From another post:
Anonymous said...
Experienced Educator recommends reading Education Week:
ttp://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/01/33tap.h29.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/01/33tap.h29.html&levelId=2100
Please READ the Front and Back page Articles in last week's EDUCATION WEEK____ June 9, 2010
VOL.29 NO 33
Very interesting and revealing as it provides alternate perspectives to the PPS/EET, Gates Foundation. and Broad Foundation Initiatives:
Front Page: "Merit-Pay Model Pushed by Duncan Shows No Achievement Edge" and " Student Progress No Better in Chicago Schools Using TAP (Teacher Advancement Program) by Stephen Sawchuck
Back Page: "Rethinking Teacher Accountability--Before It's Too Late" by James W. Stigler (UCLA-Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching)
edweek.org
ttp://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/01/33tap.h29.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/01/33tap.h29.html&levelId=2100
June 18, 2010 3:53 PM
Questioner said...
It sure would be nice to have a Board that shows some sign of having read articles like this and to hear deliberations on these issues. Too often what we see in Board discussions is a grab bag of comments and questions, with little discusson or debate about important underlying policy.
June 18, 2010 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...
No disrespect to the Board members, but anyone can run for election. There aren't any requirements needed for the position; not even a HS diploma. And since most Board members have full time jobs, they most likely do not invest much time on issues.
June 18, 2010 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...
E.E. responds:
It is so disheartening and discouraging to become more and more aware of the lack of knowledge, insight, and the possibilities for true reform in our educational system that holds in its hands the future of Pittsburgh's children. (They don't know what they don't know.)
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Foundations could provide an OPEN EDUCATIONAL FORUM free to the public that examines more than one side of issues and innovations____some of which would remedy post haste the lack of achievement in PPS.
The Race in America Conference last week at Pitt did that in ways that could be TRANSFORMATIVE. Unfortunately, it was costly to attend even as a member of Pitt's faculty___and cost prohibitive for ordinary citizens.
Mark Roosevelt moderated one session which was incredibly dismaying; however, it did provide "excuses" for PPS lack of significant progress in education for African American students. YET, the session was followed by an African American professor who told us how to get the job done in no uncertain terms. It was sad that M.R was not in attendance and so few of PPS staff and Board were there to hear Dr. Pedro Noguero. He deserved a standing ovation!
June 18, 2010 5:02 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
What it amounts to is a recognition at the Board level that by and large, the Board is not playing a real role in setting policy.
Two Board members in fact made observations along these lines at this week's Agenda Review. And except for some tweaking around the edges, it is difficult to see how programs, plans or policies adopted in the last few years are any different than they would have been had there been no Board at all and the administration was left to its own devices.
That is correct. M.R. has carte blanche.
Then why dont we see retired teachers or administrators or professors of education running for school board?
And still, Carey Harris and her A+ crowd will still laud the "transparency" of the school board.
Look, money talks. Gates has brought $40 mil to Pittsburgh. $40 mil in matching funds has come in. The Promise crowd is a multi-million dollar entity. The state will be sending a whopping check soon. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Anywhere you have big money, you
have back room wheeling and dealing, and you have understood agreements. It was no surprise to me that the latest teacher contract proposal passed, and it's no surprise to me that this superintendent has the board in his pocket.
Actually, to its credit A+ schools has pointed out the lack of significant time devoted to policy-making at Board meetings- giving the Board low marks in this area. It seems to avoid making critical remarks about the administration but did start Board Watch to monitor the Board.
Who paid the $40 M matching funds- aren't those funds still to be raised?
Questioner, two notes:
-one, you can point out the lack of transparency but how do you give the superintendent and his followers (the board) a B- grade? That's far beyond passing, no?
-secondly, isn't the accrual of matching funds a no-brainer? I mean, the tough part was luring Gates and the daunting part is to keep them believing that strides are being made with teachers. After all, teachers are the problem when it comes to education. Show the Gates people the RISE atrocity, show them all about learning walks, and firings, and canned curriculum. They'll undoubetdly bite and make note of the "progress" being made.
But raising money? If nothing else, we can all testify to the idea that Roosevelt's people are great snake oil salesmen.
Old Timer,
M.R's people might be great snake oil salesmen, but I have to disagree with you on their ability to fundraise the matching $40 mil. I don't think all the snake oil in the world would help them. Afterall, over time snake oil goes rancid.
On the topic of transparency, as a parent active at the district level through previous superintendents, I must say this administration exceeds what was available prior to Mr. Roosevelt's time. True, there is still much ground to cover in terms of special projects/committees and long-term plans, and, what we learn is "decided" by the administration, but all presentations done for the education committee appear on the website usually same day or next. Same with other committees. But, when you come right down to it, PURE makes a significant contribution to aiding the transparancey issue.
Thanks to the last two anon posters. I have to disagree somewhat with the former, as following the money trail usually brings you to the heart of the matter. Mr.Roosevelt is a splendid fundraiser and if I learned anything from the "Euro" poster on another thread, it's that his "accomplishments" have a great many people fooled. I just don't see large sums of money as equating
to a sound education for our kids, not when that money paints teachers as culprits in their lack of progress in garnering higher test scores or in whittling away the achievement gap.
To the latter poster, I agree with your comments about PURE Reform. It is a splendid watchdog, but shouldn't the board itself remember its own charge and its constituency? Doesn't it seem as if all too many times, issues are simply rubber stamped and pushed forward without thinking of the ramifications?
Yes, M.R. is excellent at conning but I think his snake oil is rancid. It smells too bad for anyone to buy it. I still don't think that he will be able to raise the matching funds.
Well OT, I have seen glimpses recently of some board memebers who seem dissatisfied with a thing or two (Ms. Fink with some of the CTE plan?) and a few concerned about money being spent ("don't we have somebody on staff with the ability to do xyz rather than pay a consultant?"). Could the tide be turning a bit? There have been times where one might shake his head. Times when one might question why an established member does not know a particular fact about a common operation of a program or school. A minute later you might find yourself wondering how people with jobs can find the time to know so much stuff to prepare to make decisions. Where the worry sets in comes when you have to ask yourself if people are making decisions based only on what someone has TOLD them. Hide all rubber stamps.
Board members will often raise one concern or another, but then pretty much accept whatever response or explanation they are given and don't pursue the issue. As a result, meetings are a random mix of comments and questions, without any a focused examination of particular issues or policy.
The administration in contrast is very focused, strategically moving from one vote to the next. As a result, except where a Board member has staked out a single issue as nonnegotiable, it is difficult to see where the Board has any real impact on outcomes.
So what should be expected of Board members? Administration is charged with ADMINISTERING the district. Board members place their trust in those who have been hired to do a job. A board of directors in any business would do the same.
When board members start administering the district, its seen as micromanaging...so again...what should a board member be expected to do?
Board members should set the course and make policy decisions on whether for example gender specific education should be mandatory, how schools should be configured and whether we should do more to avoid high concentrations of impoverished students in particular schools. The administration should then carry out these policies.
Instead, the administration sets and administers the policy and the board asks a few questions around the margins.
To anonymous who said:
"Board members place their trust in those who have been hired to do a job. A board of directors in any business would do the same."
Unfortunately, those hired (at high salaries) to do the job continue to HIRE CONSULTANTS to do the job that they were hired to do and when they FAIL (at great cost to the district) they are replaced by another CONSULTANT who again FAILS to get the results promised, and yet another CONSULTANT is hired ____a pattern that continues.
Also, there are many differences between the boards and governance of for profit corporations and the board and governance of PPS. For one thing, members of corporate boards are compensated; for another, corporations are subject to takeovers if they falter. The state of Pennsylvania has zero interest in taking over PPS.
why does no one ask these questions of board candidates at election time? Why are the same people elected over and over without opposition?
And yet we do not see any retired teachers or administrators or professors of education vying for spots on the PPS Board.
Everyone has an opinion on the effectiveness of board members, but few will step up to actually run for office.
Also remember that board members can not take action on their own. They must be a part of a coalition of at least 5 members to get anything passed. Board members who constantly abstain from voting dont do their district any favors, either.
M.R. has visited less than half of the schools in PPS since he has been here. (fact)
Once a politician...
Post a Comment