I’ve been looking at the Interactive Illinois Report Card for District 150. Here are the total expenditures of District 150 for a period of eleven years, 1997-2008; in the last column, I converted all the amounts into constant 2008 dollars to make it easier to compare apples to apples:
|
 |
Looking at the inflation-adjusted dollars, and acknowledging that it does appear to have started a downward trend, you’ll nevertheless notice that from 1997 to 2008, operational expense per student has increased over 17%. However, if you look at enrollment over roughly the same period (1998-2009), the trend is different:
|
 |
I wanted to include the 2008-2009 data so you could see that enrollment did go up slightly that year. Nevertheless, enrollment from 1998 through 2009 fell by 9.4%. As a result, operating expense per student has increased over 24% — from $9,184 in 1997 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to $11,398 in 2008.
Questions: Why have operational expenses continued to climb while enrollment has been decreasing? Why are expenses $25.4 million more in 2008 than in 1997 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) when enrollment fell by over 1,400 students? Where is the money going?
So Taco, let me make sure I understand, BOE members shouldn’t talk with school administrators?
Emerge: wasn’t it YOU that showed us all the “chain of command”? BoE, Superintendent, then administrators…..right?
is that you? how upset are you and Sharon STILL? You married Homer Simpson. Deal.
How could shorts and shirts donated to Irving School be valued at $72,000? That’s listed under gifts to the district. It’s very generous.
Just asking–didn’t I supply the link to Dave Haney’s story about the June 4 graduation at the Civic Center? The lie is that District 150 administrators and board members have denied reserving the Civic Center (saying the info on the calender under June 4 was a “mistake”). That issue has already been discussed on this blog at great length. Haney, however, wrote a story that proves District 150 had made the reservation–a fact that has been denied.
I’m sorry that my being the messenger upsets a few people. I’m not making up any stories–just passing them along. I truly believe the public (taxpayers), teachers, etc., have a right to know what is going in the district. Also, I have no problem with Martha, Sharon, and Taunya having dinner. I don’t believe there are any rules precluding their contact. It’s board members that can’t meet together in small groups. If Martha and two board members were eating together, that would be a little more newsworthy.
Oh give it a rest…until you know the facts about something don’t start spewing your garbage. The incentive piece is a requirement by the STATE for the grant money that Manual is receiving as part of the restructuring process. The incentive money is available to all teachers at Manual, not just 11th grade teachers. And before you start saying it is unfair that all of the grant money is going to Manual, I thought you would be happy that it will be paying for TDHS. Do your homework on the SIG grant on the ISBE website. Everything you are crabbing about are requirements that the state has. AND Central would have been eligible for the same grant money, but chose to not apply due to the requirement of having to replace the principal. Next…please tell me the names of the union people that are supposedly administrators now. Again…you are clueless and have not idea what you are talking about.
Fed up: what is TDHS?
Fed Up, please I would appreciate it if you would clear up any misconceptions that I might have. If something I said is untrue, I certainly don’t want to give a false impression. You are adding a piece of information that I didn’t know about.
Are you saying that part of the grant money has to be used as merit pay (incentive pay)? OK, that isn’t hard for me to believe since there is this push for merit pay. Next, what do Manual’s teachers have to do to get a piece of this money? Is this a one-time deal to be given for the latest increase in AYP scores? No, I don’t think it’s unfair for all the grant money to be going to Manual–I understand that it can’t be shared. However, I might go as far as to say that the grant could have been refused, thus, avoiding the opening of all these cans of worms..
Most importantly, if the incentive pay is a requirement for the grant, why does a MOU have to be signed? or more importantly what would happen if the board wouldn’t agree to the MOU (although I know that won’t happen)? However, does the union have to agree in order for incentive pay to be given? What would happen with regard to the state’s stipulations for the grant if the union didn’t agree? My opinion (more garbage, in your opinion, I’m sure) is that the union already gave away the farm with the original MOUs signed for Manual.
I am not all that excited about criticizing Bobbie Darling. I just believe that rules should be followed and that they should be followed willingly. Last Monday night’s meeting certainly convinced me (if I weren’t already convinced) that Bobbie is an administrator. When Bobbie hollered out that he wasn’t an administrator, Dr. Lathan said, “You’re on the chart.” The PFT Constitution does say, doesn’t it, that administrators cannot even be members of union, much less the president of the union? Who should have the final say on whether or not Bobbie is an administrator? Usually union members are teachers and/or work with students in some capacity. As to the other union leaders who have administrative jobs, I believe one is working in Chumbley’s office–he isn’t a teacher, so how should his job be categorized? I believe two others are no longer in the classroom–certainly there are some big question marks with regard to the positions they (or you) hold.
Have I anywhere in this post issued any commands to you–you know, sentences that start with verbs such as “Do your homework”? I am sorry that I don’t feel obliged to obey your commands; however, I will accept any criticism that is justified. Most of all, I want the readers on this post to know the the way things really are–I don’t want to mislead them, so anything you can say to present the facts would be welcome.
Fed Up: Please, if you want to correct misinformation, please do so without the vitriol. It is really quite unbecoming. Anger to the point of rage is often the result of a blocked goal. What goal has been blocked that has led to the depth of this anger?
I am now wondering if the $72,000 is an error–maybe it’s $7,200. Also, TDHS is Talent Development High School–Manual’s new name (it just hasn’t caught on yet). I think Fed Up is saying what I had already heard–that the grant money may be used to pay Johns Hopkins.
Sharon of Beck: “I object to his stating that Obama believes in collective salvation (another term for Liberation theology). I’m not sure where Beck came up with that idea.”
Perhaps it’s because Obama has clearly stated that on multiple occasions.
What is the problem with “collective salvation”? Do you think it has something to do with Christianity? Avoiding eternal damnation in hell or going to heaven in the sky?
Collective salvation is based on the idea that people live and thrive best in community and that sin is separation from that community. (Gehenna, for example, the Greek word often translated as hell was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where Jewish mothers threatened to toss their children if they misbehaved.)
It is the subject of Micah and Amos… social justice, i.e. social equality.
Seek justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God
Thank you nontimendum as I was just about to post the same thing. It is easy to lay collective salvation at Obama’s feet because I have seen several videos where he has stated he believes in collective salvation. Could it be more clear that he does?
Sharon you seem to be one of those people who just absolutely refuse to read the handwriting on the wall, aren’t you?
And Sharon, just so that you know what you are talking to when you talk to me; I am a heterosexual Protestant white male. I know that people like me are considered the anti-christ in today’s society.
Johnnie, no, I don’t consider you to be the anti-Christ. I have many friends who are heterosexual Protestant white males. (In fact, I fit the description except that I am female). I go to church with many of them; I taught with many of them. I never refuse to read the writing on the wall if I know that it is God’s handwriting; however, I don’t consider a blogger’s words to be handwriting on the wall that can say that I have been weighed in the balances and found wanting. I do know some people who border on believing Obama is the anti-christ. Throughout my life, I have been in church circles with people who have worked hard at spotting the anti-Christ among the leaders of the world.
Charlie, it’s Beck’s interpretation that I question. I certainly believe in collective salvation in a social sense but not in a theological sense–I still believe salvation is an individual decision. I wasn’t going to try to make the distinction until or if someone challenged my statements. I have no doubt that Obama leans toward the social collective salvation interpretation, as do I. I have believed for most of my adult life that this country’s “salvation” (not theological but under God’s judgment–so I guess still theological) will be determined by how the poor, etc., are treated and that slavery and all the unfair treatment that followed will be the cause of any divine judgments meted out against this country–and I have based that belief of mine on many verses in the Bible, but especially those in Micah and Amos. So, Charlie, you and I are probably on the same page, literally.
Nontimendum, I have not heard Obama use the term–that isn’t to say that he hasn’t, but if you have a quote I would appreciate hearing it–I have been under the impression (and I could be wrong) that Beck has either misquoted or misinterpreted what Obama has said.
Posters always get upset when some of us get off on these theological tangents, so I am sorry; I did want to clarify my own frame of reference.
District 150 bloggers, please scroll down to the discussion between Fed Up and me (it got lost in the collective salvation discussion). 🙂 I am interested in knowing if any of you, including Fed Up, can respond to some of my questions about the MOU to be discussed at Monday night’s meeting.
Yes, part of the grant money MUST be used for teacher incentives. The incentives have nothing to do with last years AYP. The grant is for three years, starting with this school year. Every math, language arts, and special education teacher who co teach in those classes get a retention bonus. If their classes reach growth targets (determined by a student’s current test scores by NWEA) then they will receive additional money. The entire faculty has the opportunity to earn money if the school makes its growth targets as related to AYP (I believe 50% meets or exceeds for this school year) OR if they hit other targets including attendance percentages, parent contacts, etc. The grant could have been refused? Seriously? With the state of the district’s finances, you really feel it would have been in the school’s and student’s best interest to pass up 6 million dollars?? Yes, the union did have to agree. Union reps were involved with central admin in the development of the incentive program. The program was then presented to Manual teachers (I believe last Wed) and union representation was there for questions, comments, and concerns. Mr. Darling, I was told, then made himself available after school if anyone wanted to speak with him regarding it. He stated that he would represent the teachers at Manual and what they wanted to do regarding the incentive pay. A new MOU regarding the incentive pay had to be put in place, as a school or the district can’t just put into place procedures for paying teachers at one school more than teachers at another. I also wanted to point out that the TEACHER working in Chumbley’s office took the place of another TEACHER that went back to the classroom this year. There has always been three TEACHERS that worked under Chumbley that help the schools with their testing and analysis of the data from said testing. This is not a new position, was always held by TEACHERS
And why I was so disgusted with Sharon’s post…
1)”I hear they want to give $900 to those that helped get a 4.8% increase” TOTALLY FALSE
2) “Manual has an extra $100,000 that they can’t find any other use for” TOTALLY FALSE the state is requiring it be used for teacher incentives, Manual, the union, the district had no choice
3) “The district wants to wrongfully only give credit to the 11th grade teachers” TOTALLY FALSE The state says the money must be ysed at Manual, every teacher, grades 7-12 is elgible for the incentive
I don’t mind if you disagree, Sharon. But please get your facts straight before you post.
Sharon refuses to get facts – as she has stated before – it is easier for her to make statements in error because “the internet will enable them to be corrected”. The legs on her rocker are broke and she doesn’t see it as a problem.
And what you don’t seem to understand is that the original MOU was a requirement as well by the state due to Manual’s test scores being so low and being forced into restructuring. Having TDHS come in was also another state requirement. Manual and the district have never had another option…you get into that deep of “trouble” with the state, they dictate what has to be done. Yes, they could have chosen a different program other than TDHS, but it would have been just that…a similar program with a different name. My frustration stems from the district and Manual getting bashed for decisions that are beyond their control. If people want to be upset, they should be upset with NCLB and the state restructuring process. I know Sharon that that is something we agree on…NCLB is horribly horribly flawed. But my question would be what do you want the district/Manual to do about it? They have been told the “rules” of the game and must abide by it. Everyone crabbed about the district having to shell out it’s own money to pay for TDHS. It was a requirement by the state that TDHS be there for at least 3 years…this current school year is year 3. So Sharon and I believe two teachers at Manual busted their butts the last 2 months of the school year (with help from Grzanich at the district level) to try and secure this grant funding to pay for TDHS so that it wouldn’t be coming out of the district’s pocket book.
To “Also fed up” Like I stated, I don’t have a problem with disagreements about FACT. What I have a problem with are statements that begin with “I hear.” Again, I welcome anyone and everyone to go to the ISBE website and research “restructuring” as well as the “SIG grant” Maybe then if people are upset they will realize everything sits with the state…not the union, not admin on Wisconsin, and not kherat.
First, Fed Up, I do appreciate the information–that’s why I consider blogs so important. They provide a quick way to clear up misconceptions. As a retiree with no fear of reprisal, I am more than willing to put the rumors, etc., here (and take the blame) because I know that there are people who will readily clarify any information or present an opposite point of view.
I get the idea that the person in Chumbley’s office will eventually go back to the classroom. Usually, some of these types of positions have been just half day, so the confusion with an administrator is not that obvious. I know that there has been discussion about union people other than Bobbie–but the president’s position is the one most in question.
I see one problem with what Bobbie said–just my opinion–but throwing it out to find out if others agree with me. Bobbie doesn’t represent just the teachers at Manual, and any MOU has repercussions for all teachers, not just Manual teachers.
The terms of this grant represent the thinking that I found most disturbing. All the teachers in a school (and the feeder schools) contribute to a student’s academic progress. Rewarding only the math, reading, and special ed teachers/coaches is just unfair. Also, I have a couple of sets of FOIA’d Manual’s NWEA scores. Their results go up and down like yo-yos (a considerable number of students get a lower score in the spring than they do in the fall). I believe that test to be way too unreliable. Also, why would teachers be rewarded or blamed for the attendance rate? That seems to be entirely a parental responsibility.
Yes, I do expect a school district to reject money that has strings attached that run contrary to the philosophy of the district–I expect integrity. However, there is no danger of that here because I believe most board members probably like the idea of merit pay and some who would love to break the union. When union members help the administrators reach that goal, then I have a problem with the union. If the goal is to be reached, it should be with considerable resistance.
For clarification, are you saying that the proposal does not include any incentives to be paid this year for the reading and math coaches from the 2009-2010 school? I did hear there was some dissension at Wednesday’s meeting at Manual, meaning that not all union members agreed–is that true? Just curious as to how the union makes these decisions–does the final decision reside with the leadership (if so, that’s where the question of the union president being beholden to administration comes into play). I believe that the first MOU with Manual was a decision that was not communicated to union members–that it was entirely the decision (and a surprise to teachers) of the previous union leadership and/or just the president. Am I wrong?
And btw…I am not admin or a union head honcho…just a plain ‘ole teacher that loves her job!
Nothing is being paid out for the 2009-2010 school year. The reading and math coaches at Manual are just like all the rest of the teachers. They don’t get anything “extra”. You didn’t read my entire post…the incentives are available for EVERY SINGLE TEACHER REGARDLESS OF CONTENT AREA in grades 7-12 at Manual. Please tell me what research you have done on NWEA (MAP) test scores to base your opinion of them being unreliable. The problem has been thus far, that the students didn’t take the tests seriously (imagine that). I’ve heard that Manual’s teachers have been doing an outstanding job of impressing upon the students that those test scores help drive daily instruction, and thus are extremely important. Darn near every school district around is using NWEA…I guess every school district is wrong and you are correct?
Fed Up, believe it or not, I was one of those. I didn’t even believe in unions for teachers for the first 15+ years of my career–and did not strike the one and only time there was a strike during my career. I came to regret that choice and to feel badly that I didn’t support my fellow teachers who were outside.
Unions were weak in those early years and I was extremely happy in my job and with the district’s leadership. I am grateful for what the union did for me (before and after I came to recognize its worth). I do not want teachers like yourself to face the future without union protection. Today you may be in the same frame of mind that I was early in my career–and confident that you can earn merit pay, etc. The future–if unions are broken–may be much different than the one you envision right now. I assume you may be just a plain ole teacher that loves her job–but one who does support the current union leadership; there are, also, plain ole teachers that love their jobs on the other side.
Now, I will hazard my usual guess. Some suggested to me that Fed Up was Jim Stowell in disguise. I rejected that guess. However, I do believe that “Also Fed Up” sounds like Jim to me. I wonder how much flip-flopping you will have to do, Jim, if you should be in a position to look at 150 through the city’s eyes.
I am not privy to information regarding Darling’s current role, etc. so I will not discuss that. I try to make it a rule to discuss things I know as fact rather than my opinion or rumors. What I meant about him making the comment that he would represent what the Manual teachers wanted was that the new MOU was made in conjunction with the union and admin. Because of the state requirements, it has direct bearing on the teachers at Manual. What he was saying was that he would support the decision of the teachers in regards to how the incentive program was structured. The dissention was about non certified staff not being part of the incentive program (a decision that was made by admin) Teachers voiced that they would be willing to give up part of their incentive to the home school facilitators (who are non certified staff) because they felt that they can’t do their jobs unless the kids are at school, and the facilitators bust their butts to try to get the kids to school everyday.
Sharon, I can assure you that I am NOT Mr. Stowell…I would pick someone that I liked a tad bit better! I am definitely a union supporter. Again, I am just “fed up” with the union, the district, Manual etc. getting “blamed” for things dictated by the state.
Sharon, thanks for posting the link to Dave Haney’s article. I’m going to post the link again here: http://blogs.pjstar.com/schooldaze/2010/09/21/district-150-wedding-crashers/
How soon you all forget that the Peoria Civic Center General Manager, Debbie Ritschel was on the Superintendent Hiring Committee. Do you think it’s possible that Superintendent Lathan might feel more than a little obligation to utilize the Civic Center Facilities at even the mere mentioning of it from either Ritschel, or Board Member Jim Stowell, husband of Civic Center Event Sales Director Jo Stowell? And if anyone thinks that a $10.00 per person donut breakfast is “a deal” then I’ve got some donuts to sell you at half price.
Once again Peoria politics and profit-driven decisions trump what is best for our children and their teachers in the class-room. Many of the same individuals who are asked to provide their own copy paper and cleaning supplies, absorb 2 substantial property tax increases in one year, pay high “student fees” and contribute to persistent fundraisers throughout the year.
The biggest offense in this whole scenario in my opinion is them thinking we are too stupid to put 2+2 together.
Related link: http://www.pjstar.com/news/x999989350/District-150-OKs-uniforms
Fed Up, I think most tests are too unreliable to use as a basis for merit pay for any kind (and the reason you give concerning student apathy is one of the main reasons that the tests do not give reliable data).
My own misconceptions for the last two years have been based on the fact that not even union members were told the details of the first MOU–and that much of what was done at Manual was because of conditions of the grant. Gradually, I (and others) have been given that information. Today you have added one more piece. That was the fault of the union leadership. All in leadership (150 or union) need to realize that misconceptions will always be presented as strong opinions, etc., when there is no transparency. And the public needs to know all this, also.
For instance (and I stated this on the blog not too long ago when I first learned the truth), Sharon Kherat had no choice but to get rid of most of the faculty–that was the terms of the first grant. When I learned that, I told two board members (Rachelle and Laura in informal conversation) that I wished that these details had been made very clear to all two years ago. I, for one, would not have given Sharon so much flack for that decision if I had known she had no choice. Of course, I wish she would have said something to the effect, “I had to let go of many very good teachers–I wish I could have kept them.”
But please help me understand–If the MOU was a condition that had to be met, then why does it require the union to agree and what would happen if the union refused (which I believe it should)? I believe teachers’ unions stand strongly against merit pay–agreeing to it for one school is not a good idea. I wonder how split the District 150 PFT is on this subject. If a vote were taken, how many do you think would vote for merit pay?
Fed Up, I already stated that I was positive you were not Jim Stowell.
You are right. The union doesn’t have a choice. However, they wanted to make sure the teachers had input into how the program would be outlined. Honestly (and yes this is just my opinion) the staff at Manual is so large, we are talking about maybe $30 a paycheck. I don’t think you will see any change at all due to the incentive package, and firmly believe that if the teachers had the choice (which they don’t) that they would want the 120,000 used to go for some other instructional purpose.
Fed UP and Also Fed Up and/or Jim: One last thought before I get ready to go to my 55 Woodruff reunion. 🙂 This will be the first Woodruff reunion I have ever attended–I usually go to Manual reunions.
Most, if not all, of my comments, are based on rumors and/or facts that I have heard via the district grapevine. I think it is to the advantage of the board, the union, and everyone else to know the thinking that is floating all over. Putting it on this blog gives you all a perfect opportunity to get the truth out, nip falsehoods in the bud, etc. So, please, quit complaining and make your voice stronger than mine by telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Of course, most of my comments are my opinions, and opinions are neither right nor wrong (unless you can prove the basis for opinions are faulty). All these issues are emotionally charged–those in leadership need to be honest in order to convince people to believe in what they have to say.
Fed UP, having just read your last post, thank you for your honesty–our lengthy discussions and disagreements, I believe, did wind up with both of us agreeing more than disagreeing. More importantly, I believe we are all more enlightened on the subject.
Have a good one Sharon
“I am a heterosexual Protestant white male. I know that people like me are considered the anti-christ in today’s society.”
Persecution complex, much? Or is it a guilt complex?
BTW how many WASPs ever read Amos and Micah??? Not many. Too busy buildin’ up them treasures on Earth
It is amazing how many “movers/shakers” also consider themselves “pillars” of their church. My pastor once said the major reason his family stayed away from church so long was because of the “christians”. I understand the meaning of his words, now.
Sharon said “When union members help the administrators reach that goal, then I have a problem with the union. If the goal is to be reached, it should be with considerable resistance.” WOW! Is that really what you think. Is that what all teacher union members believe — it is a we against them mentality.
Want to know if it is really we against them? Investigate the interviews that were cancelled May ’09. Nuff said.
Frustrated: First of all, I was talking only about merit pay. There are many issues about which teachers, administration, and the board can work together–if and when the administration and the board ask for input from teachers. I think you are a bit mixed up as to which group should take the lead in such matters. The teachers aren’t in a position to ask the administrators for input. It is the administration that can choose to include or exclude teachers in the process, so whenever the administration and board do not include teachers, they make it an us vs. them situation.
Remember this is an educational institution, not a business. In educational institutions, the positions of all employees outside the classroom exist to support what happens in the classroom, not vice versa.
I know that I write too much, so you may get confused about the points I am making–but I do object strongly when you take statements completely out of context. Again, my comments were about only merit pay–and I believe teachers should fight it. Did you read the article in the PJS this week about the 3-year study that concluded that merit pay does nothing to improve test scores?
I hope you did catch how Manual tried to take credit for a 17 point AYP gain in reading and a similar gain in math–which turned out to be only a 4.8 reading gain for the high school juniors.
How do you propose to make merit pay fair? Of course, I haven’t heard yet what proposal the board will be discussing tomorrow night. Wednesday night’s meeting with teachers seemed to have ended with confusion. At least, I have heard different versions about what happened.
This is another example of the kind of dishonesty that prevails. At first, the only stipulation about this grant (when it was offered to Peoria High) was that most of the teachers and the principal would have to be replaced. Peoria High teachers fought together to support their principal (a great example of the kind of togetherness that can happen). Then the grant was offered to Manual and was accepted. We knew that Manual didn’t have to change principals and faculty. However, no one mentioned the other stipulation–that there was money that had to be spent on incentive pay. Telling everyone a bit of truth at a time (and when it’s too late to raise objections) is totally dishonest.
Don’t make it sound as though I made a statement that pits the two against other on all issues. I guess you want teachers just to roll over and play dead while administrators and board members make all manner of decisions that exclude teachers from the process. That way there does not need to be a fight–the administration and board can just do as they please.
Sharon states: “Remember this is an educational institution, not a business. In educational institutions, the positions of all employees outside the classroom exist to support what happens in the classroom, not vice versa.”
Business or otherwise Sharon, I think of teachers as the “front line management” carrying out the mission of the organization. For that reason, it is difficult for me, as a parent and taxpayer, to accept that all of “management” is not working out of the same playbook. If teachers are not invited to the table, I don’t believe it is because leadership does not believe they will add value to the discussion but rather the fact that union representation is a barrier to establishing a collaborative environment in which all voices are heard.
“union representation is a barrier to establishing a collaborative environment” , that is the catch phrase that Wal-Mart used to keep us grunts at minimum wage. I know what the the barrier means. If teachers want to do more work for less pay, then we should get rid of the “barrier.”
Oh Sharon… “Remember this is an educational institution, not a business. In educational institutions, the positions of all employees outside the classroom exist to support what happens in the classroom, not vice versa.”
It warms my heart to see this.
Frustrated: “For that reason, it is difficult for me, as a parent and taxpayer, to accept that all of “management” is not working out of the same playbook. ”
Okay “all” of management isn’t. But the the purpose of the school administration is NOT to assist teachers. The purpose is to manage a multi-million dollar business. Teachers (and students) are a problem, not an asset to the process. If it were possible, (and it is becoming more and more so) the school districts would shop out all the teachers and students to private businesses and still reign over a multi-million dollar budget.
Sharon: Here is one link that I found so listen for yourself…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0crhth_g9E
Charlie: I have absolutely no guilt complex. I have only shame for the ones that think that they must consistantly apologize for things, in the past, that they had nothing to do with.
Johnnie, I’m sorry but I was taught to “bear one another’s burdens,” so if those burdens happen to be what’s left over from 200 years ago so be it–but bearing someone else’s burden is not an apology either and has nothing to do with a guilt trip. I hope you are not one who believes that Christ bore your burdens–if you are, then your philosophy of being ashamed of those who try to follow his lead seems a bit contradictory to me.
Frustrated, I hope you live long enough to see the results of this new trend of running schools like a business–I hope I don’t live that long because it will be the end of public education. 🙂 I am sorry that you have more faith in management (administrators) and so little in teachers.
I started teaching in the days when public education was effective. The difference then was that the administrators did support the teachers and recognized that the teachers were the experts. Why not take a look at some of the credentials of District 150 administrators. Tell me if you believe that they (other than their Type 75 certification, which is, also, held by many teachers) are expert enough in all the disciplines to tell teachers how to teach English, social studies, science, foreign language, business, etc.–yet that is exactly what they try to do. Is the term “micromanage” in business? I think, in many cases, you should be very grateful that your child’s teachers aren’t always on the same page with the administrators.
Johnnie, I listened. I was immediately turned off (my English teacher sensibilities) by the fact that the producer of the written narrative couldn’t spell everyone. That clip (out of context) isn’t enough to prove to me that Obama’s theology is different than mine. (Nowhere does it indicate that Obama is speaking of eternal salvation–there are other kinds of salvation, you know). That said, I am very certain that my theology isn’t the same as many of the Presidents who have served this country. However, I do not agree with the narrative. I believe (and I’m sure you do, also) that God does judge nations. I might not believe in collective salvation but I certainly believe in “collective judgment” from which this country is not immune. This whole clip is designed to appeal to the religious right–and that it does.
I agree Sharon that many D150 administrators have VERY LITTLE classroom(real world) experience. It has always been very difficult for me, as a classroom teacher, to be criticized by a principal who has had less than 3 years teaching experience or by principals who were special education teachers with classrooms of less than 13 students(and almost always having aides for assistance) or being an inclusion teacher in a regular division classroom. We now have a plethora of young teachers almost RACING to get their administrative certification so they can be principals. I believe the ISBE needs to change the rules from 4 semesters teaching to 10 semesters…..at least 5 years classroom teaching before they can become administrators. That would at least give some of these administrators a bit more of a chance to WALK in a teacher’s shoes. I am not saying that a 25 year old administrator is “less” of an administrator. What I am saying is that LIFE experience is extremely important when being in charge of adults and children in a school setting. Not trying to start a revolution, just saying…..
Teacher, you took the words right out of my mouth, so to speak! I do not in any way want to discredit special education teachers; I think they do any amazing job in the classroom. I was ever so impressed with the special ed faculty at Manual when I was there. However, their mindset (necessary for what they do) is not the mindset needed to oversee a school with students who are not special ed, etc. (My own mindset and experience would not make me a good administrator).
The same holds with regard to primary school teachers and/or administrators moved into high school positions. For one thing, how a primary teacher deals with discipline problems is considerably different from the way high school problems are handled–certainly the problems differ, so the approach should differ. Yet for the last 20 years, the experience of most (probably all) of Manual’s administrators have only special ed or primary experience. Believe me the difference was noticeable.
Coming from junior high to high school took me a few years to make the adjustment–to get a handle on what I could and should expect of older students, etc. These roles are not immediately interchangeable. I certainly agree (and had experience with the problem) that only three years in the classroom doesn’t prepare anyone to be an administrator over teachers, especially young teachers. They don’t have the experience to guide or judge anyone.
Sharon I doubt that there is any difference in your and Obama’s beliefs. I am almost certain that you and him hold the same views of the United States and a certain percentage of its citizens.
Almost forgot….I supplied a link where you could hear him say, in his own words, that he believed in collective salvation, yet you still don’t believe it.
Please, Johnnie, don’t be afraid to admit we are discussing race here (a certain percentage of its citizens)–of course, we are. The truth is I have heard your point of view on the subject of race all my life and have rejected it. This clip, in no way, defines whether or not Obama believes in salvation through Christ for himself or anyone else. Johnnie, we can let this go now. I know I can’t change your mind and vice versa. I love theological discussions but people on this blog don’t need to be subjected to them.
“I have only shame for the ones that think that they must consistantly apologize for things, in the past, that they had nothing to do with.”
And yet, you are benefiting, today, from those “things” in the past. It is called WHITE PRIVILEGE.
http://www.google.com/search?q=tim+wise+white+privilege&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The first clip is only 10 minutes…. the hour long one is AWESOME!!!!!!
Charlie being the good person that you are, I am sure you have given back any benefits that you have received from that so called white privilege, haven’t you?
Sharon you are correct in that you won’t change my mind and I doubt that I would change yours. Keep that hope and change working for you. Look how well it has improved the living and school conditions of Peoria.
What an asinine question, Johnnie. How would I do that? (When a cop stops me driving or walking alone in a white neighborhood… do I start speaking Eubonics to him?) That isn’t what it is about, and the fact that you suggest shows what an ignorant racist bigot you are. It is about understanding that many don’t have those privileges and trying to make amends/compensate for that. Why don’t you go ahead and watch the videos and learn something?
Stick your fingers in your ears and say “la la la la la la” and I guarantee you will never have your mind changed.
“Keep that hope and change working for you. Look how well it has improved the living and school conditions of Peoria.”
And there it is… the Sarah Palin shallow, superior, smugness, things aren’t the way I want them right now and so I am gonna make fun of anyone trying to make the world a better place.
Schools aren’t changing, btw, because the administration doesn’t want to change them, because local businesses don’t want them changed. The School Systems aren’t changing because schools aren’t doing what they are supposed to do in the first place.