Posts
If my son is going to be part of a union school, then I (a parent) want a place at the negotiating table. Schools say they want involved parents, but it's only on their own inscrutable terms. If a school can't be run without video cameras in the halls, metal detectors at the doors, or random locker searches, then I want the option of sending my son to some other school. I don't want a black and white, legalistic school for my son who might get caught in some sort of Kafkaesque punishment scenario. I want a school run by adults who use common sense and can deal with the ambiguities of kids who are just beginning to mature. Isn't that what schools are all about these days - child centered discovery learning? Discovery doesn't work well with three strikes you're out. I don't want a school that caves in to litigation threats or uses the threats as justification for rules that make their jobs black and white.
My school, for several years now, has been using "our children's safety" as a justification to lock parents out of the building.
In fact, one of the kids came home from school two years ago and said the principal had told them that the reason they had to have lockdowns (another one coming right up) was that a divorced parent might come into the school and kidnap his child.
Now, I have no idea whether the principal actually said that....but I also don't know how this child, who was then in 6th grade, would get the idea that he had if he didn't.
Everything changes in middle school.
Suddenly, in middle school, parents are seen as a danger to their children. Not always, but often enough. It's in the air. e.g.: drinkin', druggin' celebrity parents.
I'm going to diagnose this phenomena as a case of projection.
from Barry G:
Our teen center (run by the local community center) has dances every Friday (7th and 8th grades). You can drop your kid off at whatever time, and pick your kid up at any time. Kids aren't allowed out of the building, however, unless accompanied by the parent/guardian picking the child up. That makes sense to me. They do everything by common sense. They know who I am, so if I want to go in and look for my daughter in the dance room, they let me do so. I notice that the new people they've hired who don't know me yet don't allow me in the dance room. The idea is they don't want strangers prowling around at a dance for pre-teens. Good idea. Common sense counts for a lot.
Everything here, and I mean everything, is handled as if Irvington were located in the middle of the Bronx in 1970.
Pretty soon we're going to be strip-searched every time we attempt to enter the school.
healthfair
19 comments:
Our teen center (run by the local community center) has dances every Friday (7th and 8th grades). You can drop your kid off at whatever time, and pick your kid up at any time. Kids aren't allowed out of the building, however, unless accompanied by the parent/guardian picking the child up. That makes sense to me. They do everything by common sense. They know who I am, so if I want to go in and look for my daughter in the dance room, they let me do so. I notice that the new people they've hired who don't know me yet don't allow me in the dance room. The idea is they don't want strangers prowling around at a dance for pre-teens. Good idea. Common sense counts for a lot.
I just think there is a tememdous amount of butt covering going on. While I would say that our middle school isn't quite as goofy as Catherine's, they always seem to be heading in that direction.
Part of the problem with the middle school model is the whole team thing. You deal with a team.
It's also a bit confusing because most parents I talk to don't really see the logic of dividing schools into teams where only certain teachers teach one team, but not the other. I'm not sure how dividing the school up that way helps anyone.
This streamlines things for them, but makes it less personal to parents. Some individual teachers are good about establishing a relationship with the parents, but others can just hide behind the team.
They even do the "team thing" in our upper elementary (grades 5-6). You're right, it gives them a place to hide.
Okay, this may be where I enter the realm of the forbidden, but our junior high (6th through 8th grade, with a population of approximately 1200 students) uses the middle school model.
There are some plusses to teams in a school of our size; I'm not sure that it makes sense for Irvington.
In our former school district in Indiana, nine elementary schools fed into one junior high. The classes were randomly scrambled; that is, no team concept. You could have five different classes with a changing pool of students in every class. You may or may not have even known anybody in that class. Then you would go to the next class; same thing. For the super-outgoing kids who made friends easily, it may not have been as much as a problem, but for many of the kids it was a very challenging and isolating situation socially.
My understanding is that they did go to a middle school model several years ago; again, one of the factors, particularly in sixth grade, is that the kids still need to be able to find a group of kids that they can bond with and feel comfortable with during the school day.
This was a big factor with our junior high as well. There were simply so many kids from multiple elementary schools dumping into the middle school (for example, approximately 400 in the sixth grade), that it just helped them so much from a social standpoint to be with a core group of kids during the day.
The sixth grade, however, only has two lead teachers; there are five teachers in the seventh and eighth grades.
We have the middle school model in 5-6 grade. The total enrollment for the school is 600 for both grades. We do not need to have a middle school model in elementary school. We just don't.
To Steve H: you do get a place at the negotiating table by exercising your right to vote who sits on the school board. Don't like how they are representing you? Make sure they are voted off the school board.
Another point about teaming - rather than hiding "behind" the team, it makes teachers more accountable to parents. In my school site when we had teams, we had a group of sixty students that my team teacher and I taught. When we had a conference, both of us were at the conference. Instead of dealing with five or six teachers, the parents only had to deal with two teachers.
I don't quite see how teachers are more accountable to parents when you don't see them, as in 4 out of 6 not being at a conference. But, that's just me. This is what I mean by "hidden." The team is now the responsible party, not a specific teacher.
As a parent, I find it a bit distancing.
I do see a steamlining of certain things, like homework. The team leader keeps track of it and it gives the team a better awareness of how much is actually being given out, although it isn't working too well for my son this week.
Would it help to think of the team leader ( aka grade level chair in the elementary and dept. chair in the high school) as a first line manager (i.e. foreman)? He/she is accountable for the performance of the team and the individuals that report to her/him and is compensated for doing so. Individuals are accountable to do their job, per contract also, but are appraised and guided by the manager, rather than the customer.
It would be similar to you hiring a landscaping company, having trouble with one individual's quality of work, and then taking your concerns to the foreman to be rectified, rather than directly to the individual. The foreman usually has the experience and customer service knowledge to clear up the trouble quickly and efficiently.
------
I shopped at Sears this week. I felt awkward when the cash register employee handed me a register tape with a survey and stated that I was welcome to comment on "her performance today". Certainly makes an employee aware that every impression counts and that he/she is 'on stage' at all times.
"you do get a place at the negotiating table by exercising your right to vote who sits on the school board."
Gee, it's that simple to fix problems in schools?
Actually, the quote was taken out of context and I wasn't referring to the teacher's union or their negotiations with the school board. I was referring to a school's legalistic (union-like) mind-set when dealing with kids and parents - with parents having no input or place at the table, so to speak. Citing the school board process is a cop-out.
If you want to talk about whether a school board, dominated by an adversarial relationship with a teacher's union, is a reasonable vehicle for school control and change, then maybe we should start a new thread to discuss how that process works. Our school board meets once a month and, at best, can only deal with major union issues. If they were to even begin to talk about detailed policies or curricula, the union and the school administration would be outraged. Our board, which has teachers on them, has talked about how they are just a bunch of amateurs compared to the professionally-paid and supported union.
Our board can't even deal with seniority issues that have a big negative impact on our kids. One of the biggest is chain-reaction bumping. We had a RIF (Reduction-In-Force) one year that resulted in 5 teachers teaching new grades. Even the school administration didn't like it, but there was nothing that could be done.
Another year, our school wanted to hire an experienced seventh grade math teacher from California. When the teacher found out that he would lose all of his seniority by moving to our state, he backed out.
Schools and teachers talk about PITA parents, but the vast majority of parents keep quiet or move their kids to other schools. I find it interesting to hear what parents talk about at the supermarket or soccer sidelines. NONE of it ends up as letters to the editor or at the school board. They are too afraid.
How about another example. My sixth grade son gets to do a lot of crayon work in his science class. He gets to write down definitions, like "prediction", on 3 X 5 inch cards. The definitions are given to him. He doesn't even have to look them up. On the other side of the card, he has to draw a picture that reflects that definition. Ninety percent art. They are graded on art in science class. I don't think they will even have a test on the definitions.
The kids were also given lollipops in science class and were told that they are their babies. They will give them names (my son's lollipop is called Tina) and keep them for the rest of the year. The first assignment (due today) was to draw a lost-and-found poster for their babies in the event that they are lost. They had to draw a picture and write a detailed description of the lollipop on the poster. This is science.
How do I tell the teacher that crayon work is not appropriate for sixth grade? Go to the school board? Wait until the next election and ask the candidates what they think about crayon work?
I know (and like) the principal at my son's school and I also teach an after-school class, but it would still be a touchy subject for me to raise. I would be questioning their fundamental assumptions. I would be infringing on their academic turf.
KTM exists because the school board mechanism and the school-parent process doesn't work. The public school monopoly hides behind the presumption that everything is solvable by negotiation via the school board. The real solution is not an adversarial board relationship, but choice.
My son's middle school used the "team" approach, which seemed to have some positive social benefits.
There was a fair bit of good natured competition between the teams, especially around athletics, I think they may have had the teachers of team a face off against the teachers of team b in a school rally, which the kids totally got into. They love that kind of thing and it built a sort of camaraderie that seemed to be positive.
I guess I never got the memo about teachers hiding behind the team. I've always wandered the halls at conference time seeking out individual teachers that I wanted to speak with. They really won't say no when you are politely standing in the doorway and asking, do you have a minute?
Sending e-mails and calling teachers also pulls them a little away from the team.
But middle school and high school are undeniably different from elementary. As a parent, you have to put in far more effort. No one welcomes you and no one tells you how to get through the bureaucracy. But sheer persistence has been successful.
Well, I didn't exactly get a memo either since I did exactly like you and approached all of my son's teachers individually.
But for parents who are already uncomfortable talking to the school, then I think it could appear to be another layer for them to figure out. I'm sure that wasn't the intention, but it's something to consider.
To Steve H: you do get a place at the negotiating table by exercising your right to vote who sits on the school board. Don't like how they are representing you? Make sure they are voted off the school board.
Hi, Ms. Teacher!
This idea - that school boards represent the voters - really isn't true in practice.
In fact, it isn't true at all.
A union directly and forcefully represents its members (or ought to).
School boards typically see themselves as management, in a way - we've been told this directly. They believe that they should "trust the people we hire."
No union negotiator is going to say "trust the people who hired you"!
I REALLY want to stress this point.
Parents and the broader public do not, in any way, shape, or form, have a seat at the table.
Never.
We're working on getting one here in Irvington, but it is ferociously hard, hard "work."
In fact, it is a battle.
That's the only word.
Very few parents have the time, the energy, the stamina, or - and I just have to use these words - the aggression & courage to do what a fairly small group of parents here is doing.
I need to say, again, that there are several parents pushing the district for a seat at the table - which we are entitled to by law here in NY state, but do not have.
Until the end of last school year I had no idea there were "others" out there!
btw, this is one thing I've learned about grass roots politics - you don't start with an organized group.
You start with individuals who are temperamentally suited to conflict with a school principal or district.
rather than hiding "behind" the team, it makes teachers more accountable to parents. In my school site when we had teams, we had a group of sixty students that my team teacher and I taught. When we had a conference, both of us were at the conference. Instead of dealing with five or six teachers, the parents only had to deal with two teachers
Interesting.
Have you ever seen a team form a negative group opinion of a student?
I can see the advantages to teaming; I also think teachers need far more communication with each other than they have (or do you disagree?)
We were concerned, in a specific instance back in 6th grade, that C's "team" had jointly decided he was a poor student.
In other words, he had developed a poor reputation thanks to a particular teacher who was part of a team with whom she spoke regularly.
Have you seen that?
Is it a danger?
(This isn't to say that teaming is intrinsically wrong - all forms of organization have pluses and minuses.)
I can't follow the reasoning, but Ed explained this to me----
In our school, the teaming model put forward at the board meeting last year was clearly going to mean that we would have a "smart kid" team and a "not so smart kid" team.
Neither the principal nor the administration seemed to be aware that this was how it was going to work in practice.
(I think this may have had to do with the existence of only one accelerated course in the school, so that those kids would all be on one team.....I'm not sure.)
If you want to talk about whether a school board, dominated by an adversarial relationship with a teacher's union, is a reasonable vehicle for school control and change, then maybe we should start a new thread to discuss how that process works.
Our school board, in the past (this is probably changing -- ms. teacher is certainly correct that one needs to TRY to vote in new members) - has had no visible conflict with the administration or with the union.
Ed thinks Robert Moses' discussion of this issue applies to Irvington.
The school board has been able to assuage and fend off all potential conflicts simply by giving administrators and the union what they want, while routinely refusing to give parents what we want.
Because they've been able to count on affluent parents voting in higher budgets each and every year, this tactic for "conflict management" has succeeded.
Parents are still voting in the budget, which passed last spring, too.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult for a board to be completely independent of the superintendent. Board members tend to come from various parts of the community and it is usually the superintendent that they lean on to figure out what they are supposed to be doing.
Whether it's teacher contracts or the next referendum, the superintendent has a temendous amount of power in setting the tone.
When I sat on a nominating committee a few years ago, we asked each candidate who they worked for should they be elected to the board. Almost all of them said, "The parents" or "The taxpayers." But when they get in there that concept seems to overwhelm many of them and they look to the administration to figure things out.
That isn't always the best thing for a school as we have learned.
"In other words, he had developed a poor reputation thanks to a particular teacher who was part of a team with whom she spoke regularly."
One teacher can have that much impact over one child's perceived academic performance?
Are you speaking about Ms. K? The one who didn't teach C. math?
Are you speaking about Ms. K? The one who didn't teach C. math?
No, it was another teacher altogether.
Ms. K. is very sweet-natured.
Also, it turned out not to be true. But we had a moment of intense distress when we got C's report card (back in 6th grade) and it was filled with negative canned comments.
Post a Comment