Newark Public Schools get $100 million from Facebook creator on Oprah today- Page 3

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/28/10 at 8:18am

I never posted a picture of myself. Maybe Caitie did.

Again, I don't blame the teachers. I think, on the whole, teachers strive for what's best for their kids. It's the political motivation behind everything that bothers me.

I have an EXTREMELY diverse population - white, Hispanic, African American, Indian, Chinese Korean -- I've had several classes (three of my five this year, in fact) where white kids were the minority.

You know which kids do well? The ones with parental involvement. Plain and simple. Race isn't an issue with that - I've had white kids with problems, I've had minorities with problems. I had a kid last year whose parents I called six times - SIX - at the end of the year and never once got a call back. The kid was white. Call me what you want - do not call me racist. You don't know me to make that judgment, and it's insulting to accuse me of it.

I want what's best for my students - ultimately, that's what matters. I can't believe there are people here arguing that parental involvement ISN'T the key to success for children.

[violet72]

Posted: 9/28/10 at 8:52am

tenure is not perfect it does protect bad teachers sometimes but I have seen bad teachers fired in my district. Tenure does protect good teachers. Before tenure and teachers unionizing, the disparity in pay between men and women was disgraceful and the arbitrary power of school boards to dismiss teachers and hire cheaper ones or raise class size without any resistance was endemic.

I am not attacking Charter Schools but The Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, concludes that only 17% of charter schools have better test scores than traditional public schools, 46% had gains that were no different than their public counterparts, and 37% were significantly worse.So just like Public schools there are some bad Charter schools.

Also my students who are ESL students(K3 to 10th graders) in a low income urban district all passed their standardize tests. But my parent involvement was 100% and I conference with them 3 times a year and see them almost on a daily basis. I also have them come in to teach a lesson with me to their mainstream class about their culture. If parents are invested in their child's education their child will succeed.

Updated On: 9/28/10 at 08:52 AM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/28/10 at 10:01pm

You know which kids do well? The ones with parental involvement. Plain and simple. Race isn't an issue with that - I've had white kids with problems, I've had minorities with problems. I had a kid last year whose parents I called six times - SIX - at the end of the year and never once got a call back. The kid was white. Call me what you want - do not call me racist. You don't know me to make that judgment, and it's insulting to accuse me of it.

I want what's best for my students - ultimately, that's what matters. I can't believe there are people here arguing that parental involvement ISN'T the key to success for children.

No one is arguing that, but your ridiculous assertions that parental involvement is some magic potion that will solve all problems is outrageous. Once again, it's but one piece in a much larger puzzle.

Besides, what about the single parent who's working two jobs to try and help their children so that they can have a better life when they get older? If that parent is off working at night, and unable to check homework or go to the school play, does that mean that parent doesn't care? Are they a bad parent for working at night? Not every parent who cares about their children works a 9 to 5 job.

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/29/10 at 10:46am

You're 100% right - it's not about the TYPE of involvement. BUT - a parent that ignores phone calls, doesn't come in for IEP meetings, ignores calls from counselors and nurses etc -- THAT is a bad parent, regardless of situation. Of course there are levels of involvement, but I've seen (as I'm sure everyone here who is a teacher) many parents who are simply not involved AT ALL with their kids' schooling.

Is that the only factor? Honestly, I feel it depends on the age level of the kids. In middle school and below, without parental involvement kids will flounder. There are the rare exceptions, of course, but for the most part yes, parental involvement IS the key to success. By the time a kid gets to high school, they have the choice on their own whether or not to get involved in their own education. They have the ability to make that choice - though certainly it's not easier if their parents weren't pushing them from the beginning.

So no, it's not black and white: good parents = good students and vice versa, but fact is, there IS a correlation in most cases.

We've all come across situations where the school has done EVERYTHING - offered every program they have, spent countless hours on the child - and the parents either don't do enough to sign off on the help, or in some cases actually stand in the way of it.

It's unfortunate -- ideally every child would have a fair shake. Public education DOES give that to every child (or at least the good schools do). What causes failure in the good schools at least is more often than not determined by what's going on at home far more than what's going on in school.

I've been fortunate to work in a really good district., Most of our kids do well and come from good homes, but we've had our share of those that don't do well and those who have really rough home lives also. We still do everything we can for those kids. Sometimes, though, it's just not enough to override the troubles from home.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 9/29/10 at 10:59am

I agree with most of what you said, but you do realize that you just completely made the case for Charter schools. They demand parent and family involvement as terms of enrollment. That involvement, along with a shared passion by all teachers, staff and administrators, is why some of them have seen dramatic changes in student achievement in urban environments.

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/29/10 at 11:18am

In theory, charter schools can work. I won't argue that. The problem is there are so many failed ones that without proper management they become more of a drain than actual help. It's way too easy for charter schools to be scams.

I won't say public schools are perfect either and don't need help - they CERTAINLY do. I really believe that less regulation from the state, more parental involvement, more investment in curriculum from teachers (like they do in Finland) and more public support (as opposed to the demonizing of the profession) are all necessary for a better system.

[violet72]

Posted: 9/30/10 at 10:16am

The new Education Reform plan of his is flawed in many ways...and here is a good article about why Merit pay fails...
reform

[Q]

Posted: 9/30/10 at 10:24am

Interesting report from NBC Nightly News.
NBC video.

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/30/10 at 11:41am

Wow, that video supports everything I've said - parental involvement, higher education for teachers, a culture that promotes learning.

Christie has said that unless you teach science or math, a graduate level of education is a waste.

"On merit pay, Christie said he wants to prohibit seniority or graduate degree attainment in fields other than math and science from influencing salary increases for teachers. The large pool of funding needed to start a merit pay program would come from the savings of firing bad teachers through tenure reform, Christie said. "

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/gov_christie_advocates_merit_p.html