no money, mo' problems.
There has been a lot of buzz lately about reforming public schools. Earlier this week, President Obama outlined his plan for turning around America’s schools and closing the “dropout factories.” The President proposes giving $900 million to school districts to turn around or close it’s lowest performing schools.
According to the plan, districts and schools would compete for “School Turnaround Grants” by submitting comprehensive proposals to improve student achievement (read: raise test scores). This plan would require the schools to “agree to a series of criteria, including: firing the principal and at least half the staff; reopening as a charter school; close the school all together and transfer students to better schools in the district.”
Some applaud these extreme measures, but I can’t help but think that this sort of plan will disproportionally affect urban schools, many of which are on the list of lowest performing.
It’s easy for those looking at schools from the outside to say, “just fire the staff and start over,” but it’s precisely that sort of staff turnover that affects schools. Urban schools—hood schools—are always hard to staff. They are overrun with the newest teachers who need the most support and guidance (I know, I was one), and they are set up to fail.
“The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of students at three of the city’s worst-performing middle schools. The suit claims those students were denied their legal rights to an education and aims to prevent the Los Angeles Unified School District from laying off more teachers.”
Currently, the ACLU is suing my district, LAUSD, on the grounds that teacher layoffs were so devastating to urban schools that they infringed on the students’ civil rights.
Last year thousands of teachers were laid off, gutting many hood schools. Many schools were unable to find teachers because they are not in desirable areas and have a reputation of being a “tough” school. A lot of these schools have been functioning with day-to-day subs, just to have a teacher in the room. This is a recipe for failure.
Which leads me back to Obama’s plan. In order to compete for improvement money, low performing schools would have to jettison its staff, again, causing more upheaval, and in my opinion, more failure.
Teaching ain’t easy, and neither is school reform.
I am skeptical of any sort of school reform plan that does nothing to hold ALL stakeholders (parents, students, staff) accountable, not just teachers. Without support from the home, the teacher’s job is THAT much harder. If you can’t get your kid to behave at home or open a book (or don’t value books in your home), I’m going to have to work doubly hard to get him in line.
Letting the weight fall squarely on the shoulders of teachers and school staff isn’t fair. The schools that tend to perform better are either A) in an area with a higher socio-economic level or B) have greater parental support.
Schools are not islands; we can’t do it alone.
I am all for pruning the weeds. Some teachers need to go, but not all. I am for reform that, instead of cleansing a school of its staff (that knows the kids & surrounding community) that may be working hard, implements tough standards for both the students and the staff and has everyone work together for the betterment of the students.
I am all for school reform, but I am for reform that makes sense.
But as my momma would say, that’s too much like right.
~~
Side note: Today my district approved more teacher layoffs. I’m expecting my RIF notice (again) in a few weeks.
What do you think of President Obama’s plan?
Do you think people are SERIOUS about reform?
Tweet Me