The Seattle School District's plan to close 10 schools was announced last month as necessary to close the school's multi-million dollar budget gap. (Except that it wasn't clear whether it would actually save any money, or only cost more money). Yesterday, Superintendent Raj Manhas announced that he was scrapping the school closure plan. (No, he didn't cave to community pressure, he was "proud of the public response that we have received").
In any event, it's not at all clear how the dying school district is going to cover its budget shortfall, other than by unnecessarily limiting school choice and driving even more families out of the district.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 18, 2005 11:41 AM | Email ThisThis would seem to suggest that either no school should be larger than 150, or at least, no grade level in any school should be larger than 150.
If they really cared about quality of education, they would be creating more schools, not fewer. Of course, that is hard to do when your primary concern is for protecting a bureaucracy of tenured WEA parasites.
But, Malcolm Gladwell is a NYT reporter/columnist and you'd think that the retro-progressive people of Seattle would be interested in what he has to say .....
Fewer teachers .... less powerful unions...he's playing right into your hands, Stefan!
You are getting your wish! Fewer teachers...worse roads...lousier environment....
This is Stefan's Utopia! Enjoy!
Posted by: Jim Rogers on May 18, 2005 01:23 PMI guess my subtlety was too much.
Anybody who paints the world in such white and black strokes is a fundamentalist based on belief..not on facts. That is the scary scenario that always plays out in disaster (check your history books).
This website fuels the same type of fanaticism that we fought in WW2 and supposedly in Iraq. When one is part of it, they don't see it.
Hope that helps explain my postings.
Yes it does (you're an imbecile).
Thanks for playing.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 18, 2005 01:36 PMThe 150 person limit was talked about many many years ago by a pop-business author who was a former BBC Executive. One of his books on organizational theory was about using lessons from Anthropology to help organize a business.
He felt that basic work groups were no more than about ten people (primative hunter bands). This had to do with spans of control and effective communications.
He also felt that no Corporate Department of unit should exceed about 200 people at most, which based on his research of medieval European villiage sizes, where folks knew who belonged and who might be a bandit.
It was a very interesting read and I always thought that it had some real lessons for our school system. A large part of many school problems is "non-students" or expelled students mixing in on school property with those that belong.
At the moment the author's name escapes me. I do think that Seattle Schools have gotten way too large, but that has allowed them to pay some high salaries to large school principals and other administrative positions. Seattle needs to down size a lot of things it has with its schools, if it is to survive.
Posted by: Bob on May 18, 2005 01:50 PMSeattle Schools Downsize? They just need more money. That will solve the problem ... till they need more ... money.
Posted by: Mike J on May 18, 2005 02:03 PMOh, wait, why not declare an emergency and tax the whole state...
Posted by: righton on May 18, 2005 02:13 PMI am questioning the need to choose which public school to go to. This isn't really my fight since I don't have kids, but I do pay Seattle property taxes. Where I grew up, the only way to change schools within your district was to move. Even if you could change, expecting a personal bus to pick you up and take you to a school on the other side of town would have been out of the question. I also don't see the point, wouldn't you want to be involved and strengthen your own neighborhood schools? This all seems like an unnecessary and large expense. I always thought the choice was your local public school or a private school. I must be missing something.
Posted by: CandrewB on May 18, 2005 02:18 PMIf this was a hospital, how would you feel about the surgeons? "Braaaaakk--Performance audits" said the watchdog parrot from his perch.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 18, 2005 02:26 PMYou are absolutely right that the local school should be changed by the community. The trouble is now that it is near impossible to get through the entrenched political trash that it would take so long your kid would have graduated, mind you, with a worthless education. So people say why fight it, I'm not going to risk my kid and they go elsewhere. That is why the union is so scared of vouchers, they can no longer ignore their customers when they do not have a monopoly (which, BTW, is evil when a business has it, but great when libs and their friends have it.)
Posted by: Fred on May 18, 2005 02:28 PMYes Fred, that is fine. One can send their kid to the private school of his or her choosing. I am wondering why Seattle participates in the seemingly needless program of public school choice.
And are Medina's schools unionized? I never hear anyone complaining about the quality of Medina's schools. It was the same way in Chicago; no one ever complained about the poisonous teacher's unions in Winnetka, Hinsdale or Naperville.
Posted by: CandrewB on May 18, 2005 02:56 PMThere should be a general bond of trust between businesses and the city. The businesses should trust that the city is only taking the taxes it really needs and spending it appropriately. The city should trust that the businesses and obeying the law and doing the best job they know how.
Without this basic trust, everything breaks apart. As the city has been regulating businesses, they have shown they don't trust them. In return, businesses no longer trust that the city collects and spends money properly.
The city government is there at the whim of the people (and thus, businesses) of Seattle. They would do well to remember that and try and rebuild the bonds of trust by reigning in unnecessary spending, spending money on appropriate things, and lowering taxes and reducing silly regulation.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on May 18, 2005 03:09 PMAs to, why don't people just move? Moving is REALLY expensive! Which costs less, driving or taking the bus for a few years, or moving?
Now, as to the government paying for busing students across town, yeah, I agree that's not the best use of money. I went to a specialty high school but I took the subway. No one paid for my trip.
Look at what Garfield has acheived! Where was Garfield a decade ago? Where are they now? That has a ripple effect throughout the entire neighborhood.
I'll bet the parents that live around Garfield as well as the neighbors can see the difference success makes.
Education will be properly funded when we have >20 class sizes and pay our best teachers enough so they can afford to live inside the districts they teach.
Posted by: who'dathunk on May 18, 2005 05:53 PMSo, "whoda", would a class size of 236 be OK with you. It's clear to me that you must have gone to a government school yourself, as most are not real big on the mathematics. Self-esteem and diversity are much more important, I am told.
Anyway, class size is not that big a factor in how good an education your kid gets. More important are school choice (for competition) and teacher control of the classroom (for discipline and a good curriculum).
Also, the pay is pretty reasonable. Many teachers would not have a lot to complain about if it weren't for a) the BS paperwork that adds work time and has nothing to do with teaching, and b) the unions, who don't give a rat's hootie about any kids, just bucks.
I'd like to earn enough to live inside the plant where I work too, but it's high rent and cramped due to all the machine tools, desks, and file cabinets - what the hell is your point???
Posted by: Jimmy Antley on May 18, 2005 06:32 PMYou can't be using big words like "paperwork" and "hootie" when talking to whoda - it makes it realize that it has a dwarf-sized brain in an elephant-sized body ;'}
(You'll only confuse it)
Look at how many kids want their licenses to drive. Even the stubbornest kid recognizes driving as a rite of passage, a symbol of maturity, and a ticket to freedom. If early graduation were an option, obtaining a diploma would be equally desireable.
Right now, I have a first grader who is ahead in all of his academic subjects. Actually, our situation is somewhat unique in that he is learning from at home but taking classes through Federal Way's online program (making him a "public school student"). He has hit the limits of what the public school system will "allow" him to learn. If I enroll him in public school next year, I have been told he will have to repeat the lessons he has already completed (as a review) until he is chronologically old enough to be moved to the next grade.
I know of other students in a similar position - treading water until they are promoted on the school's schedule. At least one of these (once enthusiastic) kids has become an indifferent student and a trouble maker.
Does anyone know if there have been any studies linking school performance and early graduation? Do schools in other parts of the world offer greater mobility to accelerated students? Is this one reason the United States lags notoriously on those frequently cited studies comparing the academic achievement of students from around the world?
Posted by: PeggyU on May 18, 2005 08:38 PM
ALPHABET SOUP: quick with the pop off comments low on substance. Why are you afraid to stick with the issues? why does it have to get personal with you? Insecurity with your own intellect perhaps?
MES: As a teacher, anywhere, you do the Lord's work. One major difference between public and private schools, Public schools have no choice in who they accept, an obvious disadvantage. Why is it that parents of private school children thingk they can insulate their kids from the "evils" in society from 9:00 to 3:00 yet teach their kids to cope with the people they exclude thru their choice of schools?
Closing public schools is great. In fact they should close them all and stop collecting those taxes that support a highly inefficient public school system.
This is just a partial list of all the problems closing public schools would solve:
1. The politicians would have absolutely no control over education. They would be cut down to size and regarded as the overpaid janitors they really are.
2. No more of those insufferable public school administrators.
3. No more public school unions.
4. No more officially mandated political correctness.
5. Private schools would have a financial incentive to provide their customers, the children and their parents, a good education.
6. Teacher strikes would be less likely.
7. The state budget could be cut back drastically.
8. Education would become less expensive and innovation would flourish.
9. Students would be able to bring silverware to school without being expelled.
10. Disruptive students could be permanently expelled.
11. No one would care if a kid brought a 2 inch toy rifle to school.
12. Aspirin in a purse would not be be treated the same as heroin.
13. Kids could play dodgeball and tag during recess.
Posted by: Bill K. on May 18, 2005 10:50 PMI guess if you don't mind souring a kid on school and wasting time, then it's o.k. to let him stagnate. I feel that if a person moves ahead under his own impetus, he should be encouraged rather than squelched. I know there are students who would be more likely to work hard if they thought they could get out of school sooner.
Furthermore, the older I get the more acutely I am aware that there are not enough hours in one lifetime to experience everything you want to do and to learn everything you want to learn. Getting a running start allows you to experience and learn and appreciate just a little bit more...
Posted by: PeggyU on May 18, 2005 11:12 PM14. Without the public schools constant saturation of Sex Ed and Alternative sexual lifestyles - our kids could enjoy being kids again and the rate of teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted disease and gender confusion would drop dramatically!
Posted by: Deborah on May 18, 2005 11:16 PMOh wait that's king I mean Sea I mean...oh what the hell.
Posted by: Stephen Dunlap on May 19, 2005 01:11 AMOh wait that's king I mean Sea I mean...oh what the hell.
Posted by: Stephen Dunlap on May 19, 2005 01:11 AMOh wait that's king I mean Sea I mean...oh what the hell.
Posted by: Stephen Dunlap on May 19, 2005 01:11 AMYou seem to have an exceptional child. What a blessing.
What I meant so say is that if the School system is unable to accomodate elementary level high acheivers, don't fret. There are other outlets at higher levels where supreme acheivement is encouraged and rewarded.
My neice went through the same frustrations your child is going thru right now.
Posted by: who'dathunk! on May 19, 2005 07:34 AMI have met several other parents who have children with similar issues. When our boy was three, he taught himself to read. We have a larger than average family, so he frequently picks up manuals or books and teaches himself, rather than wait for someone to help. I think the fact that he is self-propelled is one of the best aspects of his personality. But, it doesn't serve him well in school.
I know another boy who is gifted at mathematics. The schools have put him through hell, rather than just allow him to sit by himself and teach himself - which he would gladly do! He is in 6th grade and learning 3rd year algebra - but only because his parents have made it possible through outside (and expensive) means.
My concern is that our son and this other boy have parents that will go to bat for them when the school system impedes their efforts. What about those kids who don't have someone to stand up for them? I have been to schools and seen how some of these kids get treated - frankly, I've seen teachers and administrators be very rude to children whom they know no one will defend. If one of these kids has the motivation to excel, it is not likely to be met with support, and they are less likely to maintain their enthusiasm until they hit the "outlets at higher levels". You read many stories about people who have come from bad circumstances and gone on to achieve great things. Frequently, you also learn that they did poorly in school. I just wonder how many more people could achieve great things if the schools didn't act to discourage them.
Posted by: PeggyU on May 19, 2005 12:08 PMPerhaps that question should be asked of liberals like the Clintons and Al Gore, who sent their children to private schools. Yet the NEA looked the other way in their cases. Paul Berendt, WA Dem Party head also sends his kids to a private school in Olympia. Why isn't he asked that question?
Maybe they see that too many public schools aren't doing the job in educating students. Sure, the public schools are compelled to serve whomever shows up at the door. But they're forced to tolerate behaviors that are completely unacceptable, and not just from special ed students. I taught in SpEd for almost three years, and most of my kids were good ones. I've also seen students in general ed that behave abhorently. Maybe if public schools could kick out the small percent of students that do nothing but disrupt the school and take up space, things would improve. Maybe if more parents actually took the time to raise their children properly and show an interest in their education, things would get better.
No amount of money or government programs will ensure that. It's up to people to do it themselves and not rely on the government to do everything for them. That's how we've ended up in this mess.
Posted by: MES on May 19, 2005 06:24 PMConsidering all the stories we hear about bullying, harassment, and school/classroom disruption that goes on in public schools, maybe the parents who choose not to send their children to public schools place a higher value on the safety and physical well-being of their kids than on dealing with the students of the "real" world.
There are incidents that go on every day in many public schools that would shock you. It's stuff that we didn't have to deal with (I'm not that old -- just turned 31) when we were growing up.
Yes, the public school system gets a raw deal sometimes. Yes, they don't get to choose who is in their classrooms. Yes, they have to deal with parents who aren't qualified to raise a goldfish, much less children. Yes, schools are sometimes hamstrung by regulations that seem to favor those who misbehave.
But in too many school buildings, discipline is lacking. And since the discipline is not present in those facilities, the teachers can't teach enough and the students aren't learning enough. That's why more parents are opting for private schools or homeschooling. They see some aspects of society crumbling and don't want to be forced to accept it or subject their children to it.
Posted by: MES on May 19, 2005 08:25 PM