Archive for the ‘Schools’ Category

« Older Entries

Why We Chose a Charter Middle School

Saturday, August 20th, 2011

Photo: Stock Xchng/Bubbels

My youngest daughter starts middle school tomorrow. We’ll be waking up about an hour earlier than last year, I’ll be driving about 30 minutes completely out of my way, and she will start earlier and stay later. So why not the neighborhood middle school? Before she starts, I thought it would be good to write down my reasons for making this decision. As the year progresses, I’ll of course continue to post about how it really turns out.

Leaving what we know. My older daughter just graduated from the neighborhood middle school. While 8th grade was all right, 6th and 7th were not. She struggled both academically and socially. I had to change her counselor, she had to go back into therapy, and she had to go to summer school one year. While it could have gone worse, we barely made it through. It was only when she started to think about her future beyond middle school that she was able to start turning things around.  I was certainly motivated to do things differently this time around.

A trusted recommendation. We chose the charter middle school based on a recommendation by a very trusted educator friend of ours, and after checking it out for ourselves.

She wants to go there.  My daughter responded to the school enthusiastically, and that’s half the battle right there. She pored over the paperwork we’d been given, and the web site. She was excited to go back to school shopping and put her backpack together. We’ll see if it lasts, but her enthusiasm completely validates our decision.

The Parent Coordinator. Yes, that’s actually his title. I have his cell phone, his email, and he made sure to introduce himself when I first went to pick up the application. He has replied to each and every one of my multiple emails with my dozens of questions, thoughtfully and quickly. He even accepted some of the registration forms via email, understanding that it’s a drive for me to get there. He’s not the only one that’s been helpful. The Principal has also been friendly and knowledgeable, the woman in the front office has been helpful, and every teacher I’ve seen has been sure to nod and smile at me. Even a few of the kids stopped me one day and asked me about my child. They said they’d keep their eye out for her, and responded enthusiastically that they love their school.

The Advisory Period. I suppose this could also be considered homeroom, but the advisory class that my daughter will have every day will advise her not only on managing her homework schedule, but on thinking about colleges and her future. I think this will be a great tool in her transition from elementary school to high school prep and beyond.

The After-School Program. My oldest daughter used the City’s free bus program to get to her after-school program. That bus program has just been cut. At the charter middle school, there’s a free after school program on campus. They will have an activity for the first hour, then homework for the second, and other activities after that. I like that homework is in the 2nd hour, giving the students a break from school, but she’ll have both the time and assistance, and opportunities for other interests.

It will be a long year. Longer, in fact, than the neighborhood school because there are 10 more instructional days than the state requirements. I am bracing myself for the transitional period that will potentially involve tears and/or whining. Still, I have enough reasons to think that, in the end, our choice will be the right one.

April McCaffery is the single mother with 2 daughters, going into a charter middle school and an arts high school.

Tags: , ,
Posted in April McCaffery, Charter Schools, Parent Perspectives | 5 Comments »

Did W. Accomplish What He Intended To?

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

I was in the mortgage industry for eleven years, from 1996 – 2007. As part of my job, I paid attention to the various government reports that came out each month since they affected interest rates. In 2002, I noticed a disturbing trend that lasted up until I left in 2007: the jobs numbers were off. The trend may have started before 2002; that is simply when I put two and two together in my head.

At the time, the US working population grew by 150,000 people per month, so in order to maintain a stable rate of unemployment, the economy needed to add 150,000 new jobs per month. But over that five year period that I was watching, we only added an average of 120,000 per month.

Even more disturbing was the kinds of jobs drying up tended to be good paying jobs, like manufacturing, and the new jobs were lower paying, like retail store clerks. My industry was flooded with people displaced from fields that were gone for good, like travel agents. Then in 2007, the mortgage industry went away, too.

Of course, since the economy’s health was measured by consumer spending, it looked as if the economy was doing well because people were still spending like crazy. Games were played with the unemployment and inflation numbers to mask the growing problems. And in 2008, the house of cards fell.

In 2001, No Child Left Behind was enacted. Virtually everyone agrees it has been horrible for education. Instead of teaching cognitive thinking skills, kids are taught rote memorization. Instead of a well rounded education, schools focus only on subjects that are part of the testing. Teacher and school performance is now judged primarily on test scores. In an effort to get scores up, kids are given bigger quantities of homework geared at memorization, versus fewer quality assignments. It is a system that encourages cheating instead of rewarding genuine learning.

Recently, I have been wondering if the slide in quality of education at the same time as the slide in the quality of jobs was deliberate. The Bush administration was fully aware of the exodus of middle class jobs to other countries. They had to know those jobs were leaving for good.

Bush said he was enacting No Child left Behind to make sure that our children would receive the kind of quality education that would make our next generation competitive in the global work force. I guess he accomplished exactly that. Our kids have been trained to be good little robots — to spit back facts, not think for themselves, and not aspire for goals outside the box. They are perfect employees for the low end jobs that are becoming available in the global labor market.

I’ve also been wondering: If Americans fought for legislature and tax codes that encouraged companies to bring the jobs back, would education naturally follow? Would schools start adding classes to meet the needs of the up and coming work force? After all, weren’t vocational arts courses originally added to public schools to meet the needs of the job market at the time?

I think it is up to parents to get on the ball and demand these legislative and tax code changes because they government isn’t going to do it without our prodding.

Congress has been working on revamping No Child Left Behind for years, with no success. Shouldn’t they have thrown it out altogether when Race to the Top was implemented? Why are both programs in place?

And the Supreme Court recently rejected a case challenging the legality of No Child Left Behind.

Each one of us has a voice. Change will come if we demand it. It’s time to start demanding jobs be returned–not for our sake, for our kids’ sake.

image credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act.jpg/275px-No_Child_Left_Behind_Act.jpg

————–

Christi Grab is the author of The Unexpected Circumnavigation: Unusual Boat, Unusual People Part 1 – San Diego to Australia.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Christi Grab, Education Policy, Food for Thought, Schools | 7 Comments »

Truths are Subjective

Friday, July 29th, 2011

I’m simply not recognizing our own experiences in charter and alternative schools with what’s being portrayed in the latest educational documentary, The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman. Their definitions of what co-location and charter schools are, for instance, are not what I’ve seen.

My daughter’s first charter school was co-located, but shared a building with another charter school; one downstairs, one upstairs. Since then, that charter has moved to its own separate campus in a building that wasn’t previously a public school, but a warehouse. My younger daughter’s current charter school is currently sharing space with a Boys and Girls Club that has previously shared space with another charter school that has moved to the building that my daughter’s first charter school was previously located. In none of my charter school experience have any of them shared or, as the film portrays, “stolen” space from other public schools.

The charter schools are also not funded by corporations, as the film states, but do seek and obtain private funds and grants. The Boards of the charters are usually business executives, but for the most part, they’re simply people who have made money and want to give back to the community. I have had my share of problems with charter Boards, but to paint them so simply as corporate-run schools is not the problem I encountered. It’s a problem that I’ve seen in all non-profits; Boards are about raising money, not the day-to-day operations.

I have also had more say and open communication with the charter schools than the public schools my daughters have attended. My younger daughter’s current charter school has a Parent Coordinator. At the former charter school, I had the Principal’s cell phone number, and every email or phone call was returned on the same day.

My youngest daughter has an IEP. To say that there are no IEP students in charter schools is simply not true. Both of my daughters’ charter schools had over 90% students that participated in the federal lunch program, again contrary to what the film says. I don’t know the exact percentage of ELL students, but I do know that again over 90% of students were Hispanic.

I’m not denying what these educators are saying has been their experience, but to say that this is everyone’s experience with charter schools is an overstatement. And to call it the “truth” shows a lack of understanding on what the word means. Our “truth” has been that the schools that utilize the “real reforms” according to the film, have been in the charter and alternative schools we’ve attended far more than in the public schools.

Here’s what I know: I know that I can feel it when I walk into a school that is a good fit for my children. I have had this experience in 4 schools so far: one was our neighborhood elementary public school, two were charter schools, and one is the arts high school; a school that is free to me as a parent, but does have an audition and application process to get in. Not all charter schools are good, but they’re not all bad, either.

When we had our first charter experience, at first, I admit, I thought it was the ultimate answer. Now I know it’s not about the type of school, it is the personnel within the schools. You have to believe in the Principal and your child’s teachers. As a parent, you have to take steps to be involved, by attending parent meetings, by getting to know the teachers, but you also have to recognize when it’s not you, it’s them.

There are no easy answers. And I don’t think that one answer will work for everyone. Parents and students need choices to find the right school for their family. The best thing about this movie is the fact that it keeps the conversation going. I hope that the reform on all levels continues and improves education for every student.

April McCaffery is the single mom to two daughters, going into 6th & 9th grade.

Tags: , ,
Posted in April McCaffery, Charter Schools, Education Policy, Education Reform, Media, Schools | 2 Comments »

The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman

Friday, July 8th, 2011

A group of New York City parents and teachers recently released a new documentary called “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting For Superman.” This film was created in response to last year’s documentary, “Waiting for Superman,” which essentially argued, through the incredibly emotional story of several young children, that the only solution to fixing our broken education system is to dismantle teachers unions and turn all schools into charters.

All the information and statistics provided in “Waiting for Superman” were indeed true, but the director, Davis Guggenheim, created an inaccurate picture of the public and charters school systems by omitting some key facts that, if disclosed, would have changed the picture drastically.

“The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting For Superman” fills in a majority of these missing facts. It gives a more accurate picture of the education system today and what solutions are truly in the best interest of our students. The film opens with the fact that New York City Mayor Bloomberg changed the way schools were run when he took office in 2002. At the time, districts were fairly autonomous; he made them centralized, taking away the local power of parents and teachers to educate according to the needs of the individual communities.

With the power to dictate changes, one of the things Bloomberg did was open up many charter schools. Two out if every three charters were put into existing school campuses. The teachers interviewed in “TITBWFS” point out that, by having less space, the regular public schools were in essence sabotaged. Class sizes grew because of lack of classrooms. Electives had to be cut for the same reason. Resources were often pulled from the public school to the charter.

“Superman” highlighted a few exceptional New York City charters, but neglected to mention that on average, charter schools don’t perform as well as regular public schools. “TITBWFS” interviews some parents who used to have their kids in these same “exceptional” schools mentioned in “Superman.” These schools only look exceptional on paper because they kick out kids who are poor performers, are English Language Learners, and have special needs (i.e. IEP or 501 Plan). Of course, since the charters have taken the cream of the crop, it makes the public schools look even worse because they have a disproportionate number of kids who will never test well.

“Superman” argues that the reason charters are better is because they are run by private companies (using public tax money), so they lack government bureaucracy. But more importantly, they also lack tenure and teachers unions—unions protecting bad teachers is, Guggenheim argues, the root of the educational crises. However, Guggenheim left out an important statistic: the lowest performing states in the nation in education happen to be the states where there are no teacher’s unions. “TITBWFS” points out that charters are often run by corporations that don’t have the same oversight that school districts do. If parents in public schools have a problem at the school, they can take it to the district—there is no higher authority at a charter.

In this summary, I cannot cover everything the film brought up—this was just a taste. I would recommend that everyone watch “TITBWFS” to make sure you have your facts straight when it comes to the pros and cons of charters and teachers unions. They will even mail you a copy for free! See the trailer here.

I personally think “TITBWFS” did a good job of presenting the information, however, not being professional movie makers like Guggenheim, they weren’t able to tug on people’s heart strings as masterfully as he did. While they did use some compelling imagery, it wasn’t visually artistic (i.e., just the right camera angles) like “Superman.” Sadly, while the facts are on the side of “TITBWFS,” I think most will be swayed by Guggenheim’s unbalanced movie simply because it is more “Hollywood-y.”

image credit: http://www.waitingforsupermantruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Chartersdontwantyou.jpg

—————-

Christi Grab is the author of The Unexpected Circumnavigation: Unusual Boat, Unusual People Part 1 – San Diego to Australia.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Charter Schools, Christi Grab, Education Policy, Education Reform, Media, Public Schools, Special Needs Students | 10 Comments »

School-Sanctioned Bullying?

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

We all know this sign...we all know it is negative in nature...

Bullying: A subtle form

The term “Subtle Bullying” (I created it just now) may be an oxymoron, but I’ve witnessed something to which I’d apply that label. Testing season is here, and across California and the nation, our students will be taking fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests. What, you, ask does this have to do with bullying?

Schools and school districts across the nation are desperate to raise test scores. The federal government, and many state governments are offering grant money or bonuses for raised scores. These tests are high stakes, and we all know it. Having said that, you’re probably aware that schools are finding some unique ways to rally students. This past week, I visited 10 other schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and saw everything I’d expect: signs and posters about test scores, goals and the value of achievement, posted lists of students who have attained high achievement on state tests, and more. I’ve seen schools where test-prep strategies are printed on the back of PE uniform shirts, to send constant semi-subliminal messages to kids about the “value” of the test.

Nobody will argue that achievement is a good thing. Nobody will argue that anything above is unnecessary or improper. Schools hold assemblies about test preparation, and that’s fine too. Schools have challenged neighboring, rival schools over who would get the higest API (Academic Performance Index) school-wide score. Principals have offered to shave their heads if their school “loses.’ Okay, that’s fine too. At my school, an urban LAUSD middle school, we’ve had buttons made about our API target. We’ve also had buttons made that involve our rival school. Here’s where all of this may be going a bit far.

We’re all familiar with the iconic “no smoking” sign. The circle with the cigarette in the middle, with a red diagonal line across it. The message: cigarettes are bad. That symbol has been widely used to identify other things as bad, or worse. Our school has two sets of buttons regarding our API vs. our rival: one has their mascot crossed out by the red line. The other says “Beat ___________ ( the name of the school).” The latter is a double-negative, but that’s my lesser concern. My real concern is the rivalry message we’re sending. I know a thing or two about rivalries, having gone to both UCLA and USC. Most rivalry activity is harmless. In the case described here, I think it borders on school-sanctioned bullying.

By crossing out their mascot (which is an animal), we’re promoting hate, in a sense. I can think of multiple harmless ideas for these buttons. I found out our rival school has buttons of their own. What do they have on them? They say “Who’s __________? (the name of our school)”. I find this playful and harmless. I’ll take that and the head-shaving over the cigarette-esque buttons any day.

All of this speaks to a larger picture; that being the lengths schools wo which schools will go to raise test scores, which any teacher will tell you are meaningful only to a certain degree, and they are only a minor predictor of future success, especially at young ages. I understand the need to promote test success, but I’m not on-board with tactics that are negative.

_________

Mr. Franklin has been teaching for the Los Angeles Unified School District for eleven years. He has won District and County Teacher of the Year awards, as well as the prestigious Bank of America Community Hero award. Before teaching, he spent five years at Learning Forum, which runs summer camps world-wide that increase student academic potential.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Miscellaneous, Schools, Steve Franklin | 13 Comments »

« Older Entries