1. Well, it is hard to campaign about mom and apple pie,isn't it? That is why there is a need for the so-called supermajority.

Rumors on this page seem to indicate that getting rid of the supermajority is well on its way.

No way will any school issue get less than 50%.

Posted by: swatter on January 2, 2007 11:08 AM

2. Umpteen gazillion dollars later-Johnny STILL can't read!
When I was a boy in the Boston Public Schools we paid the MTA the standard fare for our bus, trolley or subway ride to the High School of our choice (providing you had the GPA to be accepted)-

Posted by: John425 on January 2, 2007 11:15 AM

3. I may be a little fuzzy, but I recall class sizes of up to 40 in the 50s. I also remember getting swatted a few times. And then, along came Dr. Spock and the ME Generation.

Posted by: swatter on January 2, 2007 11:20 AM

4. Late 50's early 60's -- Seattle standard class size was supposed to be 32 -- typically we had 34 or 35 -- and there were a few swats usually by shop teachers - or even the occaisional threat -- by the vice principal with a piece of hose -- haha -- try that now-a-days -- poor papers were torn up by the writer or even the teacher -- in front of the class and dropped in the waste can -- poor papers and disruptive behavior seemed to fade away -- what do we have now? -- essentially a big nothing -- brainwashed whiners with their hands out

Posted by: Bill on January 2, 2007 12:03 PM

5. I wonder why the Seattle School District thinks that not being able to read or do math is "progressive"?

Posted by: Doc-T on January 2, 2007 12:08 PM

6. The new Super: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The Seattle School District: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Posted by: Palouse on January 2, 2007 12:51 PM

7. and...quite a loud silence from Mdme. Leader Bergerson. her new ideas? radical changes? any proposals?

it's a large district/example under her (albeit) indirect control. and where are the other leaders? academics? mid-level bureaucrats? innovators? nobody at all in our brainy Land of Microsoft? what are we paying these huge school bureaucracies for? humph.

i'd prescribe an "edu-enema" using the therapeutic contents of the Evergreen Freedom Found.'s recommendations on this topic.

wait--i smell consulting sharks returning amidst the chum in the water.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 2, 2007 03:23 PM

8. And by the way are they prepared to pay the new superintendent a whopping quarter of a million dollars a year like I have heard they want? Near double of what the last one made.

Yup!

Posted by: GS on January 2, 2007 04:08 PM

9. 1. The next superintendent may make a gizillion dollars before he or she leaves after 18 -36 months because they are accountable for an insitutional structure over which they really have little control. The insitutional sructure is broken.

2. I know that the mantra is charters have failed three times, but the current institutional structure is broken and no one really has an idea about how to make it work. A charter school district allows accountability. For info on charters:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/4455806.html
Charter Schools Against the Odds
Paul Hill, Ed.
Education Next Books
2006

Probably charter schools are the most innovative education reform going today. And for that very reason, they have become targets of status-quo mongers across the land. This collection of essays by Koret Task Force members illustrates how charter schools have managed to flourish (and flourish they have--less than fifteen years after their inception, charters educate over a million students) in hostile environs. In Chapter 2, Fordham's Eric Osberg writes that charter schools often receive far less money that their district school counterparts, evaluates how some have surmounted this burden, and makes a convincing case for why charter schools deserve the same dollars as district-run institutions. Chapter 4 holds advice from Checker Finn and Paul Hill about the importance of top notch charter authorizing, and John Chubb writes in Chapter 5 about how the best management organizations have been able to expand the reach of charter schools without compromising the autonomy that gives such schools their character and uniqueness. Other authors--Caroline Hoxby, Paul Peterson, Brad Smith, and Nathan Torinus--all dispense their particular brands of expertise. This solid compilation touches on the varied facets of charter schooling. It gives a good picture of the rocky terrain in which charter schools take root and the dusty and arid environments in which they attempt to thrive. It puts forth worthwhile suggestions, based on past experiences, for how charter schools may best brave the elements and become sturdy and successful institutions.

3. Kids currently in the system are being held hostage. Probably things will get worse because of the institutional structure. The question is will more money make things better?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070101-111214-2815r.htm

Money myth in education
By Matt Warner
January 2, 2007

"Last month, New York's Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to increase education funding by $2 billion. According to the New York Times, "The dollar figure was a disappointment to teachers... who wanted more than twice that amount." Yet, New York already spends almost $14,000 per student, making it America's third-biggest spender.
The Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE), the group behind the lawsuit, advocates the same tired mantra for more education funding shared by unions and other special interests. These interest groups lobby for reforms that have one thing in common: more money for the education system.
Decades worth of evidence have shown more money is not the answer to improving the quality of education in America. This month, the American Legislative Exchange Council -- the largest U.S. nonpartisan group of state legislators -- released the 2006 Report Card on American Education concluding that "despite substantial increases in resources being spent on primary and secondary education over the past two decades -- per pupil expenditures have increased by 77.4 percent (after adjusting for inflation) -- student performance has improved only slightly."
CFE argues that Americans need to shell out billions more -- on top of the nearly $500 billion they spend now -- to reduce class sizes, spend more per pupil and raise teacher salaries. If these "reforms" were the answer, no doubt most Americans would pay the price. But in fact America's classrooms have already been shrinking over the last two decades. Today's class sizes are nearly 11 percent smaller than in 1983 -- the year the Reagan administration issued its education report titled "A Nation at Risk," a clarion call for serious reform in education.
Since then, every state has increased its spending on the education system with Maine, Georgia and South Carolina topping the charts for largest increases. But according to the 2006 Report Card's state academic achievement rankings, these three states were not in the top 10 states for test scores. Only Maine ranked in the top 20 at 18th while South Carolina and Georgia ranked 40th and 45th, respectively. In fact, of the 10 states that increased their spending the most, only two were ranked in the top 10 according to academic achievement and three of them ranked among the worst 10.
Now, a slightly different lawsuit than that settled in New York is under way in New Jersey's Superior Court. This time, instead of suing to give more money to the education system, the plaintiffs -- a class of more than 60,000 students in 96 failing schools in 25 districts -- are suing to give parents more control over their children's education.
ALEC's 2006 Report Card reveals that New Jersey is the second-highest spender per pupil at $13,674 in the country (an amount that could cover a top-notch private school's tuition), has the fourth-smallest average class size in the country and pays more for its teachers than 47 other states do. For the students trapped in New Jersey's 96 failing schools, these efforts have not helped."

I hate to paraphrase a Carville quote, but it's the institutional structure, stupid.

Posted by: WVH on January 2, 2007 10:04 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?