UT opinion article on SB 1021 and Prop 30

[an]

[quote=CA renter]The problem, once again, is that a disproportionate majority of the university track students would be white/Asian (and wealthier, in general), and the vocational track would be black/Hispanic (and poorer, in general) if they tried to replicate this system in the US. How do you respond to accusations of racism?[/quote]Easy, when it start, just tell those doubter that it’s no different than it is today. Just look at the demographic of those who are being incarcerated and the demographic of those who are in higher education and the demographic of those blue collar workers. Then hopefully, 5-10 years from now, you can show that there will be less incarcerating due to the fact that people have the skills needed to work. If they work, they’d have less time to commit crime. If they work, they’ll pay more taxes and we spend less $ incarcerating people.

The elephant in the room is, the teacher’s union. Do you think they’ll go for such a drastic change? This would most likely reduce the amount of teachers needed. At least academic teachers. We would need more vocational “teachers”.
[quote=CA renter]But I would never advocate for it unless we had a third way that would enable these students and “late bloomers” to move to the university/college track. We would have to really strengthen the community college system (one of the greatest components of our educational system, IMO) so that kids and young adults could shift over if/when they want to do so.[/quote]What’s wrong with our current community college system? I think they’re great. If the demand increase, we can also expand them and hire more teachers. Today, anyone can sign up for classes to JC. So, anyone can change career quite easily.

[bearishgurl]

AN, if you don’t mind my asking, aren’t you raising your kid(s) in the exact same (or adjacent) neighborhood as the one you grew up in (so your family can have extended family nearby)?

If so, what exactly is your beef about the public schools there? Are any of YOUR old teachers still there to teach your kid(s)? Don’t the schools in your attendance area have pretty high API scores?

I mean, YOU turned out okay and made it into a UC and graduated, right??

I’m just wondering why this whole thread from the start consists of your complaints about your public schools and teacher’s unions.

As you know, my kid(s) graduated (the last one will in ~7 weeks) from SUHSD, here in SD County. I don’t have ONE SINGLE COMPLAINT about ANY of their teachers from K-12. Some were absolutely fantastic and ALL were/are very dedicated. My kid(s) went onto CSU (the youngest just accepted one of their admission offers this week), graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree and are successfully supporting themselves making more $$ than I EVER could.

You and I are NOT public school teachers so neither of us have walked in their shoes. I’m a lot of things, but a schoolteacher is not one of them. Nor am I remotely qualified to teach any HS subject (exc poss English Grammar and Composition). I so appreciate what all these dedicated public servants (incl those VERY EXPERIENCED and WELL-CONNECTED academic counselors) have done for my children or on their behalf!

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]The problem, once again, is that a disproportionate majority of the university track students would be white/Asian (and wealthier, in general), and the vocational track would be black/Hispanic (and poorer, in general) if they tried to replicate this system in the US. How do you respond to accusations of racism?[/quote]Easy, when it start, just tell those doubter that it’s no different than it is today. Just look at the demographic of those who are being incarcerated and the demographic of those who are in higher education and the demographic of those blue collar workers. Then hopefully, 5-10 years from now, you can show that there will be less incarcerating due to the fact that people have the skills needed to work. If they work, they’d have less time to commit crime. If they work, they’ll pay more taxes and we spend less $ incarcerating people.

The elephant in the room is, the teacher’s union. Do you think they’ll go for such a drastic change? This would most likely reduce the amount of teachers needed. At least academic teachers. We would need more vocational “teachers”.
[quote=CA renter]But I would never advocate for it unless we had a third way that would enable these students and “late bloomers” to move to the university/college track. We would have to really strengthen the community college system (one of the greatest components of our educational system, IMO) so that kids and young adults could shift over if/when they want to do so.[/quote]What’s wrong with our current community college system? I think they’re great. If the demand increase, we can also expand them and hire more teachers. Today, anyone can sign up for classes to JC. So, anyone can change career quite easily.[/quote]

I can’t speak for the teachers’ unions, but I have always favored a multi-track school system where students are guided toward subjects in which they are strongest. Makes all the sense in the world to me.

While we might lose some HS teaching positions, but vocational schools and junior colleges would probably have to expand, so I think it would pretty much even out over time.

And I was praising the junior college system, not bashing it; it’s one of the greatest components of our educational system. Just saying that it would need to be fully supported and expanded, if necessary, in order to help students who are late bloomers (many kids reach certain “maturity points” at different ages) or who have a change of mind at a later point. The argument from those who are opposed to tracking is that you “force” students in a direction, as opposed to letting them have a choice. While I agree that this is true, I feel that as long as students are given an option (like JC), then it can work in a way that is beneficial to almost everyone.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]AN, if you don’t mind my asking, aren’t you raising your kid(s) in the exact same (or adjacent) neighborhood as the one you grew up in (so your family can have extended family nearby)?

If so, what exactly is your beef about the public schools there? Are any of YOUR old teachers still there to teach your kid(s)? Don’t the schools in your attendance area have pretty high API scores?

I mean, YOU turned out okay and made it into a UC and graduated, right??[/quote]I turned out fine. But it’s not about me. I’m talking about public schools in general. I’m not saying all public school teachers are bad. Actually, most of the ones I had were good or great. So, it’s not about me specifically or where I live. But as a taxpayer and a parent, I want to get more for our tax $. I view that class size is hugely important. With this said, as I stated, for similar $/student, private school teacher to student ratio is a lot smaller. So, that’s where my beef is, class size. I want to see 10-1 for pre-K and K, I want to see 12-1 for 1-3rd grade, I want to see 24-1 for 3-12 grades.

My send beef is choice. I want more choice for ALL PARENTS, not just those who could afford it. I want parents to have options to private schools, charter schools, regular public schools (any public school), etc. I want to put the power in the parents hands in term of choice. They know their children best and they know how they want to raise their kids. I feel that the more we encourage involvement from parents, the better the results will be. I feel that there’s no 1 teaching method that works for all students. Some work well in a montessori environment, while others need more structure like a regular public/private school, while other thrives in a home school environment, while other needs even more structure, like a boarding school type of environment. As long as we set a fixed $ amount we, as a society, want to spend per student, I want to have the $ follow the student. My beef w/ public teachers and the teachers’ union is they’re gungho against this idea.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]The argument from those who are opposed to tracking is that you “force” students in a direction, as opposed to letting them have a choice. While I agree that this is true, I feel that as long as students are given an option (like JC), then it can work in a way that is beneficial to almost everyone.[/quote]I don’t think we should force them into a track and that they have to be in one track through 18 years of age either. If after a year or two, they’d like to switch, I would want to have a way for those student to switch. Obviously, they have to prove that they have the desire and the ability to keep up with other students as well. They shouldn’t have to wait till 18 to use JC to change their mind.

[CA renter]

In systems where the put students on a university or vocational track, they usually make the determination at around age 14. The schooling up until that part is the same, officially, although they might track by ability in some cases.

If the system is going to work, then the students would indeed be forced onto a certain track; otherwise, you’ll have the same situation that we have now where students who can’t/won’t keep up will be in the same classrooms as the students who can/want to learn.

Yes, they should have the ability to shift tracks even before 18 by having some kind of exam, but if they don’t pass, they would still be forced onto the vocational track. That’s why a lot of people would probably object.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]AN, if you don’t mind my asking, aren’t you raising your kid(s) in the exact same (or adjacent) neighborhood as the one you grew up in (so your family can have extended family nearby)?

If so, what exactly is your beef about the public schools there? Are any of YOUR old teachers still there to teach your kid(s)? Don’t the schools in your attendance area have pretty high API scores?

I mean, YOU turned out okay and made it into a UC and graduated, right??[/quote]I turned out fine. But it’s not about me. I’m talking about public schools in general. I’m not saying all public school teachers are bad. Actually, most of the ones I had were good or great. So, it’s not about me specifically or where I live. But as a taxpayer and a parent, I want to get more for our tax $. I view that class size is hugely important. With this said, as I stated, for similar $/student, private school teacher to student ratio is a lot smaller. So, that’s where my beef is, class size. I want to see 10-1 for pre-K and K, I want to see 12-1 for 1-3rd grade, I want to see 24-1 for 3-12 grades.

My send beef is choice. I want more choice for ALL PARENTS, not just those who could afford it. I want parents to have options to private schools, charter schools, regular public schools (any public school), etc. I want to put the power in the parents hands in term of choice. They know their children best and they know how they want to raise their kids. I feel that the more we encourage involvement from parents, the better the results will be. I feel that there’s no 1 teaching method that works for all students. Some work well in a montessori environment, while others need more structure like a regular public/private school, while other thrives in a home school environment, while other needs even more structure, like a boarding school type of environment. As long as we set a fixed $ amount we, as a society, want to spend per student, I want to have the $ follow the student. My beef w/ public teachers and the teachers’ union is they’re gungho against this idea.[/quote]

Parents DO have all of these options now, and most of them are funded publicly (including homeschooling, if one chooses to go that way). Teachers and their unions are not opposed to choice. They are opposed to having public money going toward private enterprises that are often not held to the same standards as public schools. Again, the right to a public education means that students have a right to an education at a public institution; it does NOT mean being able to use public money for whatever you want to do with it.

[CA renter]

AN, since you seem to think that unions and teacher tenure are the problem, can you point to any studies that compare outcomes from schools where teacher tenure/union is the rule vs. schools where teachers are at-will, non-union employees with no rights to due process?

Remember, the key is to compare apples to apples, so variables regarding student/parent demographics/SES, and teachers’ resources must be held constant.

————

Edited to add:

Let’s even assume that we would want to get rid of teacher tenure. This would mean that teacher turnover (already very high, especially among newer teachers) would rise even further. Do you have any evidence to show that if you were to fire 100 experienced (but supposedly deficient) teachers that the pool of 100 new teachers would be any better? Again, it’s very well known in education circles that new teachers have a very steep learning curve and that most new teachers are deficient when compared to experienced teachers.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Parents DO have all of these options now, and most of them are funded publicly (including homeschooling, if one chooses to go that way). Teachers and their unions are not opposed to choice. They are opposed to having public money going toward private enterprises that are often not held to the same standards as public schools. Again, the right to a public education means that students have a right to an education at a public institution; it does NOT mean being able to use public money for whatever you want to do with it.[/quote]This is exactly why I have beef with the public school teachers’ union. CAR, we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. I think all parents should be able to choose how their kids are educated, regardless of private or public. We don’t need to draw such a line for education. As long as it’s a good education for the same money. You and the teachers’ union obvious do want to draw that line, so we’ll just leave it here.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]AN, since you seem to think that unions and teacher tenure are the problem, can you point to any studies that compare outcomes from schools where teacher tenure/union is the rule vs. schools where teachers are at-will, non-union employees with no rights to due process?

Remember, the key is to compare apples to apples, so variables regarding student/parent demographics/SES, and teachers’ resources must be held constant.

————

Edited to add:

Let’s even assume that we would want to get rid of teacher tenure. This would mean that teacher turnover (already very high, especially among newer teachers) would rise even further. Do you have any evidence to show that if you were to fire 100 experienced (but supposedly deficient) teachers that the pool of 100 new teachers would be any better? Again, it’s very well known in education circles that new teachers have a very steep learning curve and that most new teachers are deficient when compared to experienced teachers.[/quote]I don’t know of any study, but I’ve seen “Waiting for superman” and the “Rubber room” was brought to my attention. There’s no guarantee that the teachers who replaces the teachers in the “rubber room” will be any better, but it can’t be any worse. So, it’s a upside with no down side. Why do you have to replace experienced teachers w/ new teachers? Why can’t you replace them with other experienced teachers?

But really, I’m not all that bothered by tenures and teachers union. I’m just bothered that they’re preventing competition and choice. The fact that the teachers’ union are as strong as they are, what they say goes. Especially in a state like CA. That’s where my beef is. If we have voucher system, then I don’t mind if the teachers’ union exist and there’s tenure for public school teacher. If those tenure teachers are really superior, then there’s really nothing to worry about.

[paramount]

[img_assist|nid=17989|title=Private Sector Worker Crushed|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=466|height=316]

[paramount]

[img_assist|nid=17990|title=Union Bully|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=465|height=320]

[paramount]

[img_assist|nid=17991|title=Prop 30|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=455|height=337]

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][img_assist|nid=17991|title=Prop 30|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=455|height=337][/quote]

How much lobbying does the privatization movement do? I can assure you it is spending far more money that teachers’ unions.

Why would they do that? Is it “for the children”? Hell no!

Good for Business; Kids Not So Much

While most education reform advocates cloak their goals in the rhetoric of “putting children first,” the conceit was less evident at a conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, earlier this year.

Standing at the lectern of Arizona State University’s SkySong conference center in April, investment banker Michael Moe exuded confidence as he kicked off his second annual confab of education startup companies and venture capitalists. A press packet cited reports that rapid changes in education could unlock “immense potential for entrepreneurs.” “This education issue,” Moe declared, “there’s not a bigger problem or bigger opportunity in my estimation.”

Moe has worked for almost fifteen years at converting the K-12 education system into a cash cow for Wall Street. A veteran of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, he now leads an investment group that specializes in raising money for businesses looking to tap into more than $1 trillion in taxpayer money spent annually on primary education. His consortium of wealth management and consulting firms, called Global Silicon Valley Partners, helped K12 Inc. go public and has advised a number of other education companies in finding capital.

Moe’s conference marked a watershed moment in school privatization. His first “Education Innovation Summit,” held last year, attracted about 370 people and fifty-five presenting companies. This year, his conference hosted more than 560 people and 100 companies, and featured luminaries like former DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and former New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein, now an education executive at News Corporation, a recent high-powered entrant into the for-profit education field. Klein is just one of many former school officials to cash out. Fenty now consults for Rosetta Stone, a language company seeking to expand into the growing K-12 market.

As Moe ticked through the various reasons education is the next big “undercapitalized” sector of the economy, like healthcare in the 1990s, he also read through a list of notable venture investment firms that recently completed deals relating to the education-technology sector, including Sequoia and Benchmark Capital. Kleiner Perkins, a major venture capital firm and one of the first to back Amazon.com and Google, is now investing in education technology, Moe noted.

The press release for Moe’s education summit promised attendees a chance to meet a set of experts who have “cracked the code” in overcoming “systemic resistance to change.” Fenty, still recovering from his loss in the DC Democratic primary, urged attendees to stand up to the teachers union “bully.” Jonathan Hage, CEO of Charter Schools USA, likened the conflict to war, according to a summary posted on the conference website. “There’s an air game,” said Hage, “but there’s also a ground game going on.” “Investors are going to have to support” candidates and “push back against the pushback.” Carlos Watson, a former cable news host now working as an investment banker for Goldman Sachs specializing in for-profit education, guided a conversation dedicated simply to the politics of reform.

Sponsors of the event ranged from various education reform groups funded by hedge-fund managers, like the nonprofit Education Reform Now, to ABS Capital, a private equity firm with a stake in education-technology companies like Teachscape. At smaller breakout sessions, education enterprises made their pitches to potential investors.

http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/corporateaccountability/1580/?page=entire

[CA renter]

The Waltons have long supported efforts to privatize education through the Walton Family Foundation as well as individual political donations to local candidates. Since 2005, the Waltons have given more than $1 billion to organizations and candidates who support privatization. They’ve channeled the funds to the pro-charter and pro-voucher Milton Friedman Foundation for Education Choice, Michelle Rhee’s pro-privatization and high-stakes testing organization Students First, and the pro-voucher Alliance for School Choice, where Walton family member Carrie Walton Penner sits on the board. In addition to funding these corporate-style education reform organizations, since 2000 the Waltons have also spent more than $24 million bankrolling politicians, political action committees, and ballot issues in California and elsewhere at the state and local level which undermine public education and literally shortchange students.

In 2006, Greg Penner, who married Carrie Walton Penner (daughter of Walmart chairman Rob Walton and granddaughter of Walmart founder Sam Walton) and serves on Walmart’s board, spent $250,000 to oppose a statewide ballot initiative that would have created a universal preschool system to give California’s children a much-needed leg up in early education. It also would have created thousands of good jobs for preschool teachers.

In Los Angeles alone, the Walton Family Foundation has donated over $84.3 million to charter schools and organizations that support them, such as Green Dot Schools, ICEF schools, and the Los Angeles Parent Union, as well as $1 million to candidates or political action committees which support diverting tax dollars away from public schools. They believe in high-stakes testing, hate teachers unions, want to measure student and teacher success primarily by relying on one-size-fits-all standardized tests, but have an entirely different set of standards when it comes to judging charter schools.

You’d think that the Waltons would invest in ideas that would improve education. But there’s little evidence that private charter schools and vouchers — the Waltons’ two big obsessions — are effective at boosting students’ learning outcomes. A 2009 study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University discovered that only 17 percent of charter schools provided a better education than traditional public schools. Thirty-seven percent actually offered children a worse education. In other words, on balance, charters make things worse, even though many of those schools “cream” the best students from regular public schools. Just this month, the same Stanford center released a study that called for stronger monitoring and review processes for charter schools.

Why Are Walmart Billionaires Bankrolling Phony School ‘Reform’ In LA?

[Author]

Posts