Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
July 24, 2005
Cars, Electronics, and now Teachers
According to the June 13, 2005 edition of Newsweek, About 150,000 teachers enter the classroom each year, roughly 50,000 short of what's needed. This data was recently released by the National Education Association. To fill the gap, educators are relying increasingly on imports.
Read this important article by clicking here
Why is it that we're falling so far short of teachers in our nation's classrooms? Why is it that so many people who would make great teachers go into the private sector instead?
Is it the salary & benefits? Is it that the private sector has better working conditions (does it?). Are disricts simply doing a poor job of recruiting the right people?
Is it as former IBM head Lou Gerstner says: "If we don't step up to the challenge of finding and supporting the best teachers, we'll undermine everything else we are trying to do to improve our schools.”
Check out Lou's web site at www.theteachingcommission.org
Is it time for a change of how we recruit, train, retain and pay our public school teachers? Does the governor's call for reform help or hurt this important discussion?
Your opinion is welcome and ideas are encouraged.
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 01:38 PM
July 20, 2005
Are our kids ready?
According to the New York Times, and a nationwide survey of teenagers by the Natonal Governors Association, a wide majority of high schoolers say that High School is not preparing them for college or life after school, is not hard enough and should do a better job at educating teens.
The Governors expected the opposite, thinking kids would say school is too hard. Nope - turns out kids actually want to learn!
According to the article:
Taken together, the electronic responses of 10,378 teenagers painted a somber picture of how students rate the effectiveness of their schools in preparing them for the future.
The survey also appears to reinforce findings of federal test results released on Thursday that showed that high school seniors made almost no progress in reading and math in the first years of the decade. During that time, elementary school students made significant gains.
I know that in my high school experience, and that of many others, your senior year actually decelerates your academic progress. If you've taken all of the qualifying classes, you can shorten your school day, take fewer periods of work etc.. Is that still the case in today's high school?
Another quote from the article:
"A lot of business people and politicians have been saying that the high schools are not meeting the needs of kids," said Barbara Kapinus, a senior policy analyst for the National Education Association. "It's interesting that kids are saying it, too."
Marc Tucker, president of the National Council on Economic Education, an organization that helps states and school districts create programs that are more tailored to contemporary student needs, said he did not believe that American high schools could adequately prepare students without a fundamental change in how they operated.
Mr. Tucker said American schools had been too slow to adapt high school curriculums to the real-life demands of college and the workplace.
What do you think? What can be done to re-invent High School so that it benefits more kids when they graduate? What effect does serious overcrowding play?
Think of it this way - if this is how high schoolers feel today, how are they going to feel when their own kids hit High School. Are these going to be engaged, motivated parents? How are they going to motivate their own kids when they weren't or aren't motivated.
How would you fix our high schools, and help our kids?
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 05:32 PM
July 17, 2005
Is it time for a new look?
In Sacramento, politicians are packing up congratulating themselves that they passed a budget almost on time this year, without a decrease in the state's bond rating from Wall Street! QUITE the accomplishment!
But there are dissenters:
"The fact is, in May the Governor proposed spending $88 billion (General Fund), the Democrats countered at $89 billion, and they have now compromised at $90 billion. I suppose it is a blessing that the negotiations didn’t go on any longer."
Senator Tom McClintock
Is it time for a fresh look at how we fund things in California? Schools got $61 bilion, but school funding from the state takes away one of the most important aspects of education - local control. By getting the lion's share of money from the state, each district must jump through the same hoops, have the same curriculum, use the dollars the same way. Truly, it just might eliminate the need for local districts with the exception of administering the money, and controlling bond funds.
Is it time for a new look at Prop 13?
In almost every other state, property taxes are controlled at the local, mostly county level. Schools and other municipalities use property taxes to fund public safety, school construction and maintenance and a host of other services. True, in these states, the usually higher property taxes are mitigated by either no sales tax, or no state income tax.
In California - we have one of the highest sales taxes (much controlled by counties), high state income taxes and low (in comparison) property taxes.
When Sacramento controls how our school's $61 billion is doled out, it does so in a series of bizarre and antiquated funding formulas and buckets, not taking into account district needs or desires, growth (or lack of it) or programs and services a particular district wants to offer. It also means that there will be far more waste as the state has to have it's hands in the pot, then counties do, then cities and districts do - the higher up the money comes from, the less likely that money ends up in the classroom.
If there was more local control over how much got taxed, and it stayed locally - localities would get what they are paying for - or at least have a clearer picture of whom to blame.
If we eliminated the State income tax, Sacramento indeed would have to "live within it's means" as the special election measure calls for.
What do you say? Would you pay higher property taxes for better local control over your schools? Would we need the billions in bonds today to paint schools and fix toilets if a small piece of property taxes went to maintenance? Would you support the elimination of the state income tax, so our legislators in Sacramento had to get real jobs?
What type of tax system would be best for California's schools? I think in a year from now, after we've spent another $61 billion, it won't be this one.
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 09:17 AM
July 14, 2005
Bake Sales, or just more BS?
Readers,
It's been nearly a week since Arleigh Kidd, a local union leader and frequent poster to my blog, made a post that said that the $10,000 per child figure included dollars from "bake sales" at local schools.
This was a clear parrot of a talking point made the day before by State Sup Jack O'Connell. I called Arleigh on that point, and in this blog, told him if he thinks "bake sale" dollars are included in district budgets, then he should point out the line item in district budgets (In his position, I am sure he has access to these public documents).
We all know that the statement is a fallacy, and clearly just a talking point in order to distract people, and not debate the facts of school funding.
But doesn't Arleigh owe us an explanation? Doesn't this type of "talking point debate" lessen his argument, strain credulity and put a damper on Arleigh's credibility?
What do you think? How much time should we give this educational leader to come up with the numbers?
The clock is indeed ticking...
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 11:28 AM
July 09, 2005
Bloodsucking, leeching Corporations?
In last Sunday's Star, there was an op-ed piece from 15 year old Ricardo Gomez who attends Channel Islands High School. I want to congratulate Ricardo for having the courage to write what he thinks. It's unusual for today's youth to get up in arms about a cause. I was, however, so taken a back by what he wrote, that I have decided to comment on it. To view his article, click here before continuing to read my comments.
Ricardo, it seems, has very strong opinions, and blames corporations for the fattening of America's youth, particluarly when these kids are trapped at school, and have nothing to eat except what's served by the bloodsucking, leeching corporations.
But hold the phone Ricardo! What school do you go to? Are the food services at your school outsourced? Food services are typically provided by the school district, under strict dietary guidelines from the Department of Agriculture. Soda and Candy machines are provided on request of the district, and the district can decide what they stock or don't stock. And kids have choices they can make about what they can buy out of a vending machine or not. Kids can also prepare their own meals and snacks at home.
No one, including corporations, is holding a gun to your head to make you eat a ding dong.
It's easy to blame someone else, and not take personal responsibility. Yes, parents are often to blame, by sending their kids to school with the McDonalds Big Breakfast, or a pack of Hostesss Donuts. But is that McDonalds Fault, or Hostess? What about the kids that go to school with no food on their stomach at all? IBM's fault, or mom & dad?
Ricardo, without these bloodsucking, leeching corporations, you wouldn't have had the opportunity to publish your article in the Star, or for a summer job if you got one -
That Ipod or Gameboy you probably have - built by a company.
That car you're saving up for - yep - a company with workers built that.
Do your mom & dad have a job? Where?
Like to hang out at Starbucks or Borders? They are not non-profit charities.
Like to go to the movies or play video games? Sorry, they're making a profit.
Ricardo - Obesity is a serious problem in this nation, and as you say, it is getting worse by the day. We have indeed supersized and indulged our way into being an unhealthy nation. But let's put the blame squarely on where it belongs. Personal choice and personal responsibility.
Let's have a serious debate about it.
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 10:39 AM
July 07, 2005
That's $61 Billion, with a "B"
First - let me say that my thoughts are with the victims and their families in London today. This is a reminder that we are at war, that we should sacrifice and that our governments first priority should be to protect it's citizens. I'm not comforted by security being ramped up "after the fact".
Now, on to the California budget. Congratulations go to the governor, and the legislative leaders for coming to an agreement on state spending. While the agreement really doesn't solve any systematic problems with the state finance system, it does add much needed money to our cities, transportation and schools, without raising taxes.
For the first time, $61 billion is going to education. That's a tremendous amount of money. Here are some interesting observations from local education leaders:
"This is one of our healthier budgets in years... After several lean years, it's not as high as we were hoping for. In fairness, we didn't get a great budget, but we did get a good budget"
Conejo Valley Superintendent of Schools Robert Fraisse
"I'm not suggesting Halcyon Days and budget surpluses, but Oxnard has positioned itself well"
Ed Diaz, Asst Sup of Business Services for Oxnard
"It's just a status quo budget"
Charles Weis, Superintendent of Ventura County Schools Office
It seems that the districts that planned and positioned will turn out ok with this budget, while the ones that always play it closer to the edge will struggle.
What do you think of the budget agreement? And, are you surprised it came so early in the year?
Tim
Posted by Tim Keaney at 10:31 AM
