Report: OUSD spent big $$ on consultants
By Katy Murphy
Thursday, February 3rd, 2011 at 8:53 pm in budget, OEA, teachers.
No, this report was not written by the Oakland Education Association. Pepperdine University’s Davenport Institute of Public Policy released it. Researchers found that as California school districts received more money between 2003-04 and 2008-09, they spent a smaller portion of it on teachers, aides and supplies.
If this sounds familiar, it’s an expansion of a report that came out last summer. My colleague Theresa Harrington wrote about it; you can find her story here.
Pop Quiz: Guess the amount that Oakland Unified spent on consultants in 2008-09, per student? A whopping $2,384 out of $12,946, according to the report, compared to $274 per student in Lafayette (the lowest in the East Bay). That’s 18 percent.
For years, the Oakland teachers union has said that the district spends too much on consultants and too little on teachers. In fact, OUSD has violated the legal requirement that unified school districts in California spend at least 55 percent of their budgets on the salaries and benefits of teachers and aides.
I blogged about this last May. In September, the district reported it had fallen short again in 2009-10, spending just 53.26 percent on classroom expenditures — $5.9 million shy of the state requirement. The number of schools in the district (more than 100 for 38,000 students) contributes to the imbalance, as each school must pay for administrative overhead, no matter how small it is.
Another aspect of budgeting that’s particular to Oakland is that school leaders get to choose how to spend their money (See Results-Based Budgeting). If they’d rather hire an outside group to provide services to students or teachers than a full- or part-time staff member, they’re essentially free to do so. And they often do. In other words, some of the consultant expenditures are decided centrally, but not all of them.
Critics of the report, who were quoted in Theresa’s story, note that district budgets have shrunk since the 2008-09 school year, or that districts have cut centrally since then.
I didn’t get a response from OUSD. Troy Flint, the district spokesman, says the financial department is analyzing the report and will have something in a couple of weeks.
You can download the full report here.
UPDATE: If you want to compare Oakland’s numbers to other districts in Alameda County as well as to San Francisco, West Contra Costa, Long Beach, Los Angeles and San Jose, check out this two-tab spreadsheet. The first page is sorted alphabetically; the second by the percentage of the budget spent on the classroom, as defined by the Pepperdine researchers.
You’ll see that Los Angeles and Emery school districts spent even more on consultants than OUSD, and that San Francisco spent less of its budget on classroom expenses than Oakland. But the only local district that spent less of its budget on teacher salaries and benefits than Oakland was Berkeley (though Emery and Castro Valley came close).
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
February 3rd, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Holy crud. Two thousand, three hundred, and eighty four dollars spent PER STUDENT on consultant fees. Eighteen percent of what we’re given to teach a child, paid to adults from outside that child’s district.
I know some schools have actually used “consultants” as direct service providers to provide pull-out intervention, so I can see how SOME of this money MAY have actually reached a child in a tangible way.
That said, this kind of ratio is far beyond egregious. Working now at a school that may lose one of our finest, most dedicated teachers because of budget cuts, I am physically sickened by this degree of downtown waste.
February 3rd, 2011 at 9:57 pm
This is ridiculous.
Pop Quiz 1: Do you think the amount spent on consultants increased or decreased since the advent of the new Strategic Plan (SP)?
Pop Quiz 2: What is the ratio of consultants to non-OUSD attendees at SP Task Force meetings?
All to get the same sausage out that they want put in.
Hey I have an idea. Fire most of the centrally hired consultants, shut down the small schools that are failing, then take all that money and move it to the schools (a raise for teachers, sight designated training only with teacher approval, T/As, enrichment and only those deemed essential. Combine that with internal controls. Livegreen Strategic Plan. How much do I get paid for that?
Tony better start getting some bigger Grants in, if possible before the next budget meeting of the school board.. It’s going to b a loud one. (Say, is that 2% raise still considered a fig leaf?)
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Now this is quite a story! Can we find out more about the spending habits of other local districts. The comparison to Lafayette is interesting, but how do others compare? Also can we see the list of the top paid consultants that OUSD hires and the services they provide?
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:49 pm
In Lafayette, the consultants are paid by the PTA, and no one is concerned. In Oakland, we choose between a 30% time credentialed librarian or a consultant to be a full time conflict mediator who trains 30 student mediators. Which do you choose? Either way you lose, you either waste money out of district or you have no library, and either way 1-5 kids from your OUSD school go to Lafayette. Meanwhile, the PTA at your school makes sure the food bank drops off enough meals each month. And in both districts the kids come in every day, ready to smile, because they’re kids. Let’s put them first, and as adults let’s really understand what’s going on.
February 3rd, 2011 at 11:26 pm
I have been saying this for a full decade now. We have had so many overpaid consultants telling us how we are failing and so few solutions. Teachers getting pay cuts while a huge portion of the budget goes to consultants? Serious priority issues.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:03 am
I pulled some numbers and posted a spreadsheet that compares various districts. It includes Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose, San Francisco and West Contra Costa, along with most of the districts in Alameda County. Here’s what I added at the end of the blog post:
UPDATE: If you want to compare Oakland’s spending to that of other districts in Alameda County as well as to San Francisco, West Contra Costa, Los Angeles and San Jose, check out this two-tab spreadsheet. The first page is sorted alphabetically; the second by the percentage of the budget spent on the classroom, as defined by the Pepperdine researchers.
You’ll see that Los Angeles and Emery school districts spent even more on consultants than OUSD, and that San Francisco spent less of its budget on classroom expenses than Oakland. But the only local district that spent less of its budget on teacher salaries and benefits than Oakland was Berkeley (though Emery and Castro Valley came close).
February 4th, 2011 at 12:50 am
Well, if LA and Emery spent more we should…spend more?
All costs should be balanced with average taxpayer income.
There is no way Oakland taxpayers can pay the same amount as San Francisco taxpayers (or Mill Valley, Palo Alto, etc.). A fundamental flaw and challenge to simplistic salary (or consultant) comparisons.
February 4th, 2011 at 8:29 am
Now this is exactly the kind of info that us taxpayers need, and it verifies my belief that the children and taxpayers are getting shortchanged(at various amounts for various districts). I hope the news media keeps digging away at at levels of governmental(public sector) employment until all the excess and waste is exposed and slashed.
February 4th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Del: I agree that many PTAs in Lafayette hire and pay for consultants. The difference between the two – Lafayette PTA paid and OUSD paid consultants is that Lafayette parents hold the consultants accountable. They do not “overpay” them for their services and they cancel contracts that do not demonstrate “bang for the buck.” In their contracts they also have an evaluator look at raw data and report out without bells and whistles exactly what the ACTUAL impact of dollars spent. In that way the PTA or the Arts and Science foundation members (read here, parents) can vote on whether or not to hire the consultants again for another term or year.
Big difference in hiring, reporting, outcome for students and dollars spent for value received. Also, those who pay, get to say.
February 4th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Jenna,
You are correct, when it is your money being spent you tend to be very judicious and careful with it, and conversely when it is someone else’s money(the taxpayers) it really doesn’t matter how you spend it. Therein lies a big part of the spending problem with a bloated,taxpayer supported bureaucratic monopoly.There is more than enough tax money being spent, it is just going to the wrong people.
February 4th, 2011 at 9:33 am
The waste is everywhere, and just think how great it would be to put an end to it.
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/08/23/578-million-for-a-school-and-layoffs-for-teachers/
February 4th, 2011 at 9:44 am
…..and another
http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-07-28/opinion/24634274_1_spending-public-education-school-districts
February 4th, 2011 at 10:03 am
To add some more info to Lafayette v OUSD comparison:
You noted that Lafayette PTAs foot consultants bills.
In my family OUSD experience (10years) OUSD PTAs actually pay teacher salaries. In our middle school, we are paying for 3 out of 5 periods for our music teacher salary, librarian salary (all inclusive with benefits etc.) In our elementary school, we pay salaries to: librarian, 2 computer teachers, PE teacher, part-time music teacher, part-time teacher assistant for every classroom, part-time art teacher, to name a few.
This skews the picture a lot, b/c Lafayette:OUSD ratio excludes PTA-paid consultants in Lafayette v. PTA-paid classroom teachers in OUSD. The ratio would get much closer if all payments (district & PTA) to consultants and teachers got included.
February 4th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Something else I noticed as I was looking at the spreadsheet — the tab where districts were sorted from highest to lowest percentage of spending for “the classroom.” The districts that spent the most money per student (see: Oakland, Berkeley, SF), had a lower percentage of classroom spending.
I wonder why that is. Any ideas?
I think it’s important to tease out two related, but distinct, issues raised by the report: 1) “classroom” vs. out-of-classroom spending, and 2) district staff vs. consultants.
On the consultant question: Do you think it’s always (or often) better for districts to spend their money internally, as opposed to hiring outside agencies — and if so, why? What if teachers at a school prefer instructional coaches from a local organization to those at the central office? Or if recess has become safer and less chaotic through Playworks (formerly Sports4Kids) than it was before, with a yard supervisor? What if the principal thinks she can get a better bang for her buck with a local nonprofit that specializes in a certain area?
Do you think those decisions should be made centrally?
February 4th, 2011 at 10:51 am
I like the idea of site based decision making, with many duties contracted out(with the principal having authority to end contracts). If certain jobs are contracted out(janitors for instance)the district will no longer have to worry about benefits and pensions for having these people “on hand” if needed on a daily basis(some janitors are making salaries approaching teachers in some districts(it’s totally outrageous.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Just to let you know, Emery may pay spend less of their budget on teachers but their benefits and pay is WAY better than Oakland. I had only a $5 co-pay when I worked for Emery, compared to a $10 co-pay. I made about $7,000 more than I made when I came to Oakland 5 years ago and still don’t make as much as did when I worked Emery even though I have 5 more years experience. Regardless, I’m happier here in Oakland than I was in Emeryville.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:42 am
The percentages include teacher benefits as well as salaries, so benefit packages should be reflected — at least, as of 2008-09.
As you can see from the chart, the “classroom”- and teacher-spending percentages for Oakland and Emery are comparable. But since Emery spent about $1,650 more per student than OUSD, they spent more (per student) on their teachers. The other factor relating to compensation, of course, is the number of teachers each district has on staff.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Further points:
-I draw a distinction between Site (school) based Consultants and Central HQ based Consultants. First because they’re targeted and focussed on both student & teacher needs, 2ndly because teachers & staff can easily determine whether they are effective.
–School based consultants is everything from T/As, to Librarians, Arts, Physical Therapy, Academic integration (instructional) consultants for teachers, etc. (as was mentioned before).
This must be done at the school level where needs r known, not Centrally. However a central exchange of info among schools and with the District can help find and determine effective programs. Many large companies have internal trade shows for just this type of info sharing. Does OUSD?
–There r many non-academic consultants centrally located at OUSD. They r working on everything from how to restructure the District, to video presentations, to writing the new Strategic Plan, to presenting the Plan, to getting Task Force members, to doing outreach to the various task forces, to the redrawing of the Regional Map.
Sometimes Task Force outreach meetings have 8-15 people in a public outreach meeting with ZERO public (to b clear, it depends. Some meetings r well attended). Those presenting are often mostly staff or consultants from HQ.
–What is the amount of the OUSD deficit/budget cuts per pupil? If we had this $ amount then we could compare it to the $2384 per pupil spent on consultants to see if cuts could b meaningful there (if there’s a big enough spread it might even be able to impact mostly central district consultants, & not the more effective school based instructional consultants. If this becomes a bigger issue b ready for the District to try to mix that up to help keep theirs).
Along with the budget cut amount per pupil, is there a breakdown of site based vs. central district based consultants?
February 4th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Hey just Go to OUSD website
Click on the governing board tab
Go to the Legislative information center
And search the following in the 2010 school year and the 2011 school year
new teacher project
Agreement contract
mou agreement
Professional Service Contract
Consult contract
And watch how much money is spent
The pepperdine report may be old news
February 4th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Livegreen,
I have always observed the people sitting around at various district offices while ordinary citizens were in there waiting to have a question answered or some business taken care of and asked myself ” isn’t part of their job to serve the public by answering questions? I don’t go anymore to the OUSD website because of what I feel is unnecessarily obfuscated data and numbers. Tax money is vanishing into a black of bureaucracy, never to be seen again(and certain school districts are well known to blow through tons of money indiscriminately(LAUSD and OUSD of the past are but a few examples).
Even NPR can see whats happening!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129374574
February 4th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
$12 million projected budget cuts/38,826 pupils = about $309 per pupil.
So reduce the spending on consultants from $2384 per pupil by that same $309, and OUSD both solves it’s budget cut and STILL has $2075/pupil to spend on Consultants. A touch less with a raise for teachers.
This is simple math. Details on the #s of consultants on site (school) vs. central office would help narrow that down further. Will they want to give that though? It will impact all the spending on the new Strategic Plan, restructuring the district & school administration.
I still haven’t figured out which that’s going to change more, Academics or Administration? If the latter, isn’t that missing the central point? It brings to mind “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”.
Tony Smith is going to need more grants than just Kaiser Foundation if there’s going to be enough money to actually build something, instead of only enough to pay the consultants who tell him how to build it.
February 4th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
@Livegreen and JR -
We will provide the numbers you requested as we have been working on this project for some time (before the release of the Pepperdine report). This is something of a white whale for me. I know I said I would have some information available by today and that proved false. I apologize for that; I thought I was sandbagging when I made that prediction, but even with that cushion, I still didn’t allow enough time.
I know the delay may be vexing to some people but our systems are not such that we can just do a data pull or run a report and produce these numbers in a way that would be accessible or intelligible to just about anyone that doesn’t spend large portions of their professional or free time studying school budgets.
Really it’s not even intelligible to us until we conduct significant research into all the vendors/expenditures and their purpose. This is before we even consider efficacy, The majority of the expenses, especially once Special Ed is excluded, are decentralized, and no one, five or 10 people will be able to reconstruct the whole picture just by looking at line items in a spreadsheet that contains only the most minimal description (vendor name, two-to-three word description of purpose and dollar figure).
There’s substantial research and investigation required, not just data gathering. I say this not as an excuse but to better explain what’s involved. We’re trying to create something digestible that still captures the nuances of the situation. I’ll stop with the predictions now except to say we’ll have something soon.
February 4th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Sounds like something else to spend money on. How old is the database software?
Are you doing this to compare with the report for 08-09, or an update for 09-10?
As Gee Yu alludes, it’s one thing to see if their report’s accurate, another to update and see if the more current info is increasing or decreasing (esp given all the consultants floating around the Strategic Plan).
For me it would make a big difference if the consultants are site-based or central. Not sure about whether it matters for the OEA, or if they’ll believe you.
Thanks for the update.
February 4th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Thanks Troy……..
February 4th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Maria: Thank you for some insight into the schools who pay salaries of those who work with students. It should also be noted that through Lafayette’s Art and Science foundation they pay of science teachers, science laboratories, music teachers, art teachers, and drama teachers. Although in middle and high school the foundation does not pay for language teachers, because they pay for art teachers, they are able to offer three different languages in middle schools for a minimum of two consecutive years to all students who want to take them.
Libraries are incredibly valuable to Lafayette residents and likewise, Lafayette schools, so while they do have libraries and librarians in every school, they are willing to forego the after school sports programs as those offered in many public schools in Oakland at no cost to families to keep their libraries. Those who want to play sports either pay or fundraise to cover the cost. Lots of families need to fundraise and that seems okay to do for sports – but not for books. Libraries and librarians are non-negotiable.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
@livegreen
I don’t think there’s much appetite for sinking more money into data systems, but from an operational standpoint, our systems are probably one of the biggest stumbling blocks to better management of our resources.
Not that we can’t do better with what we have currently, but it’s hard to manage when you don’t have good or consistent access to information that can help you make decisions. Tech Services has been working hard to improve this situation and they’re making great strides, but they’re not building on the best foundation because of previous choices.
Anyway, for consultant expenditures, we’re pulling data from 08-09, 09-10 and 10-11 year-to-date actuals (maybe actuals + encumbered depending on how much that complicates things). If there’s a recent trend, it should show here.
We’re then going to try to group the expenditures into categories that people can understand (afterschool, professional development, etc.) Obviously, you have to dig deeper for something really meaningful since PD can describe almost anything, but it’s a start and should give a basic picture.
We’ll also break out school-site vs. central expenditures for the three years.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Very interesting article. Like everything else, it is hard to understand what is really going on without really analyzing the data. Use of consultants is not inherently good or bad without delving into the details. Amidst years of budget cuts and continuing financial pressure on school districts across the country, creativity is essential.
Ideally internal OUSD staff would provide all services in the district but the use of consultants allows for schools, principals, and other administrators to get services for students when they do not have the budget to pay for a permanent district position with full benefits. There is an ability to provide specialized services with consultants with unique and possibly small pockets of funds to continue to pursue district goals.
It is unclear to me what funding is including in this article. I wonder if it is only state and federal funding or also includes the numerous grants awarded to the district. Grant funding can help budget strapped school sites but the finality of grants makes hiring permanent staff a challenge, at times consultants are a solution to being able to use grant monies for support staff and services.
The numbers alone don’t tell us a whole lot. This is definitely something to explore nonetheless. OUSDs great strides in academic progress over recent years are also something to think about.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Thanks Troy. I don’t know if the data systems were part of those linked to OUSD’s financial demise before the State takeover, or not. But can we chalk that up to past consultants?
February 4th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I believe the expenditures listed in this report come from all funding sources, including grants, parcel taxes, etc. In Berkeley, for example, about 27 percent of the school’s budget in 2008-09 came from parcel taxes or other outside funds, and you can see its per-pupil spending is much higher than other districts in the county.
February 4th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Troy Flint – most “grant” or “contract funded” work allows for 7% – 12% (usually 10%) of the amount invested to be used for analysis and evaluation. When I have conducted such evaluation I have done so using Excel with macros. I have had tens of thousands of pieces of data and still used Excel. Grants continue to be funded by the federal government and several foundations for the projects I evaluate, so the evaluations must be of value. This data is entered, not at the end of an project period but on-going as part of the evaluation process of any project.
What I find offensive about OUSD is that when we, as parents have asked for data, such as the gifted minority students taking AP math classes, or the comparison of students before and after Si Swun math has been taught, the data is always “forthcoming” – translated – you don’t have the data, it has not been processed, and you really can’t substantiate to your self, the state of California, the federal government, the parents, teachers or students of OUSD or the school board whether the investment or the AP courses served the students well or at all.
I believe that in Oakland, the schools need to have more money. But I would never, ever vote for a bond measure> I would gladly work to create an Oakland Art and Science Foundation which had an accountable board of directors separate from the school board that funded projects and schools that had programs for students that had a student, parent / guardian, teacher, administrator component that was evaluated EVERY year. As an Oakland taxpayer I am tired or financially exhausted in paying for projects without accountability.
February 5th, 2011 at 8:58 am
unions are ruining public education. why would a principal hire a union member who owns the job and can never get dismissed over a consultant?
our site-based consultants are amazing in their support of OUSD kids and teachers. this comparison between consultants and union-member expenditures is meaningless, especially the site-based consultants.
Katy–please understand that this is another way that we subvert the union stranglehold on our kids’ futures. GO CONSULTANTS!
February 5th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Mr. Smithers – That’s why you have choice. If you don’t like the (regular) public choice, you can go to a non-union charter school or private. Superman, Oprah, Bill Gates, etc., will not break the traditional unions.
Go Teachers!
February 5th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
To Harold (#32). Go great teachers, but if you’ve ever been saddled with a poor performer or an incompetent teacher, then you may see things from a different point of view.
At the school that my child attends, there is one such teacher. Each year she damages a class of students – the kids fall way behind and some lose interest in schooling altogether. She should not be teaching.
Now with more budget cuts looming, our school is likely to lose one or more young, dynamic, amazing teachers while this incompetent teacher with seniority gets to stay on. That is not good for anyone – not the kids, not the parents, not the other hard working teachers, not the adminstration who has to deal with complaint after complaint about the poor performing teacher, etc. Schools need to have a way to get rid of the deadweight (those teachers who no longer have what it takes to be an effective educator).
February 5th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Hills parent,
The unionists don’t care to hear the reality of the situation as told by a taxpayer who pays the bills(your pleas for common sense will always fall on deaf ears when you speak with union people). They have our money,our kids, and the bad ones can pretty much do as they please(if tenured). You are right about the new and tenured situation. I have always felt that fear of losing your job is a good motivator, but the way that the system is set up only new teachers are under any “REAL” scrutiny. When you have nothing to fear you tend to get complacent, its human nature.
February 5th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Harold,
It’s just a matter of time before the unions all starve, and it wont be that long. Taxpayers are sick and tired making people comfortable who do not deserve to be.We are tired of feeding the reprehensible beast.
February 5th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Lucha, Thank you for bringing student outcomes into the conversation. Oalkand’s elementary and middle schools have improved significantly, especially in low-income neighborhoods. I care about what is working well for our students…and I think student outcomes should be the starting point when talking about consultants. If a school is performing poorly, then their expenditures on consultants deserves to be questioned. If a school is high achieving and/or is dramatically improving, then we need to understand what role (if any) consultants have played in their success.
February 5th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Also, if I am not mistaken, the 2003-04 school year is when Randy Ward became our state administrator. I think the time period studied by Pepperdine is also the time period covered by “Expect Success.” If all district income, including philanthropy, is included in the Pepperdine analysis, then I think we can take a collective deep breath and relax…that was when the Gates-Broad-Dell money was paying for all the bright young interns at Central Office, right?
February 5th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Katy asks why “the districts that spent the most money per student (see: Oakland, Berkeley, SF), had a lower percentage of classroom spending.”
My guess is that the districts that spend more per student are those that get supplemental state and federal funds (actually, that is not a guess — it is almost certainly true). Much of that money can not be spent on teacher salaries (UNLESS they are used to reduce class sizes).
At Oakland High, we spend much of our money on class size reduction, but also a great deal more on ancillary services — drug and alcohol counseling, truancy reduction, etc, etc. Much of that is spent on “consultants” — ie, people who are on site, providing services directly to students, but who are employed by outside organizations (eg: Asian Pacific Health Services) or people on “consultant” contracts.
So, as someone pointed out earlier, we need to distnguish between “good” consultants and bad ones
February 5th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
And even if those direct student services Gordon mentioned were provided by district staff, rather than by outside organizations (aka “consultants”), they might not be classified as classroom expenditures in this report.
February 6th, 2011 at 7:24 am
In my school, dead weight teachers are going to keep their jobs over hard-working, effective newly-hired teachers who will get cut.
We have one dead weight teacher who was beyond incompetent. He could not learn the children’s names and one day, he wet his pants in front of the kids.
But he has a union to protect him.
What if “Go Teachers” meant the following:
1) more pay for all teachers
2) removal of tenure so the dead weight can get to steppin’
I agree that dead weight teachers HURT kids. They also hurt schools, other teachers and oddly, themselves. This is a state of pathetic-ness in many cases–people stuck in the classroom who do not belong there and they don’t leave because they’re scared they can’t make $70k doing anything else? Not sure why deadweight stays. The kids and parents (who are vocal) make their lives hard.
The current situation of tenure is bad for everyone. And did we mention kids? It’s bad for them too.
I hope the public hurries up and pushes this union stuff. I SUPPORT TEACHERS too, but I don’t support OEA and dead weight teachers who hurt our most important natural resource–our youth.
In Oakland, it’s especially unacceptable because disenfranchised (African American and Latino) youth play second fiddle to the entitlement of adults. Why isn’t that institutional racism?
Public – GET MAD. Come into your community schools. Come see this stuff. And support teachers. Good teachers are the fabric of our community. They deserve love, support and more money. Good teachers are the only way we can help our under-served kids.
We can talk all about central office spending and expect success and Ward and philanthropy, and a host of other secondary issues. We can get moving on the superintendent’s 10 point plan, as well. Until we tackle the number 1 issue, tenure and the teacher’s union, we will make little progress.
I think this will change in our lifetimes. We are running out of money and public employees of all stripes need to be held accountable and there needs to be regulation or the lobbyists will turn the US into a joke. They already are…
Lobbyists, whether they be from teachers’ unions or Enron or mining interesests–they make me sick.
Special Interest groups are subverting democracy. Teachers Unions are the biggest contributing lobby in the US, right Katy? to the democratic party?
On a side rant–the democrats are as dirty-money-funded as the republicans.
This is maddening. As Egypt tries for democracy, we are living a joke of democracy in the US.
But let’s continue to pay teachers who can’t do their jobs. Nice. WAKE UP!
February 6th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Donald Pierce:
I don’t understand why you equate “making it easier to remove incompetent teachers” with “eliminating tenure.” No tenure = I can be dismissed any time I upset my principal by, say, criticizing him or her for budget priorities, or for the quality of professional development, or for violating student speech rights, or for general incompetence. I have done all of those things over the last 15 years, and I am free to do so, because I have tenure.
Rather than ending tenure, and thereby discouraging teachers from speaking out on behalf of students, all that needs be done is to expand “cause” for dismissal to include repeated poor performance on testing (though we would want to improve the tests at the same time). What is wrong with that solution?
PS: I not sure that I agree that incontinence = incomptence.
February 6th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Please consider the mis-match between most grant budgets and the traditional staffing structure for OUSD (or any district).
Most of the grants that are available aren’t sufficient to cover anything close to the salary + overhead of a classified employee, and so the numbers just don’t pencil out. Further, depending on the type of staffer in question, it may take 12+ months to create the position, even though its a 2 or 3 year grant. And then what do you do with a permanent employee when the grants run out?
So, principals and other OUSD leaders have the choice of going with a consultant or nonprofit contractor who can provide two or three times the staff for a flexible time period (i.e., the contract ends when the grant does) for the same money as one OUSD position.
An exchange at a recent Teaching and Learning committee meeting is instructive. A board member asked for an accounting of why a large portion of a new grant was being subbed out. The exchange went something like:
Board member: “Why are we contracting this to XYZ nonprofit?”
Project manager: “Because the grant funds for the project would allow roughly one OUSD staff position, compared to 2.5 positions with this contractor. And it will take about 18 months to create and fill a position in the district, and its a 24 month grant.”
Board member: “Oh.”
This is not to say that a decent benefits package shouldn’t be available to us all (since that’s what’s driving that overhead), but I offer this to provide some insight into the structural considerations at play when choosing between consultants and district staff.
February 6th, 2011 at 9:44 am
There is no such thing as tenure for public school teachers. Tenure is what college professors get. What you are referring to as tenure is merely “permanent status.” I agree with Gordon that teachers need some protection from arbitrary dismissal as I have also been at the mercy of an incompetent and vindictive principal. Even with employment protections, it is possible for principals to “get rid of” incompetent teachers. At any school that has such and that person has been there year after year, I would say what is wrong with the principal? There are ways a principal can remove a teacher from the school (i.e. involuntary transfer) that don’t involve a long, drawn out process. I have seen principals hound incompetent teachers so that they leave of their own accord. By the way, the union has nothing to do with reasons for dismissal, disciplining teachers. It is spelled out in the state ed code. OEA’s job in these situations is to ensure that procedures are followed and that’s all. The union does not have the power to force the district to keep bad teachers. In my experience as an OUSD employee, OEA is rather toothless.
February 6th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Well said, Gordon. Two other points: First, the percentage of incompetent teachers in Oakland is very low, and there are probably as many “young and energetic” folks as veterans in that group. Not all newbies are good teacher material, and it’s true that they can be dismissed relatively easily.
However, secondly, some of those incompetent veterans started as highly competent newbies (hence they were not dismissed early). A dysfunctional district that does not address the conditions under which teachers are expected to teach effectively is partly responsible for creating that small percentage of incompetent teachers. You have to be pretty strong to teach in spite of the many challenges that arise in some of our schools. Unfortunately, there are a few who are unable to rise to the challenge (and they are not given much support to do so). I think everyone would agree that those teachers should be helped to improve or shown the door.
But please–don’t blame the union for what is largely an administrative problem!
February 6th, 2011 at 10:10 am
I don’t recall witnessing many teachers “taking a stand” on behalf of students in a way that would be against school or district policy and rub a principal the wrong way(resulting in punitive measures from the principal). If tenure were to be modified and cause for termination expanded, the teachers union would do what they always do and water down any proposal so that “in effect” there would be no change. I see us losing so many young and promising teachers, and prioritizing teachers who are already done but hanging on the last few years for retirement.Then they will be gone and we wont have the teachers that we need for future years. This is a screwed incoherent system is all I can say.
February 6th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Who is responsible for lousy teachers is “like a dog chasing its tail” nonsense and a waste of time, the problem individuals need to be dealt with and shown the door “in the here and NOW”! I have already stated many times that there is too much bureaucracy in this education system, and these people are little more than parasites off the taxpayer host.
February 6th, 2011 at 10:23 am
“By the way, the union has nothing to do with reasons for dismissal, disciplining teachers. It is spelled out in the state ed code”.
And who do you think paid, and orchestrated politicians to have these things done(you do know that laws and such are bought and paid for,don’t you)? You must think that we taxpayers are imbeciles(although we have elected many people who don’t mind taking our tax money, and becoming secure at the expense of taxpayers)so many are at least not paying attention. Half of the people in this state don’t even pay taxes, and you can bet money on the way they vote.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Hey J.R. (45)
“I don’t recall witnessing many teachers “taking a stand” on behalf of students in a way that would be against school or district policy and rub a principal the wrong way(resulting in punitive measures from the principal).”
Fair enough. I do. I’ve worked in three OUSD schools, and seen and been a part of it in each.
Do our anecdotes cancel each other out enough that we can get on to talking about documented realities, such as the fact that most principals in a recent study agreed that they could fire if they needed to, and the reality that another study showed that a union-sanctioned peer review process was actually MORE effective than admin-only review in referring and dismissing sub-par teachers?
February 6th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
JR, I do not think that taxpayers are imbeciles. I am also a taxpayer and so is every other teacher. Which half of the people don’t pay taxes? How do they vote?
February 6th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
J.R., I agree with Turanga. Fortunately, I’ve not been reprimanded for it, but I have angered principals and been given the cold shoulder by them for speaking the truth on behalf of students at all three of my schools as well. (I have taught under a total of eight principals at the three schools, and I’ve had run-ins with four of them.)
There are good reasons for unions–reread U.S. history. They would not have come about if it weren’t for necessity. I’m sure you and/or at least one family member have benefited from being in a union.
Just to clarify my previous comment, I do not agree with Gordon on using test scores as cause for dismissal. There are too many factors, beyond the teacher, involved in why certain groups tend to score lower than others–repeatedly.
February 6th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
There should be middle ground between a teacher essentially having tenure with a seniority rules system in place and teachers being dismissed at the will of the principal. For all firings, there should be a process. However, there absolutely should be a way to get rid of teachers who aren’t effective. Those teachers who are consistent poor performers. Those who are incompetent. The deadweight.
Everyone else should be protected against firing because of a comment or an unpopular stance etc. I’m mean, that’s just ridiculous. But there should be a process to get rid of those who aren’t helping kids. That process simply does not exist or takes too dam long.
At our school, we’ve been dealing with one such teacher for years now. It’s even more awful now that we are probably faced with losing some of our amazing young teachers who are beloved by students and parents alike. And the only reason they would be sent packing instead of the incompetent teacher is seniority. Just how is this supposed to help our school? How is this fair to the students? How can ANYONE justify this situation?
February 6th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Re: Tenure for Teachers
Part of the job of any employee is to not piss off his boss so much that he gets fired. Why should K-12 teaching be any different? The arguments above could be made by any employee in any company in an at-will state. Should the cashiers at the supermarket have tenure? Construction workers? Bank tellers?
Tenure exists in colleges to protect the academic freedom of professors in a relatively unstructured setting, where controversial research is possible. No such academic freedom exists in k-12 schools. Teachers are required to teach to the standards. In fact, teachers in k-12 settings who preach there political beliefs to students should probably be removed immediately.
Without tenure, is it possible that a teacher could lose her job to an incompetent/unreasonable principal? Absolutely – just like any other industry. If she’s a great teacher, she’ll get another job without much difficulty. Incompetent principals who fire good teachers for no reason won’t last long, anyway.
February 6th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Hill Parent, There is a process for disciplining/terminating teachers. As a teacher myself, I get frustrated with teachers who don’t seem to be doing their jobs. It bothers me to see children I’ve worked hard to teach slip in their schooling in following years because of poor teacher performance. However, my question is what is your principal doing about this incompetent teacher? As I mentioned above, your principal can easily force a transfer of said teacher. All teachers in OUSD must submit to an evaluation every other year. Is your principal routinely giving this teacher a passing grade? Low marks on a teacher’s evaluation automatically trigger a process of correction and additional evaluation, which can lead to termination. The fact this has been going on for years, as you say, tells me that your principal has done nothing to correct matters. No one can justify the situation but your principal is the only one who can do anything about it.
February 6th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Funemployed, everything that happens in a classroom is political in some way. Teachers absolutely need academic freedom. A few years back, religious fundamentalists were up in arms about journal writing in elementary classrooms. It seems that journaling encouraged too much introspection or something. How about a high school teacher who wants students to read something controversial, i.e. Huck Finn or Das Kapital? What if a principal were some religious nut that instituted morning prayers? Or what if a teacher belonged to an unpopular political party, never mind that that teacher leaves politics outside the classroom? I would submit to you that teaching is not like any other industry. It is not an industry at all, unless you are selling text books.
February 6th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
L.K., It seems to be nearly impossible to get rid of a teacher on performance alone. I think statistics will back me up on this (I’ve seen numbers on this board before but I don’t have them at my finger tips. It’s an absolutely ridiculous, practically nonexistent number of teachers who are actually removed for poor performance and/or incompetence.
The process NEEDS to be made easier – not for teachers to be fired at will or because they got on the bad side of a principal, but there needs to be a way for deadweight to be culled from the pack.
As for as the situation at my school, there has been endless amounts of documentation and meetings and yet this teacher is STILL here and probably will be here next year as well. That’s just wrong on so many levels.
February 6th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Hills Parents,
Negotiating is probably a waste of taxpayers time and money. We as taxpayers need to insist upon a new and fair system, only this time fair for the people who pay the bills and their kids.
February 6th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Hill Parent, ask the principal why he/she doesn’t transfer the offending teacher out. Principals may complain that it’s nearly impossible but it’s not. I’ve seen principals put pressure on teachers and the teachers usually leave before the process pans out. Is your principal trying to be nice? Is the teacher in question a friend of said principal? Is the principal lazy? Is there a difference in perception between one group of parents and another about this teacher? A good principal can exert a lot of pressure on a teacher and ultimately force a transfer so I really don’t understand why this situation has been tolerated at your school. Maybe your principal is using the “nearly impossible to get rid of a teacher” meme as an excuse to do nothing.
February 6th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“nearly impossible to get rid of a teacher” meme as an excuse to do nothing.
This is a reality backed up by cold hard numbers. Why would a principal knowingly put his/her own job in jeopardy with complaining parents, just so they won’t have to bother with it, it makes no sense at all(the principals have nowhere near the kind of job protection that teachers enjoy).Principals are tossed all the time and teachers are rarely if ever shown the door, they are merely shuffled from one place to another.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/local/me-teachers3
http://www.startribune.com/investigators/93201809.html
http://www.laweekly.com/content/printVersion/854792/
Once again I’ll tell you that taxpayers are arming themselves with knowledge about these issues, and deciding for themselves.
February 6th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
LK, I know of an above average school that was forced to receive an incompetent teacher who had been transferred multiple times. The teacher was reputed to have been so incompetent that they gave failing grades to most of a class whose students (many of motivated, educated families) had a history of success. When upset students complained to parents, and upset parents disended on the school, it was discovered the teacher had misplaced students papers, and had marked them as unsubmitted.
The district would not allow the principal to transfer the teacher.
Multiple parents there will not b comig back, in part due to this experience. Let’s hope the school continues it’s progress despite these illserved families who are abandoning the district. Such failures have real world implications for families, schools, OUSD, neighborhoods, and Oakland. Improving it is a battle, one that many do not have it in them to fight. Otherwise the improvements OUSD likes to promote would be made even more rapidly.
February 6th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Question,
If the teachers union is so wonderful, why do they need to compel(by force of law, and guess who paid for this law)new teachers to pay “agency fees” or union dues?
Note if one chooses not to join the union, agency fees are still mandatory(at approx.70% of full union dues).What a mafioso racket that is(all legally purchased through tax money as well). Get this irony, teachers are actually fired by their union for not paying union dues. Is that twisted or what?
February 6th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
LK,
If you teach, you merely return some of the tax money that is paid to you, so in reality you do not pay taxes because taxes are where your money originated.
February 6th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
JR, if you are paid a salary you are taking money away from people who pay your employer for a service so in reality your labor is worthless. Really, JR, your arguments are pointless. It’s called commerce, you dolt. Money paid for services rendered, whether I am paid by a school district or a private entity. In reality, I very much do pay taxes. It says so on my 1040 and on the check I write to that agency called the IRS. Where my income comes from is irrelevant. By the way, who are the half of the population who do not pay taxes and how do they vote?
February 6th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Charters will take over.
Dismissing ineffective teachers in OUSD is impossible.
Transferring a teacher out creates the dance of the lemons. Lemons enter a functioning school and wreak havoc.
Hounding teachers? Come on. Aren’t we professionals?
Should there be a process to fire bad teachers? Of course. Should principals be able to fire a teacher for saying the wrong comment? No way.
Bad teachers screw kids, parents, entire communities, and each other. What a mess.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
LK,
Irrelevant? Not in this reality. We taxpayers(who actually have to actively keep our superiors happy)by performing our jobs(by objective measure) at a specific measurable level with definitive results. In short we are paid to do our jobs, and if we don’t we are gone,just like that(we stand or fall based on merit alone). We are not forcefed money from a seemingly endless river of regressive taxation. As for the taxes I should have been more clear, as in personal or property taxes. We have a situation in this state where almost one third of public assistance recipients in this country reside in California. Counting the cost of benefits alone does not even begin to address the system and people that are paid to hand out tax money. In a very short time we will be paying the majority of people most of the available tax money for not working(between GA and pensions). Sorry I hit a nerve but the truth is the truth(it is what it is).
February 6th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
About voting,
The education system has been in free fall in this state for decades(long before there were any reformers). If not for technology this state would have been busted long ago, but one our largest problems is the size and scope of government and the make-work public sector. We taxpayers can no longer support people who don’t produce, as a matter of fact our system actually encouraged irresponsible people to procreate and make more irresponsible people(these are the people that vote for higher taxation). These people love big government because it “cares for them” from cradle to grave for free(except taxpayers foot the bill).You teachers complain about bad parents and bad kids, well nanny state progressive policies are a big reason for our problems(eventually you run out of other peoples money).
February 6th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Ousd Funemployed:
Unlike cashiers, etc, etc., public school employees are:
1. The key persons delivering one of the most important services of the state;
2. Employees of a taxpayer-funded enterprise; and
3. Charged with safeguarding the rights, interests and personal safety of minors.
So, it is in the public interest that teachers remain free to speak out when they witness improper, incompetent, or substandard behavior (such as, by the way, a teacher who teaches his/her political views or who neglects the standards).
Here is an example: an assistant principal once tried to discipline me for making a statement in an email to her and 1 other colleague that I felt that a suggested plan for teaching students to complete a senior project would not work, because “most of our teachers are not competent to teach students how to research and write.” I wrote a letter pointing out that, as a tenured teacher, I could only be disciplined for “cause,” and what I said did not meet that criterion. Would society really be better off if I had been cowed into silence?
February 6th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
JR, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. In #47 you claim (via innuendo)that teacher unions were responsible for the rules governing the dismissal of teachers. That is not true. The rules establishing due process for dismissing teachers were set in 1927 when all unions in California were very weak and nearly 70 years before public employees won the right to bargain collectively. State legislatures throughout the country passed these laws to make teaching a more stable career and to attract more qualified applicants.
February 7th, 2011 at 12:00 am
JR;
it is time to put to rest this silly canard that there are huge numbers of freeloaders in Calif because about how 1/3 of the country’s welfare recipients are in Calif. As has been reported several times in the press, that is because Calif doesnt throw kids off the rolls when their parents are kicked off. Thus, as of 2008, about 3/4 of the “freeloaders” were children: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_WelfareCaseloadJTF.pdf
February 7th, 2011 at 8:17 am
Gordon,
I know things seem silly to you(you don’t worry about being unemployed, homeless) or things like that because you are locked in and the taxpayers “have” to pay you. Trust me though, the real world is a scary place and scarier than it has ever been. The welfare recipients being children “IS” part of my point, when the taxpayers are forced to subsidize people who can’t take care of themselves and then these irresponsible people become parents(this has been happening for decades)the problem just magnifies. Just like unemployment numbers, the exact numbers are played with and the parents still receive benefits for those kids, and they keep multiplying. The governmental support system for PA is large as well so it is not just about the benefits themselves.
February 7th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Steven,
First of all “good teachers are important” as are police and fire. The pendulum of pay,protection and pension has swung too far against the taxpayers and this is unsustainable in so many ways. This is a system where we taxpayers are forced to pay all employees the same whether they carry their own weight on the job or not(this is bad because everyone else must work that much harder to get the job done or worse, it just doesn’t get done at all)This is very much different from private sector where if you don’t pull your weight or better, you are gone almost immediately.These public employees are paid,good bad or indifferent drag on the system or not.We have reached a point that we are unable to meet our obligations(which were set by people who dont mind spending other peoples money)unless we just turn over our checks completely to and for public service. The rules governing dismissal have long been a hinderance to education improvement(complacency has set in system wide) for decades now. The last in/first out provision has hurt those new teachers that you say we all need. This system of having people who dont work for a living negotiate these provisions is just not working, and has not worked for a long time. I don’t know what that answer is, but we have to change or we will completely collapse.
February 7th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Here is an example of this looming disaster:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/07/BAD91HJ22F.DTL&tsp=1
February 7th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Peter Schrag criticizes the Pepperdine study in a piece published today in the California Progress Report: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/8648
February 7th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Steven,
These are the facts that I used, and you didn’t tell the complete truth about union political power(you left that part out).I wonder why?
http://educationnext.org/invisible-ink-in-teacher-contracts/
February 7th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Katy,
Things we know are:
Fact 1: Education in California is over 40% of the state budget(this nation spends more than any other nation on education)the real problem is the kids are not getting the direct benefit of that money.
Fact 2: Our average student performance state-wide is lacking(except in certain districts).
FACT 3: Graduation rates are substandard.
Fact 4: When the state had small class sizes(CSR)the differences were not substantial.
We as taxpayers are not generally getting much for our tax dollars(systemically, and it’s partly because of the welfare mindset)along with educating children who have parents that do not pay taxes(legal or illegally). Whether the problem is too much admin or too many teachers, there is a huge systemic problem that is unsustainable.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:30 am
What is probably coming is the end of compulsory education in Ca – at least at age 14 or so.
Beyond the cut off age, education will only be state provided upon merit into a limited number of seats.
We wouldn’t be the first industrial society to finally admit that only a portion of the population is suitable for higher secondary education. Trying to force that on everyone is a huge waste of money and time – and actually harms the lesser students.
There is no more money for this anymore. We are going to be forced quickly enough to choose between state subsidy of food, emergency room & hospital care and unemployment payoffs, or continuation of wasteful secondary education spending. We cannot keep up the spending patterns in the face of the 3rd world invasion and demographic growth.
As someone put it, you cannot have an open borders welfare state on top of a 3rd world nation for very long.
Brave New World.
February 7th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
JR you are correct about smaller class sizes in general. HOWEVER – and this is a big HOWEVER – class size did substantially matter in the cases where there was a high number of English Language Learners, Academic English Language Learners or High Poverty students.
February 7th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
From Peter Schrag’s article:
“Meanwhile, however, the National Center for Education Statistics pegs California’s in-class spending at 67.1 percent, above the national average, and above some 40 other states. The federal NCES data also show that that California is 47th in the nation in the ratio of administrators to students, 51st in guidance counselors and 51st in librarians. All those numbers are for the 2006 fiscal year.
The difference, as Michael Shires, one of the authors of the Pepperdine study concedes, depends mainly on what you count. Pepperdine did not include counselors or nurses or the cost of heating, cooling or cleaning classrooms; did not include any of the cost of busing the kids to school, or general maintenance of facilities, or insurance and security, or the pay of cafeteria workers or a list of other items. ”
51st in librarians and counselors!!! OMG, we’re behind what, Puerto Rico?
February 7th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Jenna,
I think we should be handling ELL’s a different way(English only immersion)with a bilingual teacher, and get the kids focused on English only. We need to end the practice of pulling kids from class to get time doing social studies in Spanish. This is a waste of time that could be used for core subjects in English. As far as poverty goes “we have reaped what we have sown”, and you cannot defeat poverty by giving people money and housing. They need a job and some dignity, since the 60′s people have lost their sense of dignity and morality and self worth and we have been and are paying the price for that now.
February 7th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
The people are no longer paying attention to the cooked books. The US outspends most if not all other nations, and has for decades.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm
http://www.urban.org/publications/901334.html
That is not to say that I don’t believe other opinions don’t have merit, they do. As a matter of fact the good and great teachers in California are doing a superhuman job, and I appreciate that. It is too bad some of their colleagues are a hinderance.This page verifies the fact that California bears a huge burden and cannot afford to have substandard teachers, as I said keeping inferior teachers because of seniority is shameful and wrong.
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/articles/article.asp?title=california%20comparison
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/articles/article.asp?title=california%20comparison
February 7th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
JR – you are right in every way.
Can you please run edgerkation for Governor Brown?
I’m serious. You’re right on every front. We’re cruising for a bruising. We can’t afford our public sector with the pensions – did you see SF Police Chief is raking in 250k a year in pension for life?
Add the health bennies in education to the inability to fire deadweight teachers and you have OUSD wasting millions on bad teaching. A central office wonk told me that the collateral damage of bad teaching is huge, that lawyers and armies of HR workers are scrambling from one bad teacher meltdown to another in the district office.
We’ll go the way of Greece before long because we can’t afford this broken joke of a system. The pro-union argument is so pathetic and groundless. IF you’re truly pro-teacher, you’re anti union and pro kid.
Who cares where the rules came from. If it is tenured or job protected. It’s JUNK. And it’s not sustainable. GREECE, baby!
Seniority is SHAMEFUL AND WRONG.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
JR, I corrected one part of your argument, the origin of laws setting procedures for dismissing teachers. Instead of acknowledging your mistake, you bring up another subject entirely (the current political power of unions) and then accuse me of not telling the complete truth about it.
Unions do have political power, thank goodness. The voters in California recognize that adequate funding for education is important, and that is why all the union backed candidates for state-wide office won, and those that endorsed positions you promote lost.
For someone who endlessly posts about how hard it is in the “real world” and how employees in the private sector have to work so hard, you seem free to post at all hours of the day. Is your full-time job attacking unions? That would explain a lot.
February 8th, 2011 at 8:37 am
In post #67 I mistyped the number of years after dismissal laws went into effect that teachers won collective bargaining. It should have said almost 50 years, not 70. Sorry.
February 8th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Steven,
My job is IT and I have a computer available at all times, it’s a requirement of doing my job. I have job tasks that must be completed, there is no fuzziness or excuses.I am only as good as my last day,week and month. Unlike teachers I have not earned privilege,and retirement and ownership of my job after some years. Unions were necessary at one time, but they have devolved into a type of mafia, just look at the auto workers(higher pay, yet lower quality work and more expensive product).No pride, no responsibility(it’s always somebody else’s fault), and no repercussions because of union protection. All anybody needs to do is open their eyes and look at the results, and ask parents has your child made progress this year or not?
February 8th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Steven,
BTW that article addressed laws and procedures, and they benefit teachers not children, and thats why they are not changed(and unions use politics to have any changes scrapped). Politicians are on the take, so that is no surprise. No ethics, no morals, to heck with the children just keep our tax money rolling in to the special interest. Bad news though taxpayers money is drying up, and you are running out of other peoples money, what will you do? When seniority is finally felled you can’t really use the excuse that less experienced,cheaper teachers are less capable because the results aren’t great right now as it is.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:49 am
JR:
People keep saying things like, “the money is running out.” That is simply untrue. I, and most people, can afford to have their state taxes doubled. Would I have to cut back in other areas? Sure. Though I imagine that Californians as a whole spend more money on luxury cars than on state taxes.
Now, would doubling state taxes be a good thing? Perhaps not. But the choice not to spend more money on state government is just that – a CHOICE. No one HAS to drive a $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 car. Thus, it is not an economic inevitability that state revenues remain at or below current levels, and to say otherwise is a failure to take responsibility for our decisions.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:30 am
“All anybody needs to do is open their eyes and look at the results, and ask parents has your child made progress this year or not?”
Just some of the Students who had no problem “progressing” through OUSD:
http://publicportal.ousd.k12.ca.us/19941068153215263/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=57377
http://publicportal.ousd.k12.ca.us/19941068153215263/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=57381
http://publicportal.ousd.k12.ca.us/19941068153215263/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=57368
http://publicportal.ousd.k12.ca.us/19941068153215263/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=57373
February 8th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
JR, having done both, let me tell you something that should inform your critique of teachers: Teaching in OUSD is ten times more difficult emotionally, physically, and mentally than IT, and the working conditions are ten times worse.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
I am all for firing abusive and crap teachers. No child should be neglected or abused in school, especially by adults. I have seen it as a parent, as a teacher and as student.
However, the system doesn’t have the will to do it. Since you are not interested in how we got here, I won’t tell you why I believe that is.
If it did have the will to “clean house,” it would have two options:
– Produce and retain qualified administrators who can see a meaningful contractual review process through to the end, and employ enough of them to manage the 10-200 teachers at each site.
– Offer teachers alternate benefits in a trade to decrease job security protections.
Carrots work better than sticks, imo. If you give teachers structured paths to improve or even offer retraining to get them out of the classroom when they are burnt out, that might also help.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
This is a much better indicator of performance
http://www.ed-data.org/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=/Articles/Article.asp?title=FAQ%20Data
From OUSD
Student Ethnic and Racial Distribution
African American: 36.5%
Hispanic or Latino: 33.7%
Asian: 15.3%
White (not Hispanic): 6.8%
Multiple or No Response: 5.4%
Pacific Islander: 1.2%
Filipino: 0.8%
American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.4%
OUSD has been at or near the bottom in performance for more than a decade(in California API numbers), and frankly, if it were not for the hills kids bumping up the avg this district would be at the bottom with LAUSD(and this really saddens me and makes me angry). lack of basic skills mastery, social promotion, and dumbing down of curriculum are all to blame for this mess.
February 8th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Cranky,
There were essentially no sticks before NCLB. From the late sixties to the present day we have collectively slid and leveled out. Every district has a budget(in name only), and the more employee’s you have the more of your budget is used. If many of those employees are highly paid even more of the budget is used up. You cannot have everyone be highly paid and expect to cover those expenses, it won’t work(you still have practical matters heating and cooling and so forth). Something has to give, like the small schools experiment with all the extra admin and teachers janitors etc. Schools in some parts of Oakland have extra expenses(security)and thats not cheap. I really feel sorry for the good and great teachers out there who not only do their job but sometimes the job of an incompetent co-worker as well. As if thats not bad enough they have to stand by and watch a noble profession dragged into the mud by some idiots who wont do their job.
February 8th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Cranky: Cleaning house on the teachers means nothing if we don’t clean house on the bad students.
Actually, I’d do the students first. I have more faith in the teachers. And that’s not saying so much in this instance. The major problem with OUSD is the students. No one should be in an academic high school reading at 6th grade level or below. And I’d be willing to set the bar higher than that after I see what difference the 6th grade (using the national scoring averages) makes. It’s possible that a more than 7th grade literacy bar would not give you enough OUSD students to even fill Skyline. Or would it? Anybody have the stats on this?
February 8th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Nextset, Students in California have not taken a nationally normed test since 2002, but on that test more than 40% of high school students in Oakland were scoring above the 25th percentile for their grade levels, which would mean they would be well above a 6th grade reading level. (A ninth grader who is at the 25th percentile for 9th grade nationally would score at least at the 50th percentile on the sixth grade test, probably higher.) That would be more than 3,000 students.
Harold, Thank you for posting the links to Oakland graduates accepted in colleges. Despite the district’s challenges and short-comings many of our students are excelling and deserve to be celebrated.
February 8th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Cranky,
I already know how we got here, as I have posted before, we encouraged irresponsible people to procreate by giving them subsidized shelter,food,money and a means to do so. Now we are inundated by kids who are poor, and or live poor lives and don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel. They just don’t care, because they think it doesn’t matter.
February 9th, 2011 at 7:44 am
Quite seriously, people, why does these blog comments ALWAYS devolve, whatever the initial post, into a pissing contest about the evils or non-evils of the mythological “tenure”?
I work in OUSD with students on the autism spectrum, and even the one who inevitably skews conversations towards his imaginary cattle company has a more diverse range of comments to make.
I get that there are folks on here who may have no other fora for expressing their concerns about our current system, and that writing an angry comment may feel like direct action. But reducing every topic Katie brings to your table to a rant against the one thing you’ve chosen to rail at honestly just makes you sound limited and tired.
Show up at a specific Board meeting and make specific comments about the evaluation procedures: take it to the State. Write an op-ed piece and shop it around. If your kid has what you see as a subpar teacher, make specific noises to specific people, and then make those same noises to the folks above THEM. But please, stop making it look like every single issue in education is connected to lemon teachers with obscene job protections–it may be emotional, but it isn’t the reality.
February 9th, 2011 at 8:08 am
Turanga_teach,
Hear, hear!
February 9th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Turanga_teach, thank you for making an excellent point. The constant rehashing of the same issues makes the site less interesting and will depress readership.
Nextset, I’ve been thinking about the figure I suggested for the minimum number of high school students reading at the sixth grade level or higher, and I remember another method that could be used which would give a much higher number. The State Department of Education has used CST results to determine those two or more years behind grade level, and I believe they say that students who score Below Basic or Far Below Basic fall in that category. That would mean that only 37% of ninth graders in Oakland are reading below a seventh grade level. I know some high schools administered the Scholastic Reading Inventory to their students in past years. Those results might shine some light on your question. Does anyone have those results?
February 9th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Not a reality?
Example: SB 691, and SB 1280 – bills to lessen some of the “ironclad” favortism given to teacher with seniority “not necessarily better” just more seniority, and were both killed before any vote was taken.
Example: In NYC only 3 teachers were fired for incompetence in two years(they really cleaned house).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/education/24teachers.html?_r=1
I would love to know California numbers but I am still looking, and I wonder why they are so hard to find?
Mythology? NO, while tenure is a misnomer, in the end the result is the very same and just as real as gravitation itself. Pretty much a job for life(no matter how good or bad you are) except in a few instances.
It’s reality!
February 9th, 2011 at 11:39 am
Turanga Teach:I agree with most of what you have said. My daughter had the same third and fourth grade teacher. The teacher said that she did not know much of the fourth grade content herself. She taught little science in third or fourth grade, about three-quarters of the math in third grade, a little less in fourth grade, no reading instruction or reading comprehension and did not even test for reading fluency after the initial assessment at the beginning of the year, she did not teach the prefixes, suffixes, root words and word roots and she did not teach writing at all. If it were not for the student teacher in third grade teaching poetry – identifying different types of poetry and actually writing poetry – it would not have been taught at all.
I spoke to the principal. We asked the principal to sit in on our parent teacher conferences, we asked parents who were credentialed teachers themselves to teach writing workshops, we appealed to other parents, we met with the principal separately, we arranged for the school site money to send the teacher to a workshop in teaching reading to urban kids (the teacher took the sub, had us pay for the course and she never showed up), and we talked to officials at the district. The only thing we did not do, and it is squarely on my shoulders as a parent for making this mistake, we did not file a Williams complaint as we should have.
This year, my daughter had to take an entrance exam to get into middle school. The exam results specifically state that the questions ranged from easiest to most difficult and from grade three through grade six in difficulty and standardization. When we got the results we were nothing short of shocked. My daughter who scores in the high “Advanced” category on the California STAR tests scored incredibly low on, you guessed it, the reading comprehension portion, the word analysis portions of the test. What is unique about the results of this test is that you get a score, but you also get a plus for the answers that are correct and a minus for the incorrect answers. You see a series of pluses, then a long string of minuses (say third and fourth grade worth of minuses) and then pluses again. The last set of pluses are from a VERY strong fifth grade teacher who is attempting to make up for the incompetence of the third and fourth grade experiences.
Turanga Teach: Short of filing the Williams complaint and going on television at a school board meeting, what else do you suggest? I am truly open to suggestions because I feel for the students and the parents that follow along and have the same teacher. The only saving grace for them is they will have her only in fourth grade. Please give me your suggestions, I welcome them.
February 9th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Debora,
I can relate to your situation, my child lost a year, and it wasn’t easy getting her back on track, but now she is. Do those teachers you discuss have reputations for being poor teachers(my daughters did) all complaints from several parents were brushed aside as well. I joined parents in lobbying the legislature for tenure modification(which was a last resort) because principals felt that documentation wise and procedurally the hearing board is always expensive and never a lock. Unfortunately multiple bills were politically gamed and never voted on(very un-American BTW).
February 9th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Deborah, Write your School Board member.
February 9th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Livegreen,
Good suggestion, but I hope she gets more than the “lip service” and no action that our group of parents got. We were politely ignored and buried.
February 9th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Williams is not meant to deal with poor teachers. When looking at staffing, their oversight is that the teacher has the proper credential needed to teach that subject or grade. An intern credential means you are considered highly qualified. A full credential in that subject area or grade means the same. Williams (aka ACLU) will not take on the subject of poor teachers.
February 9th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
I think the readership needs to be depressed.
If 40% of 9th graders are at a 6th grade reading level, we are in serious trouble in this city.
CST Scores correlate to life expectancy in Alameda county.
Bigger picture, the United States has less than 5% of the world’s population and 23.4% of the world’s prison population.
This is a disaster of epic proportions and if we want to not get depressed, we should change this system. If we continue to value adult job rights over the education of our youth, we’ll elect more puppets like W and Momma Grizzly.
We are in trouble.
February 9th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Oakland Teacher: While this teacher is credentialed, she did so when she did not have to take a CBEST or a CSET and indeed when she attended her now accredited university it was not accredited. She stated to the students on numerous occasions that she did not know the grammar she was to teach, nor did she “know fractions and decimals” and she did not know the science concepts and would not help students locate the information.
It is my limited understanding that Williams states that the teacher needs to be highly qualified. If the teacher does not demonstrate she knows the material and she is not willing to teach the material a Williams complaint on file at least requires the district and the principal to respond to the complaint in a stated, mediatory time frame.
Livegreen: I will contact Gary Yee this week.
February 9th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Debora:
“The legislation implementing the Williams settlement requires that every school district provide a uniform complaint process for complaints regarding insufficient instructional materials, unsafe or unhealthy facility conditions, and teacher vacancies and misassignments.” http://www.decentschools.org/settlement_action.php
The “highly qualified teacher” requirement is from “No Child Left Behind,” and “highly qualified” is a bit of a misnomer; it requires only this: “To be deemed highly qualified, teachers must have: 1) a bachelor’s degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach.” http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html What level of knowledge satisfies the last criterion, I don’t know (though it sure sounds like the teacher in question might fall short).
February 10th, 2011 at 7:32 am
#3 “…Know each subject area” means that you have passed the CSET in that area (or equivalent test earlier). It is about technically meeting the criteria as highly qualified. We all know that it does not mean that you are an effective teacher.
“Highly qualified” is a doublespeak invented by NCLB, and does not mean what it sounds like. It just means having the proper credential. It means you can’t teach high school with a multiple subject credential, you can’t teach Math without a math authorization, etc… An intern credential is legally always considered “Highly Qualified.” It does not mean you know anything about teaching, or the subject area, except as demonstrated by passing one of the CSET exams (although I don’t think you could pass the single subject ones unless you knew the subject well). The multiple subject exam is not that difficult to pass, as it is more of a general knowledge test. But ultimately, the worth of a teacher is not their ability to answer test questions, but their ability to reach students.
I am not saying parents shouldn’t complain when a teacher is doing a poor job. Just that Williams is not there to weed out bad teachers, only ones who do not have the proper credential. The really positive result of Williams in terms of teachers, is that a district is no longer able to assign subs working under an emergency credential for the long term (more than 30 days) to a class. OUSD used to have far more of that, and it was especially prevalent in schools with a high percentage of students of color. The down side of that is that you can end up with a revolving door of subs, 30 days each if they are not appropriately credentialed. All in all, it has gotten much better. As a parent in OUSD, my kids have had some zinger teachers (along with many extraordinary ones), and I have learned to speak up, uncomfortable though it may be.
I do want to say (although I hate to feed into the anti-teacher chanters) that I have seen teachers fired after they already had tenure. It takes a principal who is willing to work endlessly going through the steps. Most principals are not willing to bother. Many principals don’t bother really doing the hard work to weed out or retrain new teachers either, and end up just passing them along, just like we are forced to do with students. I can’t blame them, as they already have an impossible job, but I have really admired every principal I have seen who was willing to do the hard, dirty, and thankless task of weeding out really sub-standard teachers. All the people who say once you have tenure, you are set for life – you are wrong. It is not true.
February 10th, 2011 at 7:37 am
`Gordon: I think my question is this – sometimes as a parent I feel helpless when it comes to making my daughter’s school a place for learning.
In our family, over the course of the last 6 years (k-5), my daughter has had one or both parents volunteer a minimum of 15 hours per month. We thought we were doing what we needed to do to support her education – we get her to school on time, have her participate in the annual oratorical, science fair, spelling bee and volunteer days. She works on the safety patrol. With the exception of one day in six years she has her homework done. We make her dental appointments at 7:30 am so she is at school at time – doctors visits are always scheduled after 3:30 or on the weekend. We pay for summer classes to make up for what has not been taught during the school year in writing, science or math. We make sure that our daughter provides the district with high test scores because it matters to our school and to OUSD.
When we document our needs for having a teacher teach what is in the textbooks and will be tested, when we spend hours and hours doing so, our need to have our daughter educated falls short. The response is quite simply not adequate. As a parent I want a way, short of leaving the district, to have a time-frame I can count on, a process by which we can work with a teacher to provide an adequate education for my daughter. And I feel that the teacher, the principal, the school and the district let us down.
I know the teacher has a process for which she pays monthly to give her due process. I, too, wish as a parent I could pay a monthly fee to give us the same due process when it comes to our daughter’s public education.
February 10th, 2011 at 8:01 am
Debora:
I absolutely agree that there needs to be a better system for identifying “lower echelon” teachers and getting them to do better or, if that doesn’t happen in a timely manner, easing them into another profession.
But one alarm bell does go off when I see you make a reference to “having a teacher teach what is in the textbooks and will be tested,” because that which is tested is not necessarily what should be taught. What should be taught is what is in the state standards, but in some disciplines (eg: social studies) the state tests only the CONTENT standards, not the THINKING standards. And the state does not seem to test writing at all in a meaningful way (no one does, not even AP tests, since AP test grades are so heavily influenced by mutltiple choice. IB seems to test writing, though).
So before we start judging teachers, we need either better tests OR a system of evaluating teachers based on rigor, etc. Otherwise, we will not be making any progress — we will at best only be changing the very bottom of the system (ie,. the very worst teachers).
So, I would love to see parents push the district/the state etc to implement better testing. There are better testing regimens out there, but they are a bit pricy (tho perhaps not beyond the price of committed parent fundraisers)
February 10th, 2011 at 11:06 am
Gordon: I originally was going to refer to the state standards in my post. I should have. In the past when I have referred to the California state standards in a post I have been told by teachers on the blog that the standards are convoluted, and that the information will be looped – that is fifth grade human anatomy will be readdressed in seventh grade adding more depth to the knowledge or teaching the gaps in knowledge.
So, to be very clear our family expected the state standards to be taught in fourth grade. Below are the state standards my daughter was particularly looking forward to learning in fourth grade. First, because she has wanted to learn Latin since she was in first grade, we looked up the state standards and found that she would be learning Greek and Latin root words and word roots as well as prefixes and suffixes. She was thrilled; it was to be the first small step in her Latin journey.
She was going to learn to write an essay, not just creative writing, but she was finally going to write expository essays, the kind that she could use to clearly explain her scientific ideas.
Science, oh the fourth grade science, there was the rock cycle and my daughter thought about how some of the mythical creatures were invented to explain volcanoes and unexplored ocean depths, and she would be able to observe the differences between plants that grew in fresh water were different from those in salt water. She wanted to learn about magnets and she wondered if magnetic strength differed in the air, in salt water and in fresh water.
Next, was math, just as she viewed the learning of phonics as the “baby steps” in learning to read, computation was the “baby steps” in mathematics to her. She finally, according to the state standards, would move beyond simple computation to be able to use mathematics, and the metric system, to be able to graph and mathematically demonstrate her ideas about science.
We promise her she could learn Latin in middle school because after her school librarian introduced the students to Greek and Roman mythology, gods and goddess, and after Annie, the scientist mother of a classmate, reinforced that there is a “language of science” my daughter was hooked. Really hooked, on math and science – the marriage of all other subjects – vocabulary, writing, reading comprehension (reading was necessary in understanding how to set up science investigations, after all) – and the math, oh, the math.
None of it happened. Everything I described here – not one piece of it was taught by the classroom teacher. None. You don’t need a newly designed state test; you don’t need more oversight to know as a classroom teacher in California you are required to teach the California state standards. We had parents volunteering in the class every day. We reviewed each paper my daughter brought home. We reviewed her notebooks. We were at the school weekly looking at what was in the classroom – word walls as there were in other classrooms – were nonexistent.
Every piece of writing, every report, everything was marked in red ink “Read for content only.” Not one piece of writing in two years was peer edited or teacher edited.
When my daughter took the entrance exam for private middle school, the ISEE, she walked out crying. She said, “Mom, the questions were about vocabulary using prefixes and suffixes. There were words I didn’t know and the teacher told us to pick out what they main word was to help identify the meaning. I didn’t know mom; I just didn’t know.” I assured her that because she scored so highly on the CST in ELA and math she would be fine. But in the end, in the reading comprehension and vocabulary sections she was not fine. She knew what she had not been taught, and what she had not learned.
I am ashamed of myself as a parent for not being a better advocate. I am ashamed of the principal for not standing up to the teacher and the union and requiring weekly lesson plans addressing the state standards. Most of all I am ashamed of her teacher for wasting an opportunity to teach students who are eager and willing to learn, who come to school every day rested, fed and with homework in hand. I am ashamed that I did not do everything in my power, to give my daughter the education the state of California says she is entitled to have with the funding they provide.
The state standards are the BARE MINIMUM to which children in this state are entitled to be taught. The state standards are not the top, but the bare minimum. For children who go to school ready to learn the teacher should have to teach the state standards, children should be taught the information.
If a teacher has time, as this one did, to show Disney and Star Wars movies when some students begged her to sit at a back table and read or write, when she has time to pass out candy every week, when she has time to use her professional development time to stay home, she has time to teach the standards. And I, as a parent, should have found a way to hold her to teaching the minimum state standards. That is where I was remiss as a parent.
February 10th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Debora,
It’s not your fault, it’s a problem with the education system. There are very fine caring and loving teachers, but there are some who picked the wrong profession. There is too many layers of admin and staff(the dept. of education is darn near useless). The system has been turned from education to nothing more than a job corp. Too many people who just aren’t “kids first” type of people. The horrible parenting from people who shouldn’t even be parents is a big problem as well. They won’t even give their own kids the time of day. Too many self centered,self absorbed people just make things even worse.
February 10th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Debora: We had a similar situation at our other wise good elementary school. Three principals in five years did not help the situation. We are finding the situation better in middle school. I suggest you use your experience in elementary school to advocate for your daughter in middle school. That is what we have chosen to do. Good luck to you.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Debora: I read your post #108. I suppose you got what you paid for. It seems to me that OUSD and such districts clearly work to the lowest common denominator. If one placed a bright child in such a district, this is what is going to happen.
Most probably no amount of our blogging about all this can turn it around. One of my close friends who was an office holder said to me a few years ago (when the economy broke) that people need to understand, THESE are the good years. Those in elected positions (and economic historians?) generally understand things are going to get (steadily, quickly) much worse.
Most likely there is just no reason to believe OUSD and Los Angeles USD are going to be improving. Quite the opposite. And if the state had done anything to prevent this state of affairs it would not be California. Permissiveness means permission to fail.
Vote with your feet. And don’t let school get in the way of your daughter’s education.
Brave New World.
February 10th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Debora,
In evaluating ISEE scores it is vital to remember that students are being compared only to students taking this exam, usually the top students at their grade levels. It is very common for students who generally score at the 90th percentile on nationally normed tests to score below the 70th percentile on the ISEE. This test is designed to rank the very best students, so it must contain some extremely difficult questions, and your daughter should understand that and not feel bad about being unable to answer some of them. If you have not yet heard from the school that you are applying to, you may be pleasantly surprised when you do. What strikes you as a low score may be quite satisfactory to them.
I went to the ISEE website to research this response, and I noted there that the reading comprehension test is the one test that is not arranged with the easiest questions first, so a group of incorrect answers in that test do not reflect a problem with instruction at a given grade level. The order of the questions in that section are determined by the order of the reading selections, each of which have some easy and some harder questions. A group of wrong answers in a row probably result from a selection about a topic your daughter was unfamiliar with, which happens to most students.
Here are two websites with more information about ISEE scores:
http://erblearn.org/uploads/media_items/understanding-the-individual-student-report-for-families.original.pdf
http://www.eduqna.com/Standards-Testing/2509-standards-11.html
I wish the best for you and your daughter.
February 11th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Steven: Thank you for your kind wishes.
Just to be clear when I say she did not score well in two areas in scored in the bottom 10%. This is a child who has the capability of scoring much, much higher when the material is taught. Of course we will make sure that she is taught these skills outside her public school. If we cannot afford the services we will barter for them.
My point is that there are many students for whom outside tutoring or help outside the public classroom is not an option. When we allow classroom teachers to simply refuse to teach the state content standards we are doing a disservice to those students, the future teachers of the students and to our society who count on skills being taught.
February 11th, 2011 at 7:48 am
Steven: I should have been more clear CST – top 2%. ISEE bottom 10%.
February 11th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
I am struggling to convey what is I am frustrated, sad and disappointed with. I will try here one last time. It is not the lack of teaching of one teacher, or the lack of change in one principal.
I know that many students go through Oakland Unified School District and go on to top named colleges and universities. I know that overall students can receive a good education in Oakland if parents or guardians pay attention, make sure their students have good teachers at the school. I know there are the top 10% and the bottom 10% of anything: schools, teachers, businesses, restaurants, anything. This whole outline of mine has nothing to do with the college or university into which she is accepted.
I am talking about a life worth living, about the DESIRE to learn, and the promises made and kept or not kept to students who LIVE to learn, not those who learn to live. I am not talking about merely getting enough good education to get in to a grand university. I am talking about those children who so desire to learn that when something new is introduced in their classrooms, communities, Saturday language school, churches, mosques, temples, or home that they simply MUST learn more.
I have this type of child. I love this type of child. I nurture this type of child. But, I cannot do it alone. I rely on the educational community to do what they say they will do, not for the sake of a test score and not for the university education but to help create an educated life worth celebrating.
When I am wished luck in getting into a private school, a school in another district, a middle school in Oakland, I accept those well wishes as though it is the university education and the path to that education that I seek. While it is a lovely sentiment and an appreciated one, it is the enthusiasm for foreign language, abstract thinking, questions with out pat answers, joy from an educational community commensurate with the joy and effort she places in that community that I and my daughter are seeking.
As a community we seem to expect students to wait until latter middle school and high school to have this experience. What I see is the light and hope dim as the year’s pass and teachers will not engage a student respectfully in this deep way.
What has happened, is that over time a lack of respect for the adult teachers who do not accept their responsibly to guide and nurture each student to the fullest potential of the student’s desire to know, ability to think deeply and thoughtfully and to teach knowledge and thoughtful academic behavior for its own sake, builds in children by the time they reach middle school. And in doing so, children are less likely to put their whole emotional, intellectual and psychological effort out to several teachers when they have not seen the whole emotional, intellectual and psychological effort given to them by the teachers in the past.
Perhaps this fire inside the child is unique to only a few. If so, I am truly fortunate to have many of them in my daughter’s and my life. Intellectual curiosity is what my daughter possesses now; it is what I am working to nurture and grow for a lifetime.
February 11th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Debora: While it’s clear your child is terribly important to you, she is only one child in the school she attends and in the classes she sits. The amount of time and energy a teacher can give your child is dependent on the rest of the children in that class and that school. Are they scoring similar to your child? Are they as well behaved as your child? Do they have family similar to your child?
If the schools are one-size-fits-all with children sitting next to other children years apart in accomplishment and cognitive skill, the brighter children are not likely to get attention.
Which is why segregated schools – by age, sex, scores, interest in lab science or theatre – make sense to a lot of people.
Does the child you speak of fit comfortably within the average for her classes? Or is she an outlier? Is she a good fit for the students she shares classes with?
It seems to me that you either want more from the faculty, or feel they are not doing what they should be doing. Do you feel they are serving the class as a whole badly – or does that enter into this equasion?
I am afraid funding is about to be really cut back. Class sizes will grow. It will probably be required that more students self-study and delivery the improvement in scores and performance from their own efforts at learning. Who knows, maybe the high schools will be forced to adopt the college type lecture halls with 300 kids getting lectures, being expected to do their own reading assignments, and come in for testing in large testing halls.
That’s what we do when there’s no money for the hand holding.
Brave New World.
February 11th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Nextset: She is within the top third of her class of 32 students. At least 10 – 12 other students show up every day with the same or similar skill set and the same or similar motivation. She is not unique in her peer group. If she was an outlier I would understand, but she is not. When you can ability group 1/3 of your class, it is not unreasonable to give the students a substantial assignment while the teacher works with the lowest ability group.
February 11th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
get. rid. of. deadweight.
if you disagree with the above statement, you are invested in keeping your job or the job of your friend, who cannot find another job because they are incompetent.
lose the deadweight everywhere: defense spending, wall street, union bloat, and other corporate lobbying interests. it’s all crap and it’s all ruining our country.
February 12th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Hi Debora (#97)
I apologize for not responding sooner–it’s been a crazy week in my school and my district’s public education experience for reasons surprisingly UNRELATED to tenure…
I genuinely sympathize with your difficult situation, and it truly sounds like you’ve done and are doing all you can do. What a blessing for your child–that intrinsic love of learning, that desire to learn more. I know of schools and teachers (yes, in Oakland!) who encourage that, classrooms where learning is appropriately differentiated to allow an access point for the gifted as well as those with more challenges. I still believe that there are places in our district where your daughter can be well-served by dynamic, committed educators: there are folks in the profession who want for kids like your daughter exactly what you do (heck, look at the teachers at Oakland School for the Arts who are teaching AP English on their own time before school.)
I can’t give you specific advice on what more to do in your situation: it is an issue, it needs to be addressed, and there are unfortunately a lot of obstacles (beyond OMG TENURE!) that make it hard to address with a 100% success rate every time. As another poster said, a Williams complaint is probably not the road to go on here: the issue isn’t whether that teacher had an appropriate credential, it’s whether or not evaluation, training, and disciplinary procedures have been followed if she is truly not appropriately placed. The secondary issue, to me, is whether a combo or looped class was an appropriate choice for the students and the teacher in your daughter’s situation (sounds like the teacher had reduced knowledge of one of the two grades she taught): unfortunately, budget cuts are making those more prominent, but there are huge difficulties to overcome in making them work.
Honestly, I’ve never experienced or spent time in a class where the standards aren’t being addressed. I know many, many educators (myself included) who have issues with the mile-wide-inch-deep nature of the current standards, and who are excited by the possibility of the Common Core State Standards initiative gaining power and acceptance. But that’s a different issue, unrelated to the initial post Katy made on consultant spending.
My best to you and your daughter. I didn’t mean, at all, that your situation and the situations of others with kids in ‘poor-fit’ classrooms, wasn’t something to be concerned about: my point is just that education, and the problems and opportunities thereof, is a lot bigger than the reductionist “tenure” squabble makes it seem.
April 21st, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Thank you for another magnificent article. Where else may anyone
get that type of information in such a perfect manner of writing?
I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I am at the look for such information.