Dr. Cindy Fischer spoke at the Uplands Residential Association meeting Thursday night, November 12. She had been invited by Uplands resident Jennifer Brady to talk about the Peoria Charter School Initiative. Her presentation was similar to the one given at the Civic Center, except that there were no representatives of the Chicago Math and Science Academy (CMSA) in attendance.
According to Dr. Fischer’s presentation, the charter school as proposed would have roughly the same demographics as the rest of District 150. Their plan is to recruit students from all parts of District 150, including the most impoverished areas. They’re committed to maintaining diversity. This was interesting to me because the district has long maintained that poverty is a root cause of low achievement. So I wondered why, given the same demographic makeup, the charter school promised to deliver such high performance. Dr. Fischer explained that the charter school would get better results because of the “best practices” that would be implemented and various other components of their program, such as a longer school day, higher teacher accountability, etc.
That all sounds great, but why isn’t District 150 doing that already? Dr. Fischer is not an outsider to District 150. She was in central administration. In fact, she was an Associate Superintendent. She was in a position of major influence. So, why didn’t she implement these “best practices” and other components when she was there? Are the practices only legal for charter schools to implement? Was she unable to enact changes because of resistance from others? Or did she only learn about these practices after retiring from the district?
I asked her those questions Thursday night. She explained that, in her position as Associate Superintendent, she wasn’t over curriculum and instruction for middle and high schools. She was over “everything else” — things like early childhood education, safety, etc. So she in fact wasn’t in a position to implement the kinds of reforms being discussed.
She also said that when she first came to the central administration building, she was ready to go in and make changes, but found that it wasn’t as easy as she thought it would be to make reforms. She said District 150 is “like a big ship,” and “before you can turn a big ship, you have to slow it down.” In keeping with that metaphor, she explained that she spent most of her time just trying to “slow down the ship” so reforms could be made.
Finally, Dr. Fischer explained that the proposed “best practices” are easier to implement in a charter school because you are “starting from scratch.” Since you’re building a new school from the ground up, you don’t have to change an existing culture. You can establish the kind of learning and working culture you want from the outset.
I have to say, Dr. Fischer was a very impressive speaker. My question didn’t rattle her at all. She didn’t sound or appear defensive in answering it, but spoke as professionally and engagingly as she had the rest of the evening. She also expertly avoided saying anything negative about District 150 teachers, union, administrative staff, etc., even as she spoke about the district’s low achievement scores. The board of directors made an excellent decision in appointing her the public face of the Peoria Charter School Initiative.
Sharon,
No I didn’t stop a school bus with my car. A school bus is 6 times or more larger than my car. I also bet that those 16 year old boys think twice about littering. My citizens rights actions as advised by a Woodford County Official started a litter campaign in Peoria.
When I taught, I handled my own discipline problems, a total of two, and my principal supported me as he did all teachers. When I go back to reunions, I never hear of even one kid, who I taught or who was on my sports teams, going to prison.
As to this charter school with a company owning it; no, the school and the union would control it which is why I do not lend my support to this type of “charter” school.
Charter schools are not money making “companies” and they have a proven better record of turning out kids who become law abiding citizens which is equated with success.
Merle, I once loudly complained to a bus driver who regularly went tearing down our street like a bat out of Hell. I know. Hard to believe! 😉
Sometimes that’s the only way you can get some of this reckless, irresponsible behavior to stop. One of the causes of our declining society is that people are reluctant to take a stand against anything.
Merle, I knew you didn’t stop the bus with your car–and I applauded your actions (but considered you could have been hit). I taught for 7 years at Roosevelt and for probably 15 to 20 years at Manual before I encountered serious discipline problems (that was even during the labeled “riot” years). I “protected” the kids from the deans and they thought I was the good guy and feared the deans. And the principals supported teachers. However, I did have far too many students who ended up in prison–but in those days school was a haven from criminal activities. Times have changed–for whatever reason–although I believe the lack of administrative support (in fact, administrators who now blame teachers for the problems) has taken its toll. I certainly had many good years (and even the last years) of wonderful relationships with kids and their parents (many of whom were former students). That’s what I hate most about what I find myself doing now–shedding light on the district’s failings–because I don’t want to negate all those good things that happened to me. However, I do want these younger teachers to have a chance to enjoy the kind of career that I enjoyed. I grieve when I hear that so many young teachers are leaving Manual almost as soon as they get in the door. Also, teachers are now commanded to build relationships with students and accused of not caring when they send kids to a dean for consequences for behavior. Who is doing the student the favor, the teacher or the administrators? What these administrators refuse to believe, I guess, is that those relationships come naturally if given time and the right environment. I loved many “misbehaving” students–but nobody told me I had to love them; it was just a natural consequence of spending an hour a day for a whole year with them. Also, many of them didn’t love me until the end of the year or later–certainly they didn’t entrust themselves to me the first month–but that is what is expected now and if it doesn’t happen, the teacher is labeled as a “poor fit.” Relationships under such a spotlight–not good!
Curious–how do you think the union will be able to run the Peoria charter school? The teachers cannot be part of the already established union, right?
Merle, do you know that Concept Schools, Inc., the “company” the charter group has chosen to run the new charter school, is a non-profit – not a “money making company” – just like KIPP? And that many believe it is unlikely that the school would be unionized anytime in the near future – it’s teachers can’t join the current PFT, for example?
Speaking of KIPP, on its website it says “Each KIPP school is run independently by a KIPP-trained school leader and local board of directors.”. Merle, I believe that is exactly how the Concept Schools model works – and how it is to be implemented in Peoria.
So can you elaborate on why “As to this charter school with a company owning it; no, the school and the union would control it which is why I do not lend my support to this type of “charter” school.” ? Also, what do you mean by “the school…would control it”?
Stacey Shangraw just said on the 5 PM news that the district is trying to get a handle on how many charge cards are out there that belong to the district. They don’t know?
MAWB-
That is how it sounded to me also. Pretty scary!
I think D150 decided to “change” their policy right now because SOMETHING BIG is about to come crashing down and they have to at least pretend that they are “on top of it”……it’s called cover your a**. Again, reactive, never proactive.
This wouldn’t be happening STILL, if Hinton and company had bothered to return a phone call, an email, a snail mail letter. NO. HE LET MARY DAVIS HANDLE IT. I hope they all go down in flames……..
Frustrated: I was just sharing what I have heard. Perhaps some feel that it is an elitist school since it seems to only pull students mainly from a couple of feeder schools. Also, is it fair to compare other schools to a gifted school?
When Washington Gifted was first established, it was possible for bright kids to get a good education at the home school–and WG was probably for the very top. Now the “scores” of those pulled out probably do make a difference; however, I personally don’t see any reason to change WG now just because the other schools aren’t doing well on the NCLB test. As I’ve said before, trying to make AYP is going to be impossible for any schools soon, so decisions should not be made on the basis of the test. In fact, that is the problem at Manual. Tons of money is being spent on the pipedream that kids who read at 5th & 6th grade level can be brought up to 11th grade level in time for the test. Last night Barb Penelton “was sent” to refute my speech of the previous board meeting–and she said something to the effect that the Manual administrators have faith that the kids will improve (unlike my own pessimistic view). Well, I don’t believe it’s going to happen (and if it does I will certainly admit that I was wrong). The new position at Manual called “Dream Catcher” probably illustrates the unrealistic hope on which the program is built. Sorry–I always end up with Manual, don’t I. There is only one difference between Manual 10 years ago and the restructured Manual. (The literacy problem is the very same; the discipline problems–so I hear–may even be worse). What is changed is that huge amounts of money (and unrealistic solutions) are being thrown at the problem. The lastest rumor is that 600 Woodruff students will go to Peoria High, 40 to Richwoods, and the rest (probably 300) to Manual–then Manual’s problems will double. By the way, another rumor that perhaps someone can
The lastest rumor is that 600 Woodruff students will go to Peoria High, 40 to Richwoods, and the rest (probably 300) to Manual–then Manual’s problems will double. By the way, another rumor that perhaps someone can verify–evidently Jeannie Williamson’s plan had actually divided the Woodruff students by name with the school to which they will be going–and the info was briefly on Skyward until it was quickly removed today. True or not–anyone know. If the administration doesn’t have a plan by now they can expect rumors.
Sharon I was on Skyward this AM and PM checking my sons grades as I do every single day, and I didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary! Maybe my timing was off? I will keep a closer eye on things when I log on! We WHS parents have been told that we should know the childs assigned high school by Christmas break! They want to have all children registered by the end of Feb:o
dib: I honestly believe–or was told by a reliable source–that the list was on very briefly (but I’m not sure of all the details)–just throwing it out there. Are there sites to which only teachers can go–Skyward came after I left.
Quit ragging on Washington School. I can’t believe some people are always putting down instead of being proud of these kids. Everyone is always saying children should be educated to the best of their ability – well, Washington is doing just that. The district did something terrific when they created Washington Gifted. Look at what graduates of that school have accomplished since it’s inception.
j-darcy – I was not comparing other schools to Washington. I was using it as an example of a specialized educational offering. I view the charter school as offering yet another educational avenue from which to select. The point of my previous was that this is the direction public education is heading and it is good the District is finally on board and taking action. I think Manual’s new program (and Sharon, you might be correct that it is ineffective) is a new imitative with potential, as well. Sharon has established through her posts that Manual has many challenged learners and it is appropriate the District is trying to offer an “adjusted” curriculum to better meet these students’ needs, and hopefully make them feel better about their academic progress and stay in school.
Mary–Who on this post is ragging against Washington Gifted–certainly not Frustrated and not I. Now for Manual, the honor roll in the PJS shows 50 of Manual’s 134 seniors, 62 of 180 juniors, 61 of 159 sophomores, and 83 of 222 freshmen made honor roll. (These are almost identical to the numbers on Richwoods’ honor roll with twice as many students enrolled. I know that when a teacher has a class of below level readers, success has to be reachable or students aren’t even going to try to learn. However, I taught at Manual in 2005, and I believe I always tried to make the material as reachable as possible. But with kids who read way below level (and that’s still the case at Manual), I couldn’t bring the high school texts down low enough to believe that so Manual students now can achieve at A level. I am not at all certain that parents and their children should be “lied” to in this fashion. I have heard of Manual parents bragging about how much better their children are doing in school now–that 2 years ago they were getting Ds and Fs and now As and Bs. Cs are perfectly acceptable grades–they do not have to be inflated to As to make young people feel good about themselves. Reality has its place, also. I know the kind of pressure that is put on teachers to “produce” these kinds of outcomes. My biggest concern is that the district has closed Woodruff to save money while allowing Manual to be a money pit with many “hidden” expenses (and some outside sources of money, too)–and not getting any better results than were produced at Manual before restructuring–or at PHS or WHS. When the district decides to be honest enough to look for real evidence of success, it will see that everything is the same at Manual except the amount of money being spent there. Frustrated, I wish I could understand how you can believe that 150 is finally on board and taking action. Turning 400 to 600 students over to a charter school is not taking action–it’s shifting their responsibility to another group; it’s washing their hands of some of the responsibility. Manual restructuring was not 150 in action; it was demanded by the state, but 150 picked an expensive program with the most window-dressing (and very, very little preliminary planning). They tried too much too fast, especially by adding a 7th and 8th grade. Everything is disorganized–do you believe that teachers have effectively been able (starting this year) to reduce year courses into semester courses–I am not even sure that there is any consistency–I think that teachers are just making those decisions on their own (1st and 2nd year teachers who have taught from the texts one year at the most)–no district edict as to what material to keep and what to lose.
Frustrated: I am sorry if it came across that I was implying that you are comparing WG to other schools–I was referring to AYP and how people compare those scores. It was just a general statement. I was just trying to help you understand why some people might not share the glowing love for WG that those whose families do that have been blessed to attend and had an outstanding experience. I am not saying that I agree with the detractors, just that I am trying to understand their point of view. I completely understand why families would want WG for their children. Remember the 7 habits: Seek first to understand, then be understood.
j-darcy – thanks for clarifying. Perhaps I was too defensive. I try to follow the 7 habits as well, but could use more work on the one that you quoted above (obviously). I happen to like the one “begin with the end in mind.” In education, most often students are successful because it is a family priority established early on in a child’s development.
“The new racism is this culture of low expectations.”
Another one of the Seven Habits “Begin with the end in Mind” What end in mind does d150 have?
He perpetuates it.
CJ thank you for providing the list of people who are currently on the Charter School committee’s. If my memory serves me correctly, several of these people were in favor of closing a high school. Obviously, their words of encouragement for closing a high school had underlying reasons. I am somewhat bothered that this list appears to be current/retired mover’s and shakers? I see one parent and one retired teacher? Is this parent a PSD150 parent and was the retired teacher from PSD150? The list is somewhat lopsided from my perspective.
I will continue to voice that I can’t get on board with anything that does not affect the “mass” of PSD150 students. There are way too many unresolved issues before us. Something that is custom designed for maybe 5% of the PSD150 population is not attractive to me at this time. I am all for taking strides to better this district. However, the timing on this issue couldn’t be coming at a more inopportune time!!!
dlb – I am actually the parent listed on the advisory committee. I have been an Edison parent since Edison became partners with District 150 in 1999. I really began researching charter schools about 7 years ago during all of the district/Edison negotiating. I was frustrated with the lack of choices parents have within District 150 and I was interested in the flexibility charter schools have in terms of instruction, parental involvement, and accountability. All three of my girls have or are currently in the Edison program, and one of my children went to Washington Gifted.
I am happy to answer any questions you might have in terms of my interest in charter schools.
I have no issues with some schools with specialized missions- Charter, Magnet, Academy, whatever- serving a student population that has demonstrated an aptitude in that area, but these schools should be in addition to the neighborhood schools, not be a replacements for them. Why can’t all D150 schools be places that provide students with great educational opportunities? Why can’t they be made places that students want to go and parents want to send them to? What things could be done now to make D150 better?
Conrad: Well stated! Thirty years ago people weren’t looking for replacements or choices. All we have to do is ask what has changed and why–then maybe we can come up with solutions. Everyone who reads this blog knows my opinion as to the why–but there are probably other reasons that should be considered.
I think the why is that much of 150 is made up of neighborhoods that thirty years ago were not as crime and poverty concentrated as they are now. The demographics in the district have changed so new problems have come with them. Interestingly North Carolina has begun to combat a similiar situation by integrating their schools with students from across the socio economic spectrum and it has proven to turn many of their once failing schools around.
Stephen: That’s part of it, but–in the neighborhoods that aren’t crime-ridden or as crime-ridden–children are not going to 150 schools–they are going to private or parochial schools. It’s almost to the point that integrating across the socio-economic spectrum is impossible since 70% of 150 students are at poverty level.
Al Sharpton:
Imagine you dropping in. I caught you, Speaker Gingrich, and Secretary Duncan on Meet the Press Sunday. I’m no Obama fan, but his decision to task you three with conducting a nonpartisan public school reform tour was brilliant. I found it interesting how quickly your trio reached consensus that teachers’ unions, tenure, and apathy are among the myriad problems in a fatally flawed system.
From that, it’s no surprise that your trio already looks with favor on the concept of charter schools. No entrenched, corrupt administrations blaming everyone and everything but themselves. No dispirited teachers who can’t be fired blaming everyone and everything but themselves. Just a clean slate where the motives are pure.
Keep up the good work.
Had I been sitting near board members who were talking disruptively at the meeting I would have asked them to be quiet or leave. There’s nothing more effective than a direct approach. Their behavior illustrates their lack of professionalism and maturity. Call them on it!
As for violent or generally misbehaving students, some are not making personal connections at the school. Many students don’t have loving parents…some don’t live with parents at all and are inwardly (and outwardly) angry at their lot. We must keep in mind that these are kids trying to cope.
Sure, there are counselors and social workers at the school, but I’ve seen cases where the neediest students are not served or are underserved. This semester, I met a girl who was a second-year senior, pregnant, not living with her parents, abandoned by the father of her child who was 30 years old. Over the course of two weeks she changed from being determined to get her high school diploma to having “nothing to live for.” One would think that her case worker was monitoring her progress, attendance, being in regular contact with such a high-risk case. The counselor didn’t notice that she’d missed school two weeks in a row! Aren’t we paying these “professionals” to care and be diligent? The girl, white, never returned to school.
I witnessed a new high school student, just arrived from another state, roaming the halls looking for his classroom on his first day of school. He was pointed out to an administratorl who told him to follow her. This would have been the perfect opportunity for her to welcome him, show a smile, at least introduce herself and ask him his name. NO! She treated him coldly, like he was a box of dried macaroni she had to find room for in her pantry.
For those wondering what our point is, we need to show kids we care, remembering that no one else in their life may!
Rufus: Very well said. I am not blaming students’ behavior on teachers or administrators however, building relationships with students is the 1st step on getting a handle on disruptions.
I hope board members read the posts about Mary Ward and Mary O’Brian being disruptive and rude during the board meeting and they are called on it. I was not in attendance or I would have asked them to stop talking and giggling during the meeting.
Rufus and Strong 1: I agree about the importance of relationships. I am going to add a couple of “buts” but I don’t want the qualifiers to in any way negate the importance of relationships. I know that in my career, relationships with my students were very high on my list of expectations for myself (and were the cause of my very rewarding career). However, I never felt that I had to work at it–the daily interactions with kids caused the relationships to develop quite naturally. In fact, I was always amazed at how even the slightest amount of personal attention caused teen-agers to react positively. Strangely, enough the “troublemakers” were often the ones with whom I built the strongest relationships–probably because I had to spend so much time dealing with them. I always felt the “good” kids were shortchanged with regard to the amount of personal attention needed. The problem is that in the later years of my career so many students needed so much more than I could offer. As Rufus seemed to hint, some of these students are very much in need of professional help–way beyond the scope of the classroom teacher who has to spread himself/herself around to 25+ students and to teach, also. And this is the one I’m not sure I can explain. Now some administrators are judging teachers primarily on these relationships–they are “watched pots,” so to speak. I don’t think any relationships develop well under microscopes or as part of an evaluation system. There was a “Has good relationships with students” on the list of items on the official checklist for teacher-evaluations. However, I don’t believe there is any objective way of judging the extent to which a teacher builds relationships with students–that’s very much in the eye of the beholder. Also, I find that some administrators equate disciplinary action with “not caring” about the students. I happen to feel that fair and just discipline is one of the greatest ways that we can help these young people who sometimes come from chaos with few, if any, rules to guide their behaviors. As I just said–and I don’t think I exaggerate–I believe I built my strongest relationships with some of the kids “sent to the dean” most often. If done right–I think even kids recognized that, in keeping with the Biblical principle, that whom God loves he chastens–I think that works for teachers, too.
There are many on here that have been openly critical of teachers and the contracts they serve under. I, for one, have complained that I “lost” out on opportunities because of someone else that had been pink-slipped. The rational was that they must be a better teacher than I because they had already worked in the district. There was also the contingency that said that teachers were untouchable because of their tenure. If they did something, we were to just ignore it because the headache over filoing a complaint with the union was too burdensome.
I ran across this article yesterday, based in AZ, about the changes being made to their teacher contracts. Any thoughts?
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/11/23/20091123edcontracts1123.html
BAM–We usually agree but I guess there always has to be an exception–so please consider my comments to be one point of view; I acknowledge that I am opinionated on the subject. Wait until you’re one of the protected tenured teachers (or maybe one of the unprotected non-tenured teachers). Then I will want to hear your opinion when a first-year teacher (cheaper) is selected to take your job. I assume this is the article about the recent changes in Arizona. First of all, do you believe that all the problems in 150 are caused by bad teachers? I have never felt confident of my judgment to make that decision–there are too many subjective opinions at work and very few objective measurements for deciding a good and bad teacher–NCLB scores are cetainly not a fair measuring stick. Do you believe that all the people who have left the district did so because of bad teachers? Yes, of course, there are some bad teachers–but do you trust administrators to make the correct choices as to who is a good teacher and who is a bad teacher? For instance, I am sure that you were qualified to take a job at Manual–and none of the “old” Manual teachers were protected by tenure for those jobs–Kherat had no restrictions other than certification (not even that for some jobs). So how do you account for the fact that you were not chosen? Even the district’s financial problems are not created by teacher salaries and benefits–they are caused because businesses and property owners (especially, the high end owners) have taken their tax money out of Peoria.
For sure, once you get a teaching job in 150, you will not be able to speak out against the district for, at least, four years.
My greatest fear is that the public school is on its way to destruction–and I believe that taking away the safeguards that teachers now enjoy will hasten that destruction. Once all teaching jobs are non-tenured with no union protection or good contacts, why wouldn’t “good” teachers follow students to the private schools, charter schools, and suburban schools–when there is no incentive to stay at the tougher jobs? Why stay in jobs with discipline problems, low literacy–and getting the blame for all that’s wrong? I would hope that “dedicated” teachers would still choose the inner city, but I am not sure I want to put that to the test. (Dedicated teachers can still be dedicated in areas with fewer problems). I fear the public school is on the way to being the only choice for the have-nots–and that the “haves” will not make it their choice. Also, I fear that we are headed for segregated schools. I’m just guessing, but how many minority teachers and administrators are hired in the private schools and in the suburbs?
Sharon,
I agree that there are good and bad teachers. I have encountered a few of both during my children’s tenures in D150. It was a bad teacher that prompted me to go back to school to be a better teacher than she was. I was even told to not bother filing a complaint as she would be retired before it even got heard. I don’t think bad teachers are all that ails the district– discipline, lack of parental involvement, administrators that follow along without question because they don’t want to rock the boat are a few of the problems. I’m just ready to see a change in how hiring is done and teacher retention, as well.
In regards to Manual, I had not graduated yet, so I was not eligible to apply. I have stated many times, that I would love to teach there, I just wasn’t able to at the right time. I sub at a private school and see the freedom allowed in teaching and it encourages me. They are respected and valued for their opinions and ideas.
I’m not saying that everything in the article is the way things should be done, but it does show that change is needed. I grew up in a union house and know, full well, the respect that a union holds. I also know that the union will protect all at any costs, and that isn’t always the right thing to do. Just because a teacher has been teaching for more than 5 years doesn’t automatically mean that they are the best there is. New innovations, technology, and ideas emerge that new teachers embrace and those new things will reach students that may have been lost before. WHy shouldn’t teachers try new things in order to keep students engaged in class? Yes, some teachers do that, but I have witnessed first hand teachers that, after they have been teaching 10+ years they are recycling those same lesson plans without adaptation to changing times.
Just my opinion.
I am sure that many will not agree with what I am going to say. However, the Manual teacher with whom I did my student teaching was a good teacher (“old school” standards, too hard for current standards). In her last few years she had some health problems and wasn’t at her best. However, I don’t believe she should have been “turned out” without any retirement, etc., after giving so many years to teaching. I don’t agree at all that it is that hard to get rid of a really bad teacher. I know that at Manual one parent complained about one very good teacher–complained because her daughter got a B instead of an A–the principal listened and took away all the teacher’s enriched classes. At least two of her former students (then on the Manual faculty) complained and wrote letters to the principal about what a good teacher she had been for them. Principals have ways of making teachers miserable if they so choose–can give them a difficult schedule with difficult students, etc. If teachers keep using the same lesson plans, principals can do something about that–they can change their schedules. Also, if textbooks are changed often enough–teachers are forced to change plans. One parent probably cannot and should not be able to sway a principal’s opinion. My own list of reasons for firing a teacher would be mistreatment of students (especially in the lower grades) and obvious unfairness, favoritism, etc.–but sometimes hard to prove. If the school uses the same textbooks for over 10 years, then you can probably expect that teachers won’t change much. Of course, I know teachers that do relatively nothing–just give kids work to do and sit at their desks doing whatever–but they give good grades. Parents don’t complain, students don’t complain, and principals are happy that the teacher isn’t giving them any problems. Teacher tenure isn’t an easy topic. I just think getting rid of it will cause more harm than good–and I don’t expect anyone to agree–except teachers. And I don’t think all our reasons are selfish.
If you get rid of teacher tenure, the system will become like the old fire and police dapartments, hiring based solely on who you know-no review, no one to complain to, and no way to have anything to complain of. There are. suffficient ways to get rid of bad teachers under teacher-tenure
I think tenure is unrelated to quality of an organization’s hiring practices.
Tenure works both ways. It may, as Frustrated and others contend, protect “bad” teachers and give them job security, etc. However, tenure can also be a means of keeping good teachers who might otherwise leave for “greener” pastures–esspecially, when tenure (as is the case with teachers) is also tied to retirement benefits. Teachers just can’t afford to lose that security. I think that most of you forget that experienced teachers are often a tremendous asset to a school–providing continuity and longstanding relationships with students, families, and community members. Some of you are so focused on some “bad” teachers that you forget how important experience is to the teaching field. Some of you who complain about teachers who use the same lessons every year, do not realize that over time teachers get better at teaching the same lessons–make improvements, add material, etc. Material to be presented doesn’t change that often–and the whole purpose of NCLB is to be sure that all students learn the same things–which doesn’t leave room for all this innovation that some of you are advocating. The first time around with any lesson isn’t always the best–it takes a while to perfect the way material is presented, etc. I believe, for instance, that in charter schools there is considerable turnover of teachers and that is not a good thing for a school. Everyone is now focused on collaboration, etc.,–to work well that requires team work that shouldn’t have to be rebuilt every year. Having started out with mostly new teachers, the restructured Manual is suffering from this constant turnover of teachers–which shows no sign of ending soon.
‘
Sharon, I have never stated tenure protects bad teachers, but others have made statements to that effect on this blog. Perhaps you are thinking of another’s comments.
Though I do not necessarily believe tenure is a good thing, I am more troubled with the roadblocks to change that the Teacher’s union routinely has put up in the past. Maybe you should submit a FOIA request regarding all the ULP charges and grievances filed why Mr. Knapp was at the helm. Many were frivolous. Talk about a waste of school budget dollars.
Tenure is unnecessary for good teachers. Good teachers will be retained by any responsible management team. Good teachers will always be able to find jobs should they happen to be let go.
Frustrated: Please provide a list of all the roadblocks to educational change that the 150 union has set up. I know that I taught for 43 years and never filed a grievance–never even thought about it. My complaints always related to the general situations at the school–not personal complaints, therefore, not acceptable for the grievance process. In fact, in my circle of friends, I know of only one teacher who filed a grievance and that was the one that I mentioned in an earlier post–the one that caused me to join the union. Also, I have absolutely no way of knowing about how many grievances were filed when Terry was union president (or any other time) and, therefore, would have no way of knowing whether or not they were frivolous. Please identify the content of frivolous grievances? I personally know of some proposed grievances in recent years that weren’t deemed worthy by the union. Frustrated, you seem to have access to much information on this subject–what is the source of your information? Since you do not reveal your identity, it is difficult to assess the extent to which your claims can be deemed as based on fact. Also, please explain the cost related to grievances. I thought these were handled “in house” and that only salaried personnel were involved in resolving grievances. I am not totally up on this procedure, but I thought that grievances are usually solved “in house” without any expensive legal action. Mahho: The roadblock is “responsible management team”–have you seen that in District 150 lately? Yes, good teachers could always find a job if they are let go–jobs at the bottom of the pay scale.
Aww… you guys miss CJ posting so much you went to my blog jacked a post I posted on Monday and came back here to discuss it. LOL
http://emergepeoria.blogspot.com/2009/11/law-changes-way-teachers-contract-with.html
Carry on.
Not I Emerge–although I responded when it was brought up here, also. However, we have been arguing about unions and tenure for quite some time–it’s one of those topics that I always jump on wherever I find it. 🙂
:), you did and you do!
“Yes, good teachers could always find a job if they are let go–jobs at the bottom of the pay scale.”
I don’t think that is a universal practice. If a school district ignores qualifications, experience, and references, then that is probably one you don’t want to be working for. Likewise if the union is not supporting that, you probably need to move on.
Mahko–It is not a universal practice because most public schools still have unions and contracts with steps up for experience, etc. But some on this blog (and the Arizona decisions) seem to want something much different. For example: If a first year teacher gets at job at the new Peoria charter school (no union) and teaches there for 4 years and then decides to go to Chicago to teach in a charter school, will that school hired the teacher at the 4th step? Do private schools acknowledge this experience? If all schools were non-union as proposed by some, then wouldn’t the sitation be very iffy with regard to pay for experience?
Many, many, many jobs are non union. It would be up to the individual to decide where and for how much they were willing to work. If a school didnt offer the pay that you wanted for the experience level then you would look somewhere else. Thats how every non union employee looks for a job. Im sure teachers could figure it out to.
Yerly–Well, it’s my hope that it doesn’t come to that–and by the time that happens, I’ll probably be dead or senile (neither that far off). 🙂 I just want other teachers to have what I had–why would I wish otherwise for them (that would be very selfish on my part, right?)
Do you think that in some cases the union protects bad teachers, creates political messes and encourages a just enough to get by attitude? I would think that younger teachers might welcome the idea that they could earn more pay faster in a competitive work environment instead of one based on union seniority? And besides your statement was that iffy situations would arise with pay for experience because of a lack of a union but there are many places that are non union that handle hiring staff based on experience that seem to have less problems managing their business then the public school system.
Yerly–I just can’t speak for everyone–just myself. Let me deal with the competitive issue first. That might work in sales, but it is a very, very bad idea for teachers. To be successful, education has to be a cooperative venture (hence the big push for collaboration). I never never felt that I was in competition with my fellow teachers. First of all, the teacher of enriched students (eager to learn, above level test scores, etc.) would have beaten me out in any competition with grades as the criteria because I almost always taught basic students (some who scored at lower than grade level). On what would you base this competition? Who is going to judge this competition? I just can’t imagine competition being a good idea. I do believe that I can recall teachers who behaved as though they were in some sort of competition with other teachers, but I felt that it was so unnecessary. There were enough students to go around–so that we were all “favorites” with somebody–it’s funny how that works out even for teachers whom others might think are “bad” teachers, especially at the high school level. NCLB has almost set schools up for this kind of competition–and it isn’t doing anything at all to improve test scores. As far as the hiring of staff on a “subjective” basis, I can imagine how that would go in education–the same as it does in the business world. Please don’t tell me that there is no favoritism (based on many other “personal” judgment calls having nothing to do with experience or qualifications). Do you think principals wouldn’t hire all their “friends” to work in their buildings? Please, how naive are you?
I never had occasion to ask the union to protect me as far as job security is concerned. Maybe I was protected just because the union existed. I did use union representation (not protection) in my last few years of teaching. There is no denying it–I turned from a very docile, “everything is wonderful” teacher into a bit of a rabble rouser–not because things became worse for me but because I could see the school was heading in some very wrong directions and I wanted to improve the situation for the younger teachers and those who would come after me. It did get to the point that–if the principal called me to meet with him–I took a union rep (friend actually) with me. Several of us did that because we wanted a witness to anything that might be said at such meetings. I guess you would just have to understand the Manual environment at the time to understand the situation.
Yerly–I forgot to deal with “just enough to get by” attitude. I just didn’t see enough of that to call it a trend or a problem–teachers have too many observors and critics to get by comfortably with such attitudes. Who in the world is under more scrutiny than teachers? Every student has a parent–and in this day and age most are quite capable and prone to complaining about anything a teacher does wrong. How many bosses do you have? I had many bosses and many critics (the students themselves). And please don’t think that other teachers (union or not) do not do their share of complaining about other teachers. However, you just have to count on that inner drive–the desire most of us have to succeed at whatever we are doing. I just can’t imagine teaching with the kind of attitude that you suggest. The intrinsic rewards I received far, far outweighed the extrinsic rewards–however, I see no reason that the intrinsic should be expected to replace a fair wage–teaching isn’t a volunteer job. I am sure you don’t believe how many hours of our “away from school” time we spent on teaching preparation.