http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/30/26rtt-states_ep.h30.html?tkn=XLLF1Rbe6aD95yVdKdTH72R1Ea3pl6COvEjT&cmp=clp-edweek
Note: Delaware gets major mentions, for moving forward, not scaling back...
In this forum, I've decidedly shied away from Rttt of recent, in an attempt to avoid the bile that rises in my throat when those four little words are uttered. Unavoidable as it is, the one year anniversary of Delaware's winning bid has descended upon us as rumors run rampant that the remaining six Partnership Zone schools are to be named by April 1st. Knowing full well that while DOE has no intention of leaking the list, odds are that another Christina school will find itself enveloped in the PZ flurry. There are words to be said...
School board members simply can't avoid the trajectory of failure that Race to the Top has propelled us upon. Poorly conceived, upon data that was neither longitudinal nor empiracle, the models of reform hurt children far more than they help them. Rttt has decidedly become about adults... and business. From light-switch-flippers-come-reform-experts to the sham of the US Sec. of Education, Rttt has brought about an ugliness in education of which I have never seen. It's fueled a full-frontal attack on front-line educators, those we should value above all else, and has become the basis of union busting at its national core. In Delaware, DSEA signed on well before school boards, but even then there were grumblings among the rank and file that Rttt would be more bite than betterment. Many never really believed that Delaware had a shot, much less, would enact the reforms therein. Few if any saw the fall-out before us: an assault on educators neither warranted nor productive. Where has Rttt really led us?
I am reminded of a visit last year to an elementary school when an excited principal showed me her MAP scores. "These kids right here, the highlighted ones (they were numerically coded), these are the kids my staff has to really work with right now. Pull-out all the stops. These little guys are within a few points of scoring a 3 on the DSTP." What about the rest of the kids in the class? "Oh, we're working with them, too; but these are ones who we are really targeting." Targeting? Coaching the data to tell you who to teach, who to deploy your best resources to? Who to educate? There wasn't a drive to target the kids at the bottom of the barrell, it was the ones who could propel the school into AYP. Yes, that's data coaching: using data to determine who gets a good education and who doesn't. In a state where the DOE is investing so much Rttt dollars into Data Coaches, one can't help but see the lines of disparity deepening. And how can the handful of school board members who are Rttt dissidents reform such widespread misunderstanding? What the hell are we to do?
And what exactly is wrong with the example above? Rttt flows $119 million into education. But, not into human capital, as we've come call our educators. It's added administration, but not teachers. When a school deploys its best resources to target the kids on the cusp of success, it pulls them away from children who are both already successful and seeking challenge and those who have fallen behind. It doesn't add teachers to the pot, it just re-allocates their time. This is the class-size waiver war and the earned-unit allocation nightmare. This is failure. And Rttt re-confirms this failure.
On March 24th, the News Journal published an editorial by Delaware's Sec. of Education. It lauds the "new Delaware Way," a path of collaboration that's led to the adoption of the Common Core Standards, the implementation of DCAS, the development of student growth measures that "will help Delaware lead the nation in building student performance into teacher assessment." Furthermore, "RTTT will fund data coaches, who will meet with teachers twice a month to help dissect student test scores to inform their teaching. The program is being piloted in six districts and a charter school now and will spread statewide in the fall." All of this excitement culminated in an invitation-only pep rally at Howard High School attended by Duncan and V.P. Joe Biden. (I wasn't invited.) http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103250313
Yes, Rttt is one year done, with three to go. And I've yet to see it in the classrooms. Of course, I'm waiting on the data - coached to support the goal of proving the Rttt reform models - from the growth model DCAS when the year's trends can be analyzed. I just don't have the faith that the revolving door of education "deform" that has become the norm will succeed where so many have failed, especially when we turn a blind eye to an empirical method of reform with pr oven results - smaller class sizes in earlier years.
The insidiousness of Rttt is this: It's competitive from the top all the ways down to the Sig Grant - the School Improvement Grant. The fallout of the PZ zone looks like this: Two demographically identical schools, just blocks apart. The PZ school has been steeped in a deep and expensive plan to reform it, while it's non-PZ sister continues to suffer. Now, imagine that instead of buildings, these are students. PZ dictates that one student, based squarely upon a feeder pattern, deserves a better education than the other. Rttt deepens disparities in education. And it breaks my heart to see this program heralded as the "Delaware Way."
To add insult to injury, our President spent yesterday spinning a sound byte. According to AP, "President Barack Obama said Monday that students should take fewer standardized tests and school performance should be measured in other ways than just exam results. Too much testing makes education boring for kids, he said." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_education
Funny thing about pregnancy tests - They are never proof-positive.
Never...
Proof-positive...
School board members simply can't avoid the trajectory of failure that Race to the Top has propelled us upon. Poorly conceived, upon data that was neither longitudinal nor empiracle, the models of reform hurt children far more than they help them. Rttt has decidedly become about adults... and business. From light-switch-flippers-come-reform-experts to the sham of the US Sec. of Education, Rttt has brought about an ugliness in education of which I have never seen. It's fueled a full-frontal attack on front-line educators, those we should value above all else, and has become the basis of union busting at its national core. In Delaware, DSEA signed on well before school boards, but even then there were grumblings among the rank and file that Rttt would be more bite than betterment. Many never really believed that Delaware had a shot, much less, would enact the reforms therein. Few if any saw the fall-out before us: an assault on educators neither warranted nor productive. Where has Rttt really led us?
I am reminded of a visit last year to an elementary school when an excited principal showed me her MAP scores. "These kids right here, the highlighted ones (they were numerically coded), these are the kids my staff has to really work with right now. Pull-out all the stops. These little guys are within a few points of scoring a 3 on the DSTP." What about the rest of the kids in the class? "Oh, we're working with them, too; but these are ones who we are really targeting." Targeting? Coaching the data to tell you who to teach, who to deploy your best resources to? Who to educate? There wasn't a drive to target the kids at the bottom of the barrell, it was the ones who could propel the school into AYP. Yes, that's data coaching: using data to determine who gets a good education and who doesn't. In a state where the DOE is investing so much Rttt dollars into Data Coaches, one can't help but see the lines of disparity deepening. And how can the handful of school board members who are Rttt dissidents reform such widespread misunderstanding? What the hell are we to do?
And what exactly is wrong with the example above? Rttt flows $119 million into education. But, not into human capital, as we've come call our educators. It's added administration, but not teachers. When a school deploys its best resources to target the kids on the cusp of success, it pulls them away from children who are both already successful and seeking challenge and those who have fallen behind. It doesn't add teachers to the pot, it just re-allocates their time. This is the class-size waiver war and the earned-unit allocation nightmare. This is failure. And Rttt re-confirms this failure.
On March 24th, the News Journal published an editorial by Delaware's Sec. of Education. It lauds the "new Delaware Way," a path of collaboration that's led to the adoption of the Common Core Standards, the implementation of DCAS, the development of student growth measures that "will help Delaware lead the nation in building student performance into teacher assessment." Furthermore, "RTTT will fund data coaches, who will meet with teachers twice a month to help dissect student test scores to inform their teaching. The program is being piloted in six districts and a charter school now and will spread statewide in the fall." All of this excitement culminated in an invitation-only pep rally at Howard High School attended by Duncan and V.P. Joe Biden. (I wasn't invited.) http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103250313
Yes, Rttt is one year done, with three to go. And I've yet to see it in the classrooms. Of course, I'm waiting on the data - coached to support the goal of proving the Rttt reform models - from the growth model DCAS when the year's trends can be analyzed. I just don't have the faith that the revolving door of education "deform" that has become the norm will succeed where so many have failed, especially when we turn a blind eye to an empirical method of reform with pr oven results - smaller class sizes in earlier years.
The insidiousness of Rttt is this: It's competitive from the top all the ways down to the Sig Grant - the School Improvement Grant. The fallout of the PZ zone looks like this: Two demographically identical schools, just blocks apart. The PZ school has been steeped in a deep and expensive plan to reform it, while it's non-PZ sister continues to suffer. Now, imagine that instead of buildings, these are students. PZ dictates that one student, based squarely upon a feeder pattern, deserves a better education than the other. Rttt deepens disparities in education. And it breaks my heart to see this program heralded as the "Delaware Way."
To add insult to injury, our President spent yesterday spinning a sound byte. According to AP, "President Barack Obama said Monday that students should take fewer standardized tests and school performance should be measured in other ways than just exam results. Too much testing makes education boring for kids, he said." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_education
"One thing I never want to see happen is schools that are just teaching the test because then you're not learning about the world, you're not learning about different cultures, you're not learning about science, you're not learning about math," the president said. "All you're learning about is how to fill out a little bubble on an exam and little tricks that you need to do in order to take a test and that's not going to make education interesting."It is an about face? More like a slap in the face. NCLB has teachers bending over back-wards teaching to the test. Obama's Rttt has funded DCAS and as part of Delaware's plan, DCAS will eventually tie back to teacher evaluations. We've eliminated critical thinking skills from our schools in efforts to avoid the punishments set forth by NCLB. We've destabilized schools through the shifting of leadership in order to qualify for competitive grants. In Christina, we are about to unfurl small learning academies in one of our high schools, the success of which will be measured by testing. Delaware is investing heavily its Rttt money in data coaches to ensure we effectively use the DCAS testing results, to determine whether or not the reform efforts have made for a better-prepared, smarter, more effective workforce of miracle workers... I mean teachers. Liken it to a pregnancy test, if you will: the ability to read the results doesn't make me (or you) a better parent.
"And young people do well in stuff that they're interested in," Obama said. "They're not going to do as well if it's boring."
Funny thing about pregnancy tests - They are never proof-positive.
Never...
Proof-positive...
Category:
1 comments
Published Online: March 23, 2011
'Curriculum' Definition Raises Red Flags
By Catherine Gewertz
Calls for shared curriculum for the common standards have triggered renewed debates about who decides what students learn, and even about varied meanings of the word “curriculum,” adding layers of complexity to the job of translating the broad learning goals into classroom teaching.
The most recent calls for common curriculum came from the American Federation of Teachers and the Albert Shanker Institute, a think tank named after the late AFT leader. Many others are working on pieces of that puzzle—an array of instructional resources for states, districts, and teachers. But the calls for “shared” or “common” curricula have sparked particularly heated conversations.
Scholars, bloggers, and activists are exchanging fire about whether shared curriculum means lessons dictated from afar. They’re worrying that the public could lose a voice in shaping what children learn, and asking whether the federal government is overstepping by funding curriculum development.
The common standards, devised by states and content experts under the guidance of governors and state education chiefs, have been adopted by all but seven states.
Some of the debate about common curriculum for the standards is driven, observers say, by the multiple meanings of the word “curriculum.”
To some, that term can mean a scripted, day-to-day lesson plan, while to others, it’s a lean set of big ideas that can be tackled in many ways. In some states, a textbook becomes the de facto curriculum. In others, academic standards and broad outlines called frameworks, with or without model lesson plans and other guidance for teachers, are rolled together and referred to as “state curriculum.” Some school districts purchase off-the-shelf programs they refer to as curricula, and others craft their own.
The multiple meanings of curriculum animate discussions about how to teach the standards. And some observers worry that lack of clarity about the meaning of terms like “curriculum,” “frameworks,” and “curriculum guidelines” risks muddying a public dialogue about an important issue.
“Curriculum is not always easy to define. But it’s crucial that we have clear understandings of what we mean by terms like this,” said J. Wesley Null, an associate professor of curriculum and the foundations of education at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. “Otherwise, we have curriculum being implemented that doesn’t do what states or districts hope it will do.”
Local Control
As controversial as standards can be, curriculum can make people even more nervous because it gets one step closer to the classroom and to defining content, some experts say.
“That’s where dicey decisions need to get made. And curriculum, done really well, is going to involve some pedagogical decisions,” said Kathleen Porter-Magee, a former curriculum director for a charter school network who now oversees the standards program for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank.
In calling for “a core curriculum,” the Shanker Institute’s manifesto, issued March 7, drew criticism from some who saw its proposal as a threat to local control over what is taught. The 200 signatories—leaders in education, business, and government—advocated crafting one or more voluntary, broad outlines of the key knowledge and skills students need, not dictating daily lesson plans or specifying how teachers should teach.
Such distinctions are meaningless, said Neal P. McCluskey, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington. It’s impossible to make a plausible argument that decisions about even “big ideas” in curriculum won’t prescribe what happens in classrooms, he said.
“The whole point of having national standards is to drive curriculum,” Mr. McCluskey said. “When they start talking about curriculum, they’re putting meat on the bones of the standards. That gets closer and closer to the students.”
Additionally, Mr. McCluskey argued, the common assessments being developed with federal funds by two consortia of states will shape the curriculum. “It’s a tricky semantic debate we’re having, but those tests will have to test something,” he said. “When they test specific readings, we will see that we now have a national curriculum.” ("Tough Work Begins for Race to Top Assessment Winners," September 14, 2010.)
EVEN MORE HERE: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/23/26curriculum.h30.html?tkn=WRYF8u%2BC2cweGQ6tFHos80uGFXuqPOEACVau&cmp=clp-edweek
'Curriculum' Definition Raises Red Flags
By Catherine Gewertz
Calls for shared curriculum for the common standards have triggered renewed debates about who decides what students learn, and even about varied meanings of the word “curriculum,” adding layers of complexity to the job of translating the broad learning goals into classroom teaching.
The most recent calls for common curriculum came from the American Federation of Teachers and the Albert Shanker Institute, a think tank named after the late AFT leader. Many others are working on pieces of that puzzle—an array of instructional resources for states, districts, and teachers. But the calls for “shared” or “common” curricula have sparked particularly heated conversations.
Scholars, bloggers, and activists are exchanging fire about whether shared curriculum means lessons dictated from afar. They’re worrying that the public could lose a voice in shaping what children learn, and asking whether the federal government is overstepping by funding curriculum development.
The common standards, devised by states and content experts under the guidance of governors and state education chiefs, have been adopted by all but seven states.
Some of the debate about common curriculum for the standards is driven, observers say, by the multiple meanings of the word “curriculum.”
To some, that term can mean a scripted, day-to-day lesson plan, while to others, it’s a lean set of big ideas that can be tackled in many ways. In some states, a textbook becomes the de facto curriculum. In others, academic standards and broad outlines called frameworks, with or without model lesson plans and other guidance for teachers, are rolled together and referred to as “state curriculum.” Some school districts purchase off-the-shelf programs they refer to as curricula, and others craft their own.
The multiple meanings of curriculum animate discussions about how to teach the standards. And some observers worry that lack of clarity about the meaning of terms like “curriculum,” “frameworks,” and “curriculum guidelines” risks muddying a public dialogue about an important issue.
“Curriculum is not always easy to define. But it’s crucial that we have clear understandings of what we mean by terms like this,” said J. Wesley Null, an associate professor of curriculum and the foundations of education at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. “Otherwise, we have curriculum being implemented that doesn’t do what states or districts hope it will do.”
Local Control
As controversial as standards can be, curriculum can make people even more nervous because it gets one step closer to the classroom and to defining content, some experts say.
“That’s where dicey decisions need to get made. And curriculum, done really well, is going to involve some pedagogical decisions,” said Kathleen Porter-Magee, a former curriculum director for a charter school network who now oversees the standards program for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank.
In calling for “a core curriculum,” the Shanker Institute’s manifesto, issued March 7, drew criticism from some who saw its proposal as a threat to local control over what is taught. The 200 signatories—leaders in education, business, and government—advocated crafting one or more voluntary, broad outlines of the key knowledge and skills students need, not dictating daily lesson plans or specifying how teachers should teach.
Such distinctions are meaningless, said Neal P. McCluskey, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington. It’s impossible to make a plausible argument that decisions about even “big ideas” in curriculum won’t prescribe what happens in classrooms, he said.
“The whole point of having national standards is to drive curriculum,” Mr. McCluskey said. “When they start talking about curriculum, they’re putting meat on the bones of the standards. That gets closer and closer to the students.”
Additionally, Mr. McCluskey argued, the common assessments being developed with federal funds by two consortia of states will shape the curriculum. “It’s a tricky semantic debate we’re having, but those tests will have to test something,” he said. “When they test specific readings, we will see that we now have a national curriculum.” ("Tough Work Begins for Race to Top Assessment Winners," September 14, 2010.)
EVEN MORE HERE: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/23/26curriculum.h30.html?tkn=WRYF8u%2BC2cweGQ6tFHos80uGFXuqPOEACVau&cmp=clp-edweek
Category:
0
comments
Published Online: March 22, 2011
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/21/414351gtlantaschoolsmayor_ap.html
Atlanta Mayor Eyes Takeover of District Embroiled in Controversy
Atlanta
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed says he's been meeting with Georgia lawmakers regarding a possible takeover of Atlanta Public Schools, which has been embroiled in controversy in recent weeks.
Reed tells WSB-TV that he has met with Georgia lawmakers and asked them to consider options for a temporary takeover of the school board.
The mayor says he's been hearing from people all over the community who have told him that progress to resolve problems is not being made, and that the school board is ignoring recommendations from its accrediting agency.
In January, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools—which accredits about 5,000 school districts nationwide—put Atlanta Public Schools on probation.
The mayor told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he would ask for the temporary ability to appoint members to the school board to help "break the logjam that exists around governance and a search for a new superintendent that is transparent."
"I didn't want this at all," Reed said. "But in August, if we are where we are today, what do we do? I want laser-like focus and concrete results to reassure the public that we are on the right path."
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/21/414351gtlantaschoolsmayor_ap.html
Atlanta Mayor Eyes Takeover of District Embroiled in Controversy
Atlanta
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed says he's been meeting with Georgia lawmakers regarding a possible takeover of Atlanta Public Schools, which has been embroiled in controversy in recent weeks.
Reed tells WSB-TV that he has met with Georgia lawmakers and asked them to consider options for a temporary takeover of the school board.
The mayor says he's been hearing from people all over the community who have told him that progress to resolve problems is not being made, and that the school board is ignoring recommendations from its accrediting agency.
In January, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools—which accredits about 5,000 school districts nationwide—put Atlanta Public Schools on probation.
The mayor told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he would ask for the temporary ability to appoint members to the school board to help "break the logjam that exists around governance and a search for a new superintendent that is transparent."
"I didn't want this at all," Reed said. "But in August, if we are where we are today, what do we do? I want laser-like focus and concrete results to reassure the public that we are on the right path."
Category:
0
comments
47
Published Online: March 21, 2011
New Urban Playbook: Hand Over Schools to Charter Operators
"The financially embattled Detroit school system has announced a controversial plan to turn nearly a third of the district’s 141 schools over to charter operators or education-management organizations by next school year. Officials say their only other option is to close dozens of low-performing schools."
More here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/21/26detroit.h30.html?tkn=PPMFhrdg%2FMnyc3IPWmjcoeC90sBxE8a4BLpM&cmp=clp-edweek
Category:
0
comments
Published Online: March 14, 2011
Key Parts of Title I Broken, Researchers Say
By Michele McNeil
Washington
Several pieces of the Title I program are broken and doing little for the disadvantaged students the law is intended to help, according to seven researchers offering new analyses of the multi-billion-dollar cornerstone of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
That message, delivered March 11 as part of a conference sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the American Enterprise Institute, comes as the Obama administration is ratcheting up efforts to redo the ESEA, the current version of which is the No Child Left Behind Act. Title I, which currently carries $14.5 billion in federal aid, is intended to provide additional money for educating disadvantaged students that is distributed to schools based on the number of students in poverty they enroll.
Chief among the problems with Title I, researchers say, is the “supplement, not supplant” requirement, designed to ensure that federal dollars are truly extra dollars and not just used to replace state or local funding. Also problematic is a loophole in the law’s comparability requirement, which seeks to ensure districts are offering similar services in Title I and non-Title I schools. Researchers also found problems with the law’s “supplemental educational services,” or tutoring, provision.
MORE HERE:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/14/26titlei.h30.html?tkn=UUOFQz1ReOSp8b1KVd6Zqcn5%2FBfLoGOmEDhk&cmp=clp-edweek
Key Parts of Title I Broken, Researchers Say
By Michele McNeil
Washington
Several pieces of the Title I program are broken and doing little for the disadvantaged students the law is intended to help, according to seven researchers offering new analyses of the multi-billion-dollar cornerstone of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
That message, delivered March 11 as part of a conference sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the American Enterprise Institute, comes as the Obama administration is ratcheting up efforts to redo the ESEA, the current version of which is the No Child Left Behind Act. Title I, which currently carries $14.5 billion in federal aid, is intended to provide additional money for educating disadvantaged students that is distributed to schools based on the number of students in poverty they enroll.
Chief among the problems with Title I, researchers say, is the “supplement, not supplant” requirement, designed to ensure that federal dollars are truly extra dollars and not just used to replace state or local funding. Also problematic is a loophole in the law’s comparability requirement, which seeks to ensure districts are offering similar services in Title I and non-Title I schools. Researchers also found problems with the law’s “supplemental educational services,” or tutoring, provision.
MORE HERE:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/14/26titlei.h30.html?tkn=UUOFQz1ReOSp8b1KVd6Zqcn5%2FBfLoGOmEDhk&cmp=clp-edweek
Category:
0
comments
Really, I try not to pick on the folks over at the News Journal. But, sometimes, I can't keep my mouth shut and perhaps that's why I'm not the best of politicians. So, here's my vent:
For last couple years, Ron Williams has been singing the Gov's tune when it comes to School Resource Officers. The Gov. wants to take SROs out of our secondary schools and put them back on the highways.
Why, Ron? Why run this editorial of persuations the same day the Journal reports that my Newark High had a particularly violent week? The culmulative effect will be a heightened police presence this week - Officers "trained to investigate burglaries and homicides." Officers that will not be on the road ticketing speeders or cell phone bandits. And why put our most experienced (and expensive) cops on the traffic beat? Why not divert the funding the Gov. would have to expend to create his special team of social workers-come-cops to create your highway patrol? A greenback has to earn his stripes somewhere and schools should not be training grounds for a career in law enforcement, nor should they become stepping stones in the career ladder.
My guess is that the truth is in the numbers - as in, a highway patrol will generate income for the state - through increased tickets written to all the folks speeding up Route 1 while calling grandma and playing Angry Birds on their smart phones. But, why does the Gov. and Ron need to pull some of the best officers from our schools to do this? They don't.
For last couple years, Ron Williams has been singing the Gov's tune when it comes to School Resource Officers. The Gov. wants to take SROs out of our secondary schools and put them back on the highways.
Markell has suggested replacing the officers in the schools with a specially trained corps of sworn officers who would easily qualify to move up as state troopers with a bit more training. Instead of spending tax money on school resource officers who were trained to investigate burglaries and homicides, the school resource agents would be trained both as police officers and school guidance/social service personnel. http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103090319Ron, honey, you just stepped in it. The Gov's been offering up this idea for three years. He's never once ventured to tell us what qualified as "specially trained" or its pricetag. School discipline is hard. Christina abolished its zero tolerance code of conduct and adopted a model that allows for some real intervention for students who truly have mitigating circumstances. But, that requires an amount of expertise and experience that only tried, true, and experienced SROs in concert with district officials can deftly apply. My SROs are my first line of defense in a secondary school. When a student presents with a weapon, a fight occurs, or fire is set, I need the calm, clear-headed tenacity of a solid officer. Glorified guidance counselors with tasers won't fit the bill.
Why, Ron? Why run this editorial of persuations the same day the Journal reports that my Newark High had a particularly violent week? The culmulative effect will be a heightened police presence this week - Officers "trained to investigate burglaries and homicides." Officers that will not be on the road ticketing speeders or cell phone bandits. And why put our most experienced (and expensive) cops on the traffic beat? Why not divert the funding the Gov. would have to expend to create his special team of social workers-come-cops to create your highway patrol? A greenback has to earn his stripes somewhere and schools should not be training grounds for a career in law enforcement, nor should they become stepping stones in the career ladder.
My guess is that the truth is in the numbers - as in, a highway patrol will generate income for the state - through increased tickets written to all the folks speeding up Route 1 while calling grandma and playing Angry Birds on their smart phones. But, why does the Gov. and Ron need to pull some of the best officers from our schools to do this? They don't.
Category:
1 comments
CHRISTINA SCHOOL DISTRICT
District "B" expires 2016 - David C. Resler (Mar. 2, 2011)
District "C" expires 2013 - Robin L. Broomall (Withdrew Mar. 9, 2011)
- Frederick William Polaski (Feb. 15, 2011)
- Howard L. Steadman (Mar. 4, 2011)
District "F" expires 2016 - Gina R. Backus (Mar. 4, 2011)
- Joseph J. O’Leary, Jr. (Mar. 4, 2011)
District "B" expires 2016 - David C. Resler (Mar. 2, 2011)
District "C" expires 2013 - Robin L. Broomall (Withdrew Mar. 9, 2011)
- Frederick William Polaski (Feb. 15, 2011)
- Howard L. Steadman (Mar. 4, 2011)
District "F" expires 2016 - Gina R. Backus (Mar. 4, 2011)
- Joseph J. O’Leary, Jr. (Mar. 4, 2011)
Category:
0
comments
When I got into teaching 15 years ago, it was for the money. The fame was nice too, but mostly it was for the money. Back then … I was making a six-figure salary ($038,000).
—David Orphal
Category:
0
comments
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
2011 SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES & FILING DATES
APPOQUINIMINK SCHOOL DISTRICT
One At-Large Seat, expires 2016
– Billy R. Combs, Jr. (Feb. 24, 2011)
– Edward Czerwinski (Feb. 18, 2011)
– Richard A. Forsten (Mar. 1, 2011)
– Walter Roshon (Jan. 6, 2011)
– Kelly M. Wright (Mar. 1, 2011)
BRANDYWINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
District “B” expires 2015 - Audrey J. Noble (Mar. 3, 2011)
District “F” expires 2016 - Cindy R. Becker (Mar. 4, 2011)
- John A. Skrobot, Jr. (Feb. 7, 2011)
CHRISTINA SCHOOL DISTRICT
District "B" expires 2016 - David C. Resler (Mar. 2, 2011)
District "C" expires 2013
- Robin L. Broomall (Mar. 4, 2011)
- Frederick William Polaski (Feb. 15, 2011)
- Howard L. Steadman (Mar. 4, 2011)
District "F" expires 2016
- Gina R. Backus (Mar. 4, 2011)
- Joseph J. O’Leary, Jr. (Mar. 4, 2011)
COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
District "F" expires 2016 - Joseph T. Laws, III (Feb. 22, 2011)
RED CLAY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT
District "F" expires 2016 - James Buckley (Aug. 18, 2010)
- Faith Newton (Feb. 23, 2011)
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
2011 SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES & FILING DATES
APPOQUINIMINK SCHOOL DISTRICT
One At-Large Seat, expires 2016
– Billy R. Combs, Jr. (Feb. 24, 2011)
– Edward Czerwinski (Feb. 18, 2011)
– Richard A. Forsten (Mar. 1, 2011)
– Walter Roshon (Jan. 6, 2011)
– Kelly M. Wright (Mar. 1, 2011)
BRANDYWINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
District “B” expires 2015 - Audrey J. Noble (Mar. 3, 2011)
District “F” expires 2016 - Cindy R. Becker (Mar. 4, 2011)
- John A. Skrobot, Jr. (Feb. 7, 2011)
CHRISTINA SCHOOL DISTRICT
District "B" expires 2016 - David C. Resler (Mar. 2, 2011)
District "C" expires 2013
- Robin L. Broomall (Mar. 4, 2011)
- Frederick William Polaski (Feb. 15, 2011)
- Howard L. Steadman (Mar. 4, 2011)
District "F" expires 2016
- Gina R. Backus (Mar. 4, 2011)
- Joseph J. O’Leary, Jr. (Mar. 4, 2011)
COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
District "F" expires 2016 - Joseph T. Laws, III (Feb. 22, 2011)
RED CLAY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT
District "F" expires 2016 - James Buckley (Aug. 18, 2010)
- Faith Newton (Feb. 23, 2011)
Category:
2
comments
"He felt degraded, he was hurt and the kids picked on him later," Aneka Burton said. "I feel like that was totally inappropriate; it was racist and it was degrading." http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2011/03/03/story-gahanna-elementary-school-mock-slave-auction.html
David Moye
Contributor
A school district in central Ohio is apologizing for using a mock slave auction to teach social studies to elementary school students.
During an American history lesson at Chapelfield Elementary School in Gahanna, Ohio, the class was divided into slaves and masters.
Nikko Burton, an African-American student who was assigned to the role of the slave, told WBNS-TV that while being a slave didn't bother him at first, he soon became offended.
Nikko Burton, 10, told WBNS-TV he was upset over being made to play a slave for a class at Chapelfield Elementary School in Gahanna, Ohio."After people were bidding on people it kind of made me a little mad and stuff," said Nikko, 10.
He said the students who were playing the part of master were told to feel the students playing slaves to see if they were healthy and strong and thus worth buying.
"The masters got to touch people and do all sorts of stuff," Nikko said. "They got to look in your mouth and feel your legs and stuff and see if you're strong and stuff."
Nikko's mother, Aneka Burton, said her son was so humiliated that she complained to the school district.
Although officials declined to comment, a district spokeswoman said the slave auction was part of the state required curriculum and that it was a one-time lesson.
That may not be enough to appease Nikko's mom.
"He felt degraded, he was hurt, and the kids picked on him later," Burton said. "I feel like that was totally inappropriate; it was racist and it was degrading."
Read more: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/04/school-district-apologizes-for-mock-slave-auction-in-class/
Category:
0
comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
