Newark Public Schools get $100 million from Facebook creator on Oprah today

[violet72]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:08am

So who is gonna watch Oprah today to see Governor Christie and Mayor Booker on Oprah. Her education show on Monday really pissed me off

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:13am

I would watch if I didn't have an aversion to throwing up.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:20am

To see that fat f**k get any credit for this? I would worry I'd smash my tv.

[Marianne2]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:29am

^ That's what I was thinking. Or he'll try to find some way to screw the school district over at a later time over the money.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:44am

and how much do you want to bet that the new Superintendent will make much more than the $165,000 cap he's trying to make all districts enforce.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 11:10am

If Whitman gets elected in California, Christie will be crediting himself for that too:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/chivalrous-chris-christie-saves-meg-whitman-from-heckling-madman-video.php?ref=fpb
Updated On: 9/24/10 at 11:10 AM

[violet72]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 4:00pm

Well after this show Oprah will be dead to me because she praises him on her show....way to go Chris you took food from poor children and planned parenthood...thanks alot

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 5:22pm

Christ Christie's involvement in this was a mark on an otherwise wonderful afternoon.

I work for TEAM Schools, one of the KIPP Schools, and we had a network PD scheduled for today, which included watching the Oprah show from 4-5.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 6:50pm

And here I would have thought that educators would be thrilled a fortune was being donated schools in need. Would you prefer Mark Zuckerberg wait another four years and have 40,000 children's education suffer in the meantime just so it can't possibly reflect positively on Christie?

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 7:28pm

orangeskittles - go away, before someone drops a house on you.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 7:55pm

I'm not the one who found something to complain about in $100 million being donating to a good cause. What kind of teacher are you if you care more about sticking it to the governor than you do about educating children? Please, instead of another childish, petty response, I would like to know what you find so wrong with money being given to help students in need.

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 8:15pm

There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving money to help kids - if that was where I truly believed the money was going. 1) The money is going to create charter schools, something devastating to the public school system which Christie has been trying to tear apart since day one of his administration. 2)This is the scary part. From nj.com:

"The school plan calls for Christie to use his authority as the ultimate supervisor of the Newark district to name Booker a "special assistant to the governor" for education in the city. It is a maneuver never attempted before and one that includes some bold political footwork. Only the Legislature or the voters have the legal authority to decide the management structure of school districts. But under this agreement the state is still, technically, running Newark schools. Christie would be able to overrule Booker if the two disagree, the sources said
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/facebook_100m_newark_schools_oprah_christie.html

In other words, Christie has a stranglehold there now backed by a ton of money. Anyone who disagrees with his policies (which is just about every intelligent public educator in the state) can see how bad this is.

I'm not going repaste the whole article here, but read it and it's pretty clear that this is NOT "money to help the kids and everything is hunky-dory" that you seem to think it is.

Christie is a manipulative, egotistical, hypocritical bully. He does NOT tie himself to philanthropic gestures such as this without ulterior political motives.

If nothing else, think this might be a way to help him divert attention from the 400 million HE lost for us in the Race to the Top?

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 9:12pm

As a charter school employee, I'm about to go on record and say something that will probably make me very unpopular here on the boards:

1) The money is going to create charter schools, something devastating to the public school system

Newark's best charter schools- the TEAM schools, North Star, and Robert Treat Academy, are saving public education in Newark, not devastating them.

Flame away.

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 9:20pm

I watched about 5 minutes of it and bailed after Oprah screamed out "TEN MILLION DOLLARS!!!" right before going to commercial.

Did she question Christie regarding criticisms against him or was it an Oprah Lovefest?

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 9:21pm

Newark was a failing district anyway -- the charter schools COULD only help. The problem is, Christie wants them everywhere where they will do far more damage than good.

Is your school accountable to the same mandates and standards that we are?

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 9:25pm

Is your school accountable to the same mandates and standards that we are?

Of course. We accept state funding, though the amount of money we receive is far less per pupil than the public schools do. But because we're not hampered by antiquated union requirements, we're able to be innovative and do what's best for the students, not the union.

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 9:49pm

I really don't get the union hating -- I feel like next to nothing in my job is due to catering of the union - it's state mandates and regulations that cause us the most problems - not the union!

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 9:54pm

I'll give you just one example: we're much better able to retain quality teachers and dismiss the bad ones.

One of our new teachers this year was dismissed from his teaching job last year. He was received all "far exceeds the standards" on his evaluations last year, and by all accounts, was, and is, a wonderful teacher. However, his public school fired him last year because he was the lowest on the seniority ladder. Other teachers in his department, who received many "not meeting the standards" on their evaluations, were allowed to keep their jobs because they were tenured. How exactly is that helping the children? A school district lost a quality, dedicated educator, and instead kept a more seasoned, far less effective teacher, because the union favors dismissals to be done by seniority, not by quality of instruction.

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 9:59pm

That's a problem with tenure - not directly the union. Your example would seem to say you agree with merit pay then.

I'm a very good teacher - my students score exceptionally well on their tests, the kids and parents love me, I come up with great lessons. I would do GREAT with merit pay - but it is a patently unfair system that simply doesn't work for many reasons.

Christie is for it. Are you?

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:01pm

Here's the Wall Street Journal article the teacher I mentioned was featured in, by the way.

My argument has nothing to do with merit pay. It has to do with being able to remove ineffective teachers. The teacher I mentioned was evaluated (and rated highly) by his supervisors, not by a test score.
Even Top Teachers Get Laid Off

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:13pm

All right - then let's go back to the root of the problem - why was he laid off? Because of the union, or because of Christie's barbaric cuts? Let's put the blame where it TRULY lies. Yes, it's a shame a good teacher would get cut - many did - but these teachers WOULDN'T face cuts if Christie hadn't set out to destroy public schools in NJ. CC knew full well when he made the cuts that this would happen. The union rules, agree with them or not, have been in place for years. Christie made these cuts to make the unions look like the bad guys.

Personally, I think the cuts should have come at the administrative levels across the board, but we all knew that wasn't going to happen.

Anger at unions from teachers because of cuts is misplaced, plain and simple.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:25pm

Thank you, jasonf. I appreciate your response, because I can understand your position now compared to your immediate response of feigning nasueam.

we're able to be innovative and do what's best for the students, not the union.

This is exactly my view on the nationwide situation. After watching the chaos and upheaval of the DC public school systems under Rhee (which started out worse than Newark), my perspective is different on the battle between teachers and administrators. For me, it comes down to the fact that the students are more important than the teachers. If drastic measures are needed to make a difference in improving education (like in DC), then I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for teachers who lose their jobs when they've been making $70,000 a year with tenure and benefits while 40% of their students are still illiterate in the 3rd grade.

On this issue specifically, I don't think Zuckerberg is an idiot. I certainly believe he's smarter than Christie. This donation probably has more stipulations than the Treaty of Versailles. I don't think he would sign over a $100 million check to Christie, then walk away and hope for the best.

Updated On: 9/27/10 at 10:25 PM

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:29pm

For everyone's sake - the kids especially - I hope you're right. I just don't trust Christie as far as I could throw him. I'm not above making the fat joke. It ain't far.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:40pm

For everyone's sake - the kids especially - I hope you're right. I just don't trust Christie as far as I could throw him.

I hate Chris Christie as much as the next person, but put the politics aside for a minute and celebrate something good for the kids.

All right - then let's go back to the root of the problem - why was he laid off? Because of the union, or because of Christie's barbaric cuts?

The layoffs would have occurred with or without the union. The union just made it impossible to lay off the ineffective teachers and caused many good ones to lose their jobs.

The union rules, agree with them or not, have been in place for years.

That doesn't mean their right or any good. Just because something's been in place for years doesn't mean it's serving our children well. In fact, it's one of the great injustices that students in public schools face. Their districts are forced to keep ineffective teachers because they're tenured.

Anger at unions from teachers because of cuts is misplaced, plain and simple.

No one's angry at the unions because of the cuts. They're angry because when the cuts came down, they made it impossible to remove a lot of the less effective teachers who were tenured. As a result, a lot of highly effective teachers lost jobs. The "last in, first out" policy is arcane, doesn't help the kids, and needs to be done away with.

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:54pm

I agree with you, but the problem is the public who knows nothing about education is being led to think that the union is the root of all this evil. They're not.

Christie made the cuts and then vilified the NJEA for the teacher lay-offs. Christie knew full well that this would happen. He's so ham-fisted in his policies that he COULD have pushed to have administrations affected or districts restructured. Instead he made the cuts and let the pieces fall where they may, knowing these great BLAMELESS teachers were the ones who were going to get cut.

His goal is to kill public education. About the only thing I can give him credit for is that he's not stupid - he knows what he's doing. I simply cannot support any program that he is backing. The fact that he is backing this money, and has CONTROL over it, makes me question just how it's going to be spent.

I REALLY hope the money does something good for the kids of Newark. I REALLY do. I just can't believe it until I see it.