On Vouchers, Guv Sticks To His Guns

Look into the Finnish public system. Consistently places first in the world. There are no private schools in Finland, therefore no talk of vouchers. The Finnish people believe that every child should get an equal quality education. It doesn't matter, rich or poor, ethnic background, religious background. Kind of sounds like the principals I was told as a child, made American the special place it was.

There is no voucher law in this state and the Greers and other proponents of vouchers are not going to get public dollars to go to religious institutions.

They should though support vouchers for private non-religious schools for the simple reason that it will bring their dream one step closer to becoming reality.

In the mean time they have to pay tuition for private school AND pay for a bloated, corrupt, ineffective public school system in Connecticut. And as taxpayers, they have every right to demand better outcomes and less cost in the government-run schools.

If only you could get the governor to sit in an African American living room in the hood. I'm influential to my people. But I guess it's always about priorities and of course who is hurting the most, the privileged always want more, many ride off of the coat tails of people they've oppressed in some form or fashion but because of what the status quo is things like these are'nt controversial.

Mr Ray: Right on.

Equality over excellence is the Finnish model, and it has served them well.

That was the American dream, but it has been replaced with arbitrary standards which are used to exclude and alienate minorities.

How ironic that the country which asked for the poor and downtrodden of the world now want nothing to do with equality, and revels in creating an us vs them paradigm.

Their religion is forcing them to pay extra for religious school, not the state, it's not the state's problem. We shouldn't be taking money out of our public school systems so that anyone who decides they believe something "special" can fund their own private indoctrination of their children into the same belief system. You pay taxes to support public schools and you are free to use them like everyone else, or you can pay for them and not use them LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WHO DON'T HAVE KIDS.

Should we exempt people who tithe from the state income tax because it's too much of a burden for them to give 10% of their income to both?

Finland? Give me a break. The entire country has a population of 5 million people so the entire public school population is probably around the size of the New York city district alone. The country lacks any significant ethnic, cultural, religious, or socio-economic diversity of the sort that defines us. It is an irrelevant comparison.

I think the English model is compelling, wherein schools are either Voluntary Aided Schools (partially state-funded) or Voluntary Controlled Schools (entirely state-funded).

In the Voluntary Controlled Schools, the secular studies teachers are paid for by the state, while anything having to do with religion is paid for from other sources.

At the end of this piece in The New Republic, my high school history teacher (go Mr. Abrams!) makes some good arguments as to why Finland is a very relevant comparison. Scroll down to where he starts talking about "the reflexive critique."

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/82329/education-reform-Finland-US

How could diversity be a negative. Ethnic, racial, and religious just adds to the wonderful melting pot. Every child would have first hand experience with a variety of life styles. On top of that, imagine if all the highly educated, intelligent parents who send there kids to private school were involved with there local public schools. There is a brighter future for our country, but it involves all of us.
Ray

JAK said of Finland: "The country lacks any significant ethnic, cultural, religious, or socio-economic diversity of the sort that defines us. It is an irrelevant comparison."

While I might agree with your statement of the facts about the cultural context of Finland, I strongly disagree with your conclusion about the relevance of the "comparison" to us.

It is a bit counter-intuitive, I do admit, to compare the US to a place that might be drastically different from us in make-up, but it would be extremely helpful to our nation (and mostly our children) were we to have the same results and intentions as a place that does not share the diversity that is so richly ours.

Think about it: What if the diverse cultural, socio-economic, racial, and religious statuses, of the US were only considered an enrichment to the nation, but never taken into consideration in a disadvantageous way when it comes to working for the common and hopeful welfare of our people.

It might be easier to work towards equality for all in places where diversity is not extant, or at least so small as not to effect the social/cultural make-up of the place, and, hence, the so-called dominant culture does not feel the need to be oppressively competitive with numerical and power minorities, but the world - our US world in particular - would be a far better place if we would work toward the same outcomes that a place like "Mr. Ray" says is indicative of Finland.

JAK is right again. Comparing Finland to the US is not comparing apples to oranges, it's more like comparing apples to fluorescent light bulbs. 5.4 million people with 4% foreign-born.

Finland is also not dealing with the legacy of a fatally flawed welfare system that destroyed the black family and resulted in generations of fatherless (and sometimes motherless) children.

Vouchers attached to every child (with no restrictions) would not only give parents more freedom of choice for schools, but could also potentially allow them to pool resources for home schooling -- i.e. paying a teacher to teach 3 or 4 children. Homeschooling success rates are excellent.

Nevertheless, Finland can teach us a few things. The following points are from Smithsonian Magazine.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html?c=y&page=4

With regard to school administration, "Control over policies shifted to town councils." New Haven could disband the Board of Ed. and turn over responsibility for each Ward's schools to its Alderman. (Halve the number of wards and double the Alderman's salary.)

With regard to teacher qualifications, Finnish teachers are "professionals selected from the top 10 percent of the nation's graduates to earn a required master's degree in education." My German friend tells me their teacher requirements are similar and standards are MUCH higher than in the US.

Regarding vo-tech, "Even many of the most severely disabled will find a place in Finland's expanded system of vocational high schools, which are attended by 43 percent of Finnish high-school students, who prepare to work in restaurants, hospitals, construction sites and offices. "We help situate them in the right high school," said then deputy principal Anne Roselius. "We are interested in what will become of them in life."

New Haven, apparently, only developed this interest in recent weeks.

On Finnish poverty: "It's almost unheard of for a child to show up hungry or homeless."

An editorial remark by a Finnish educator: ""Children from wealthy families with lots of education can be taught by stupid teachers," Louhivuori said, smiling." (no comment)

However, lest you think this Finnish nirvana will go on forever, this paragraph hints at possible future problems in paradise:

"A few years ago, Kallahti principal Timo Heikkinen began noticing that, increasingly, affluent Finnish parents, perhaps worried about the rising number of Somali children at Kallahti, began sending their children to one of two other schools nearby. In response, Heikkinen and his teachers designed new environmental science courses that take advantage of the school's proximity to the forest. And a new biology lab with 3-D technology allows older students to observe blood flowing inside the human body.
It has yet to catch on, Heikkinen admits."

Funny --- no mention of a School Lottery.

The meeting with candidate Molloy happened in Oct. '09 when there were several other people running against him for the nomination. I know because I was there.
I'm sure that at that time he accepted all invitations to meet with voters. Eli Greer, as chair of the 24th ward Democratic Committee at that time, had the foresight to have us meet those who wanted to represent us. Gov. Malloy has the wisdom to remember those he met so early in the campaign.

[Editor: Thanks for the correction. Sorry!]

In theory, I agree with those citing the Finnish School system as a model. It is a model, and one we would do well to follow.

That being said, I have absolutely no faith in John DeStefano and Reggie Mayo to deliver on any meaningful improvements to the New Haven Public School System. They've had close to two decades to get the job done and they've failed miserably by almost any standard.

Vouchers are of course an imperfect solution, but they would be a significant improvement over what we have now. At the very least they would give more New Haven children access to better schools, and the benefit would be immediate. We should stand here making the perfect the enemy of the good.

I know countless families who loved living in New Haven, but moved the second their kids reached school age. Giving more people the option to send their children to private schools would allow more middle class families to stay in town.

The housing prices and property taxes are high in New Haven. If people are going to pay a premium price to live here, they have the right expect a good school system, or at least a decent one.

You can cite Finland or wherever else you like, but the fact is I don't think any reasonable person expects meaningful improvement in the New Haven School system in the foreseeable future.

While we're all holding our breath for John DeStefano and Reggie Mayo to "transform" New Haven Schools, we can at least use vouchers to give working and middle class families in New Haven a little help in sending their kids to area private schools so they can stay in the city.

there are no vouchers because the unions wouldn't get their money. They'd be non-union shops and the Dems can't allow that since the Unions own them

JAK + WVM,

Since the tax/benefit system isn't ala-carte, your point is moot. People with fewer kids than others or people without kids also pay taxes for schools and reap fewer or no rewards for their taxes. Thats just the way the system works, everybody pays for something they'll not necessarily use.

BTW, accepting a religious obligation IS a choice.

WM,
While welfare didn't make the situation better, it wasn't the cause of family unit disintegration, it was a response to it.
After the civil war, many southern blacks were employed as sharecroppers. The rise of northeastern and Midwestern industrialism attracted millions of European immigrants into cities to manufacture everything from clocks to farming equipment. By the turn of the century, farming tools were being replaced by large motorized farming machinery like farming paradigm in this country was shifted from a dispersed agriculture to an industrial process concentrated in the Midwest.
This shift resulted in massive unemployment in the south for blacks, which is why 5 million migrated to the northeast between 1940 and 1970. Government contracts were flooding into private manufacturing plants for the creation of war supplies during WW2, which attracted waves of black families into northeast and Midwestern cities. The immigration restrictions that were passed during WW1 meant that cheap foreign labor wasn't available. It was a void that black migrants were able to fill.
Unfortunately, after WW2 the government contracts dried up and deindustrialization due to outsourcing and decline caused widespread unemployment in the black community (in addition to other groups as well). This lead to families breaking up because men could not longer support their families and out of embarrassment many chose to leave. As a result of this, in the 1960s legislation and programs were passed to help these families. However, it didn't help and families in decaying neighborhoods without access to employment continued to disintegrate and eventually it became a generational custom for many people in the underclass, whether they are black and urban or white and rural.
"With regard to school administration, "Control over policies shifted to town councils." New Haven could disband the Board of Ed. and turn over responsibility for each Ward's schools to its Alderman. (Halve the number of wards and double the Alderman's salary.)"
That's a very interesting idea and one that demands exploration. I think the wards have to become much more important in terms of planning neighborhoods and encourage the creation of jobs, adequate commercial districts, recreational facilities and civic activities.
Here's a map I created a while ago of one possible alternative to our current ward map:
http://v13.lscache6.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/54214915.jpg

...

And robn, which point is moot? Whether you use the government services or not, you have the right to demand that they operate effectively and efficiently.

How is one deprived of services when he is given ready access as everyone else to public education but opts for a religious school ? This reasoning is illogical and a sham attempt to have limited education funds pay for their right to choose to the detriment of other students

I can't believe I'm saying this, but JAK is right in this case. The government's first duty is provide quality services. If they can't do it in house, and the New Haven school system clearly can't, then they should provide vouchers so folks can get the services they need and deserve from a private provider.

This isn't a radical idea. We give low-income families food stamps to go to private grocery stores, for instance, rather than setting up government run supermarkets.

We shouldn't let our pride or an academic argument against private schools to get in the way of what's best for New Haven families, i.e. access to good schools for their children.

Sure, in an ideal world we would have a first-class public education system, this would without a doubt be the best possible outcome. However, does anyone actually believe that we're going to make that happen in New Haven anytime soon through the public schools?

As unpleasant as it is to admit it, the New Haven school system is not working and John DeStefano and Reggie Mayo have had close to two decades to fix it. If they couldn't do it in the last twenty years, why on earth does anyone think they're going to fix it now?

We shouldn't let blind hope prevent us from trying new things, particularly when what we're doing isn't working.

Vouchers aren't just an "imperfect idea;" they're an actively terrible and destructive one. Sending taxpayer money to private schools, especially religious schools undermines the very purpose of a free, public, secular education.

Private schools have the option of rejecting or expelling children whose behavior or academic performance doesn't make them look good. Given enough vouchers and enough time, you will have high-performing private schools and even worse-performing public ones, which will be politically even easier to drain of resources. This is not the solution we should be aiming for.

Tom- it has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with union control of schools.
Schools cannot put the resources where they belong because of union control.

Jonathan, one thing I took from the article I cited was an overarching theme of "local control" for Finnish schools and small administration, which reinforces what you're saying, but flies in the face of our entire approach in this country.

Regarding welfare, I think, based on my life experience, that you greatly underestimate its historical effects. "Gaming" the system comes into play here (and is a major factor still.) People tend to find where the money is going and position themselves to receive it. (In the old days it was money for children when a dad wasn't present -- so the dad took a hike -- or lived unmarried with the mom, which is what happened with one of my relatives.) Paying a "premium" to families with two married parents might be a crazy idea, but I bet it would help. One can call it "social engineering" but that exists already anyway and I would rather see it directed toward the promotion of intact nuclear families.

robn-- I'm not talking about "rewards." I'm talking about allocation of funds in ways that produce better results. These things are changed all the time -- often through the ballot box, as you know. What we are "rewarding" right now is bad behavior in many cases and incompetence in a whole lot of our schools. My tax money goes for a lot of things I don't use and I don't complain about it IF it makes sense, works, and is necessary. This is what the social contract is all about. We have the right -- and I would argue obligation -- to demand competence, though.

As for your comment about religious schools, lots of schools have special concentrations. You send your kid to the Sound School for maritime/biology stuff (or whatever they teach there), to an arts school for extra arts stuff, etc. etc. etc. We need to get off this outrageous anti-religion bandwagon (thank you, ACLU) and use some common sense for a change. Parochial schools are often accredited (or at least they should be) and teach everything other schools do, but with religion added to the mix. Going to the Sound School is a "choice" every bit as much as going to a parochial school or a vo-tech school. Common sense should dictate that all accredited schools should be considered equal, but the tyranny of the minority has ruled until now. (Again, thank you ACLU.)

[Just as an aside while I'm mentioning the ACLU, I wonder how many elderly Supreme Court justices are going to be pressured to step down in the next year so that President Obama can nominate fresh younger liberals before the next election? -- as insurance for Democrats in case he loses, of course.]

Kurtz is correct, and this is the real lesson from the Finish model--and the one that everyone is ignoring.

Ironically, the current press coverage about the disparity between Finland and the US states that voucher proponents are ignoring this difference, so I'd imagine that people would have an answer for the anti-voucher sentiment.

The problem with a voucher system is it generally takes the strongest performing kids with the most active parents and lumps them all together.

This type of grouping is not particularly productive, considering that our country is an extremely diverse one, as pointed out by JAK and several others. Our country is far from a homogeneous grouping of like-minded individuals, and I'm not sure why anyone thinks it is a good idea to use public money to put children from higher economic families into better school systems.

What does New Haven get out of sending our children to better schools? Are they more likely to come back and invest in New Haven? This is purely anecdotal, but the highly-motivated people I know who went to Cross DID come back, and they teach at NHPS and do community work here, because they saw how direly we need help.

Studies show that children from disadvantaged backgrounds fare better when in schools of varying economic backgrounds--this is the equality notion that a Finnish model supports, and what we should be moving toward. All kids have access to the same level of education. They don't use tax money to provide a higher level of education for some kids--ironically, those kids who probably need it the least.

Meanwhile, in my own neighborhood, a coalition of parents got together and made the decision to send their kids to the "less desirable" East Rock school over Hooker--why? Because the only thing making Hooker better is the parents who send their children there. If a highly-motivated and involved group of parents are sending their kids to East Rock school, they can improve the entire school.

This is the type of can-do attitude we should be supporting--not vouchers to redirect public money to private institutions.

Charter schools provide competition to public schools and will force them to improve. Politicians protect the public school system since public unions help them get elected. Nothing will change unless politicians become accountable and fear the wrath of the electorate. If the Jewish electorate does not vote according to there own interest, politicians will pay no attention to them.

@Westville Mom
Wow! I have yet to see a serious sociological paper link the systematic destruction of the family unit in historical african-american families with welfare.

The unemployment compensation and AFDC (which is what you are talking about--welfare actually goes back to Great Britain and takes many forms, including Social Security) started in the late 30s, after the disintegration of the family structure in African American families had already been documented by Edward Frazier.

You should read his original dissertation, The Negro Family in Chicago, which was published in book format with the title, The Negro Family in the United States.

Considering that the breakdown of African American family units was well documented prior the AFDC, I'm not sure how you can claim that modern welfare caused the breakdown, unless you think Social Security did the deed. I'm pretty sure though you aren't talking about Social Security.

I'm trying to figure out your totally unrelated dig at Obama and how it fits in the context of your other comments, but having a hard time with it. Did you express such rancor for GW when he filled the court with conservatives?

Streever, let's assume your argument for the moment. What Finland is essentially doing is structuring their "public" system to operate almost identically to the way "private" schools are run here, where teachers have relatively more autonomy. So IF the public school administrators here would agree to that, I think most of us would be satisfied. I think I have said this in the past -- that public schools should look at what the private schools are doing and emulate it. Saying that always elicits jeers from other commenters and disparaging remarks about public schools having to deal with the "troubled" kids that private schools don't have (or so they think.) However, Finland IS doing it -- and you all seem to think it's just ducky when they do it.

The problem (as others here have stated) is both the unions and the entrenched governmental policies that will not allow such a massive overhaul. If you read the article I cited, it was not always thus in Finland. They had a horrible system and they overhauled it ... massively.

The key to all of it is very highly educated teachers. They upgraded the standards for teachers and put them on a par with doctors and lawyers with respect to prestige. When you do this, you can get away with less administration and bureaucratic nonsense because the teachers are qualified to create curriculum and manage the school/classroom environment on their own with minimal intervention, unlike what we have in this country (apologies to all the qualified teachers I personally know--but you are the exception, unfortunately), -- and tailoring it to the individual needs of their particular students.

I agree with all the other commenters who are saying that they don't see any hope of this happening here. So what we are left with is a move toward vouchers, which have already been tried in some places, as a workaround. How this benefits the rich in any big way, given the sky-high cost of elite private schools, I don't know -- I don't follow your logic. The people it would benefit the most are those who are just getting by.

If anything, this would encourage the sprouting up of all kinds of lower tuition alternative schools that would tailor their tuition level to the money available. (Think Federal Student Loan program.) And just maybe we could get through the next few decades experiencing rising literacy levels, for a change, until we could get to the point of instituting a Finnish system. Or not. But the current low status quo with its pathetic 1-2% improvements every once in a while and monstrous administrative overhead is simply unacceptable.

Streever, you and I clearly read different things, of that I have no doubt. Just wondering how you can ignore the statistics of two-parent black families in the 1940s/50s compared to later? If I had the time now, I'd look it up for you, but I don't.

My Supreme Court comment was a prediction, not a dig. If there was a dig, it was aimed at the ACLU and I stand by it.

Westville Mom
the problem with vouchers is they harm the children of the least motivated parents.

By removing the children with highly motivated parents from the school, it does have a directly negative impact on the children in the school system.

I hear you on the 40s/50s versus today, but statistics do not prove causation--you are claiming that welfare/broken families is a non-spurious relationship. I am suggesting that there is a 3rd factor you are not accounting for, and it is the institutional racism of our government and country.

How do you account for the breakdown of the african-american family and the documentation of it beginning pre 40s/50s? Why was a sociologist publishing a paper on it if it is directly causal of the welfare programs implemented in the 40s?

Do you think it likely that a government program introduced in the late 1930s had a measurable impact in just a few years?

JAK + WVM,

No argument that the public school system could do better, but you've both advocated for vouchers and better public schools (which i think is contradictory). I'm suggesting that we actively demand better from the public system rather than abandon it and drain resources it could use (including both funding and the parental energy that goes into supporting good schools.)

The idea of a public school is one of the best in the modern era; some may be bent, but not irreparably.

Whatever happened to Hartford's proposals to implement some form of "student based budgeting" wherein public funds would be allocated to students who would be free to choose any private or public school that they preferred?

I never found out how formulas to do this funding allocation would account for differences in student needs -- special ed, remedial learning, etc -- but I thought the idea had merit. Perhaps Adamoski's (??) departure from Hartford put an end to that or did it get implemented in some form?

I suspect those that object to vouchers would be equally indisposed to this form of school choice which avoids issues of public funding of parochial schools, etc. To those who are skeptical about New Haven public schools turning themselves around in our lifetimes -- what alternatives do they think are available to those trapped in neighborhoods whose schools are dropout factories and who can be jailed for gaming the system by using false addresses to get to a better performing school?

I might add, a trifle gratuitously, that the comparisons with Finland are bogus, given what has already been posted here.

Harry

The Finish data is already becoming outdated. The data is based on traditional Finnish students. Read current goings on and you'll find teachers are currently noticing a drastic change of late due to immigration. There will be a big change in the data over the next couple of years.

Impressive getting the gov to come to your home Eli.....

I am (it seems as usual) with Robn.

Schools like West Hills, Hooker, and Edgewood became successful because many motivated parents invested in them. Something similar is beginning to happen at the East Rock Magnet school now and the same can be true of every school when there are enough motivated and involved parents. The key isn't the schools because there's really no different between Hooker, or schools in Woodbridge and New Haven's "failing" schools other than an abundance of unmotivated, underemployed and ineffective parents in several of New Haven's underperforming schools. NHPS has the same qualified teachers as any other district, the same administrative structure, more resources (funding) and it even has better facilities than pretty much any other school district in the state thanks to the reconstruction project.
The key is to get more groups of motivated parents to invest in schools and move here, and to turn unmotivated parents into motivated ones. That will happen when there is easy access to an abundance of jobs for the skill level of existing residents, when there's access to job training and educational opportunities for adults. Once adults have secure and reliable employment opportunities within their neighborhoods or within easy access along bus lines, they will become a positive influence on New Haven's youth, which will solve the education problem overnight. The difficult part is engaging these adults and getting the programs and policies in place. All the energy that is being exerted on schools right now really needs to be redirected towards the unemployed, unskilled, and undereducated adults in New Haven's neighborhoods. It's not the qualified teachers and top-of-the-line school facilities that are causing children to underperform, its the drug addicts, muggers, drug dealers, horrible parents and other influential adults that students come into contact with everyday outside of school that are tormenting them and causing them to fail.
Address that and you solve the crime problem, the education problem, the blight problem, the tax problem, the middle class flight problem, the lack of an active civic life problem, etc.

The emphasis should not be placed on comparisons to Finland, but on how Finland developed one of the world's finest public school systems after years of being in the middle. Some of the most important takeaways from the Finnish success story are the following: 1) All the adults put aside their differences and committed to improving schools. That is, the teachers unions, politicians from all parties, parents, the business community, the religious community and others focused exclusively on improvement and not ego-based turf battles 2) since the reforms took 40 years, and did not just happen overnight, stakeholders maintained a clear focus on the goal, making changes as necessary 3) They understood that standardized testing serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose, so no such testing takes place until high school, and there is only one test 4) they limited the number of schools of education so that there is little variance in teaching quality. By doing so, and by giving teachers the respect they deseve, it is now ore difficult to get into the school of education tha. It is to get into law and med school. For example, the school of education at Helsinki University has an admission rate of only 7%, while the med and law schools have rates at or above 10%. 5) The Finnish understood the importance of vocational education.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that vouchers may provide financial relief for some, but certainly cannot be seen as an effective or appropriate alternative for improving the state of public education in America. What most people fail to realize is that public dollars already subsidize religious education by paying for transportation costs, one of the most costly services in schools. Religious schools also are, at times, beneficiaries of signifnant tax breaks.

While all religions should be respected, human beings choose to abide by religious tenets, and therefore choose to make the sacrifices necessary to worship. In terms of Catholic schools, I am willing to bet that at least half of the students that attend are not even Catholic. As such, that iisn't religious choice, it is an educational one.

Finally, vouchers do not work for poor people because no voucher would cover the entire tuition at a religious school. So poor people would receive a $5000.00 voucher for a school with an $8,000.00 tuition (not counting uniforms, books, lunch, field trips, ininstructionalupplies, parental fundraising obligations, etc) and be expected to come up with the rest? In the spirit of separation of church and state, those who want a religious education should be able to get one.....at their own expense. Perhaps a trade off - vouchers for taxation of religious properties and income tax paid by religious leaders.

Hopkins, robn, ...
If you think that fixing adults is the best way to begin to reverse and largely eradicate poverty and economic inequality, you haven't paid attention to our gross incompetence in carrying out that mission from the late 50s on. We've tried it. It hasn't made matters better, it has worsened thew situation. We have abandoned the notion of providing a safety net and instead embraced the idea of providing a feather bed.

On vouchers, my last thought is that some people are simply more comfortable with competition. I happen to believe that competition is good for everyone. Vouchers and charters represent competition to the education system. In response to competition, systems and institutions must change or go out of business. We this again and again throughout history.

In our system of competition and capitalism, we have winners and losers. But without competition, we are all losers. The state monopoly over public ed is the reason that we are not prepared to battle (economically) China and India in the 21st century. This erosion has been ocurring for decades.

Mr. Jonathan Hopkins, you said a mouthful, and YOU ARE RIGHT!

Mmmmmm ... statistics on this are hard to come by, but per pupil spending in New Haven is at least around $10,000 and was listed on various sites in 2008 at close to $17,000 -- so it's probably somewhere in the middle. My discussion of vouchers was based on the premise of each child receiving exactly the same as the per pupil spending (to deposit in the public/private school of their parents' choice.)

Catholic tuition rates are difficult to find, but St. Rita's on Whitney Ave. lists last year's as around $4,500 for a non-Catholic. Should be noted that Catholic websites emphasize tuition assistance.

By contrast, top private schools are well over $30,000 these days, but do offer scholarships/grants. In fact, if students were bringing $10,000 vouchers in with them, the grant money could be spread out much more and with much greater benefit for lower income families. Should also be noted that just desiring to enroll in one of these schools is not enough. The admission requirements are tough and demanding.

Should also be noted that "diversity" in private schools is much higher than many or most of the "public" schools in upscale towns and suburbs of CT. "Public" and "diversity" are really not synonymous, despite that common implication.

Stereotypes and exaggerations don't help this discussion.

For the past two years I have been regularly briefed by my dear friend in Scotland about the travails of her daughter in studying to pass her high school exams. (She did.) Similar reports from my friend in England several years ago. Their system, unlike the SAT, involves very comprehensive exams in many subject areas --- and you really HAVE to pass if you want to go to college. It requires prolonged study. From what I've heard, it makes our public school system sound positively primitive and wimpy. Their standards are SO much higher -- as they are in S. Korea, Japan, etc. etc. etc.

But here in New Haven that would be labeled "discrimination" if not enough people passed (e.g. the Ricci case.)

They (over in Europe) also have much higher rates of vo-tech graduates -- again, we are just waking up to the fact that we can't have industry without people to do the work. But New Haven Promise seems to think EVERY child should go to college -- just like EVERY family needed to own a house. Every child should certainly have the OPTION of college, but all this jingoism isn't really getting us anywhere. (Remember the "Positively New Haven" bumper stickers?)

Low income children already have generous assistance from colleges IF they meet the academic requirements. The "promise" should really be for a superior education so they can meet those requirements.

So apparently we can discuss restructuring the entire IRS with the flat tax, the fair tax, the wholesale elimination of various government agencies, the complete re-structuring of healthcare insurance and student loans ... but we dare not challenge the structure of the public school "system" in New Haven.

Huh??? Guess we're "leading from behind."

And New Haven taxpayers have the patience of Job.

Jonathan Hopkins: If only it were so. You write some good stuff every so often but this is not one of them!!!!

"NHPS has the same qualified teachers as any other district,.." How do you know? This is one of the key variables in knowledge, skills and culture transfer that we studiously avoid trying to measure. The knock against No Child Left Behind is that it's focus on student performance assessment as a guide to progress incentivizes the school system to "teach to the test". As if that is so terrible. Why not design better performance metrics if that is the objection?

As in other fields of human endeavor there is a huge variance around the mean in teacher performance. Systems people know that there is a 5:1 or better productivity/quality difference between the best and worst programmers. The same may be true for teachers, but we have not been allowed to find out given the resistance to any performance metric.

A recent study, (The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers-NBER-12-11.pdf and http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/value_added.pdf ) is important for the light it sheds on this aspect of our education debate. The study tracked 2.5 million students over 20 years in Grades 4-8. Quoting Whitney Tilson of Democrats for Education Reform,

"It's important for many reasons:

1) It underscores and puts hard numbers around the critical importance (and value) of effective teachers;

2) It highlights and documents the vast differences among teachers;

3) It shows that value-added systems (using standardized tests) are highly effective in measuring teacher effectiveness (i.e., identifying lousy, average, and great teachers). The media is focusing on 1) and 2), but 3) is perhaps the most stunning result – I would not have expected such powerful results.

4) The study has important implications for New York State and NYC because the data is from NYC (don't ask me how I know, but I do). Think about it: NYS tests have long been criticized (with good reason), but nevertheless, they're able to identify effective (and ineffective) teachers with remarkable accuracy – this is unbelievably powerful!

5) Lastly, the study is very powerful because it's credible in so many ways: millions of students tracked over decades; multiple measures of outcomes; done by three Ivy League professors (two Harvard and one Columbia) who, importantly, have no prior association with either the reform or anti-reform camps.

Here's the summary of the 93-page report (with a friend's highlighting added), which is attached (and posted at: http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/value_added.pdf) "

It is not surprising that these conclusions that corroborate what should be intuitively obvious is fiercely resisted by those most affected. With massive teacher contracts, lifelong tenure and the great difficulty of doing meaningful teacher performance reviews and of taking deployment actions it is not surprising that the percentage of teachers who are rated underperforming or removed from the profession is the lowest of most (any?)other professions.

Let me backtrack a bit. I am not disputing the critical importance of parents home life, culture, values, income and unemployment levels, etc., to the school performance of children. What I am saying is that focusing on these does little or nothing to change these realities – where is the magic wand that will fix these deep seated problems in a time frame that will do any good to a particular student? It may even provide an out for some and an acceptance of underperforming schools.

Harry

The idea that educated and/or gainfully employed and highly motivated parents are the answer to what ails our schools here in New Haven is correct.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen any time soon and impact what is happening in our schools now.

I believe the best way is to completely change how our school district is managed.

The mayor, the BOE, and the superintendent have built a management structure by investing in layers of management.

This has proven ineffectual and is inefficient in its allocation of resources, but even more importantly in its fostering a culture of fear, intimidation, cronyism, and political patronage. This is the very definition of corruption and waste.

This must end if there is to be effective reform.

Now might be a good time to start as the old guard is retiring.

It would be a tragedy for their replacements to carry on this legacy of corruption and failure.

I do not have children in NHPS, and when I did I removed them to private schools (our choice), but I have thought about the problem of unmotivated parents for a long while. I wonder if the BOE might look into taking some of the money poured into each child's "tuition" and consider rewarding parents for participation? I don't know, maybe $1,000 a year, per child, to the parents of any child who completes 90% of their homework and/or attends school the same percentage? It is probably more complicated than that, but when some school systems have instituted student reward goals why not involve the parents in the self-same programs?

Harry
The best metric for school success would be independent of testing and teacher analysis--it would be a holistic metric of how poor folks are faring, if they are getting less poor, if they are able to obtain gainful employment, if they are able to raise stable families, if they are able to have affordable health care, and if they are safe from physical and emotional harm.


However, the place that needs improvement after that metric isn't necessarily the school, but our entire culture.

Ultimately, instead of looking at NHPS as something that parents need to "get out of" we need to move beyond admiring the East Rock parents who decided to send their kids to East Rock Global en masse and start emulating them.

Reach out to your neighbors. Form a study group for your kids with your neighbors kids. Instead of looking for a voucher to help you flee, take a stance and work with your neighbors. Volunteer at your kids school.

The high school your kid goes to doesn't predict their academic success. Their individual grades do, and as a parent, you can definitely work on that with your child.

Read "Crossing the Finish Line" by Chingos/McPherson, a comprehensive study on the factors which contribute to collegiate success.

A "bad school" isn't necessarily "bad" for a student with highly motivated and involved parents. Yes, it is a challenge, but facing a challenge and succeeding is far better than having your parents eliminate all challenges for you.

Harry David,
Unless I'm mistaken, don't all CT teachers have to meet the same qualifications in order to become certified, full time teachers in public schools? Are there different standards specifically for New Haven that allow less qualified teachers to become full time and certified?
Actual teacher effectiveness, which is what I think you're talking about, is a different issue. In my experience as a NHPS student from 1994 to 2007, the ineffective teachers that I have had (there were at least 4) were clearly ineffective because they had been demoralized and drained from years of dealing with emotionally disturbed students. Most of the ineffective teachers were older and had been working in the system for many years. The younger teachers had much more energy and were much more energetic, while some of the teachers who had been doing it for a while were clearly rendered ineffective do to having to deal with huge problems beyond their control.
It's true that some people should never become teachers, but the vast majority of teachers all have the ability to be effective if given the right group of involved and engaged students. Worthington Hooker, for example is full of kids that come to school excited to learn and eager to do the work, while other schools are full of kids that don't have support from home and are dealing with enormous problems like neighborhood bullying, which they bring into the classroom.

JAK,
The welfare policies of the progressive era democrats in the 60s were not successful in helping families because they didn't follow the proven pattern of investment that had helped generation after generation of European immigrants succeed in this country. I am not a proponent of the welfare system because I don't think it's effective, in fact it's quite destructive. So obviously a continuation of those policies is not at all what I'm advocating for when I say we should help adults and parents.
What eventually got us out of the Great Depression? It was government contracts for war supplies during WW2 that flooded our cities with jobs and wages.
After the war, what kept us from falling back into a depression? Government programs like the GI Bill that commissioned the construction of millions of homes for returning GIs, the Interstate Highway project, and the Housing Act which made single family house ownership possible for the masses and created a demand to construct roads, houses and commercial buildings.
Those were all passed in the 40s and 50s. In the 60s, we started passing welfare programs to help unskilled poor people and the elderly because we realized that those groups had been left behind during the post-War reconstruction project, which required skilled workers. Unfortunately, rather than passing low-skill jobs bills, we started welfare.
It takes 3 generations of reliable employment for a family to support themselves and establish a strong foothold financially. That was true of the Irish, the Italians and the Eastern Europeans. It didn't occur for many migrating blacks and Puerto Ricans because the economic rug was pulled out from underneath their feet after only one or maybe two generations.

We can throw as much money into children through the schools as we want, but if kids are still going home to a drug addict parent, and neighborhood bullies who rob them and force them into seeking protection through gang membership then all that money won't mean anything. Maybe one or two kids will overcome these enormous odds, but no amount of school funding will overcome the inertia that is working in the opposite direction in these neighborhoods. We don't have the money in New Haven to keep spending on schools forever to counteract the influences of students' neighborhoods and homes, we need to fundamentally fix the problem at its core once and for all.

So as horrible as it sounds, we may have to lose another generation of kids in order to really address the problem. We've already lost 4 or 5 since the 60s, so what's one more? Additionally, if we can actually address unemployment problem for low-skill workers then kids will have opportunities to work as the grow up. However, if we continue to focus on schools we will inevitably continue to lose kids through neighborhood influences and they will be stuck without opportunities, whereas a neighborhood approach will still provide kids with opportunity should they not find success through the schools. The next generation will then do much better in school because they'll have parents who are happy, encouraging, and supportive.
It's not like kids can't get good educations at NHPS currently. I'm currently in Graduate school with a 3.5 GPA and I went to a "failing" NHPS school.

Kudos Hopkins and Brutus--you get it
To other posters--
rating teachers solely on their students abilities and effort is preposterous---
Private and Parochial--you give me a stable of thoroughbreds for which to prepare for the Kentucky Derby and I can weed out the lesser horses prior to the race or the Public schools that get some thoroughbreds but a lot of plow horses to prepare for the Derby (trained together) without a weeding out process) Which trainer will be more successful when the day of the race arrives??
I taught in Parochial school along with my brother Dave Low---we know its not the same---
Vouchers don't breed competition they breed class warfare(is this where we want to go)--I dont think so---
Please ask this question of Amistad--How many students are allowed to enter your school throughout the school year??? At Fair Haven over the years we would accept over 200 transfers throughout the year??? This in itself is the reason we cant compare schools or outcomes----It just isnt remotely the same playing field---Please care about everyone's kids not just your own---Tom

Having read Streever's comments, and many of the others on this post, I am much encouraged by the pattern of thinking manifested here.

One of my main and enduring criticism of the Achievement First-Style Charter Schools have been that they are (among many other wrongs) cheery picking kids to make their stats look better than the actual outcome of educating the community really is from their schools, which is what a public school should be doing, first and foremost.

The fact that a number of you have pushed forward that theme as it relates to private school vouchers shows that there is a broad understanding that the community must be concerned about a quality education for all of its citizen: rich/poor, minority/majority, educated parents/under-educated guardians, etc. This is a moral obligation.

I'm also encouraged by the fact that there seems to be some insight into the multi-faceted reasons why kids don't do well in school that go beyond blaming over-worked teachers and trying to "fix" the problem by paying teachers to teach test questions/answers, but fail to foster an pedagogical approach that develops and fosters critical thinking skills, while realizing that some students come from homes which simply do not provide an after-school learning environment.

If New Haven keeps thinking and moving in this direction and resist the "quick fix" or "silver bullet" "solutions", we will be a progressive and model school district where most of our graduates will be eligible for admission into the local Ivy right in our own backyard - but, of course, our children should explore other quality options as well that will also be available to them given a high quality secondary school experience.

(Please excuse typos and grammar errors here - didn't have didn'to proof)

JH: Absolutely correct, I erred in my choice of words. Teacher effectiveness is the issue, not certification. Except for private/parochial schools and places like Amistad Academy/Achievement First, public school teachers must be certified and Schools of Education have a monopoly on teaching teachers. A new generation of teachers who come from the upper echelons of their classes but who did not do 4 years for an education degree have thrived in school environments that allow them the freedom to be creative, to work hard and to do whatever it takes. Teach For America produces some of the best but their graduates are not welcomed with open arms in the public school system.

Whether or not an education degree is a prerequisite to teaching effectiveness is open to debate. Deep subject knowledge coupled with basic pedagogical instruction may be more effective than the current monopoly of education degrees that keep out outsiders without such degrees but with a strong desire to teach and with extensive subject knowledge. Of course, the current incentives for teacher continuing education are more the products of union contracts than any empirical evidence of any correlation with teacher effectiveness. But I digress.

As in any field there is burnout. In no other field are professionals expected to spend a lifetime in the field without advancement and new challenges. Where does a promising and effective teacher go after 5 years? An administrative position?? Since performance incentives are frowned upon – Washington, DC's teacher contract is a trail blazer in really paying for performance – an effective teacher is forced into administration if they wish to be better compensated. The incentive structure is non-existent starting from the principal level down.

Couple this with tenure and the sheer impossibility of shunting off ineffective teachers – so much so that administrators don't even try – creates a situation where teachers get burned out and some retire on the job. Given the difficulties of evaluating teaching effectiveness there must be a place for trial and error – hire a motivated teacher, observe effectiveness over time, and steer those not cut out to teach into other careers. Of course this requires data systems that allow that allow for Value Analysis to measure teaching performance with individual students over time. Such systems do not exist in most schools, chiefly because they cause discomfort among the adults.

I don't know enough to propose magic formulas. I just know that there are effective teachers and effective schools and that the public schools, as currently structured, funded and incentivized are not doing the job. If this sounds like an argument for the competitive process to be given more rein to weed out the effective from the less so, then it is.

Again, I am no expert in the field and remain open to alternative opinions…

Harry

You can make all the high-minded arguments you want about fairness, diversity, etc, but it doesn't change reality.

As long as New Haven has a substandard public school system and there's no option like vouchers available, middle class families are going to leave for other districts. We can attract the young, the old, the very rich and the very poor, but we're going to have continued problems holding to your average worker and young families.

This isn't abstract theory from some report or statistics from some other country, this is what is happening and what's been happening.

This is one of the reasons why New Haven is a "barbell" city. You have a poor population with no ability to move elsewhere and a smaller well to do population that can afford to buy half million dollar homes in East Rock and send their kids to private schools. This is the very same reason the New York city is home to the very rich and the very poor while it bleeds middle class residents.

The New Haven public school system has been an embarrassment since at least the '80's. That's three decades of failure. What is that folks think is going to change? We're not doing anything radically different so we shouldn't expect different results.

Most of the folks passionately defending the public schools here seem to be doing so out of an emotional knee-jerk response, which is unfortunate because our collective failure to provide families with access to good schools is resulting in middle class families leaving New Haven.

Sociological arguments and reams of statistics are not going to give families any confidence in the City. Providing them with vouchers so they know for certain that their children will have access to good schools regardless of what boneheaded thing the Board of Ed or Reggie Mayo do, might result in more families staying in New Haven.

Tom---I certainly can't compete with your "horse" and "breeding" analogies, however I'll give it a try ... I don't have a pony in this race because my fillies and colts are grown.

I am engaging in this dialog strictly for the principle of it and the desire to improve the world for ALL kids. If you were getting 200 transfers per year, it is a clear indication of a problem. Defending the status quo is an untenable position. One would think you would put your most creative and intellectual energies into devising a solution, as others are attempting to do, rather than casting aspersions.

Forgive me, I must return mucking out the stable.

Westville Mom,

The inconsistencies in your argument are revealing of the distorted thinking about teachers, schools, and education in this country. Like Finland, we should demand the same rigorous standards for, and grant the same prestige to teachers as we do doctors and lawyers--but they shouldn't be paid like doctors and lawyers, nor should they be afforded the same access to professional associations and peer evaluations as those professions enjoy (i.e. dismantle teacher unions). Granting vouchers to defray the "sky-high cost of elite private schools" is <i>somehow</i> going to help students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds to begin with, and not just the rich.

Teachers would do better with "minimal intervention" but they had better spend enough time teaching to the standardized test, scored by machines and near-minimum-wage workers in Texas lest they be judged 'ineffective.'

However, you are right about some--lots of--things. Admissions policies at good private schools are demanding, but so are the retention policies. At elite schools, it's relatively easy to kicked out for behavior or academic performance, at which point a student ends up back in the public school which doesn't have the dubious luxury of being allowed to pick and choose who to accept. That, I believe, is the point Mr. Burns is making when he alludes to '200 transfers'-=they're not transfers <i>out</i>; they're transfers <i>in</i>. Try popping into one of those elite private schools in December or January, with a long disciplinary record at your public school.

Mr. David,

You capitalize "Schools of Education" as if there's some monolithic body that issues education degrees, rather than a diverse group of educational institutions that includes, locally, SCSU, UNH, (I believe) Albertus Magnus and (until recently; I think they have stopped the program) Yale.

Additionally people who gain a passion for teaching mid-career can apply for the Alternative Route to Certification, a very competitive and intense one-year program.

Someone who just wants to get into a classroom right away can apply at any of Connecticut's private, parochial or independent schools, which require no certification (and no teaching to standardized tests!) Novice teachers at Choate, for example, undergo a long weekend of intensive preparation but do, from my limited observation, get a supportive mentorship. If they're successful there, they can bypass the 'Schools of Education' and apply directly for certification.

Finally, as you mentioned, there's Teach for America. Since a common theme in this discussion is there's no way to weed out good teachers from bad, how do you <u>know</u> TFA produces some of the best?

At any rate, there's certainly no monopoly in any meaningful sense of the word.

It's also not true that the "incentive structure is non-existent". For one thing, not everyone measures incentives in dollars and sense. But that's for another discussion.

Dismantle programs and schools for teacher education, and where will teachers get this 'basic pedagogical instruction?'

I have to weigh in again as I continue to read posts that really don't understand what happens in our public schools.

William Kurtis--

What I get from you and some other teachers is that there is an abundance of resentment about discipline problems that teachers feel they have no control over and can't get away from. I share the outrage, believe me. Perhaps the teachers unions should be more vocal about demanding solutions, rather than tolerating "scream rooms." (What bad novel are we living in, where we tolerate this stuff?)

Are you saying that teachers should or should NOT be on a par with doctors and lawyers? I couldn't even tell from what you wrote, and I read it twice. I was maintaining that they SHOULD -- and in fact, are in other countries.

I'm a product of public schools myself and they were very rough ones. (Ever heard of "riots"?) Maybe they didn't have them here in CT. Nevertheless, discipline has gotten WAY out of control since those times, when there was order at least most of the time -- or at least when a kid wasn't trying to hit my Calculus teacher over the back of the head with a metal cafeteria chair -- thankfully, my much younger Chemistry teacher saved him by grabbing the chair. (And you wonder why I mortgaged my house 3 times to send my kids to private schools?)

Where's the outrage? Where are the demands? Where are the strikes? (Since you MUST have unions.) Where are the sit-ins? Where are the resignations? The press conferences? The petitions? The TV specials?

The purpose of a "professional" is to put the "client's" (in this case students') needs above your own. I, quite honestly, don't see teachers making a big enough stink about the atrocious conditions that make it impossible for them to do their jobs effectively and professionally. What I see is a bunch of union apologists.

Mr. Kurtz, teachers' whining is falling on deaf ears among some here and with a whole lot of people these days, who think 20 years is enough time to allow for an administration to get significant results, given the fact that 1.5 BILLION dollars were spent, neighborhood schools were taken away, rights were rescinded by mandating school assignment-by-lottery-ticket, and now both parents and teachers are being almost randomly jerked around by a Mayor-run-amok who can't seem to get ousted from office because of the union-indebted Democrat stranglehold on this city. (See prior comments by Three-Fifths.)

If you think I'm somehow anti-teacher, I have to correct that because I'm most certainly not. I think it's time for radical -- repeat, radical -- change and frankly, I can see why teachers would feel threatened by that. Maybe if they had made more of a fuss years ago, though, we wouldn't be talking about vouchers and other desperate measures now.

Harry David---
No teacher in CT has any protection by tenure--any teacher can be fired at any time--for any reason--even if they are not found to be ineffective---READ STATUTE--
What if we let anyone with a bachelors degree in any field to do surgery---I'm for that--I just dont want to be the one they are doing surgery on--
Maybe I should take out your appendix, Harry--I have finished grad school plus---that must make me capable as per your standards---...---Tom

Brutus,

As a teacher, why aren't you aware of this very recent landmark study which basically is the exact opposite of your main assertion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/education/big-study-links-good-teachers-to-lasting-gain.html

for 30 years the unions said more money would take care of everything. The governments knee jerk reaction to failure was the No Child Left Behind which forces teaching for the test. The unions have fought any changes that would improve the situation. The teachers and students are stuck in the middle of the government, the unions, the school boards, the principal, and the parents. The teachers when they get an additional degree get a raise whether they use the new degree training or not. All teachers whether they have no experience or 30 years are treated and paid the same. There should be levels according to experience and education and the pay grades should change. There should be some enforceable performance reviews and an easier ability to discipline bad teachers and help struggling ones. Discipline of students needs to be allowed within reason without the liberals protesting their rights are being violated. But as long as the union calls the shots they only care about more pay and their dues and the Democrats owned by the unions have let it happen for years. Schools are successful when they can discipline and have order, have trained teachers, support of parents and administration, modern technology and an interesting curriculum.

Well first, let me clarify that yes, I am a public school teacher but no, it's not in NHPS. I do not claim to have an informed opinion about the state of New Haven Public Schools--I can say that in my limited personal observation, I have seen dedicated and talented professionals at work. I have read in these pages about some less-dedicated ones.

That said, the issue of school 'choice' and vouchers is one that concerns everyone in the state of Connecticut, which is probably Governor Malloy weighed in on it.

I will endeavor to be slightly more clear: of course, I would love it if teachers were afforded the same respect and prestige as doctors and lawyers instead of being accused of 'whining' when they reasonably point out that many of the problems that complicate public education are out of their control.

Maintaining discipline and order continue to be challenges, but what concrete evidence do you have to suggest that schools are 'WAY out of control?' I have not examined the data myself but I suspect that conclusion is inaccurate. I suspect that the 'Golden Age' of orderly schools and attentive, firm, but loving parents mostly existed . . . well, in homes supervised by attentive, firm and loving parents. In other words, people who say, "in my day it wasn't like this kids knew how to respect their teachers and if I had talked like that my parents would have" mostly likely grew up in that kind of home. I know I did. Perhaps you did too. You are likely raising your own children in that kind of home.

A high-quality free secular public education is one of the best things we can offer in the U.S. I am not sure we are keeping all of those balls in the air all the time and agree that major shifts in thinking about education need to occur.

Tom burns,

Even though I've botched dozens of brain surgeries, until i exhaust my "due process" rights, I am able to continue to perform brain surgeries according to my collective bargaining agreement. Oh, and By the way, you have no choice as to who your surgeon is. Now just sit back and relax...this won't hurt a bit.

to "JAK"

The first time I became aware of research concluding that individual teachers had a lasting impact on students was the day before school was to begin in September of 2009. The Director of the Dept. of Research, Assessment, and Student Information came to our school and gave a presentation to us teachers along with the Director of the Star Review, a professional development consultant retained by NHPS.

We were power-pointed graphs and statistics to drive home the point that what we did in the classroom had a causal effect upon our students-a lasting causal effect.

As a math teacher, I immediately saw how the stats were slanted to buttress Dr. MacCaslin's main point-that we teachers were the main good guys or bad guys that affected our students.

As an aside, I should tell you that I tracked my 7th grader's CMT scores from 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th grade. This single cohort (very important)scored lowering math CMT scores from 4th through 6th grade. After having me for a year as their math teacher, this same cohort reversed its negative CMT slope and went positive-almost its reciprocal which was really cool. My 8th grader's were a different story-they were a cohort that the NHPS managers put together in an effort to contain some difficult behavior and sped kids. I worked hard with them but I did not have the CMT score results with them that I had with the 7th graders.

What am I trying to say?

A study like the Chetty-Friedman one you referenced in a NYT link is useful in studying the myriad effects of educating adolescents. It is a mistake, I believe, to point to it, and other studies that may contradict its findings, and conclude that the way to improve student achievement is to lean on teachers.

I was a successful teacher because I was a good student myself, I cared about my kids, I cared about my learning community (both my job and my university), and I cared about my own child (a 7th grader herself now).

And as much as I rail against NHPS management, I have to credit the current NHPS District Math Supervisor for the support he gave all of us math teachers-may the Good Lord bless him.

Anyway, I paid attention to my kids and my job and I began to notice patterns in how to teach middle-school kids math-at least my kids anyway. (I am not trying to change the subject, I just think that one study that can be used to hammer my colleagues is counter-productive at best)

What I noticed is that kids need to be taught math in much the same way one learns a language.

I kind of stumbled onto it by teaching what I called equivalencies and by engaging the kids in daily mental math exercises (for lack of a better word).

I think I am digressing so I'll stop here but I believe that, at least in math anyway, we can do a lot for our kids (inner-city)even with the SES (socio-economic status) obstacles they contend with.

I just saw this story and, since it buttresses my prejudices, think it worth disseminating!!!! harry

STOP THE PRESSES!!! Mayor Bloomberg just went to WAR with the AFT (in the best possible way) in his 10th State of the City Address tonight. Get this: for the 33 chronically failing schools, in which the union is refusing to agree to a teacher evaluation system, thereby jeopardizing $58 million in federal funding, Bloomberg said, "Fine, is that's the way you want to play it, I'll adopt a different transformation model – one that requires replacing a minimum of HALF of the teachers!" This is what Deborah Gist used so effectively in Central Falls, RI. Overall, his proposals are REALLY bold and courageous – kudos! Here's GothamSchools with the coverage (the entire speech, half of which was devoted to education, is at: http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/01/12/mayor-bloombergs-state-of-city-speech):

To the Editors:

There is a glitch in your system. I am receiving at least TWO notices for every ONE message I am notified about from this site. This has been occurring for awhile now, so it's not just THIS article thread. This is unnecessarily cluttering up my mail box.

I don't know if anyone else is having this problem. Please attend to. Thank you.

[Editor: Thanks. We'll look into it. Anyone else having this problem please let us know if you can by emailing us at this form: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/problem_with_the_site/ ]

Brutus2011 & William Kurtz--Well stated positions and I especially enjoyed reading Brutus' account of creating new methods for teaching math, which is exactly the kind of thing sorely needed right now. I, for one, appreciate your efforts.

This statement of yours requires a response:

"We are already well-trained, we want no significant extra money; just give us the authority, and power, to really do our jobs."

Who has the power? YOU have the power already. We taxpayers, citizens, and parents have tried to elect better politicians, but are consistently thwarted by the unions. The politicians, themselves, are doing what follows their own personal ideologies, coupled with mandates from not only Federal levels, but also the State level, as in conditions for schools attached to grant money based on things like Sheff v O'Neill. So lawyers, groups like the ACLU, and implicit lawsuit threats thereof play heavily into all of this.

What teachers possess is the power to bring all of them to their knees --- IF you would actually use it! If you speak with one mind (collectively) about discipline problems and lack of autonomy/authority, you can affect the union leadership (and even throw it out) and actually force change in the school administration and City Hall.

If you (collectively!) state that you're "mad as hell" and you're "not going to take it anymore" -- and back it up with action -- they will be forced to listen. The long-standing frustration of many of us in New Haven is that we haven't seen that happen, so alternatives like vouchers are looking more and more attractive.

In addition, teachers have passively accepted the lottery system that jerks families around, for example, rather than actively opposing it. The entire magnet/lottery system is set up to pacify some theoretical/mythical "Sheff" student who just MIGHT become offended if the racial mix of his class isn't exactly what he wants. Teachers are smarter than that!!!! You should be pointing out the nakedness of the Emperor.

What I firmly believe is that, as the school system goes, so goes the city. That places an enormous burden of responsibility squarely on the shoulders of teachers to exert the force of their collective mind and assert their power. This is supposed to be why you have a union in the first place -- not to serve as a PAC for local Democrats.

Thank you for caring enough to engage in this discussion.

Something is holding up the occasional comments I post here. I did a long one this morning and it never made it to your site. If it was too long it should have been so flagged. I can copy and resend but not if if gets lost again.

Brutus2011: Es tu brutus?
Why do we even need a Value Added study – This Chetty study covered 2.5 million Grades 4-8 students over 20 years – to tell us what should be intuitively obvious, namely that teachers have an enormous impact on students. Do we need statistics and studies to tell us that students interest in particular subjects are sparked by an inspiring teacher?
You sound like a reasonable man – so I must ask you why focus on how this particular study is slanted. After years of resisting ANY performance metric, along comes VA which, with all it's faults and potential for being skewed, seemed to confirm what should be obvious, and its general conclusions are anathema to the education community.
I can understand why teachers may feel that studies such as this constitute "leaning on teachers". Not being a teacher, I look at it as one attempt at analyzing where we have gone wrong and what approach is best. All of the systemic and structural compnents of student education tend towards stifling student and teacher efforts to transmit knowledge and culture. From teacher tenure with its concomitant impediments to timely and effective teacher assessment, remedial work and possible reassignment – sometimes even out of teaching – to 600 (?? Sounds good but may be true??) page union contracts that stifle any teacher initiatives that have not been vetted by years of resistance.
Yet the main thrust of those who write on the subject are not targeting teachers per se. They are one element, perhaps the most important one, in the process, hence must be responsible for results, good and bad, that result. If we reassigned even the best teachers – based on any metric, peer review, student review, etc – and put them in school systems where they cannot teach, they cannot perform any better. Hence the need for radical restructuring of the entire system. We have to do this given the enormous costs to society for generations of dropouts with all the social and ethnic implications, way beyond the $15-20,000 per student it costs the taxpayer. (Think property taxes and think that 50-60% is used to fund schools).
I am even becoming crotchety about having well intentioned commentators telling us about the outside school environment, the need for raising the respect of teachers, the need to spend more, etc. The outside school environment is not subject to much intervention – indeed, improving the schools is one of the surest ways of raising income levels from whence all good things follow. And the fact of these "outside" factors should only confirm the need to compensate with the only variables that ARE subject to improvement in the near to medium term, namely, school performance.
Tom Burns comments will require another short pamphlet to rebut. . "No teacher in CT has any protection by tenure—any teacher can be fired at any time—for any reason—even if they are not found to be ineffective—-READ STATUTE—
What if we let anyone with a bachelors degree in any field to do surgery—-I'm for that—I just dont want to be the one they are doing surgery on—
Maybe I should take out your appendix, Harry—I have finished grad school plus—-that must make me capable as per your standards—-...—-Tom
Tom has finished grad school plus, he tells us!! His logic is a bit squishy. I suppose he is reacting to earlier statements that the schools of education are part of the same paradigm and have a monopoly on teaching certification designed to keep out the riff raff from teaching. Given the paucity of any performance metrics how would anyone know whether anyone who comes to teaching via the "Alternative Route to Certification" is any less qualified thatn someone who graduates with an education degree and years of post graduate study that contributes to remuneration regardless of whether or not they add value. Late in life I tried to become so certified – there was even a 3 month summer program back then, but the number of positions were so limited that only a very few were allowed in by this route. And Tom now wants to perform appendectomy upon me? By his logic Aristotle and Socrates would not be allowed to teach today – where did they get their BS from??!!
My urge to rant is satisfied.
harry

If you are wondering why kids are not succeeding, look at who our teachers are in the first place. How many live in New Haven? How many live in the New Haven neighborhoods where most students come from? How many are Hispanic or Black? You might be surprised by these figures. Maybe our kids don't have role models.

If you think that money or better teachers is going to reverse stats like only 3 in 100 black males graduating from college, you are mistaken. The numbers are abysmally poor - and nobody in a position of leadership is willing to make the difficult, but well-known to be necessary, decisions that are actually needed to correct them.

The only hope is that, like in Finland, the business community will step in, once they realize what the impact of this situation will be on our economy in a decade or two.

Unfortunately there is a key difference between us and Finland. In the US, the wealthy wall themselves off from the rest of the public. In Finland, people care about their country.

Therefore the only way to fix this problem is to address underlying economic inequality. Currently, billionaires pay a far smaller share of their income in taxes than janitors making $30,000 a year. Reinstate the 90% tax rate and all the problems people mention here, including our plummeting economy, will correct themselves.

anon, do you have any information on philanthropy numbers? How much do the wealthy give away to 501C3, not-for-profits, charities etc? Seems like thats a missing factor when you imply that wealthier Americans wall themselves off and don't care. Its the use of this kind of hyperbole which causes the conversation to cease.

And Brutus, it seems as though you've actually undermined your initial claim by your thoughtful, caring, autobiographical response (assuming its non-fiction).

If your students get the most out of themselves while under your guidance then you ARE the single most important factor in their education. You have not negated the effects of poverty but you have helped them to overcome those forces. Congratulations.

The 2nd largest supplier of social services in the state is the Catholic Church supplied mostly through donations.
Anon- the 90% tax rate you talk about would kill the janitors job because small businessmen would leave the state or give up. Would it not be better to cut the waste and duplication in all levels of government to free up money? Remember the supercommittee was suppossed to come up with a 5% cut each year for 10 years. They couldn't. Throwing more money at the schools is not the answer. That has failed to fix the systemic problems and the union control.

Perhaps the editing staff have retired for the weekend??

Giving statistics:

http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm

to "JAK:"

Thank you, but I was just doing my job.

And, if I did it well, it was at least as much about my teachers over time as about me.

And, if you really dig, the credit must go to my grandparents and my Mom and my aunts.

But, please understand that I believe that teaching is unlike most, if not all, professional endeavors. It is not about formulas or theorems or even (yikes!) ethics.

It is about the service of one human being opening to his/her pupils and having them open in return.

When it happens in unison, it is the most extraordinary thing. It is like 20 flowers opening all at the same time. Beautiful!

Okay, enough of the James Joyce stuff, I know.

But, the way to run a school is not through fear, intimidation and control as through an extreme top-down management model (like NHPS).

The way to do it is to let the pro's (teachers) do their jobs without all the managerial cow-pucky!

I am an individual who sees a problem and kind of doesn't want to give up until it is solved. I learned that from a wonderful scientist who was a partner with an equally wonderful scientist who invented the electronic flash and founded the company, E,G&G in Mass. These guys were the real deal and they mentored me and my friend. These people were real producers and they did not do the kinds of back-door things I have seen done at NHPS.

And, they got results-world class results.

So, I must respectfully disagree that I am somehow a "special" teacher. We are all special but we need to get out from under all this management baloney and be allowed to do our jobs! (I bet Gordon Gekko would fire the whole lot of them!)

Governor Malloy's history of education is shaky. 1600's Bible commonwealth Connecticut passed legislation obligating parents to educate their children in eleven subjects long before public schools were even imagined. Parochial schools were the Catholic Church's response to Protestant indoctrination of immigrants in public schools. Did no one in the room challenge the governor on such lame, revisionist history?