Problem with ISD 194 iPad initiative
To the editor:
I continue to read with interest about the Lakeville Public School’s technology initiatives and Superintendent Lisa Snyder’s agenda for using iPad technology in classrooms.
Have the citizens of Lakeville forgotten that the school district has failed three levy referendums in the past eight years? Have people forgotten the impact even one failed levy can have on staffing, budget and teaching and learning issues – let alone three failed levies?
The district is facing a huge deficit in the general fund budget while dealing with continuing cutbacks of staff, rising class sizes and all the subsequent pressures these factors have on teaching and learning.
What is being done to address those issues by the new superintendent, her administration and board?
When excellent teachers with seven years experience and more are being cut, realigned to other grade levels and departments in which they have never taught, learning is going to suffer. Class size in some fifth-grade classrooms in the district is at 38 students, and the district leadership is thinking iPads? Sorry, something is wrong with that picture.
Effective leaders step up to the plate when there is a problem, be it budgetary, employee related or otherwise. The most significant challenge facing the Lakeville Public Schools at the present time is not technology. It is a fiscal problem and at some point will have to be addressed by the new superintendent and her board.
BILL MACK
Retired District 194 principal
Bigfork, Minn.
Mr. Mack – Thank you for writing such a great editorial! I COMPLETELY agree with everything you mentioned! Yes, why are we focusing on Ipads when we have 40+ kids in biology classes at the high school level? The district wants to attract people to Lakeville 194 – well, Ipads are not the way. Smaller class sizes, more teachers, lower activity fees are the answer. Please, Dr. Snyder, do the job you were hired to do – get out there and get a levy passed!
If a school superintendent’s job is to get levies passed whose job is it to oversee kids’ educations?
Jan, my hope is to one day be as brief and accurate as you in my writings.
Although the IPADS were received through a federal grant, the school district is in no financial position to pay for more IT personnel, e-books to download to all of the devices, insurance and/or replacement units when little Suzy drops hers.
Aside from knocking holes in the content and logic of Mr. Mack’s letter, the syntax, grammar and word use are all atrocious. If this man was the “boss” of many teachers, I am unsurprised that he would defend them against a technology which is better, cheaper and does not have an attitude. Further, I am unsurprised that teacher-operatives respond favorably to his triteness, and never once point out or correct such a poorly written piece, regardless of its intended remedy. This exchange should be a learning experience for everyone.
Aside from knocking holes in your response to Mr. Mack’s article, I guess that I am surprised at your degradation of teachers. If I understand your article, you seem to suggest that teachers are less effective than technology. You seem to also suggest that teachers have an “Attitude.” It seems to me that you are the one with an attitude problem. I’m wondering how you, the one with perfect grammar , punctuation, and syntax, would be so perfect if it weren’t for teachers.
Back to Mr, Mack’s article. He is absolutely correct. As a classroom teacher myself, I know fully just how important smaller class sizes are for ultimate learning to take place. There is not a need for each child to have a computer. A single computer and a smart- board, along with fewer students would be far superior to academic progress than having thirty-eight computers, and thirty-eight students!
Mr. Mack does have an agenda as suggested in his article…the importance of smaller class sizes to proper education. It seems that your agenda is simply harassment!
Jim, I would like to thank you for being a teacher. I know it is hard work and teachers walk a difficult line through parents, students, administrators and the community as a whole. Because I have been an oft time commentator on this subject, I decided to go back to my own schooling for statistics. In previous discussions on this board I provided facts and links to such regarding teacher student ratios over the past 40 or 50 years (statistics from the US government and as well as from each of the 50 states and DC.) Indeed, almost never before has the ratio of teachers to students been better than now. I looked at my own education, my children’s and my spouse’s. From grades K-8 I averaged 37 students in a classroom, with the high (5th grade in the early 1970s) of 44 to a classroom where there was one teacher who did everything. This means ONE teacher for 44 kids, and she had virtually no help. My spouse’s years were similar, with the exception of having a high of 43 kids, oddly also in his 5th grade classroom. Student teacher ratios are not the problem here.
There are many problems with our education system today. Certainly lack of student discipline and manners are each huge contributors to degradation. A lot of parents, particularly “helicopter parents” use an inordinate amount of teacher bandwidth. Like today, I also had special needs kids in my classrooms. Deaf, blind, mentally and physically handicapped, emotionally or behaviorally challenged, and others sat alongside me. Additionally, just like today, I shared the classroom with bright and gifted students too. Yet, you complement me on my skills, even though I had more kids in my classroom than students today.
In a nutshell, my immediate solution to the system is rather simple. First, cut the non-teaching bureaucracy in the school systems. Next, the teacher should be accountable to laws, standards, students and parents. Next, fire lousy teachers who hide behind union shields. I personally know of a teacher who showed up drunk continuously at a district high school, and the union, the administration and others allowed it until such a time the teacher was so drunk in first period (BEFORE 8 am!) that she passed-out and fell and hit her head in front of the students. She still has her job today. The recent report from Eagan regarding the coach who stole thousands of dollars from families and from the youth program was protected by the union for years. I know of other teachers who do not complete requirements year after year, but are kept on through union rule mumbo-jumbo. If you want me to use names, I have a list, but I think you get my point. Why are these people even permitted in the school, let alone being allowed to work there? Why should seniority play a part in pay and promotion if someone else is doing a better job even though they do not have seniority? On the flip side, you have dedicated teachers who make a difference but are held back by the system they and their predecessors created. Throwing more and more money at these problems has proved to do nothing but increase taxes and actually lower outcomes. I do not degrade teachers, rather demand alternatives to a very broken system. I like your idea of the electronic board being controlled by an IPAD or some other similar media idea. What I do not like is being forced to pay a lot of money for receiving a very mediocre service, and today my tax dollars and everyone else’s tax dollars are being spent as if the money is endless, yet the results get worse.
Rosie,
I would like to ask you one simple question: are you currently a teacher? If not, I really don’t feel you have enough information to say that class size does not make a difference. If you are a teacher, and you are successfully meeting all of the demands that today’s teachers face, please tell me your secret. One other point – are you serious about comparing a classroom from 40 – 50 years ago to a classroom of today? So many things have changed since then then. You have no idea what pressures teachers face today. If you did, you wouldn’t have written what you did.
Julie, I am currently not a teacher, as I stopped full-time teaching to raise my children and support my husband in his full-time career, but I do sub from time-to-time, and I also work at home for money on various ad hoc projects mostly related to education. I taught for over 15 years from the late 1980s until the 2000s. And Julie, if you actually read my comments, I never stated that “class size does not make a difference.” I will categorize you and your comments “as usual,” meaning that you and your ilk think it is easier to attack the messenger than actually read the message and do something about it. Also, I was quick to thank Jim for dedicating his career to teaching, so again you have labeled me something I am not in order to regurgitate the babble you read on the union newsletters and emails. As far as you Julie, having been in the union and paid union dues, I know what the union is all about. Don’t you dare try to lecture me and insist that the union is some innocent bystander watching the entire education system goes to hell in a hand basket. You know what I wrote is absolutely true, and the union forces the administration to protect unqualified, inept, felonious and yes, even drunk teachers. Get rid of the bad teachers, cut way back on the administration and other bureaucracy, reign in the union’s ability to shield bad teachers and its ability to promote based on seniority instead of skill and accomplishment, and I will fully back all reasonable mandates. You will find much of the public feels the same way. Finally, I will add that teaching is one of the most misunderstood, under-appreciated and poorly compensated careers around today.
Rosie, I wish Dayton had signed the bill to end “first in, last out.”
Don’t underestimate, for what it’s worth, that districts have great latitude to weed out probationary teachers who aren’t cutting it. Might as well redirect them when they’re young.
The union forcing administration to protect bad teachers? Maybe. As you know, it’s not ONLY that districts lack the will to get rid of them. There are due-process laws, and due-process clauses within contracts based on due-process laws. If you feel the teachers union has gained an upper hand in this matter, I’m in no position to argue.
But I’ve never been able to reconcile the argument — or maybe admission — that teachers are underpaid, when it comes from those disinclined to raise state funding needed to pay higher salaries. (Or from those disinclined to vote for levies.)
In most districts, cutting administration would barely dent that equation.
Teachers have taken low settlements in the last few contract cycles and should be resigned to that for the foreseeable future.
In this age of austerity, how, or should, we address your concern that the teaching profession is “poorly compensated?”
Weeding out probationary teachers is one thing, firing inept tenured teachers is another thing. Tenure was not meant to protect one’s teaching job in the event of the individual becoming a felon, a drunk or inept. Tenure’s intent is to protect a teacher’s position in the event of differing political views between a teacher and the powers that be, in essence, insulating teachers who are good teachers and don’t break the the law or the rules, but they may have political or social views well outside any accepted norm. Somehow, the union has convinced the public that tenure means permanent, and getting a bad teacher fired takes a very long time, if it can be done at all. One case in point to which I refered to earlier is the Eagan Coach who stole money, and although the school knew about it for years, he was finally put on PAID LEAVE and has yet to be fired. Really? Taxpayer money going for such nonsense? Another teacher raided the lost and found for years, stole lost IPODS, phones,clothing, etc., out of the lost and found, and sold them on ebay—FOR YEARS! That teacher is still employed and paid NO restitution. It is unjustifiable.
OK.
I’m going to ask this one more time, and you can choose whether to answer:
“In this age of austerity, how, or should, we address your concern that the teaching profession is ‘poorly compensated?’ “
Cut the bureaucracy, get rid of useless and overpaid administrators, make sure any school-administered social services are paid for by those entities that mandate them, get rid of inept and underperforming teachers, and use the money saved to give to teachers who perform.
OK Wageslave,
Julie has been quick to respond, so why not ask her why she has yet to post the open letter I discussssed? If you want a fair conversation, you need to apply your rules to everyone, not just those with whom you disagree. Perhaps you do not want a fair conversation?
You hit the nail on the head, Rosie.
A) Teachers union (NEA) president, Dennis Van Roekel, delivered a speech recently in which he outlined what he considered should be the three prime motivators for public school educators.
“1. Leading the efforts to reform public education;
2. Helping to rebuild the middle class by strengthening the labor movement;
and
3. Building our capacity as an organization…to ensure that our power is felt and
our influence is clear.”
B) Albert Shanker, president of the United Federation of Teachers from 1964-1984 and president of the American Federation of Teachers from 1974-1997 is famous (infamous?) for saying the following.
“When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”
C) NEA General Counsel Bob Chanin said the following while addressing the 2009 NEA national convention.
“It’s not because we care about children; and it’s not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.
By their own words, teachers unions are not about education. Teachers unions are about money and power. Being a union member and paying union dues clearly indicates support for union policy. Any educator that is a union member and claims innocence by ignorance of what the union really stands for is either too dishonest or too uninformed to be allowed anywhere near a classroom full of impressionable young minds.
Rosie,
I don’t think Mr. Mack said anything about unions in his original letter, nor did I say anything about unions in my response. How can I lecture you about unions being an “innocent bystander watching the entire education system go to hell in a hand basket” when I didn’t even bring up unions? In his letter to the editor, Mr. Mack was just pointing out that spending money on ipads may not be the best choice in a district that has 38 children in an elementary classroom, has let go over 100 teachers in the past 2 years, has cut elementary art, band and various other programs, and is millions and millions of dollars in debt. I have to agree with him. Your comment about how many years ago there were 35 – 40 kids in a class and the teachers did just fine led me to believe that you thought that large class sizes do not make a difference.
My original post points to my genral thought on the whole situation, including the teacher union and its surrogates. Again, the responses to the original letter are all telling of the condition of the system. Julie, I answered your one question, so I trust you will answer mine: Julie, do you disagree with my position on the teachers’ union? If you disagree, please say so and explain your reasons. Thank you.
Rosie,
To me, it sounds like your position is that the union is the source of all problems within the educational system. If my assumption is correct, then no, I do not agree with your position on the teachers’ union. Do I think the union is without its faults? Of course not. I completely agree with you that if a teacher is drinking or stealing on the job, he or she should get fired. Maybe a better solution to the problem is to revise some of the policies within union contracts instead of completely getting rid of them. By eliminating the union, the majority of teachers who work hard and even go above and beyond what is expected are paying for the crimes of the very small minority. Yes, there are teachers probably should not be teaching, just as there are police officers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, judges, etc. that should not be in the field they have chosen. Most people who go into teaching do not think to themselves, “I’m going to become a teacher so that after I get tenure, I can be protected by the union and not have to work hard anymore.” Most teachers I know, including myself, are actually working much harder than when we first started. This has been the most demanding, tiring, and difficult year of my career – even more so than my first year of teaching. Just because a teacher has been around for many years does not mean that he or she is no longer an effective educator. My years of experience are invaluable and have made me a better teacher every year that I teach. If feel I have earned the right to belong to a union and should not have to suffer the consequences for those teachers who haven’t. I’m tired of being judged because of the very few who have made mistakes. It’s time to recognize and praise the 99% of teachers who “give it their all” each and every day in that classroom.
So as a union member, how often have you demanded changes from your union leadership to your contract as you outlined above? I have no issue with teachers or anyone else belonging to a union. However, the current teacher union contracts are simply absurd. Instead of mandating a high degree of pay for performance, they are full of arcane work rules and wording used only to increase mebership. The teachers’ unions in this country do not take care of good or outstanding teachers in any way, shape, or form. Instead, they protect mediocrity and substandard performers and line the pockets of union leadership with pay that only 1%ers see, plus union leadership receives lavish benefits and perks. I dare you to approach the president of your union in an open forum and with an open letter to the editor and demand that contracts be changed to get rid of the teachers whose behaivor you outline above. You will not only be ostracized by your own union, you will also be criticized by other unions and union surrogates. They will make your life so miserable you will quit a job you love and go and do something else. You will be intimidated and scorned. You and many others won’t do it and the union leadership knows it. This is why the teacher’s union just plain sucks.
“Union leadership” gets “pay that only 1%ers see”? What does that mean? Whom do you mean?
What about, “union leadership receives lavish benefits and perks”?
What does that MEAN? Whom do you mean?
Neither statement could be construed as remotely true for anyone in local OR state teacher union leadership in Minnesota.
Are you saying that school districts, which are natural ADVERSARIES of the union, confer upon union leaders “lavish benefits and perks”? Why would they do that?
Is the release time that union presidents routinely get your idea of “lavish benefits and perks”? Just asking. Your hyperbole demands response. Do you mean national union leaders?
Do you have opinions about Q Comp (Pawlenty reform) or the new state teacher-evaluation standards to be enacted in 2014? Any progress there?
Under current contracts, teachers are pretty much going to be paid from the low 30s to the high 70s or maybe low 80s (years plus credits).
How would you alter this in light of your concerns about “poorly compensated” teachers, and in light of the fact that education funding is unlikely to rise much in future years?
BTW, Julie, I salute your hard work. Others can choose not to.
Julie,
Your lack of response is deafening.
Wageslave,
I am appalled at your lack of understanding of union leadership pay and benefits. Who ultimately pays for the union bureaucracy? The teachers pay for it through their dues. If you wish to sign in and pay to view the entire article in the March Star Tribune, please do so, however, I have posted this small and revealing portion. Of course, you can view the statistics fro free at the BLS-sub. The article discusses the massive salaries and huge benefits for both local and national union leadership. The pay union leadership gets is merely absurd. And these are the same people who along with their surrogates (people like you Wageslave) who bash private industry executive compensation. It’s hypocritical, immoral, dishonest and wrong for them to do so.
“At the National Education Association, the union’s President made $397,721 in salary and benefits in 2009. One hundred and thirty other officers and employees of the nation’s largest teachers’ union made more than $220,000 that year. Public school teachers, by comparison, were paid a national average of $54,319 in 2009. ”
The American Federation of Teachers, a smaller teachers’ union, the President took home $428,384 in salary and benefits. Eight others at the union exceeded $300,000 in salary and benefits,”
The article goes on to highlight first-class flights, lavish trips, 5 star hotel stays, and more. It discusses Minnesota, regional and national union leadership compensation.
Wageslave, I do not post without facts. Now, since you are so eager to highlight this portion of my post, please go back and address the balance regarding how the union does virtually nothing for good and outstanding teachers and instead protects mediocrity and bad teachers. Also, keep in mind that “No Child Left Behind” was not just a George Bush plan, the late Senator Ted Kennedy authored most of it and hailed it as the best and most important reform in education in decades. Let’s not go to double standards, let’s fix the problem. I fully support good teachers(see above and previous posts), but I do not support the horrible system that exists where they must operate, and the union has done nothing, and actually hindered its proper reform. As far a Q Comp, the teachers’ unions loved it when it came out and also union leadership had a lot of say as to how it should be administered. It is time for teachers to get mad at their own union leadership and those in politcs who claim to support them, instead of getting mad at the public at large.
That’s what I was asking, whether you meant national or state/local leaders would qualify as one-percenters. Don’t be appalled by me when you fail in your original post to provide information to back your hyperbole.
OK, a handful of national leaders are one-percenters.
Sorry if I’m more familiar with local teacher compensation and practices (I’m not a teacher) than with the national salaries you cite. I’m appalled by your failure to acknowledge that I know anything at all.
Are the local/state union leaders one-percenters?
DON’T tell me who I’m a “surrogate” of. Man, that kills me. Since I have stated previously, on this board, that I wish Dayton had signed the teacher seniority bill, which the teachers opposed, my surrogacy really is up for grabs, isn’t it? And good luck finding ANY statement by me where I “bash(ed) private industry executive compensation.”
Did I say one damn thing about Bush, Kennedy and No Child? I know Kennedy championed it. Thanks for that.