Posts
sigh
In just the past couple of days I've come across two Bad Things about vouchers ....
From 2003, this is one; and there's something going on in Indiana re: Catholic schools, vouchers, and state accreditation of Catholic schools receiving vouchers....
I have to say, there are times when I simply think that schools, as in schools per se, are unworkable, with notable exceptions of course. Around these parts I'm hearing stories about the two local private schools ... hedge fund owners joining boards, athletic directors being fired because hedge fund owners have joined the board -- and this in a school that until recently was a) a girls school; b) an arts school; and c) the safe and nurturing school where kids who were getting bullied in their public schools went for middle school....
Now it's got hedge fund owners on the board firing the athletic director because hedge fund owners on the board want a sports school, not the art school that used to be a girls school they've got.
(Have I mentioned I don't like boards?)
Back on topic. I remember, years ago, when a friend of mine was getting married, talking to her fiance's best friend about the blessed event. He was a semi-confirmed bachelor, and he said to me: "Marriage is a great institution, if you like living in an institution."
As it turns out, marriage is a great institution (marriages don't have boards!), but I think the quasi-bachelor's 'living in an institution' observation applies to and awful lot of schools.
Schools are a great institution if you like living in an institution.
They all do what they do, it's just that some of them do it well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
http://news.yahoo.com/louisianas-bold-bid-privatize-schools-220651571.html
There's an article to scare the pants off of anyone who isn't excited about vouchers.
I would take any rumors about "athletic director fired because hedge funder joined the board" with a HUGE grain of salt.
First, If anyone on a board is spreading rumors, that person should not be trusted. Period. One of the first duties of board members is to respect confidentiality of deliberations. Thus, anyone with inside knowledge of board deliberations cannot be talking. If they are talking, they don't know enough about serving on a board to be a reliable source.
Second, boards must live by the motto, "give, get or git." I would be very worried about a school which did not try to persuade wealthy parents or alums to join the board.
Third, is the school fully enrolled? If it isn't, the school should be worried. Being known as an "arts school" can be very limiting. Applicants' families start to shy away if the profile is too established. Sporty families won't consider arts schools, and arty families won't consider sporty schools. It goes both ways.
If a school's fully enrolled, then a strong identity is fine. If not, the board may decide to change the school's emphasis--to save the school. Several private schools have closed or merged with other schools in our area. It's a hard time to recruit tuition-paying parents. A "hedge funder" may have a better grasp of financial realities than a board member who can't even keep confidentiality.
Fourth, did the school just change its head? If so, one would expect a new administrative team.
First, voucners is now becoming a dated word. It's usually associated with programs that don't provide full payment.
But I'm not sure what the problem is here. It's not well defined. What is it lately about using the pejorative term hedge fund manager. What if it was a "21st century artist" who tried to force a high school to be all integrated learning and hands-on, eliminating all AP classes? What if they required all sports to be no-cut?
Is the purpose to show that choice doesn't work or that privatization doesn't work? Or, is it a way to show the sorts of problems to be avoided. There is a concerted effort by many powerful people to show that the "charter school experiment has failed." They don't trust parents making that decision. More likely, they don't like what the parents are choosing.
The assumption is that what we have is somehow better, or that there is a mechanism in place to improve schools. CCSS is not that mechanism. Parents still want to get out.
We have an unschooling sort of charter high school in our area where kids define their own learning via real-world, hands-on techniques. Nobody complains about "creaming" off these students. But if you talk about a science and math academy, that's a different issue. Apparently, if these kids leave, the rest will be treated like dirt.
The private K-8 school our son was attending changed it's philosophy. A new headmaster came in who cared more about image than academics. They tried to recruit parents who were looking for that. We went back to the public schools.
Things change, but is the assumption that choice always moves things towards a worse result? Who gets to decide that?
Fourth, did the school just change its head? If so, one would expect a new administrative team.
nope
no changes except hedge fund owners on the board
this really isn't a rumor; it's a reality
the athletic director has been fired, and the schools is intent upon becoming an athletic power. One thing they've done is to require all students to take ... 4 quarters of a sport, I think it is. This means that there are now all kinds of non-athletic, unmotivated kids on the teams, and one of the coaches has complained publicly. (May have written a letter to the editor.)
the big-donor parents who are coming in are open about the changes they want
the school is more than fully enrolled - has a waiting list
this is a cultural change happening because a different group of parents has come in
same change in parent body is happening in the other local private school (which has a long waiting list to get in)
both schools are now advertising in NYC for students, and Manhattan parents are starting to send their kids to the two schools
Manhattan has a real shortage of private schools; there are far more parents who want private schools and who can afford over $30K (maybe it's at $40K now?) than schools to serve them
on the other hand, I'm not sure why those parents are showing up here now .... could be that the local private schools have lost customers due to the economy, and the Manhattan parents are taking the slots
Chris's Jesuit school is now impossible to get into: 5 boys from around here applied this year, and only 1 got in
Chris says what's happening is that parents who would have paid for a private school are paying for a parochial school instead, and I bet that's right.
Things are changing so rapidly at Chris's school that one of the teachers told him that each year's class has now has higher scores than the class before.
Chris enrolled during the fall when the crash happened, as I recall.
What is it lately about using the pejorative term hedge fund manager.
These days, I have to say, the term 'hedge fund manager' is fairly pejorative for me, which is probably not fair.
However, in this case, I'm not exactly using it as a pejorative; I'm reporting what parents at the school say.
btw, the conflict here is between the "big rich" and the "little rich."
Before I moved to NY, I read a hilarious article about NYC, which talked about the big rich and the little rich. When I told my friend Debra about it, she said, "What does that make us, the big poor?"
There are plenty of institutions, some of them schools, where the people with the most money and/or aggression elbow everyone else out of the way.
No question I've seen that in my district.
What if it was a "21st century artist" who tried to force a high school to be all integrated learning and hands-on, eliminating all AP classes? What if they required all sports to be no-cut?
Obviously I would be against that.
I am strongly against one group of people imposing its will on another group of people without their consent.
That's the situation here.
The private K-8 school our son was attending changed it's philosophy. A new headmaster came in who cared more about image than academics. They tried to recruit parents who were looking for that. We went back to the public schools.
I didn't know that!
(I didn't know there'd been a change in philosophy.)
It's a hard time to recruit tuition-paying parents. A "hedge funder" may have a better grasp of financial realities than a board member who can't even keep confidentiality.
I know that's the case everywhere else, but not here. (Though, as I mentioned, the local privates have probably lost Westchester students.)
There's no issue of confidentiality here -- the board has decided to change the nature of the school and of the student body.
How could that be a secret?
If you fire the athletic director, and hire an athletic director known specifically for creating blockbuster teams at private schools, people notice.
I heard about it from my tennis teacher, for pete's sake.
btw, and I think I will just say this .... we are talking about people like Jack Welch's wife (not a hedge funder, I realize).
We're talking about major money people moving into a heretofore local private school that had rich parents but not Jack Welch rich.
on the other hand, I'm not sure why those parents are showing up here now .... could be that the local private schools have lost customers due to the economy, and the Manhattan parents are taking the slots
Chris's Jesuit school is now impossible to get into: 5 boys from around here applied this year, and only 1 got in
Chris says what's happening is that parents who would have paid for a private school are paying for a parochial school instead, and I bet that's right.
So, the student body of the school is changing. The school changes with the new influx of students. That's very different from a new board member demanding the head fire the athletic director.
Every year the director of admissions must recruit a new class. If the traditional local parents are opting to send their children to parochial schools, what can the arts school do? Parochial schools are usually more athletic than art schools. (At least, I think that's the common perception.) Tuition is probably a major factor, but they could be losing students to parochial schools because local parents are also demanding competitive teams.
"(I didn't know there'd been a change in philosophy.)"
They wouldn't admit to that change, but many parents saw it and their enrollment suffered. They might have recovered by now with more like-thinking parents.
However, we do have what are called "Met" high schools that focus on a student-driven, real-world curriculum. Specialization is fine, but it's a problem when major changes are made at a school.
Many people love the full-inclusion of our K-8 public schools. They move to our town because of it. Nobody asked parents if they wanted that change. You can't have schools that please everyone or are considered "best practices". More choice is the future, but there will be a lot of instability until things settle down.
the safe and nurturing school where kids who were getting bullied in their public schools went for middle school....
Does the school continue through 12th grade, or is it an independent middle school? Do their students traditionally return to the public schools for high school?
It may be that fewer parents are opting to pay the school's tuition for a safe and nurturing school. Or, even local parents are planning to apply to prep schools for high school--and those schools do place a premium on sporty kids.
At our local public high school, the varsity teams are full of kids who've been playing on travel teams since elementary school. An artsy kid would know in 7th grade that she wouldn't have a chance at the public varsity teams. That's o.k., because her local public high school can't turn away students.
Prep schools can, and do, turn away students. It's quite logical for parents who do not plan to send their children to the local public high schools to place a competitive sports program at the top of their list of priorities. If they live in NYC, I would think sending their children to a school which would give them many opportunities to play outside would be a selling point.
This is very like the growth of the "country day schools" of an earlier era.
Post a Comment