New Haven Independent

Posted by: Bill | May 14, 2009 9:45 AM

You can blame the democrats who do not believe in school vouchers that would give parents a tax break for sending their kids to privates schools. It costs the city more than $12,000 to educate a child, so you would think it would be fair to give a modest tax break since they are saving the city money.

Posted by: Former Student | May 14, 2009 11:46 AM

The City should try to help; I attened St.Rose in 1995 and it really changed who I was as a person coming from public school. Mrs. Groom and Mr.Knapp were great teachers.

Posted by: Walt | May 14, 2009 2:16 PM

Bill has it right.

The Dems and the teachers' union have control.

If govt. paid the complete cost at St Rose, they would save almost 50% and provide a better education for the kids..

Posted by: Beansie's Mom | May 14, 2009 3:12 PM

Maybe Vouchers are the way to go. St Rose is by no means a failing school but a thriving one. How much money does the Bd of Ed spend on those failures. I'm with Bill and Walt. Let's see some subsidy. If Charter schools can get 75% from the state why can't these private schools get some too.

Posted by: che | May 14, 2009 10:24 PM

I agree with Bill. I am not a Democrat or Republican and I totally agree that my neighborhood school should get the $12,000. x2 for my kids and they do not attend there. Vouchers are the way to go and it may help in making some of these fancy on the outside, crappy on the inside, be more competitive and then they can fight to have us attend there. These parochial school teachers get paid peanuts and they do an amazing job with our kids. Its ridiculous to think that it costs less than $4,000 to teach a child in a parochial school but $12,000 in a public school. Money is not what will save your public schools. Its the commitment of your teachers and parent involvement. Parent accountability is what's lacking and a sense of entitlement.

Posted by: Tom Burns | May 14, 2009 10:39 PM

Let's pay for churches and fake non-profits too

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | May 15, 2009 10:00 AM

TOM BURNS,

Why don't you pay a little more attention to getting your own system in better shape and less time crticizing schools that work (at a fraction of the cost of a NHPS "education", I might add)?.

So Tom, why does your union cringe when it comes across success stories like St. Rose's? If you are so concerned about the kids, why wouldn't you be in support of public funding going towards great schools wherever they are found?

Could it be that your union tries to kill any alternative education program that might threaten their hegemony over the political system? Could it be that you don't like competetion from other schools, even successful, efficient, parochial schools? Could it be that the AFT and the NEA have had a stranglehold on the urban education funding machine for 40 years and your card carrying members really don't give a crap about the kids as long as you get your generous pensions, your summers off, a 6 1/2 hour school day, and lifetime tenure.? Why does your union abhor the notion of rewarding good teachers with performance pay? Why don't you believe that there should any differentiation between good teachers and bad ones? This lack of accountability and your fight against a good incentive system for high performing teachers are the chief reasons why loads of good teachers have fled for the suburbs for decades.

BTW, Tom...where do most of your unionized teachers live? Do they choose to live in New Haven and send their children to Hill Central? to Mauro?

The answer Tom, as you very well know, is that most of your members wouldn't dream of sending their own children to many of the schools in which they draw a paycheck.

And yet your union organization would pay your state lobbyists to CRUSH any attempt by a small local group of low income parents to have the state support their school so that they can get a decent education for their children.

Tom, you rage against a corporate bogeyman all the time, and you see financial conspiracies behind every door. But clearly you don't see the irony in the fact that the organization that you represent holds the largest monopoly in the country. And yet you're afraid of a little parochial school?

Posted by: Beansie's Mom | May 15, 2009 3:50 PM

Dear FIX the Schools,

WOW You said it!

Posted by: norton street | May 16, 2009 1:20 PM

i know next to nothing about this issue but to fix the schools,

you mention that a problem with the public school system is lack of involved parents. in the case of the st. rose school, it seems that the parents are very involved (which is good). if their children attended public school do you think the parents would become uninvolved? in my opinion, success has to do mostly with parent involvement.
it seems like your arguing for two things here: more involved parents for public schools and helping to keep the involved parents in private schools. these seem somewhat opposing to me.
i dont know exactly how i feel about the issue since i havent thought about it thoroughly, i just had a question about youre particular post.

Posted by: Thomas Burns | May 18, 2009 8:17 PM

I taught at a parochial school and enjoyed it immensely. I am happy when other people are happy, no matter their choice of school. I would choose what is best for my children considering the situation and I expect other parents to do the same.
But it is totally apples and oranges concerning effectiveness of the staff and administration as the student bodies of public schools and charter/private schools are so different-- and there are so many other variables that come in to play----lets agree on certain things and move forward in the best interest of all----(remember, adults were kids once)--Tom

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | May 20, 2009 11:25 AM

Norton st.,
I am all in favor of maximum parental involvement. Why? Because we know that when educated parents are actively involved with their children's schooling, there is the highest liklihood that the kids will do well and go on to college.

Where there are parents who are motivated to be involved but lack education themselves, there is a necessary and understandable reliance on the school to ensure that the child is where they ought to be academically.

Where there are no educational role models at home and for whatever reasons there is little or no parental involvement, we are left with having to place almost all of our reliance on the education system to deliver that child successfully through 12th grade.

When there is no ability and motivation at home, the system needs to take responsibility for educating the children. We cannot afford to let any child pass through the system without significant interventions aimed at providing that child (future adult citizen) with the ability to navigate their lives.

If there are people out there who question where the responsibility lies to educate other peoples' children, and don't think that we ALL end up paying the economic and social costs of mis-education in the end, I disagree strongly with you on pragmatic grounds.

So to answer your question, I believe that parental involvement is a HUGE factor in why kids do well. BUT, because of examples like Amistad over the last ten years, the lack of an involved parent at home need no longer be the end of the conversation.

We now know thanks to the examples set by high performing charter schools, that student background does not condemn a child to underperformance in school. Even if you are an at-risk student, if you are in a school "that works", your chances of succeeding are exponentially higher. The effect of being enrolled at a great school is analagous to the effect of a life saving medical intervention. And the on top of that, a great school system doesn't need to be any more expensive than what we currently pay, and it should yield amazing economic benefits for our community if we can accomplish this transformation.

Yes, we will have to change the ways that our system operates. And that is what the mayor is now doing.

Yes, it will take a different kind of system than we have today to meet the needs of the at-risk children (which today is a very high number), but we know that in the right environment, all kids can learn at high levels.

This is the whole point. We have to decide if we as a society want to simply accept the status quo from the educational establishment, or do we want to change our system of public education to be able to serve ALL children's needs - not just those with active and engaged parents.

Lastly btw, the argument that charters attract kids that would do well in any environment because of parent involvement simply doesn't stand up to the data. Why? Because the average entering 5th grader from NHPS into Amistad comes in 2 years behind grade level. But by the 8th grade (4 years in Amistad), their academic results have risen to state average or better. So, if these kids would do well in any environment because of their parents, then how was it that they were so far behind in fifth grade?

Its getting pretty exciting around here. What with the preminent global 21st century university in our town, the improvement in other colleges and universities around the area, an ambitious Gateway CC, and most importantly a turn-around in K-12, in a few years we can call ourselves:

NEW HAVEN - "The Knowledge City"!!!

Posted by: Tom Burns | May 21, 2009 10:47 PM

Fix,
You actually had me and I mean it --- until you thought the fix was Amistad---if you could have only stopped at what we need to do for certain children w/o parent involvement----I agree with you--now I am going to ask you again to give me a call at 860-227-6668 so we can work together for the childrens gain and not our own---Tom

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | May 22, 2009 9:19 AM

Tom,

If you really want to support the improvement of the system, here is what you can do:

The NHFT should CEASE ITS FOCUS ON TEACHER TENURE and instead embrace the concept of performance evaluations. If you want to negotiate on behalf of your members, then make sure that the evaluation criteria is the best and fairest that it can be.

Longevity in the system means nothing by itself. Some of the worst teachers are those that have been in the system for decades. Some of the best teachers have only 2-3 years under their belt. If great veteran teachers can channel their experience into better student outcomes, then THAT is where experience translates into value.

EMBRACE PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE. Realize that the reputation of your profession is driven by the accomplishments, competency, and talent of your members, and your willingness to recognize achievement. If union leadership wants to add value, then negotiate with the district to ensure that it adopts the most thoughtful and fairest system of performance-based compensation. (REMEMBER: Tenure or longevity by itself has no place in these contracts)

EMBRACE AN EXTENDED SCHOOL DAY. I don't know why the union would object to a longer school day in the first place. A longer school day means more reward for those who are willing to put in more time. Or it might even mean the hiring of more teachers in order to create overlapping morning and afternoon "shifts" to staff a school day which runs from 7:00am through 5:00. Whether or not your members want to work longer hours themselves, at least encourage teachers who WANT to do this to do it!

Similarly, SUPPORT A LONGER SCHOOL YEAR. We need school all year round, perhaps in a semester system. We are far behind and cannot afford to have our students take their summers off anymore. For the same reasons stated above, your union should be in favor of the higher demand which a year-round calendar creates.

We know that this is not a one way street. So what should the union expect from the leadership of the district?

1. Competency - led by individuals with a track record of accomplishment in delivering the best results in urban education.

2. Transparency - Budgets, salaries, rationale for directives and initiatives all will be presented at BOE meetings and be transparent to teachers and the public.

3. Accountability - Performance evaluations of all administrators based on clear performance based goals. The buck stops with the leadership.

4. Fairness - No arbitrary or capricious mistreatment of teachers. Promotions will be granted on the basis of factors such as previous performance, skill, and potential.

Posted by: Tom Burns | May 29, 2009 1:57 AM

I like a lot of your stuff but because you are not in the trenches you don't really get it---please call me if you really want to make a difference-860-227-6668-Tom