Last week we spoke about an incident at the Frederick Douglass Academy, an all boys school in Detroit, where many of the students walked out during class time to protest conditions at the school. It turns out that about 50 of the protesters were suspended for their actions.
The suspensions are right and just. Schools need order as much as the general society or they cannot function, and we stand by what we said last week. We doubt that all involved really believed in what they were doing. But that doesn't mean that we cannot or should not have a certain sympathy for the students over their concerns, either. If their complaints are legitimate, then something needs to be done to rectify the situation.
Among their issues are teachers supposedly abusing sick time, a lack of textbooks, and the reassignment of a former principal. One parent asserted that her son received an A in a class where the teacher was absent 68 days and gave no final exam; he was graded high for simply showing up, she alleged. If true, these matters are irresponsible and unprofessional and should be dealt with severely.
The Detroit Public Schools assured the community, through their spokesman Steven Wasko, that any teacher who abuses sick leave with be reprimanded. But the troubles with the DPS go much farther than such rather simple abuses of privilege such as that. One of the seniors who participated in the walkout laments that he could not answer a single question on the placement exam for Bowling Green State University in Ohio (although he's been accepted there just the same). But if that's the case, it surely seems unfair to act as though the Douglass Academy, itself and alone, is to blame for his academic struggles. By your senior year, if you can't "answer a question on there", as the student says, on a college placement test, then there's more problems than only the ones you've faced in your high school years.
Which isn't to say that his academic issues are entirely his own fault. While we have a difficult time believing that any given student could not have learned anything at all no matter what schools he's attended (it seems doubtful that after 12 years of education he could not answer any question on the BGSU exam), the troubles at the Frederick Douglass Academy seem to demonstrate a problem far deeper than anyone's senior year of high school can illustrate by itself. The problems likely reflect long term and deep seated issues within the Detroit Public Schools, along with the urban social issues inherent in cities such as Detroit. The Detroit Public Schools are in a bind not entirely of their own design. They are trying to educate in, well, not the best environment. This is only made worse when they mismanage what they have, academically and economically.
So it appears that the troubles at Douglass Academy are little more than a dot on the map. They run deeper than a first glance may tell. It leaves us to wonder what, if anything, can really be done in the short term. The current students at Douglass Academy may simply and unfortunately be stuck. What that bodes for the DPS and her students in the long run remains to be seen. But the forecast is certainly cloudy.
Showing posts with label Detroit Public Schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Detroit Public Schools. Show all posts
Monday, April 2, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
Protesting Education by Cutting Class
During the course of the morning yesterday, groups of students marched around the Frederick Douglass Academy in Detroit. They were accompanied by several adults, and they chanted, "What do we want? Education! When do we want it? Now!". This during school hours.
We do not know why they were walking along around the school. But we do not have to know. The fascinating irony of the situation is more compelling than whatever it is they were actually protesting about or for. They want education. They want it now.
And they're willing to skip school to get it.
We doubt very seriously their sincerity on the matter. It would have been more impressive if they had gathered on a Saturday or even after classes were over and made their protest then. On their own time. But we know enough about school age people to know that the bulk of them almost surely didn't really care about whatever it was they were marching about. They were getting out of class, and that's what mattered.
Their voices died out quickly. Their chanting was strong at first but faded fast. By the second loop of the building only a few were chanting, and then with no regularity; the majority talked and joked and laughed among themselves. Yet they still marched. Their protest for education, whatever they might actually mean by that (an interesting question in itself), was apparently short lived.
But they got of class, and that likely sated their desire.
There is no need to take them seriously. They were likely being led by somebody, some presumed adults who felt that a protest was necessary. A teachable moment, as the educators say.
It is doubtful they learned anything but self aggrandizement. It is a lesson which will not help them in life. But it tells us all we need to know about the public schools and the brand of education they sell.
We do not know why they were walking along around the school. But we do not have to know. The fascinating irony of the situation is more compelling than whatever it is they were actually protesting about or for. They want education. They want it now.
And they're willing to skip school to get it.
We doubt very seriously their sincerity on the matter. It would have been more impressive if they had gathered on a Saturday or even after classes were over and made their protest then. On their own time. But we know enough about school age people to know that the bulk of them almost surely didn't really care about whatever it was they were marching about. They were getting out of class, and that's what mattered.
Their voices died out quickly. Their chanting was strong at first but faded fast. By the second loop of the building only a few were chanting, and then with no regularity; the majority talked and joked and laughed among themselves. Yet they still marched. Their protest for education, whatever they might actually mean by that (an interesting question in itself), was apparently short lived.
But they got of class, and that likely sated their desire.
There is no need to take them seriously. They were likely being led by somebody, some presumed adults who felt that a protest was necessary. A teachable moment, as the educators say.
It is doubtful they learned anything but self aggrandizement. It is a lesson which will not help them in life. But it tells us all we need to know about the public schools and the brand of education they sell.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Public School Arrogance
The state of Michigan currently has two 'cyber charter schools' in existence. But there is a bill making its way through the legislature which would allow for more. Needless to say, the idea has sparked debate in the most usual manner: the people who like them support them wholeheartedly, while those who feed from the public trough are appalled.
Supporters like the flexibility of schedule which such entities offer, and the fact that it givers parents more choice among schools. Choice, eh? It would be interesting to know how many educators are pro choice on issues such as abortion but not on questions of public schools, but that thought is a for another time.
The chief criticism of cyber schools, as it always is when the public school ox is at risk of being gored, is that they would take more money away from traditional public schools. As always as well, the correct response to that is, so what? That in and of itself simply should not be a factor. If our aim as a society is to educate our young then we ought to be willing to explore various ways and means of so doing even (or especially, given the performance of some public schools) at the, ahem, expense of traditional schools.
What we have here is another case of the education elite and the hypocrisy rank among them. How many times have folks in education urged everyone else to change? How many times in school, any school, really, were we exhorted to think outside the box? Yet as it turns out, public school supporters don't want to consider change which actually affects them. Thinking outside the box is great...until it's their box, paid for by your tax dollars.
This isn't to say that cyber schools should be embraced without reservation either. If they aren't performing well then we have to consider either ending or altering them. If you've got data which supports that, so be it. But kindly don't whine about them taking cash from traditional public schools because that argument simply doesn't wash. Public schools are not the lords of education. They do not own it, nor hold an exclusive right to dispense learning. They only think that way, which serves as a lesson itself.
Supporters like the flexibility of schedule which such entities offer, and the fact that it givers parents more choice among schools. Choice, eh? It would be interesting to know how many educators are pro choice on issues such as abortion but not on questions of public schools, but that thought is a for another time.
The chief criticism of cyber schools, as it always is when the public school ox is at risk of being gored, is that they would take more money away from traditional public schools. As always as well, the correct response to that is, so what? That in and of itself simply should not be a factor. If our aim as a society is to educate our young then we ought to be willing to explore various ways and means of so doing even (or especially, given the performance of some public schools) at the, ahem, expense of traditional schools.
What we have here is another case of the education elite and the hypocrisy rank among them. How many times have folks in education urged everyone else to change? How many times in school, any school, really, were we exhorted to think outside the box? Yet as it turns out, public school supporters don't want to consider change which actually affects them. Thinking outside the box is great...until it's their box, paid for by your tax dollars.
This isn't to say that cyber schools should be embraced without reservation either. If they aren't performing well then we have to consider either ending or altering them. If you've got data which supports that, so be it. But kindly don't whine about them taking cash from traditional public schools because that argument simply doesn't wash. Public schools are not the lords of education. They do not own it, nor hold an exclusive right to dispense learning. They only think that way, which serves as a lesson itself.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Emergency Manager Needed in Highland Park
Due to a severe budget deficit, it has been recommended by a review team that Highland Park Public Schools be brought under an emergency manager. Described as being in a financial free fall, the action would make Highland Park second to the Detroit Public Schools as the only districts under a Michigan emergency manager.
Yet refreshingly, the response of Highland Park School officials has been rather conciliatory. Superintendent Edith Hightower has said that they must live with Lansing's recommendation, and that her first job is to see that the students in her district are educated. The District is in trouble despite its efforts (it has done several things called for by the state in attempts to remedy its problems on its own) yet has acknowledged they aren't working. School board Chairwoman Alma Greer echoes the point.
Of course, someone always wants to protect their turf, and this is no less true with the Highland Park Schools. One Board member, Robert Davis, speaks of legal action to prevent an emergency manager from stepping in. He's an elected school board member, you see, and Highland Park parents will be losing their right to elect their representatives if the situation plays out as seems likely. That's garbage, of course: Highland Park citizens have and will express their opinions about state actions through their state legislators whom they elected. No one's right are being violated; Mr. Davis is simply grandstanding. A lawsuit will only drive the district further in debt or, at the best, delay necessary actions.
It is good to see that the reaction to this difficult situation is, on the whole, positive. Such an approach is best, for Highland Park, for its students, and its taxpayers. The rest of Michigan, and we will pointedly include the City of Detroit in this, should taker note. Sometimes it is best to take our medicine and get on with things.
Yet refreshingly, the response of Highland Park School officials has been rather conciliatory. Superintendent Edith Hightower has said that they must live with Lansing's recommendation, and that her first job is to see that the students in her district are educated. The District is in trouble despite its efforts (it has done several things called for by the state in attempts to remedy its problems on its own) yet has acknowledged they aren't working. School board Chairwoman Alma Greer echoes the point.
Of course, someone always wants to protect their turf, and this is no less true with the Highland Park Schools. One Board member, Robert Davis, speaks of legal action to prevent an emergency manager from stepping in. He's an elected school board member, you see, and Highland Park parents will be losing their right to elect their representatives if the situation plays out as seems likely. That's garbage, of course: Highland Park citizens have and will express their opinions about state actions through their state legislators whom they elected. No one's right are being violated; Mr. Davis is simply grandstanding. A lawsuit will only drive the district further in debt or, at the best, delay necessary actions.
It is good to see that the reaction to this difficult situation is, on the whole, positive. Such an approach is best, for Highland Park, for its students, and its taxpayers. The rest of Michigan, and we will pointedly include the City of Detroit in this, should taker note. Sometimes it is best to take our medicine and get on with things.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
DPS Emergency Manager Should Drive a Smaller Car
Roy Roberts, the emergency manager of the Detroit Public Schools, drives around in a $40,000 SUV paid for out of district funds. His old car, a 2005 Dodge Durango, had over 100,000 miles on it and recently needed about a thousand dollars worth of repairs. It was 'in total disrepair' according to Roberts. Meanwhile, the Detroit Federation of Teachers called the purchase wasteful, especially in light of the hardships the district is facing.
We have to go with the DFT on this one. It isn't that it's wrong for someone in Mr. Roberts' position to have a vehicle furnished for his use. When you need to travel frequently by the nature of your job, to have the employer providing a car is not an outlandish idea.
But an SUV? There are at least three reasons why that is unacceptable in these times. For starters, as cash strapped as the DPS is, it would seem that a perfectly good car comparable to the standing of an emergency manager could be had for much less. Secondly, in light of the fact that he is an emergency manager and that the emergency manager law is so relatively controversial, he ought to set a tone of austerity starting right in his own office. Thirdly, with gas prices what they are, it simply makes economic sense to find something with better mileage than an SUV. And we may as well add that in this day and age, a vehicle only six years old which only needed a thousand bucks of repairs, the type of vehicle many of us in fact drive, doesn't sound that bad. 111,000 miles on today's cars really isn't all that many.
To be sure, perhaps there are reasons to have a larger vehicle. Yet off the top of the head, the only one we can come up with is safety. A larger vehicle is undoubtedly safer than a smaller one. But we aren't saying that he should get an Aveo, either, and we cannot imagine any bold direct attacks on Mr. Roberts where an SUV would offer significant extra protection on such a front.
The whole thing smells too much like a matter of prestige. Indeed in today's DPS, on a job which already pays a quarter million dollars a year, it borders on comedic. Even we will admit that in an environment where you're asking your employees to take pay cuts, it is at least vaguely insulting. If our leaders want to set the right tone for their actions, they must begin with a hard look in the mirror.
We have to go with the DFT on this one. It isn't that it's wrong for someone in Mr. Roberts' position to have a vehicle furnished for his use. When you need to travel frequently by the nature of your job, to have the employer providing a car is not an outlandish idea.
But an SUV? There are at least three reasons why that is unacceptable in these times. For starters, as cash strapped as the DPS is, it would seem that a perfectly good car comparable to the standing of an emergency manager could be had for much less. Secondly, in light of the fact that he is an emergency manager and that the emergency manager law is so relatively controversial, he ought to set a tone of austerity starting right in his own office. Thirdly, with gas prices what they are, it simply makes economic sense to find something with better mileage than an SUV. And we may as well add that in this day and age, a vehicle only six years old which only needed a thousand bucks of repairs, the type of vehicle many of us in fact drive, doesn't sound that bad. 111,000 miles on today's cars really isn't all that many.
To be sure, perhaps there are reasons to have a larger vehicle. Yet off the top of the head, the only one we can come up with is safety. A larger vehicle is undoubtedly safer than a smaller one. But we aren't saying that he should get an Aveo, either, and we cannot imagine any bold direct attacks on Mr. Roberts where an SUV would offer significant extra protection on such a front.
The whole thing smells too much like a matter of prestige. Indeed in today's DPS, on a job which already pays a quarter million dollars a year, it borders on comedic. Even we will admit that in an environment where you're asking your employees to take pay cuts, it is at least vaguely insulting. If our leaders want to set the right tone for their actions, they must begin with a hard look in the mirror.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Overplanning?
The Detroit Public Schools are in the middle of completing several building projects, as the result of a bond proposal which the city's voters had approved. There seems to be trouble at the mill, though. It was promised that within the resulting jobs, two-thirds would go to Detroiters. Yet only 46% in fact have. The DPS has exceeded the goals with contractors, as 71% of them are within the city boundaries.
There are all kinds of explanations for the discrepancy among individual hires. The contractors perhaps could not find the type or amount of labor for the jobs in question. Perhaps enough Detroit residents simply did not apply for or know how to get the work. It may well be that the contractors did not more actively seek workers from the city, didn't actually care to search for them, or just plain ignored the provisions of their contracts and the bond issue. Arguably even union seniority requirements, if unions were involved (and it does not seem plausible that they were not) got in the way. Whatever the case, one thing is certain: tying large construction deals, indeed tying any given contractor's jobs to specific numbers of hires really isn't the best way to do business.
It would be safe to assume that what has happened here was little more than a veiled affirmative action plan. And like most any such plot it hasn't worked out very well. Mandating the percentages of a given workforce, and this applies to all regardless of race, gender, or whatever other group may be the target, is a bit of a fool's errand. The important thing with construction is that it is done well, and not who actually did it.
It really shouldn't matter to the DPS exactly how the projects go or who actually works on them. Writing what are essentially political provisions into such contracts merely invites jealousy while placing a hardship upon the employer. Unless a systematic bias against certain folks exists and can be proven, no private firm should ever be told who to hire.
To have a cause is one thing, even if it's a bad one. But making your cause someone else's is hardly fair. Good work and not socio-societal expectations ought to drive the process of who works on public projects.
There are all kinds of explanations for the discrepancy among individual hires. The contractors perhaps could not find the type or amount of labor for the jobs in question. Perhaps enough Detroit residents simply did not apply for or know how to get the work. It may well be that the contractors did not more actively seek workers from the city, didn't actually care to search for them, or just plain ignored the provisions of their contracts and the bond issue. Arguably even union seniority requirements, if unions were involved (and it does not seem plausible that they were not) got in the way. Whatever the case, one thing is certain: tying large construction deals, indeed tying any given contractor's jobs to specific numbers of hires really isn't the best way to do business.
It would be safe to assume that what has happened here was little more than a veiled affirmative action plan. And like most any such plot it hasn't worked out very well. Mandating the percentages of a given workforce, and this applies to all regardless of race, gender, or whatever other group may be the target, is a bit of a fool's errand. The important thing with construction is that it is done well, and not who actually did it.
It really shouldn't matter to the DPS exactly how the projects go or who actually works on them. Writing what are essentially political provisions into such contracts merely invites jealousy while placing a hardship upon the employer. Unless a systematic bias against certain folks exists and can be proven, no private firm should ever be told who to hire.
To have a cause is one thing, even if it's a bad one. But making your cause someone else's is hardly fair. Good work and not socio-societal expectations ought to drive the process of who works on public projects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
