Comments on: Parent Trigger: Coming to a school near you?

By: Nextset

Nextset — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:29:25 +0000

I’m afraid the cutbacks and school closures is just the manifestation of a public policy decision to end public schooling as it was practiced in the first half of the 20th Century.

Instead of the entire community’s children being educated in the same school system with segregated programs for the different tracks – which was done so the tracks (A,B&C) didn’t conflict with each other – we will now have totally different school systems for the different tracks. The different systems will be called Charters and the vastly smaller public schools will remain for the dregs who are refused or expelled from the Charters.

This means that children will disperse to the different school systems by Caste. Rather than start in the same system which would have selected higher functioning students for the college track, the slum children will go to the non-school public schools which will teach and reinforce indiscipline. Students from two-parent and middle class (those making over $150k) will be routed to real schools and never meet the lower caste students. A Brave New World, where people are born Alphas and Betas and never the twain shall meet. They go on to reproduce with fellow Alphas and Betas and work in occupations for Alphas and Betas. No upward social mobility.

To really get all this going we have to first remove all the higher functioning students from the public schools and shrink those schools – that’ll break the union also. Looks to me that’s well under way at OUSD with these closures.

When these budget cuts get finished combined with the inane “education” policy of the urban districts there will be little to no White, Jewish and Asian students in them. They will be permanently gone to the charters (and church/private schools). That seems to be the state plan. At some point the real teachers (guess which) will follow those kids out of the urban schools. Visualize OUSD and LAUSD in even 5 more years of this. Now imagine 15 more years.

It’s too bad we didn’t keep the OUSD education policy of 1962 (use of flunking and transfers to protect the good OUSD schools). And the cinnamon rolls in the Oakland Tech Cafeteria.

Brave New World.

By: Lisa Capuano Oler

Lisa Capuano Oler — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:35:30 +0000

Oh the irony!
As Oakland Unified prepares to close schools, none of the charters could even be considered because the are protected . Many of these schools are low performing schools. They were created as “school reform”. And now through the privatization process of public education they have quite a rigorous criteria to follow to be closed.
The children who currently go to schools being closed will not even have the “option” to attend the schools that are opening in their place.
Obviously the Oakland Education Association does not have the same amount of power as charters .

By: J.R.

J.R. — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:29:13 +0000

Sue,
In many districts in Alameda county, and the state at large(due to either no alternative charter schools, or restrictions on charters)many children are stuck in their neighborhood schools, and the money stays with the district. I was only making that point about Finland because it had been a union talking point. Oakland’s situation is different in this regard, but union power is still evident in many other district policies. Example: everyone will get a firsthand look at seniority/bumping and the musical teacher parade that will ensue. I hope I am wrong and the district can minimize this, but I doubt it with so many closures. everyone has already witnessed LIFO although not on a large scale yet(just wait, it’s not pretty).Wait until a seniority start date issue happens when they decide between two teachers hired on the same day and they choose by social security number and something else just as ridiculous.

By: Sue

Sue — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:41:35 +0000

J.R. you post here a lot, so I’m going to assume you’re familiar with the ADA acronym.

The money follows the student in OUSD. When my now-Skyline-freshman was pulled from our neighborhood school after four weeks in kindergarten and moved to Carl B Munck (long, ugly story), the ADA increase and the money went to Munck, and the neighborhood school lost them because it wasn’t doing the job.

So, could you please clarify your point about unions in Finland?

By: J.R.

J.R. — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:37:44 +0000

Caroline,
That is not at all compelling( as a matter of fact it is rooted solidly in parental issues), Randi Weingarten tried to make the exact same point about unionized states in a debate, and it didn’t go over well with the audience here is the link:

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/dont-blame-teachers-unions-for-our-failing-schools/

In another union talking point about Finland being unionized, pro union people fail to disclose that the tax money follows the children so if the school does not meet the child’s needs, the parents move the child and the school loses the money. Market forces at work.

These points are covered here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

By: J.R.

J.R. — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:54:46 +0000

Caroline,
There is nothing compelling about that at all, this exact point has been made by Randi Weingarten in the intelligence squared debate(she lost big time). This has more to to with parental issues, unions only carve out rights for members, and students are not union members. You can watch the debate here and see for yourself. Everyone should watch this!

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/dont-blame-teachers-unions-for-our-failing-schools/

or here

http://vimeo.com/10396620

Before you bring up the Finland and unionization point, do not forget that in Finland the money follows the child, and if the school isn’t doing their job the child moves on and they lose the money. That is covered here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

By: CarolineSF

CarolineSF — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:17:09 +0000

Actually, JR, Sharon DID mention the students, with the most compelling point there is in this debate. She pointed out (recasting her words) that student achievement is lowest in the least-unionized states — those where teachers can be fired at will — and highest in the states with strongest unions — those where teachers have the highest job security.

The correlation is clear. Correlation does not equal causation, but this proves that the ability to fire teachers at whim does NOT improve student achievement.

This is all about the well-being of students, and that’s the point Sharon was making, with concern for students at the very heart of her comment.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:34:46 +0000

Sharon,
Did you realize that nowhere in your little diatribe did you even mention the children, and that speaks volumes. I used to be on the side of the union, because they used to stand for something(prior to the 70′s), but now I just support the great teachers out there because they deserve support. Some day soon you might open your eyes wide and see the truth as it really is, The unions are no better than those corporatists that you love to hate. The unions have always been in the way and obstructed any meaningful policy changes in the best interest of the taxpayers and kids. They are laughing all the way to the bank when good hardworking teachers are in the trenches, they buy politicians and make union dues mandatory even if you opt out(just like the mafia). When as a organization the unions put in place onerous procedures that make it extremely burdensome to discipline and or fire incompetent teachers. They put in place policies that reward simple longevity and a person putting the evidence together can only conclude that union dues(taxpayer money) is the number one concern. That is why they hate the charters so much, they think they own the tax money and they don’t want anyone else to receive the money. Parents pay the tax money and they should decide where to spend it, you need to do your job. The public schools have failed us(with exceptions) for decades, we taxpayers pay amongst the top rate in taxes toward education on a world wide basis, but our results are mediocre at best. It’s all about the money and not the kids.

http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/opinions_on_education/54478.html?print

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:56:53 +0000

No I dont know their actual power…do you?

Look…unions are massive yes…but the new refromers are also a charge of money, influence and power aimed at the school reform mantra simply due to the attention and market share it will generate as these schools are taken over by the MBA’s of the world. Look at all of the major charter organizations JR, who runs them? I bet you they arent brown or black, or fomer inner city dwellers!

How much would you guess to say the new brand of charter school leaders have MBA’s.I see the evolution and dont stand on either side, cause to be honest….I aint stupid!MBA’s know one thing…business growth!

Technolgies, facilties, and lending….all market trends in education….you think Reed Hastings, Broad, Aspire, Kipp and all of those heroes dont know??
I hate unions and public education as it stands now just as musch, but lets not think that charter schools are little ducklings either!

Students and families (yes those meddlesome excuse searching parents as well) are all duped.

Better teach em mandarin and spanish….the future is labor over there!

By: Sharon

Sharon — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:42:21 +0000

As far as unions go, it makes A LOT more sense to me to support a group that’s lobbying for fair hours, pay, benefits, and rights of 3,219,458 working people (= the number of U.S. public school teachers) rather than supporting phony organizations formed and funded by a few members of the corporate plutocracy.

Remember the middle class, members of whom are the teachers whom the billionaire-funded propaganda has made oh-so-popular-to-trash? Or are we too far along in our 21st-century transformation into an increasingly chaotic, neo-feudal society?

Here is a reminder about the trend. In the 1950’s and 60’s, the CEO’s of major American companies took home about 25 to 30 times the wages of the typical worker, and 36% of the United States labor force was unionized.

By 1990, the big company CEO took home roughly 100 times the worker’s wage and our labor force was down to 16%.

In the 2000s, executives at the largest American companies received about 350 times the pay of the average employee and only 13% of our labor force was unionized.

The United States is now one of the most economically stratified societies in the western world. A 2008 study found that the top .01% — or 14,000 American families — hold 22.2% of wealth. The bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, control just 4% of the nation’s wealth (h/t Bill Moyers Journal).

Either by international or state comparison, student achievement HAS NO CORRELATION to if the teachers are unionized, or not. But there is greater well-being in places where parent workers are properly cared for. I’m coming to believe that union haters don’t look at the evidence b/c they have some personal bone to pick.