Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah yes, another member of the welfare-social services-education complex. All these unions, 1199 (and SEIU in general, the UFT, DC37, etc.) need to be eliminated. They do nothing but leech on the taxpayers' money.
In general, the education monopoly needs to be broken. Parents should be given a voucher, and allowed to use it any any school. Why should kids be held hostage by the government? The NYC board of ed has screwed up millions of kids over the last several decades. The charters go a short way to solving this, but not nearly far enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoogeyDownDweller
Actually I'm not a teacher, but I am in 1199SEIU United Healthcare Worker's East and so the Union Busting of the charter's is very close to heart. Since having a contract for the first time I have a living wage, free CUNY/SUNY tuition, co-pay/deductible free health insurance, and a pension. Before I was union I was doing a similar job for a non-union agency and was earning 3/4's my current wage with health insurance that had a $2000.00 out of pocket deductible and $100 co-pay everytime I wanted to see a doctor! Forget about the pension or tuition reimbursement. Point in case, all workers know unions provide a buffer against income inequality and some of the best paying jobs in the country. Having a contract means that workers are respected. When I was non-union, I was forced to work overtime without overtime pay. Now I know I am guaranteed overtime pay, or I can get my organizer involved. In my non-union job, if I spoke up about the extra slavery hours, I'd be fired.
That's why I'm angry with charters, they are trying to bring back the bad old days. You say "higher pay for higher incentives" for teachers; well I say teacher's unions are the only thing that are keeping teachers wages relatively decent. If the charters have their way teacher's won't even make what fast food workers make!
Contrary to the beliefs of charters this is not the problem in public schools. The problems are structural poverty and a lack of funding and resources directed towards schools in poor areas. Schools in wealthy areas have more active PTA's that fundraise and lobby the school for smaller class size, they have the highest local tax base, they also don't spend as much of their money on programs like ESL, and they have higher parent involvement. This is part of why public schools in wealthy areas do well, and why we shouldn't give up on public schools in poor areas. It is simply that these areas need to be addressed and some equity created. In fact the community schools have outreach workers who go door to door trying to get poor parents who are uninvolved, more involved in their children's education.
As for those who say that Success Academy charters test better than public schools. This is not so. Most charters have the ability to choose who they want admitted into their school through a process of opt-in lotteries, tests, and other means-tested measures that end up skimming the cream-of-the crop students from the public schools and rejecting everyone else. This is purely political, and there are countless stories of how special needs children at success academy are kicked to the curb and signaled out for public humilitiation. It is a very dehumanizing environment. For those that argue that the smartest students aren't challenged, this is not true. I went to one of the 7 public specialized high schools that provide a higher level of education to best students that emerge in high school. My school was regularly ranked in the top 25 public high schools in the country, and WAS NOT a charter. I do agree with an expansion of that program
Lastly, Charter schools are no "educational inovation," they are the wholesale privatization of a public resource utility. No different then the for-profit privatization of electricity, water, or even air. Can you imagine of the air we breathe was send to some private companies purification factory and sold back to us at a profit and that company claimed to have purer air? That's in the same veins of charters. It's the brainchild idea of IMF/World Banks folks that want everything to be a business.
I can see the failures of the current system. Why does one need expertise in a failed system to see the need for a replacement?
Don't believe me? How about a Nobel Prize winning economist?
[url=http://www.edchoice.org/who-we-are/our-founders/the-friedmans-on-school-choice/article/milton-friedman-on-busting-the-school-monopoly/]MILTON FRIEDMAN ON BUSTING THE SCHOOL MONOPOLY[/url
Why do the teachers' unions hate the idea of privatized education so much? Is it because they can't use their political influence to bully private entities nearly as much they can the politicians?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlem resident
Again. Do explain the expertise in education that will qualify you to have an opinion on education.
Or even a vague and simplistic notion of the very basic issues.
Which you may indeed have - but I have not seen this.
I have a friend who works at a Success Academy and loves it. She feels like she's making a huge impact in the community and giving students a quality education where there may have been none.
Another friend interviewed and was offered a job at a Success Academy this past summer. The pay was slightly more than her current job but the contract stipulated a bunch of odd things. They wouldn't tell her what school she would be working at before signing the contract (although to hire her they must have known where they were going to place her), she would be required to attend many out of school events in support of charter schools/Success Academies, they would help pay for a master's degree but she was forced to use one for-profit online school, she would have to work Saturdays and had to be at school something crazy that amounted to 9.5-10 hour days during the week (which is a long day when you're working with 5/6 year-olds), sick days were nonexistent, and the kicker was if she decided to leave for a new job anyone working at the school would be banned from acting as a reference. I didn't read the contract but she ultimately decided that the pay increase wasn't worth the headache. Seems like it is a toxic working environment that could only translate into a toxic learning environment.
Yes unions are great. My father was a union tin-knocker but he busted his ass day in and day out. On the other hand, there are many union employees who exploit their relationship with their employer knowing that they are protected. Does this exploitation occur in the private workforce? Of course it does but on a much, much smaller scale because all it ends up doing is getting oneself fired.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with privatizing education. What's the argument against it? That government knows how to do it best? Incentive based pay has been proven to work because humans are incentive based creatures. Just like all creatures in this world. As long as the private schools aren't exploiting their employees, I see no problem with them.
I can see the failures of the current system. Why does one need expertise in a failed system to see the need for a replacement?
Don't believe me? How about a Nobel Prize winning economist?
[url=http://www.edchoice.org/who-we-are/our-founders/the-friedmans-on-school-choice/article/milton-friedman-on-busting-the-school-monopoly/]MILTON FRIEDMAN ON BUSTING THE SCHOOL MONOPOLY[/url
Why do the teachers' unions hate the idea of privatized education so much? Is it because they can't use their political influence to bully private entities nearly as much they can the politicians?
As someone who also works in education, there are some other issues.
The poorest schools don't just have structural issues with poverty. They never get the better teachers. The difference in teaching in a well off school and a poor school is night and day. Poor schools have insufficient resources including supplies, and teachers are often asked to cover that out of their pocket. Poor schools have high rates of teachers leaving and they are more likely to get stuck with the least qualified teachers.
On top of that business people have tried to fund programs like teach for america that throw recent college graduates (just bachelors) in classrooms in poor areas. These recent graduates have degrees like chemistry, history, etc. They have no background in education or teacher's training. Most end up QUITTING after a short period of time.
With that said if Charters are proven to work, then they are proven to work and I'm all for it. One thing that kept poor people in poverty is insufficient investment in educational resources.
Because while I agree that people from poor areas have structural social issues, some teachers are just bad or use bad teaching methods (as I said poor districts get stuck with these people long term). So anything that gets rid of certain lame people is good.
While I certainly support unions in terms of fighting for wages and benefits, their defense of people who need to be fired is deplorable. I would say the same for the police union who defends cops who are clearly guilty of police brutality. The teachers unions have definitely defended people who should have been fired 10 years ago.
Charter schools could be more complicated than people believe.
For those of you who can actually read, do note that the article points out the school's interest in maintaining its own brand - protecting reputation.
So why force the poor kids into the same failed schools that have been failing them for years?
Take the dollar amount per pupil the BoE spends (something like $17-18,000), and issue that as a voucher to the parents, and let them send their kids wherever they want.
Sell off or rent the existing school properties to private operators (either for profit or non-profit) and let the set up private schools. Keep a testing regime so that the results of the schools can be objectively ranked. The schools that succeed will survive. The ones that fail will die an be replaced. In the end, the kids will get a better education than they do now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
As someone who also works in education, there are some other issues.
The poorest schools don't just have structural issues with poverty. They never get the better teachers. The difference in teaching in a well off school and a poor school is night and day. Poor schools have insufficient resources including supplies, and teachers are often asked to cover that out of their pocket. Poor schools have high rates of teachers leaving and they are more likely to get stuck with the least qualified teachers.
On top of that business people have tried to fund programs like teach for america that throw recent college graduates (just bachelors) in classrooms in poor areas. These recent graduates have degrees like chemistry, history, etc. They have no background in education or teacher's training. Most end up QUITTING after a short period of time.
With that said if Charters are proven to work, then they are proven to work and I'm all for it. One thing that kept poor people in poverty is insufficient investment in educational resources.
Because while I agree that people from poor areas have structural social issues, some teachers are just bad or use bad teaching methods (as I said poor districts get stuck with these people long term). So anything that gets rid of certain lame people is good.
While I certainly support unions in terms of fighting for wages and benefits, their defense of people who need to be fired is deplorable. I would say the same for the police union who defends cops who are clearly guilty of police brutality. The teachers unions have definitely defended people who should have been fired 10 years ago.
I would absolutely never send my child to one of those schools. I pay for private school before I send him to one of those schools or pick and and move to better neighborhood. I do not like the way they speak to or treat the children. I have two friends who work at the schools in harlem and yet their kids don't go there. Strange?
So why force the poor kids into the same failed schools that have been failing them for years?
Take the dollar amount per pupil the BoE spends (something like $17-18,000), and issue that as a voucher to the parents, and let them send their kids wherever they want.
Sell off or rent the existing school properties to private operators (either for profit or non-profit) and let the set up private schools. Keep a testing regime so that the results of the schools can be objectively ranked. The schools that succeed will survive. The ones that fail will die an be replaced. In the end, the kids will get a better education than they do now.
Shutting down the public schools still will not necessarily guarantee better teachers though. I've seen character schools hire people who just have bachelor degrees in whatever subject (History, English, Math, etc). Lots of these teachers not having any prior teaching experience or training QUIT!
Lastly if people are so interested in improving the lives of poor people in poor neighborhoods, why not support labor unions and other movements that could redistribute money to more people?
At their best charter schools will probably marginally increase the number of poor people who get into top universities. But beyond that due to economic forces I don't see them able to change things for the majority of kids from poor neighborhoods.
In order to get in top universities (much less any university these days) kids need to have a host of activities outside of school. These activities cost money, as do the applications for college themselves. The educational system is a gatekeeper meant to filter out most applicants as garbage.
Btw, Success Academy is notorious in not accepting students who don't test well, not accepting learning disability students, and not accepting students with ESL. That does help raise their scores. Even the public school system has magnet and specialized schools, but keep in mind kids with learning disabilities, ESL students, and behavioral problems have to be educated somewhere and in some neighborhoods these kids can be huge percentages of the student body.
Charter school results so far have been mixed. There are many crappy charter schools. Eva Moskowitz does a good job with Success however.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
