult-child ratio (this classroom is apparently about 3:1), pullout OT and in-class modifications (light filters, etc.). The child is bright, confident and interesting. With some modifications, he should be able to learn what he needs to learn. With some therapy, he should be able to integrate sensory information and self-regulate more easily. At his IEP meeting, we predicted he would be mainstreamable within two years.
His new teacher is an uncredentialed, first-year Teach for American. The class is at a high-needs school with strict discipline and lots of yelling - not to mention major physical plant problems (like exposed wires...always a plus for the low impulse control types, no?).
The problem is obvious, but here's my issue: How on earth does Teach for America believe that this teacher, this placement create equity? They can't possibly - or if they do, their Pollyanna ate mine for breakfast (and I'm a notorious Polly). There is no well-meaning best and brightest white kid who can handle such a placement.
This, my friends, is how our system replicates itself whilst claiming reform and change.
07 February 2010
Not really funny.
As part of the Prop A funding, SFUSD and UESF got together and named a list of "hard to staff" schools: schools with high turnover and "challenging" demographics (high poverty, high percentage of English Language Learners, etc.). Teachers at these schools fill out a little form and get an extra $2000 annually. It's a pittance, but it's money.
Anyway, "hard to staff" schools have by nature had heavy recent staff turnover, which means they have a lot of new (overall or to the District) teachers. So their teachers are low seniority.
So their teachers will be laid off this year. So in essence, teachers at hard to staff schools are getting paid to stay and fired all at once. This is counterproductive.
One could argue that this is a short-term, single year counterproductivity. In theory, the fired teachers will be replaced with higher-seniority bumpees, who can collect the Prop A money and won't be subject to layoffs for many years to come.
In actuality, there is no reason to believe that bumped teachers will accept an assignment at a hard to staff school in the first place, nor stay any longer than necessary before transferring. Given these circumstances, SFUSD may resort to TFA teachers. Of course, most of these teachers leave after two years, so the "hard to staff" problem is ongoing.
So the district is throwing several hundred thousand dollars in salary away. We know that staff stability strongly correlates to positive student outcomes, and that trained, experienced teachers get better student achievement results by any measure. The purpose of the "hard to staff" funding stream was to increase teacher retention. So much for that.
In other SFUSD news, the BoE agenda is up and Garcia's merry band of budget cutters remains unwilling to let much sun shine on their financial proposals. They are asking for the union to agree to the District having total freedom over class sizes, which brings the 25:1 ratio into doubt. It also is decent evidence that SFUSD has no intention of ever reducing class size if we give that away (there's nothing in the proposal that puts in writing Garcia's claim that class sizes will be reduced as soon as possible).
Whatever the case, SFUSD is dragging its feet on specifying how and what they plan to cut other than union concessions. Given how quickly they want a union vote and a budget vote by the Board, their pace suggests (to me, at least) that speed is necessary to obscure inequity in cuts: agree to SFUSD's lifeboat now or we all drown.
There appears to be decent support within UESF for an option of 20:1 retention through furlough (it's possible; Garcia said it would be either seven or nine days over two years depending on whether or not he was counting the two days' furlough already in the pipeline. The funding actually works out for it to be no more than six days, but I haven't looked into this so I can't accuse Garcia of trying to throw a potential pro-CSR vote. Yet.) I don't think SFUSD plans to offer this option, though; it doesn't show up on the agenda. What they do want is so sketchily outlined it's hard to tell.
Still, there is a good argument for voting down any contract revision that does not protect students. SFUSD is threatening apocalypse if this happens: no budget, no reserve, state takeover, consultants from Sacramento bearing pitchforks and Open Court, etc.
That's apocalypse for Garcia et al, though, not for the teaching staff. The state is not required to take over districts that fall within the possibility of takeover, and I don't think Sacramento really wants to deal with what they have wrought on school budgets. And even if they did? Garcia's out of a job, but I'm not. Consultants would get the big bucks for stupid programs, but that happens already. Privatization and Eli Broad would come in bearing big bucks for big cuts and corporate philosophy, but again: already happening. San Francisco isn't such a good market for boot camp schooling, anyway: why add another market when it's possible to get more done in Los Angeles and Oakland?
I think the state takeover gambit is a threat of very little interest. Barring a good proposal, UESF should vote it down.
Anyway, "hard to staff" schools have by nature had heavy recent staff turnover, which means they have a lot of new (overall or to the District) teachers. So their teachers are low seniority.
So their teachers will be laid off this year. So in essence, teachers at hard to staff schools are getting paid to stay and fired all at once. This is counterproductive.
One could argue that this is a short-term, single year counterproductivity. In theory, the fired teachers will be replaced with higher-seniority bumpees, who can collect the Prop A money and won't be subject to layoffs for many years to come.
In actuality, there is no reason to believe that bumped teachers will accept an assignment at a hard to staff school in the first place, nor stay any longer than necessary before transferring. Given these circumstances, SFUSD may resort to TFA teachers. Of course, most of these teachers leave after two years, so the "hard to staff" problem is ongoing.
So the district is throwing several hundred thousand dollars in salary away. We know that staff stability strongly correlates to positive student outcomes, and that trained, experienced teachers get better student achievement results by any measure. The purpose of the "hard to staff" funding stream was to increase teacher retention. So much for that.
In other SFUSD news, the BoE agenda is up and Garcia's merry band of budget cutters remains unwilling to let much sun shine on their financial proposals. They are asking for the union to agree to the District having total freedom over class sizes, which brings the 25:1 ratio into doubt. It also is decent evidence that SFUSD has no intention of ever reducing class size if we give that away (there's nothing in the proposal that puts in writing Garcia's claim that class sizes will be reduced as soon as possible).
Whatever the case, SFUSD is dragging its feet on specifying how and what they plan to cut other than union concessions. Given how quickly they want a union vote and a budget vote by the Board, their pace suggests (to me, at least) that speed is necessary to obscure inequity in cuts: agree to SFUSD's lifeboat now or we all drown.
There appears to be decent support within UESF for an option of 20:1 retention through furlough (it's possible; Garcia said it would be either seven or nine days over two years depending on whether or not he was counting the two days' furlough already in the pipeline. The funding actually works out for it to be no more than six days, but I haven't looked into this so I can't accuse Garcia of trying to throw a potential pro-CSR vote. Yet.) I don't think SFUSD plans to offer this option, though; it doesn't show up on the agenda. What they do want is so sketchily outlined it's hard to tell.
Still, there is a good argument for voting down any contract revision that does not protect students. SFUSD is threatening apocalypse if this happens: no budget, no reserve, state takeover, consultants from Sacramento bearing pitchforks and Open Court, etc.
That's apocalypse for Garcia et al, though, not for the teaching staff. The state is not required to take over districts that fall within the possibility of takeover, and I don't think Sacramento really wants to deal with what they have wrought on school budgets. And even if they did? Garcia's out of a job, but I'm not. Consultants would get the big bucks for stupid programs, but that happens already. Privatization and Eli Broad would come in bearing big bucks for big cuts and corporate philosophy, but again: already happening. San Francisco isn't such a good market for boot camp schooling, anyway: why add another market when it's possible to get more done in Los Angeles and Oakland?
I think the state takeover gambit is a threat of very little interest. Barring a good proposal, UESF should vote it down.
06 February 2010
Teacher Pack Rat Disease
Packratitis is an understandable side effect of the constant spectre of budget cuts, newbie colleagues who need stuff, purchased curricula that call for unpurchased manipulatives, students who like to chew on things, and the MacGuyverism of any urban school teacher ("The microwave in the staff room blew out all the power in the school and maintenance gave us "top priority" status, so we've got at least 72 hours without heat? NO PROBLEM - with this gum wrapper, dust bunny and...").
When I started teaching and had nothing I used to go bug-eyed at the supplies others had stockpiled - several thousand dinosaur counters stored in an overflowing 40 gallon container, shelves full of used pencils, paint last used in French caves, etc. Teaching in a portable classroom kept me from indulging too much for a couple of years. Now I look back upon the shelving options in the portables with fondness, since my current classroom is huge but lacks storage.
And I have so much stuff, because I might throw this copy out and not be able to find the original (the last major reorginization job I have is this one, but it's been in the pipeline for three years and barring a cure for ADHD I don't think it's happening). And then there have been a couple of dream world Donors Choose projects that actually got funded. Plus, once I got rid of all the garbage that was left behind by the person who taught in this room before me I had some extra cabinets. I couldn't have known that when my dear friend's mom retired, she'd give me so much awesome stuff (half of which I still have to pick up, since the first half overwhelmed my car). The last three years have all been budget cut years, too, and nothing makes one pack rat it up more than that. Also, my superpower is finding. I hope one day to discover something truly excellent, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, tucked inside an old discounted teaching manual published by the Department of Health. I will use it to fund the classroom of my dreams. Until then, I am the queen of the mysterious drawer at SCRAP or RAFT, the miner of the Children's Book Project, and the superstar of sales.
This is why I am the proud owner of six raccoon-in-garbage-can handpuppets. Hey, they were a buck apiece (marked down from $25). I'm sure they'll come in handy.
When I started teaching and had nothing I used to go bug-eyed at the supplies others had stockpiled - several thousand dinosaur counters stored in an overflowing 40 gallon container, shelves full of used pencils, paint last used in French caves, etc. Teaching in a portable classroom kept me from indulging too much for a couple of years. Now I look back upon the shelving options in the portables with fondness, since my current classroom is huge but lacks storage.
And I have so much stuff, because I might throw this copy out and not be able to find the original (the last major reorginization job I have is this one, but it's been in the pipeline for three years and barring a cure for ADHD I don't think it's happening). And then there have been a couple of dream world Donors Choose projects that actually got funded. Plus, once I got rid of all the garbage that was left behind by the person who taught in this room before me I had some extra cabinets. I couldn't have known that when my dear friend's mom retired, she'd give me so much awesome stuff (half of which I still have to pick up, since the first half overwhelmed my car). The last three years have all been budget cut years, too, and nothing makes one pack rat it up more than that. Also, my superpower is finding. I hope one day to discover something truly excellent, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, tucked inside an old discounted teaching manual published by the Department of Health. I will use it to fund the classroom of my dreams. Until then, I am the queen of the mysterious drawer at SCRAP or RAFT, the miner of the Children's Book Project, and the superstar of sales.
This is why I am the proud owner of six raccoon-in-garbage-can handpuppets. Hey, they were a buck apiece (marked down from $25). I'm sure they'll come in handy.
31 January 2010
I am not Joe Klein.
I made the terrible mistake of picking up TIME at the gym the other day. Since I am a glutton for punishment and needed a little extra boost to my heart rate, I read Joe Klein's latest diatribe in his ongoing series, "All Those Lousy Teachers Unions Will Pay, PAY I TELL YOU, for the Time Mrs. Labinowitz Benched Me at Recess Unfairly".
Not that Mr. Klein sees it that way. I'm sure he experiences his awesome, radical, edgy hatred for unions and teachers as part of his mavericky maverickness. You know, the same independence of outlook that inspires him to award his Teddy Roosevelt medals to the most maverick of mavericks.
This is more apropos than Mr. Klein knows, I think. He appears to equate Teddy Roosevelt with incredible maverick spirit based on running for President on a third-party ticket and reading The Jungle even though Upton Sinclair a. doesn't write so well and b. was a SOCIALIST TEACHER LOVER.
Now, if you ask me the whole "Bull Moose" campaign is more a testament to meglomania, kind of like, oh, having your giant face carved into a mountain. The awards do end up being sort of appropriate though, in that TR had many other interesting qualities, like extreme hatred of women (ruining America by coddling virile sons) and people of color (COLONIALISM HO!).
But in the end, this is the kind of Maverick spirit that Mr. Klein reveres: the power to embrace one's corporate sponsors in the name of grit and independence. The nobility of shooting at the oppressed from the depths of their supposed white liberal allies. So it's no surprise that John McCain (woman-hater, racial slur user, protector of felons) is a perennial TR winner, and it's no surprise that Mr. Klein loves to rip on the teacher unions.
After all, they're a great target - full of women (bad), labor rights (which get in the way of the mavericky maverickness of working eighty hour weeks, you see), and historically popular among Democrats. Since Mr. Klein is himself a Democrat, railing against unions gives him that distinct thrill of the MAVERICK speaking truth to power. YES. He is letting those powerful, nasty teachers have it. They may move against him through their vast political connections. He may be forced to...I don't know, write lines or something. STAY INSIDE AT RECESS AND CLEAN THE CHALKBOARD ERASERS!
...all while being a wealthy white guy with a national pulpit espousing ideas popular among his corporate masters. Which is, if you think about it, inexcusably corrupt and brainless. Mrs. Labinowitz should've retained him, although if it meant she'd have to have his smarmy face in her class for two years I can understand why not.
Not that Mr. Klein sees it that way. I'm sure he experiences his awesome, radical, edgy hatred for unions and teachers as part of his mavericky maverickness. You know, the same independence of outlook that inspires him to award his Teddy Roosevelt medals to the most maverick of mavericks.
This is more apropos than Mr. Klein knows, I think. He appears to equate Teddy Roosevelt with incredible maverick spirit based on running for President on a third-party ticket and reading The Jungle even though Upton Sinclair a. doesn't write so well and b. was a SOCIALIST TEACHER LOVER.
Now, if you ask me the whole "Bull Moose" campaign is more a testament to meglomania, kind of like, oh, having your giant face carved into a mountain. The awards do end up being sort of appropriate though, in that TR had many other interesting qualities, like extreme hatred of women (ruining America by coddling virile sons) and people of color (COLONIALISM HO!).
But in the end, this is the kind of Maverick spirit that Mr. Klein reveres: the power to embrace one's corporate sponsors in the name of grit and independence. The nobility of shooting at the oppressed from the depths of their supposed white liberal allies. So it's no surprise that John McCain (woman-hater, racial slur user, protector of felons) is a perennial TR winner, and it's no surprise that Mr. Klein loves to rip on the teacher unions.
After all, they're a great target - full of women (bad), labor rights (which get in the way of the mavericky maverickness of working eighty hour weeks, you see), and historically popular among Democrats. Since Mr. Klein is himself a Democrat, railing against unions gives him that distinct thrill of the MAVERICK speaking truth to power. YES. He is letting those powerful, nasty teachers have it. They may move against him through their vast political connections. He may be forced to...I don't know, write lines or something. STAY INSIDE AT RECESS AND CLEAN THE CHALKBOARD ERASERS!
...all while being a wealthy white guy with a national pulpit espousing ideas popular among his corporate masters. Which is, if you think about it, inexcusably corrupt and brainless. Mrs. Labinowitz should've retained him, although if it meant she'd have to have his smarmy face in her class for two years I can understand why not.
23 January 2010
The extent to which teaching is a publicly-lived profession is startling. Everyone has an opinion on teaching, and a significant portion of the nation believes they could be teachers. Those (fake) lists of job requirements for teachers from the 1800s (requiring church-going, etc.) were believable because there are vague moral constraints placed upon teachers' lives even today. This is part of why Teach for America works as a lauded organization. Shiny, young and idealistic youth with no training provide both moral certainty and artless excellence.
Part of what comes out of this is the focus on being "relentless" in pursuit of success. This is an unyielding moral ground of rigor. Relentlessness requires teachers to keep pushing themselves and their students without regard for any obstacle. Relentlessness requires extended work hours and weeks. Relentlessness requires absolute dedication to academics.
Relentlessness is bunk.
Relentlessness is a smokescreen.
Relentlessness is a corrupt moral posture.
Relentlessness is characterized by a lack of reflection (Just keep going! Don't look back!).
I am an excellent teacher. I want my students to absolutely shred the Kindergarten content standards. I want each and every one of them to go to first grade above grade level with pride and confidence.
I also want them to roll around on the floor a lot.
When they go to first grade, I want them happy and excited about it. Relentlessness does not require happy children, self-motivated children, children who don't stress out about a little fingerpaint in the hair.
So what I'm realizing is: I'm not relentless. I am Michelle Rhee's nightmare. This hasn't been easy, since it is difficult not to accept truisms as truth, and because I have a tendency to try to reconcile good intentions (all children can succeed) with bad foundations (and social justice is not the answer).
But the thing is, if I demand my students overcome every obstacle while ignoring those obstacles, I am morally corrupt. I'm not teaching, I'm passing out bootstraps. If I push myself into exhaustion with seventy-hour weeks and leave the profession, I'm literally not teaching. If I push academics alone, I am accepting the dichotomy between academic content and
play. It all boils down to sterility: a world without context. Students don't observe reality and synthesize it with academic content. Learning and pleasure are separated; education is a period of one's life, not a lifelong process.
Sadly, all this grandiose posturing comes out of a very simple realization this week. It rained every day, and my students got not one minute of outdoor recess. Needless to say, they were more than a little squirrelly come...oh, come Wednesday morning. The human body, particularly when five, is not well-suited for rainy-day recess.
What I realized this week is that I can keep pushing through my RELENTLESS schedule or face reality. I can do heavy-duty academic content in the afternoon and get irritated when my students mess around. They won't learn anything, but hey: it's relentless.
Or I can fiddle with my schedule, hit the academic high points in the morning and reserve the afternoons for experiential learning and indoor play. The kids will be happier and I'll be happier. The students might not hit so many content standards, but the ones they do, they'll master. They'll also get a little boost for future learning, since the mind-body connection is a strong one. I will read several favorite ridiculous children's stories to great laughter and enjoy the pleasure of an indoor snowball fight.
Relentlessness can go hang, man. It's time for a little Tomi Ungerer and a few cooking projects.
Part of what comes out of this is the focus on being "relentless" in pursuit of success. This is an unyielding moral ground of rigor. Relentlessness requires teachers to keep pushing themselves and their students without regard for any obstacle. Relentlessness requires extended work hours and weeks. Relentlessness requires absolute dedication to academics.
Relentlessness is bunk.
Relentlessness is a smokescreen.
Relentlessness is a corrupt moral posture.
Relentlessness is characterized by a lack of reflection (Just keep going! Don't look back!).
I am an excellent teacher. I want my students to absolutely shred the Kindergarten content standards. I want each and every one of them to go to first grade above grade level with pride and confidence.
I also want them to roll around on the floor a lot.
When they go to first grade, I want them happy and excited about it. Relentlessness does not require happy children, self-motivated children, children who don't stress out about a little fingerpaint in the hair.
So what I'm realizing is: I'm not relentless. I am Michelle Rhee's nightmare. This hasn't been easy, since it is difficult not to accept truisms as truth, and because I have a tendency to try to reconcile good intentions (all children can succeed) with bad foundations (and social justice is not the answer).
But the thing is, if I demand my students overcome every obstacle while ignoring those obstacles, I am morally corrupt. I'm not teaching, I'm passing out bootstraps. If I push myself into exhaustion with seventy-hour weeks and leave the profession, I'm literally not teaching. If I push academics alone, I am accepting the dichotomy between academic content and
play. It all boils down to sterility: a world without context. Students don't observe reality and synthesize it with academic content. Learning and pleasure are separated; education is a period of one's life, not a lifelong process.
Sadly, all this grandiose posturing comes out of a very simple realization this week. It rained every day, and my students got not one minute of outdoor recess. Needless to say, they were more than a little squirrelly come...oh, come Wednesday morning. The human body, particularly when five, is not well-suited for rainy-day recess.
What I realized this week is that I can keep pushing through my RELENTLESS schedule or face reality. I can do heavy-duty academic content in the afternoon and get irritated when my students mess around. They won't learn anything, but hey: it's relentless.
Or I can fiddle with my schedule, hit the academic high points in the morning and reserve the afternoons for experiential learning and indoor play. The kids will be happier and I'll be happier. The students might not hit so many content standards, but the ones they do, they'll master. They'll also get a little boost for future learning, since the mind-body connection is a strong one. I will read several favorite ridiculous children's stories to great laughter and enjoy the pleasure of an indoor snowball fight.
Relentlessness can go hang, man. It's time for a little Tomi Ungerer and a few cooking projects.
22 January 2010
For Future Reference
An excellent way to organize a work gang of afterschool helpers is by offering science experiments.
Today's experiment: "Do children like Nutella?"
Today's experiment: "Do children like Nutella?"
21 January 2010
It is no real surprise that public education takes miserable budget hits come shortfall or surplus. It's "public" after all, and there has been a concerted effort to equate taxpayer-supported services as pits of corruption, failure and greed. Not to mention that education involves teachers, who were notoriously mean to you in second grade and are unionized. That's two more strikes right there. And then, children don't vote and their lobbyists have early bedtimes, not to mention karate practice and chores. Those really cut into wine-and-dine nights in Sacramento. Nor is it strange that poor children and children of color will suffer inequitably.
Still, looking at the budget cuts this year is enough to make one spit, or cry, or both. SFUSD is looking to cut $113 million over two years, which is what happens when the Governor says he's not cutting education funding. There is no way that this will not be ugly, but what is going to happen is so wrong that it's nauseating. (And I say this as someone who is tenured and should not receive a layoff letter).
We're looking at 30:1 class sizes, no step increases or longevity bonuses and at least two furlough days. So pretty much a salary cut for twice as many students in a classroom. Those students are unlikely to have many materials - site budgets are destroyed - and since we will have no textbook adoptions for another two years their materials will be very out of date.
As yet, no SFUSD ED, AS or Garcia himself have pledged to take a pay cut in solidarity with their staff.
Still, looking at the budget cuts this year is enough to make one spit, or cry, or both. SFUSD is looking to cut $113 million over two years, which is what happens when the Governor says he's not cutting education funding. There is no way that this will not be ugly, but what is going to happen is so wrong that it's nauseating. (And I say this as someone who is tenured and should not receive a layoff letter).
We're looking at 30:1 class sizes, no step increases or longevity bonuses and at least two furlough days. So pretty much a salary cut for twice as many students in a classroom. Those students are unlikely to have many materials - site budgets are destroyed - and since we will have no textbook adoptions for another two years their materials will be very out of date.
As yet, no SFUSD ED, AS or Garcia himself have pledged to take a pay cut in solidarity with their staff.
19 January 2010
Sometimes I Can't Help Myself.
Claire Lilienthal is a K-8 in SFUSD. Claire Lilienthal was a member of the Board of Education who advocated for integrated schools.
Claire Lilienthal is reasonably diverse. Reasonably. Compared to SFUSD's student demographics, Claire Lilienthal, wherever she is now, is maaaaaaaaaaaad:
SFUSD is about 10% white; Lilienthal is over 30% white. About half of SFUSD's students live in poverty and around a third are English Language Learners: Lilienthal clocks in at 18% and 7%, respectively.
Chalk this up with "Things I Was Probably Better Off Not Knowing".
Claire Lilienthal is reasonably diverse. Reasonably. Compared to SFUSD's student demographics, Claire Lilienthal, wherever she is now, is maaaaaaaaaaaad:
SFUSD is about 10% white; Lilienthal is over 30% white. About half of SFUSD's students live in poverty and around a third are English Language Learners: Lilienthal clocks in at 18% and 7%, respectively.
Chalk this up with "Things I Was Probably Better Off Not Knowing".
17 January 2010
Looking "Beyond the Talk", You Will Find
...a great big empty space.
Word has it that our august Superintendent is making the rounds dressed up like Foxy Loxy to alert us that the sky is falling: no class-size reduction, no 'extras' like art and music, massive layoffs.
"Massive layoffs" might be my very favorite part in terms of absolute waste of cash. The "hard to staff" schools are getting their first bonuses next month. They'll also take the brunt of the layoffs, so that those "hard to staff" schools will remain so forevermore. After all, since they're always hiring, they're always filled with teachers whose seniority is negligible. So despite the fact that teacher retention has a significant positive impact on poor schools, and despite the fact that SFUSD got the voters to pay for programs to increase retention, they're going to go ahead and lay off those teachers anyway.
I have to admit I find the CSR issue somewhat amusing, in a teeth-grinding way. This is one of those cuts that will save SFUSD significant money on the backs of poor schools. The District knows that several parent-funded schools have been buying down class sizes in 4th and 5th grades. I think we can assume that most, if not all of those schools will shift to buying down all class sizes. Poor schools can suck it.
Ultimately, this is what you get when you hire a guy that spent his last Superintendent job spouting racist epithets to the press. In theory, we are all "Beyond the Talk" these days. We're gonna close thatachievement opportunity gap, pass out those Jimi Hendrix bags, get serious about educating children of color, make connections with communities with humility, make school funding equitable.
In actuality, we're going to pander to white middle class families (neighborhood! schools! except! for! immersion! programs!), encourage parent funding and give all the Title One schools an extra pair of bootstraps.
Word has it that our august Superintendent is making the rounds dressed up like Foxy Loxy to alert us that the sky is falling: no class-size reduction, no 'extras' like art and music, massive layoffs.
"Massive layoffs" might be my very favorite part in terms of absolute waste of cash. The "hard to staff" schools are getting their first bonuses next month. They'll also take the brunt of the layoffs, so that those "hard to staff" schools will remain so forevermore. After all, since they're always hiring, they're always filled with teachers whose seniority is negligible. So despite the fact that teacher retention has a significant positive impact on poor schools, and despite the fact that SFUSD got the voters to pay for programs to increase retention, they're going to go ahead and lay off those teachers anyway.
I have to admit I find the CSR issue somewhat amusing, in a teeth-grinding way. This is one of those cuts that will save SFUSD significant money on the backs of poor schools. The District knows that several parent-funded schools have been buying down class sizes in 4th and 5th grades. I think we can assume that most, if not all of those schools will shift to buying down all class sizes. Poor schools can suck it.
Ultimately, this is what you get when you hire a guy that spent his last Superintendent job spouting racist epithets to the press. In theory, we are all "Beyond the Talk" these days. We're gonna close that
In actuality, we're going to pander to white middle class families (neighborhood! schools! except! for! immersion! programs!), encourage parent funding and give all the Title One schools an extra pair of bootstraps.
10 January 2010
The Budget Proposal of Our "No Cuts to Education" Governor
...or, "Ten Thousand dollars in goods and services personally raised for my classroom, plus an extra two thousand of my own cash sure won't do it next year."
...or, "The Groper Governor LIED? NO WAY!"
...or, "The Groper Governor LIED? NO WAY!"
- K-14 education takes about 30% of the cuts, while corrections take 14%.
- Some portion of the cuts to corrections is cuts to education programs in prisons.
- By messing around with gasoline excise taxes, Prop 98 takes a huge cut.
- First Five takes massive cuts. This would require a vote, so California's taxpayers will get to pay for that, too. This is a real pity, because First Five is fat with cash and they use it reasonably well.
- Programs that help kids get to school healthy, fed, and happy - CALWorks, mental health programs, Healthy Families - they will all be destroyed.
- Special education will take special cuts unless the federal government kicks in some cash.
- The budget proposes K-12 cuts to administrative overhead. That always ends up translating to "Let's hire consultants!" So not only is it a cash cut, it's one that will likely destroy site budgets while claiming to get more money into classrooms.
- In fact, the Governor's budget makes it easier to hire consultants.
- The Average Daily Attendance cash would be cut.
- Class size reduction takes a cut so large it might as well be ended entirely.
- Defund almost all education funding mandates.
- End seniority.
- End the 15 March pink slip notice.
- 175 day school year.
22 November 2009
In a time of horror, one needs an outlet.
This is a very bad time to be a student or teacher in California's schools, and it gets worse as your school falls down the socioeconomic ladder.
I don't know. It's all very demoralizing, and SFUSD seems bound and determined to make it as bad as possible. There is a gaping chasm between rhetoric and reality in this district, and the administrative solution seems to be that some teachers will throw themselves into it in the hopes of being a rickety bridge.
Right now it seems more likely that we're all lemmings.
In a climate like this one, it is imperative to have an outlet. All of the usual vices - alcohol, loose and attractive comrades, and so on - are not appealing (and especially unbecoming to the Kindergarten teacher at an early start school, you know?). Blogging is better than snarking, right?
I don't know. It's all very demoralizing, and SFUSD seems bound and determined to make it as bad as possible. There is a gaping chasm between rhetoric and reality in this district, and the administrative solution seems to be that some teachers will throw themselves into it in the hopes of being a rickety bridge.
Right now it seems more likely that we're all lemmings.
In a climate like this one, it is imperative to have an outlet. All of the usual vices - alcohol, loose and attractive comrades, and so on - are not appealing (and especially unbecoming to the Kindergarten teacher at an early start school, you know?). Blogging is better than snarking, right?
29 October 2006
Vermin: A Word That Sounds Best in a Creepy Voice
28% of California schools are reported to have a vermin problem. In poor urban schools, I'm confident that we can establish 100% are infested with less than charming rodents, insects, and mold species.
My old school was ridden with cockroaches. Few days went by when a teacher could not be seeing bashing one with a broom. The District's maintenance guy, a strange character who more than once walked into my room while smoking a cigarette, would leave glue traps. These weren't really strong enough for our roaches. Every so often, we'd hear a slight thumping noise emanating from a partially-closed cabinet. A roach, half-glued down and mad as hell, would be trying to escape. Alas, escape was impossible. So the trap would move, slowly but surely, until the roach backed itself into a wall and had to start over. Sisyphus Roach Follies, if you will.
When they started a new housing construction across the street, all the mice who'd inhabited the field moved in, too. These guys were cute, but shady and mean. Moreover, they instigated a turf war with the roof rats, who were already well-established.
Worst of all were the earwigs. These suckers would come out of nowhere and pinch. I have been told that these pinches do not hurt. They do. Worse than rubbing one's hot-cheeto rich fingers against one's eyes.
Still, none of these vermin can send you to the hospital.
In my second year, I taught in an old-world kindergarten classroom with two old-world kindergarten toilets in the back. One of my darlings started yelling from the bathroom door, so I went to see what the problem was.
"The spider won't let me open the door," she yelped.
Right.
I asked my co-teacher for reinforcement and headed to the bathroom, armed with Contraband Windex (we were not allowed to have these in the classroom as a safety issue. On the other hand, our classroom only got cleaned once a week, and germs are also unsafe) and a paper cup. While my co-teacher eyed the lock, I lifted my student over the side of the stall. When the child was out of spider range, I gave the door a healthy whack.
The biggest black widow I had ever seen immediately came crawling out of the lock mechanism, ready to bite. (They're aggressive.) Our gasping shock was not that impressive, I suppose, so she took herself back to her dark lair to await the next five year old's succulent finger.
Kindergarten bathroom stalls have low walls, so I vaulted over the side. I whacked the door, my co-teacher stunned the spider with Windex and I caught it in our cup.
Then we had an impromptu science lesson.
At recess, I brought my prize to the secretary. When the Superintendent arrived for a meeting with the Principal, the secretary met him at his car bearing the cup. He was not really that excited to see our specimen, so she followed him across the campus until he took a look.
Focusing on the important issues is key for District officials, so of course his first concern was why, exactly, we had Windex in our classroom.
My old school was ridden with cockroaches. Few days went by when a teacher could not be seeing bashing one with a broom. The District's maintenance guy, a strange character who more than once walked into my room while smoking a cigarette, would leave glue traps. These weren't really strong enough for our roaches. Every so often, we'd hear a slight thumping noise emanating from a partially-closed cabinet. A roach, half-glued down and mad as hell, would be trying to escape. Alas, escape was impossible. So the trap would move, slowly but surely, until the roach backed itself into a wall and had to start over. Sisyphus Roach Follies, if you will.
When they started a new housing construction across the street, all the mice who'd inhabited the field moved in, too. These guys were cute, but shady and mean. Moreover, they instigated a turf war with the roof rats, who were already well-established.
Worst of all were the earwigs. These suckers would come out of nowhere and pinch. I have been told that these pinches do not hurt. They do. Worse than rubbing one's hot-cheeto rich fingers against one's eyes.
Still, none of these vermin can send you to the hospital.
In my second year, I taught in an old-world kindergarten classroom with two old-world kindergarten toilets in the back. One of my darlings started yelling from the bathroom door, so I went to see what the problem was.
"The spider won't let me open the door," she yelped.
Right.
I asked my co-teacher for reinforcement and headed to the bathroom, armed with Contraband Windex (we were not allowed to have these in the classroom as a safety issue. On the other hand, our classroom only got cleaned once a week, and germs are also unsafe) and a paper cup. While my co-teacher eyed the lock, I lifted my student over the side of the stall. When the child was out of spider range, I gave the door a healthy whack.
The biggest black widow I had ever seen immediately came crawling out of the lock mechanism, ready to bite. (They're aggressive.) Our gasping shock was not that impressive, I suppose, so she took herself back to her dark lair to await the next five year old's succulent finger.
Kindergarten bathroom stalls have low walls, so I vaulted over the side. I whacked the door, my co-teacher stunned the spider with Windex and I caught it in our cup.
Then we had an impromptu science lesson.
At recess, I brought my prize to the secretary. When the Superintendent arrived for a meeting with the Principal, the secretary met him at his car bearing the cup. He was not really that excited to see our specimen, so she followed him across the campus until he took a look.
Focusing on the important issues is key for District officials, so of course his first concern was why, exactly, we had Windex in our classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)