Pablo put up a very interesting post that led to a good discussion of federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and state Ed Reform. My response to a good comment on that thread by Publius got so long that I decided I better create new post instead of a one-inch wide, three-foot-long comment.
I share Publius’ sense that public schools are worthwhile, but need a kick in the pants. Unfortunately, I don’t see charter schools providing a good model for change.
The federal NCLB act and MA state Ed Reform are having a mixed effect – I have seen kids drop out (or be pushed out) because they know they won’t pass the test, teachers who feel compelled to help their kids cheat on the tests, charter schools that have been shut down for poor performance, many decent and otherwise qualified teachers dismissed from their jobs because they are not good test-takers, vocational course offerings – which offer appropriate and viable tracks for many kids who are not “book smart” – reduced because those classes don’t help to increase test scores, etc.
The most recent study comparing outcomes (as measured by student test scores) between public and private schools shows them virtually tied – one has an edge in some 4th grade scores, the other is ahead with some 8th graders.
Those who have worked in this field much longer than I have argue persuasively that it is the child’s environment at home – his or her socioeconomic status – that matters more than anything a teacher can do to help that child absorb information and apply it in new and useful ways. (See the Lubienski study cited in this DailyKos diary.)
This emphasis on socioeconomic status jibes with what I have seen as a public official and in the (admittedly brief) time I have spent in classrooms over the last year. Kids who have been abused, or who are hungry, or who don’t have a father figure they can turn to, or who are being raised by a substance abuser, or whose family member has been arrested, or who live in a garbage-filled house, or whose parents had bad experiences with the schools – are less likely to be focused, “good” students. There are exceptions, but I suspect these kinds of distractions correlate with socioeconomic status.
Instead of assuming that charter schools are the only alternative for the kids who had previously been neglected by the public schools, I seek candidates (gov. and legislative) who will create an atmosphere that allows us to improve the schools we have, using a variety of tools.
I make no secret of the fact that I am a Deval Patrick supporter, and I believe that Patrick has listened to people and understood the need for a broader approach to both assessment and frameworks, leading to his pledge to work toward schools that will educate the “whole child”.
I had not been conscious of Chris Gabrieli’s investment in private, for-profit charter schools as described by Pablo in the post I cited earlier. Gabrieli’s pro-charter school position puts him in the same category with Weld and Romney only if he fails to recognize the failures of charter schools to fulfill the lofty promises their proponents made in 1993.
This brings me back to my opening paragraph which was about the ’06 election. We have reduced the education debate to haggling over public vs. charter, or how many different and better ways we can raise test scores. Fresh leadership and perspective is greatly needed.
Since we do see a difference between candidates who some perceive to be otherwise similar on some issues, public education may be the issue that allows us to differentiate, and to choose the candidate who defines Education Reform in a new way.
And not just because you give us yet another reason to support Deval Patrick, although I’m grateful for that.
<
p>
I love the way you have supported your reasoning with links to relevant articles. It lends your post an air of gravitas that is too often lacking in opinions offered here.
<
p>
Also, best of luck to you in your new job. I think you’re going to make a wonderful teacher!
<
p>
Most children cannot, will not, engage fully, or even at all, when their homelife is unstable. This is the crux of many of the performance issues that seem intractable.
<
p>
Anecdotally, I’ll offer this one story out of dozens. I taught 8th grade for many years in a small town off Route 2. I had a student, let’s call him Jimmy, whose mother was a recovering heroin addict with all sorts of concomitant psych issues. She was divorced with three kids, but dad was not around much. When dad was, the interactions were not all that positive. For example, one weekend, Jimmy had to haul his father out of a frozen pond after he’d fallen through the ice on a snowmobile–drunk. Jimmy was a slightly learning disabled kid (who’d been retained twice) with huge hyperactivity and attending issues. He was diagnosed, but she refused meds. Jimmy was frequently hungry because there wasn’t all that much food in the house that he could eat (he was lactose intolerant), so we used to keep crackers and peanut butter in the file cabinet for him when he needed it. He and his clothes were often dirty. Jimmy had anger issues and was known to throw furniture if his frustration tolerance was exceeded. He failed many of his classes because he never did homework or studied. School, however, was a bit of a sanctuary, so he was often willing to stay after school, eat, and get some 1:1 attention.
<
p>
One day the math teacher and I were providing help after school. Jimmy was having tremendous difficult grasping a concept in geometry and was getting very frustrated. Finally, he just blurted out, “With all the crap I have to deal with, do you really think I care about this stupid Pythagorean thing?”
<
p>
And there it is. I’ve taught middle school students, high school students, and incarcerated felons at MCI Shirley Medium, and there is a thread of continuity among virtually all the low- or non-achieving students from 12 to adulthood: without a supportive home, at-risk students are not achieving. Some of the older students, the more mature ones in high school and even in prison schools, do come to realize that they need an education and can compensate by taking measures to remediate their poor skill sets. But these students are relatively rare.
<
p>
Struggling families like Jimmy’s are not receiving much, if any, social service support. There is nothing, however, that we, as public educators, can do to compensate for that. And if someone comes around claiming a new school setting–whether it be alternative or charter–is going to save all these kids and make them whole and achieving, they’re selling snake oil. And, on the off chance that whatever they are selling might actually be productive, then these programs and methods should be vetted through the public schools and funded such that all children benefit.
And when a class just happens to get a cluster of troubled students such the one above, the failure rate on the MCAS may move up one or two percentage points, and that school is not making Acceptable Yearly Progress.
Using MCAS to measure improvements in academic success from year-to-year is worthless. This year’s 6th grade may have very high performing students when compared to last year’s 6th grade. This year’s class sizes may be more advantageous compared to last. This year’s class has fewer major behavioral issues than last year’s. Consequently, this year’s 7th grade ELA MCAS may look terrible, but next year’s will look great. Worthless. Same instruction; different kids.
<
p>
People don’t understand that each group of kids, each grade, if you will, has a personality, a subculture, a chemistry that is unlike any before it and any after it. Teachers in middle school probably have a better appreciation of this than any other teaching cohort given that the effects of the onset of puberty combined with an increasingly aware and social adolescent are at their peak.
<
p>
If a middle school has a relatively homogeneous and affluent group of parents who value education, that force will have a stabilizing effect on the standardized or objective test performances of those children. Those communities tend to have more homogeneous scores from one year to the next. Those middle schools, however, with a more transient/low socioeconomic population will see greater shifts in their performance indicators. The system, as it is currently configured, however, does not allow for these variables when considering MCAS performance longitudinally. It’s a joke.
<
p>
Fortunately, in some cases, this performance variability levels out in high school, where the maturity factor kicks in and students are more likely to take authentic ownership of their learning.
I think charter schools are a great way to try out different methods of education. The middle school I attended, Francis W. Parker Charter Essential (in Devens, MA) is a great example of what intelligent people can do with little funding. However, I don’t think they’re a viable ultimate solution. I back greater funding to public education, especially in the arena of higher education. I think our state needs stronger state universities, and I think the next generation needs them (among other things), too.
<
p>
That’s probably the number two reason why I’m behind Reilly, who has pledged to put half a billion dollars into UMASS (the number one reason being that he’s the only candidate who is, I believe, actually left-wing).
But the biggest failure of state governments regarding charter schools is the lack of evaluation of what charter schools do. Education departments should be trying to identify successful practices and offering information on those practices to teacher at public and charter schools.
<
p>
Every single candidate will run in favor of education, against crime and against waste, and it going to be the very nuanced voter who figures out if there’s difference in position between any candidate on each of those issues. (Stupid, wasteful criminals have a pitiful lobby.)
<
p>
The MTA will come out in favor of the Democrat’s nominee, even if the party nominates a piece of patio furniture and will rail on the Romney/Healey record. The average taxpayer will vote on 1) taxes; 2) ‘The economy stupid’ and 3) who does a better job (on TV) of running against the Legislature (in Ms. Healey’s camp) or a better job of tarring the record of Mr. Romney (in the Dem nominee camp.
<
p>
Nonetheless, the discussion re: Charter, public, private, voucher or scholarship, is quite interesting. BTW, if anyone can show a single study that shows increased per pupil spending means better students, I’d love to see it.
Putting additional money into an adequately funded school system will not necessarily yield better results. Cutting school systems below an essential level will decrease the quaity of the schools.
<
p>
Unfortunately, with the state aid cuts and the constraints of Proposition 2.5, we have a large number of parents who are getting whacked with sky high user fees for a level of services that is not comparable to public schools in other states.
<
p>
Sadly, there is way too much nuance and complexity in education policy. The only way that education will turn the election is if an informed group of core voters can get through the “better schools for our children” and “eliminate waste and inefficiency” soundbites to an understanding of what is really happening out there in the real world.
But, look at 2003 spending per pupil. Way above the median, relative to other states at $10K or so, an increase from 2000.
$10,460 to be precise
<
p>
Hmmm…can’t seem to find more current per student figures, but (I’m willing to be show otherwise) you’d be hard pressed to show a significant per student decreased. Just my intuition.
<
p>
One thing for sure, despite the ten-fold increase in spending since LBJ, and the doubling in the 1990s, test scores are pretty much the same.
<
p>
Looking for innovation and “progressive” thinking? Then streamline education programs and go direct: compensate education to assist disadvantaged students deliver that that funding as 1) portable aid to individual students, 2) some stimulus to involve the parent in the kid’s education. Don’t deliver more aid to institutions.
<
p>
I’d like to see the single study that show increased dollars to institutions of education causes better students.
Most of a school system’s budget goes to hire teachers.
<
p>
One interesting thing about teachers. They need to live within commuting distance of their schools, so housing prices are a big factor in teacher salaries, which drive per pupil or per capita costs.
<
p>
Our housing costs are among the higest in the nation. It only stands to reason that our per capita or per pupil costs would reflect that reailty.
<
p>
If you want to wash out the differences generated by the high cost of living in this part of the world, just click to the next graph, where they show spending on elementary and secondary public schools as a share of gross state product.
<
p>
Except for Delaware, we’re the lowest in the Northeast. We are below the national average. We are even below such stellar states as Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana.
<
p>
Looks like we get pretty good results for a state with below average funding.
So we should increase per student expenditure as the economy grows?
<
p>
This, despite the fact that there’s not a single study to demonstrate more money means better students.
<
p>
<
p>
Kind of says, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.
If we don’t pay teachers a competitive wage in the job marketplace, what will happen to the quality of teachers in our schools?
<
p>
If the cost of living increases, we need to increase school spending so teachers will be able to afford to live in the region where they work.
I am in an area which is on the short end of the ed formula, and has been for over 10 yeaers, so state funding doesn’t mean squat to us down here – even though we have an equivalent rate of child poverty as the cities where money is shovelled unthinkingly.
<
p>
I posted my experience on Pablo’s thread – and since we have no viable geographic alternatives, charter schools work for rural areas. Many live outside Rte. 128, and charter schools are oftern our only alternative, as opposed to urban magnet schools, or special focus schools.
<
p>
And I’m sorry – I know builders who can’t get a General Contractor license because they aren’t good ‘test takers’. Wanna keep them, too? What makes teachers so special in that regard? All those ‘brutal’ test conditions – fees, length, CHAIR SIZE – well, plumbers, electricians, beauticians, insurance agents, in fact all licensed professionals – manage to cope with them every day, and THEIR livelihoods depend on the results as well! That whiny article just confirmed my opinion of how teachers really have been coddled, and think the real world doesn’t apply to them, because they’re better than that. The failure to pass the assessment test is a direct indictment of the teacher training colleges, and the fact that 92% of those RE-TAKING the test flunked again makes me thank God they will never be in a classroom!
the second time it was offered, all in one sitting (which is rarely if ever done now), I can say that it is grueling. By the end of it, I didn’t know what end was up. (Note: I took the test “off the street” as I was not a product of a teacher prep program; I qualified to take it because of my level of education in my core subject area.)
<
p>
Recall that back then an ungodly percentage of college kids were failing it. I have to say, it was fairly difficult. The test has been dumbed down substantially since, though. These days a cottage industry of prep programs, texts, and practice tests are out there to help students pass, yet still large numbers of people fail repeatedly.
<
p>
Personally, I think that if a teacher can’t pass that test after the third try, s/he doesn’t belong in a classroom. I know young teachers who have taken it over a dozen times. That’s unbelievable. If you can’t write a cogent essay, you shouldn’t be in a classroom. If you don’t have the content knowledge, you don’t belong in a classroom.
<
p>
And one more thing, now that I’m on the soapbox: no teacher should be teaching core subjects from 8th grade on up without a master’s degree in that subject area. Not a master’s in the teaching of said subject, not a Master’s in Education, but an MA in English (or some variant like English Literature, Comparative Literature), an MS in Mathematics, etc. I know plenty of decent, even talented, teachers are out there who simply don’t have the content expertise. Not good.
I’m a pretty good high school math teacher, and I only have a bachelor’s in Physics. And I passed the teacher tests on the first try.
<
p>
But I would agree that most Ed programs need drastic re-thinking.
Since all teachers are required to get a master’s degree, I believe that the master’s degree for teachers in grades 8 and up should be in content area as a matter of future policy.
<
p>
Those who do not yet have master’s degrees, in my perfect world, would be getting those master’s in their core subjects.
<
p>
And yes, most ed programs need a drastic overhaul. I know more young teachers who say their prep program didn’t really prepare them for the realities of the contemporary classroom.
Then what happens in a small school district where the physics teacher doubles as an Algebra II teacher? It’s tough enough to get credentials for dual assignments, but requiring TWO masters’ degrees?
In those districts, the state can waive the second master’s requirement for a credential of added qualification, i.e., an exam in the content area that is sufficient to demonstrate mastery and a professional development plan that necessarily emphasizes core content. This is pretty much what happens now.
<
p>
My issue is that there are teachers out there teaching ONE subject they have minimal knowledge of. Since all new teachers need a master’s, that master’s should be in their primary area of licensure, i.e., core content grades 8-12.
<
p>
I don’t know if I buy the argument.
<
p>
Liensure is the standard to gain entry into the classroom. First, if you allow someone to work for five years without the masters degree, then suddenly pull the teacher out of the classroom, one of two things have happened.
<
p>
(a) children had a poorly qualified teacher for FIVE YEARS!
(b) you are removing a qualified teacher from the classroom without cause.
<
p>
There are tons of people out there with licenses who aren’t very good teachers. They have the paper credentials. Its up to us, as educational leaders, to hire the good teachers and to get rid of people who should be in another profession.
<
p>
Also, new teachers are rather stressed by their first couple years in the profession. They aren’t paid much, so they often work a second job. The more we pile onto the masters degree requirement, the worse things are for the good people we want to encourage to stay.
<
p>
And, if the administration can’t spot and remedy teachers who are teaching without minimal knowledge, it’s time to do something about the school administration.
The initial licensure gives you 5 years to get a master’s degree. You have to get one. Initial licensure is a temporary license; you can’t teach forever on an initial license and all teachers know that.
<
p>
If you’re a great teacher, you want your master’s for myriad reasons, not the least of which is fulfilling the requirements to move up to professional status licensure. If you can’t do it in five, your licensure isn’t pulled; you and your district can request a waiver that grants you an extension to fulfill the requirement. Most teachers very much want their master’s degree simply because they are, in many ways, professional students. Getting the master’s isn’t particularly onerous or the problem. I’m just saying that since we accept this professional requirement, the requirement should be meaningful. I don’t know of a single teacher who believes the master’s requirement is unreasonable.
<
p>
I don’t understand your sticking point. I’m not piling “more” onto the master’s requirement, I’m saying we should substitute subject-specific master’s in place of the current master’s requirement. Are you saying we shouldn’t require new teachers to get a master’s degree because of the pressures?
But the best teachers I had at that level– two History (Social Studies) teachers and an English teacher– were second career types, both converted lawyers. I assume their advanced degree was a JD. I have always assumed that they were good because they did not have a degree in education.
Granted, this may be a good decision for you and your kid, but what is the policy implication for the kids in your sending district?
The policy implications are that he is not responsible for someone else’s kids; he is responsible for putting his own in the best possible situation. Period.
<
p>
Why should he make decisions for his own kids based on what might be good for someone else? Why should his ambitious and bright kids be saddled with a substandard education in order to make some other kid wind up slightly less uneducated? Those other kids don’t give a crap anyway; if they did, they would also be headed for the charter school.
<
p>
This is why I think the grip of the MTA needs to be broken. The policy boils down to: “You cannot choose to send your bright and ambitious anywhere but where you are told to go, because if your child goes somewhere else, it would be bad for her classmates, at least when they get out of DYS custody. You want to keep them away from dangerous influences? Sorry. If you want to make your compulsory school better, please support the teachers’ request for an increased subsidy to their health plan, plus 5% raise over 3 years.”
<
p>
How is that anything other than a betrayal of the ambitious student?
<
p>
The perpetual hostility to school choice seems to me to be a recipe for an eventual break on the Democratic hold on cities.
We are discussing policy issues. When the sending district loses $10,000 for each kid who leaves for a charter (preferred provider voucher) school, the kids remaining in the district have less resources. How do you fix that?
<
p>
As a taxpayer and a voter, I believe I have a responsibility to look out for ALL kids. A policy that gives a few parents what they want, that has a huge negative impact on the remaining families.
<
p>
While the MTA may need to be broken, the State Board of Education is broken and needs to be fixed. Instead of looking at the microeconomics of individual kids, let’s find a policy that improves education for ALL children.
Perhaps the sending district could make some effort to be, instead, the “keeping” district.
<
p>
And as for the discussion of policy issues, my response was to a poster directly questioning what another poster did with his own kids. Education policy is never a “policy level” issue. People want what is best for their own kids, now.
<
p>
Telling people that “we’re sorry, but the resources we get for not educating your kids might help us to do better for someone else’s kids someday” will eventually prove to be a disaster.
To paint Gabrieli with a Weld/Romney brush for investing in a for-profit charter school is the lamest bit of sophistry I’ve yet witnessed on this blog, and that’s saying something.
<
p>
In the first place, Gabrieli was the CHIEF funder of the Hancock suit against the state, for failure to provide equal educational opportunity to all students in the state. While the suit failed (based on a narrow and, in my opinion, flawed reading of the law), it raised awareness of just how many children have been left behind in this state over the past 16 years of Republican rule.
<
p>
So once again, Deval talks but has never done a thing to improve public education in this state or in this country. Gabrieli, on the other hand, has a lengthy and distinguished record expanding educational opportunity for Massachusetts kids in a broad variety of settings: public, after-school, and yes, charter schools.
<
p>
All I know about charter schools is what parents say: They want the choice. Overwhelmingly, they’re willing to put up with lousy physical plants and unproven curricular models for just a shot of innovation for their kids, plus a faculty who actually believe their kids can succeed. That they are willing to take such a leap of faith says a great deal about the failure of public education to provide opportunity and hope, particularly for low-income students.
<
p>
Do the charter schools succeed every time? Of course not. But that’s hardly the point.
<
p>
Equal educational opportunity is the point. And Chris Gabrieli is the only candidate in this race who has laid his personal and political capital down for that principal.
Please document this claim.
<
p>
<
p>
I know Hancock. I know the attorneys. I have prepared data for the lawsuit. I was with Hancock the day the lower court ruling was announced. I work with many of the organizations involved in the suit. I have never seen Chris Gabrieli, never heard his name mentioned, never knew he had anything to do with the case.
and you, sir, are no jack kennedy.
Look at Mass2020’s website or pull their 990 on Guidestar.
don’t know who paid.
<
p>
do know that gabs and mass2020 filed lead amicus brief.
I found the amicus brief, filed after the trial phase.
<
p>
It’s a good thing, but it’s a statement of support for Hancock. It doesn’t indicate that Mass2020 paid for the litigation.
That doesn’t come close to documenting your original claim.
…we are still angry that our RAGE lawsuit, about the inequities of funding based upon property values rather than median income, was kidnapped by Hancock (well, really, the SJC lumped them together) and was turned into another reason why URBAN schools should get more money, when we filed the SUIT on behalf of underfunded rural schools!
The cape has lots of million dollar plus oceanfront property, owned by part-time residents, who also pay property taxes on the contents of their homes. None of these homes add to the cost of schools. Tax rates on the Cape are generally lower than the rest of the state. So why should we change the formula to send more money to the Cape, rather than communities that lack a substantial tax base?
First – are you telling me that Boston, Southie, and Cambridge lack a substantial tax base? Genzyme, Cambridgeside Galleria, John Hancock Tower, Prudentiual Center, Copley Place, Ritz, The Ritz Apartments, Newberry street…No TAX BASE????
<
p>
Here’s how it actually works out.
<
p>
For five months of the year, our population doubles to triples. There are a requisite number of lost dogs, heart attacks, ankle-breaking children and whatnot for us to have to hire summer cops and EMTs. The taxes paid by part time residents lets the towns just about break even. But no, they aren’t so parttime anymore. The house acros the street from me was bought by a couple from Braintree, who spend at least one weekend a month here all winter long. The Labor Day exodus, turning off the water, etc., has all gone by the board. These ’empy’ houses are occupied to some extent all year. Along with medical conditions, fires, road repairs, etc.
<
p>
Yes, our taxes are lower. We also have no curbisde pickup of trash, no sewer systems, no public transportation systems, no adolescent treatment facilities, FAR less in town services than any city dweller demands. That’s OK – we pay for what we get. Still, our taxes can only go up 2 1/2 percent per year. It will take us 100 years to reach Cambridge’s tax rate!
<
p>
In the meantime, the state mandates more and more things for schools – and we have to provide them. We have regional school systems, and get stiffed on transportation costs – back up to almost 50% – WOO-HOO!
<
p>
We have lived with this since 1993. The formula was supposed to be rexamined in 2000. Guess what? No action. Chelsea has had an extra $10 million given to it – above and beyond the formula – and the TEST SCORES HAVEN’T CHANGED. THE KIDS AREN’T DOING ANY BETTER. Ed Moskowitz had the FACE to sugest that the Legislature hire him to study WHY spending double didn’t get any results. Thanks, Ed, you’ve done enough for us already!
<
p>
Our tax dollars subsidize the MBTA, the MWRA, and a myriad of Boston programs – including their school aid, including the year they had too much and gave all the city councillors raises instead. Our selectmen get $500 – Boston City Councillors get, what, $28,000? And MY 5.3% should ABET that grotesque municipal decision?
Peter, you wrote:
<
p>
How is that different than the rest of the Commonwealth?
<
p>
The places that are really getting croaked are the low growth municipalities like Winthrop and Melrose, where the land is all built up and they don’t get the growth portion of the 2.5% plus growth.
<
p>
The answer to your problem is not to redirect state aid away from other communities to the Cape. The answer is to find a solution to the Prop 2.5 problems and the local aid problems that croak everyone.
<
p>
Get out of your RAGE and find allies in the rest of the state.
Cape Cod is within 17% of buildout, according to the Cape Cod Commission – actally more built out than most cities.
<
p>
A Cape Rep. recently formed the Regional Schools Caucus, to make common cause with equally stiffed Berkshire districts.
<
p>
But the voting clout of the Boston delegation, not to mention the fact that the Speaker and Senate President live blocks away from each other in the North End, makes its success doubtful.
<
p>
MORE THAN 20 senators have at least one community inside the MWRA.
<
p>
The ACTUAL population shift away from Boston is documented. Menino says he’ll just have to find an extra 30,000 residents to refute that darn census bureau. That’s almost an ENTIRE legislative seat.
<
p>
I remember in 2001, after the last redistricting was done, they ‘accidently’ discovered a previously uncounted 6,000 in the 4th Barnstable – so that was at @ 41,000 six years ago. But as long as Boston keeps control, and continues to gerrymander in order to support its delegation – those outside 128 will be cheated.
<
p>
That’s why I support the tax rollback. We’ll never see the alleged services anyway – why should be continue to prop up a corrupt City Hall for decades?
You hit upon the right strategy. That state rep, Cleon Turner, has been all over the state looking to build those very coalitions you are talking about. Also, don’t underestimate the regional school connection. Most of the towns inside 128 are members of a regional vocational district, and understand the issues you raise.
<
p>
However, you can’t find a solution that works for only a subset of communities. You can’t split regional districts from Cape districts from small cities from inside 128 towns from the Berkshires and expect to be successful. You need to find a common solution that helps everyone, even if it is everyone except Boston.
<
p>
Oh, and by the way, you hit one of my pet peeves. You want (a) more from the state and (b) the tax rollback. You can’t have both.
..if we cap any given community from receiving more than 100 percent from the state.
<
p>
Let’s see – why not 85%? Is it too much to ask for any given community to pick up 15% of its children’s education?
<
p>
One year, under the formula, New Bedford got more then 100%, and used the surplus to buy fire trucks!
<
p>
A cap would give communities receiving less a boost by squeezing money downwards. Of course, then, Boston would get less than it currently does.
<
p>
I’ll take the tax rollback, so I can my my property tax bill with it!
While I can appreciate that the Cape may be hurting, I think that there are many, many other communities who would kill to be in the position that the Cape towns are in — lots of commerce, lots of wealth imported to the local economy every summer, lots of opportunity for local businesses to succeed.
<
p>
Also, with all that wealth, you don’t see things like urban gangs, 90% poverty in the schools, etc. Increased income of the residents translates to decreased need to spend municipal money.
<
p>
I think that a better solution to the Cape’s problems is to allow communities to collect and keep an extra percentage in meal sales taxes. I doubt that another 1% on the bill is going to stop people from travelling to the Cape and eating out, and I suspect that this could be the big equalizer for those communities. And if they don’t want to charge it, then they don’t have to.
You just don’t see it on WBZ because there are no film crews handy!
<
p>
We have HUGE drug and AIDS problems. Not long ago, a guy in Dennis was busted with 1,000 syringes. We have lots of drugs because people smuggle them here on boats.
<
p>
We have a big homeless population, and getting bigger. But the chuckleheads in the Legislature think we are all millionaires swilling champagne.
<
p>
BTW – we ‘hit on the right solution’ of a regional school 30 years ago – we about amortized that savings!
Shack, congrats on your first teaching job. Good luck.
<
p>
Definitely true that socioeconomic status predicts achievement. However, some teachers/schools are able to get kids with the EXACT same socioeconomic status to learn much, much more than others.
<
p>
Deval Patrick may have had a certain socioeconomic profile, but I suspect the fact that he got attended Milton instead of his neighborhood Chicago school allowed him to reach his potential.
<
p>
It’s not surprising. We’ve all had great, good, fair, and lousy teachers. We need policies that will maximize the number of great and good teachers, and minimize the fair and lousy teachers.
<
p>
We probably agree on the need for teacher quality, even while we disagree on policies which give more kids access to good and great teachers.
<
p>
Charter public schools are one, imperfect way to do that. They don’t just attract kids/parents looking for a different experience, but teachers, too. How else would many charters get 50 applicants for each teaching slot, while requiring teachers to work longer hours for the same pay?
<
p>
And we all know there are some bad teachers. It’s important to be fair to workers, but even more important to be fair to kids. Charter leaders can more easily make the tough call, and get rid of a bad teacher. Districts usually hold onto them, which is why their superintendents are asking the MA Legistlature to make it easier to terminate bad teachers.
<
p>
Most parents exercise public school choice by choosing their school district. Poor parents can’t easily do that. Sometimes their nearby schools are dreadful. You’d really say to parents – even in the WORST districts, with almost no hope for significant reform while their kids are still young enough to be in school – that they should not have the option of a charter school?
Is it teacher quality, or quality of the classroom in general?
<
p>
Over the past 30 years I’ve seen Massachusetts become more and more economically segregated.
<
p>
I suspect it is reasonably easy to take a kid from inner-Chicago, put him into a classroom in an affluent Boston suburb, and see improvement, especially if that student wants to participate. Why? Because in that affluent Boston suburb, a teacher can pay a little more attention to one struggling student without affecting the rest of the self-motivated class.
<
p>
But what happens when you have almost complete economic segregation, where 90% of a classroom are inner-city poor kids? Can you take the entire classroom from that inner city, plop them into a suburban school, and expect miracles? I seriously doubt it.
<
p>
Some problems are easy to solve when they are small, and impossible to solve when they are large.
<
p>
School choice does not make for better students. It merely allows students with parents that care to self-segregate their children. What happens to the 90% of the parents who don’t care enough to participate in school choice? And what happens to those schools when the kids who care leave?
<
p>
While I agree that “pouring more money” into a situation is rarely helpful, why do posters who argue against pouring money ignore the simple laws of supply and demand? If you’re a teacher, would you rather teach in a poor urban district offering salaries of 10-15% less than affluent suburban districts? Would you rather feel good at the end of the day because you see the improvement in your class, or feel discouraged because 50% of your class has moved to another over the course of the year because their parents are transient?
<
p>
Paying better salaries in urban districts should be the starting point, and we shouldn’t stop there. We should be creating alternative types of schools that probably don’t resemble the classrooms that we all used — because the students don’t resemble us when we were young.
<
p>
And yes, those things cost money — lots of it. But what is the cost of children entering society with absolutely no tools, no hope of success? What is the cost of housing a single prisoner?
<
p>
Most of all, we shouldn’t be segregating students by economics, because that makes the problem a lot harder to solve, and takes away public appetite for solving it. When the failing students aren’t in your town, aren’t in your schools, aren’t affecting your property values, then it’s very easy to just say “we shouldn’t pour more money into those failing schools” and try and pull the plug.
<
p>
If this state wasn’t so economically segregated, we wouldn’t see so many failing schools. We wouldn’t have as much poverty. We wouldn’t have as much homelessness. Why? Because if that was the case, the problems wouldn’t be as concentrated, so they would be easier to solve and more people would be interested in solving them.