I spent several years on a local school board. It was quite an eye-opening experience. The boards are in reality governed by two factions: the "administration" and the unions. Most think that the two are in constant tension and keep each other in check; the reality is that nothing could be farther from the truth. The union's job is full …
I spent several years on a local school board. It was quite an eye-opening experience. The boards are in reality governed by two factions: the "administration" and the unions. Most think that the two are in constant tension and keep each other in check; the reality is that nothing could be farther from the truth. The union's job is full employment for its members; that of the "administration" is to diffuse directed energy from the public they supposedly serve - to act as a giant pillow and absorb/redirect the public's justified ire at their poor performance.
The service personnel's union, for example, makes certain that there are enough bus drivers. In my rural area, for example, formerly filled to the gunwales, buses are now largely empty, but instead of one bus making the morning and afternoon runs, there are three: the "little kids' bus," the "big kids' bus," and the Short Bus for the special ed kids. "We don't want the big kids riding with the little kids or the retarded kids; they might bother them." Well, they never bothered them before. What's changed? Three times the number of drivers, for what is now less than 1/3 the number of students - that's what.
As for the administration? In my rural county - the same one where I attended primary and secondary school - administration originally consisted of four people: Superintendent, assistant superintendent, truant officer, secretary. A few short years ago, the same Board office, which had originally rented space in an office building, moved into its new digs: a $5 million dollar building, containing over 100 employees, a great number of whom spend their days making sure the local schools are in "compliance," whatever that is. For 1/3 the number of students as before. So what is their real job? Keeping angry parents at bay, telling them everything is all right - and at all costs, preventing them from going to the newspaper or media with their complaints.
Sometimes you just have to demolish an old building and start over. The government school system is precisely like any socialist enterprise where funding is divorced from performance: a bloated wasteland, unable to perform the simplest task. Can the government schools be fixed? Sure - and we are willing to try every alternative solution - except what it takes.
You nailed it with the multiplying admins focused on "compliance". I think a lot of it is related to the rise in students determined to be in need of Individualized Education Plans (IEPS) - i.e. Special Education - and 504 Plans (for other "disabilities"). It seems very easy for parents and school staff to get a student classified this way - and this in turn creates the need for more staff: SPED teachers/case managers and a whole hierarchy of Central Office SPED compliance people. The drive to get kids on these plans is questionable: some good intentions, sure, but also some gaming of the system, as the plans come with "accommodations" such as reduced assignments, extended time, etc.
It's much the same in our local, upper-middle class community. The teachers union has a PAC, and the PAC is the only organization that advertises in the support of specific school board candidates and to pass the school budgets/levies; always under the guise of "it's for the kids". Most residents have no idea that this relationship exists, or how the "step" system in teachers' contracts work. Our public school teachers are among the best-paid in the state. Remember that "the only good teachers are the best-paid teachers".
Ironically, one topic that's causing a split in the cozy relationship between the teachers union, school board members, and administrators is the lousy reading program that the district adopted. Some of the frustrated parents and teachers have begun to rebel against the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum (who's related to the school board president - how convenient!) who continues to support the non-phonics reading program that she endorses, which has caused the elementary school reading scores in the district to plummet. It's going to be interesting to see how the union-supported PAC handles this during the next school board election.
I've been curious about how the administration/union dynamics work when dealing with school place violence, specifically against teachers. I live in an area where the recent "de-fund the police" movement resulted in the removal of school resources officers (aka police officers). This is done in the name of racial equality, or anti-racism, or something. Not surprisingly violence against teachers has risen, and in some cases sharply. Teachers report (anonymously) that they are afraid in the classroom and are not backed up by administrators. In the school district I'm thinking of the union has been surprisingly quiet. I've wondered what individual dues-paying teachers are thinking of their union and their administrators.
When I was on the board, the teachers union was doing its regular song and dance about needing more salary "for the kids." I told the speaker, the local union president, that I would make her a bargain: for every percentage of increase of standardized test scores, I would go with her to the state capitol and speak in favor of an equal percent raise. However, I wanted her to pledge to a wage cut equal to any percentage DROP in scores.
She told me that was ridiculous, to which I replied, "So it's NOT for the kids; it's for you. Case closed."
I spent several years on a local school board. It was quite an eye-opening experience. The boards are in reality governed by two factions: the "administration" and the unions. Most think that the two are in constant tension and keep each other in check; the reality is that nothing could be farther from the truth. The union's job is full employment for its members; that of the "administration" is to diffuse directed energy from the public they supposedly serve - to act as a giant pillow and absorb/redirect the public's justified ire at their poor performance.
The service personnel's union, for example, makes certain that there are enough bus drivers. In my rural area, for example, formerly filled to the gunwales, buses are now largely empty, but instead of one bus making the morning and afternoon runs, there are three: the "little kids' bus," the "big kids' bus," and the Short Bus for the special ed kids. "We don't want the big kids riding with the little kids or the retarded kids; they might bother them." Well, they never bothered them before. What's changed? Three times the number of drivers, for what is now less than 1/3 the number of students - that's what.
As for the administration? In my rural county - the same one where I attended primary and secondary school - administration originally consisted of four people: Superintendent, assistant superintendent, truant officer, secretary. A few short years ago, the same Board office, which had originally rented space in an office building, moved into its new digs: a $5 million dollar building, containing over 100 employees, a great number of whom spend their days making sure the local schools are in "compliance," whatever that is. For 1/3 the number of students as before. So what is their real job? Keeping angry parents at bay, telling them everything is all right - and at all costs, preventing them from going to the newspaper or media with their complaints.
Sometimes you just have to demolish an old building and start over. The government school system is precisely like any socialist enterprise where funding is divorced from performance: a bloated wasteland, unable to perform the simplest task. Can the government schools be fixed? Sure - and we are willing to try every alternative solution - except what it takes.
You nailed it with the multiplying admins focused on "compliance". I think a lot of it is related to the rise in students determined to be in need of Individualized Education Plans (IEPS) - i.e. Special Education - and 504 Plans (for other "disabilities"). It seems very easy for parents and school staff to get a student classified this way - and this in turn creates the need for more staff: SPED teachers/case managers and a whole hierarchy of Central Office SPED compliance people. The drive to get kids on these plans is questionable: some good intentions, sure, but also some gaming of the system, as the plans come with "accommodations" such as reduced assignments, extended time, etc.
It's much the same in our local, upper-middle class community. The teachers union has a PAC, and the PAC is the only organization that advertises in the support of specific school board candidates and to pass the school budgets/levies; always under the guise of "it's for the kids". Most residents have no idea that this relationship exists, or how the "step" system in teachers' contracts work. Our public school teachers are among the best-paid in the state. Remember that "the only good teachers are the best-paid teachers".
Ironically, one topic that's causing a split in the cozy relationship between the teachers union, school board members, and administrators is the lousy reading program that the district adopted. Some of the frustrated parents and teachers have begun to rebel against the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum (who's related to the school board president - how convenient!) who continues to support the non-phonics reading program that she endorses, which has caused the elementary school reading scores in the district to plummet. It's going to be interesting to see how the union-supported PAC handles this during the next school board election.
I've been curious about how the administration/union dynamics work when dealing with school place violence, specifically against teachers. I live in an area where the recent "de-fund the police" movement resulted in the removal of school resources officers (aka police officers). This is done in the name of racial equality, or anti-racism, or something. Not surprisingly violence against teachers has risen, and in some cases sharply. Teachers report (anonymously) that they are afraid in the classroom and are not backed up by administrators. In the school district I'm thinking of the union has been surprisingly quiet. I've wondered what individual dues-paying teachers are thinking of their union and their administrators.
When I was on the board, the teachers union was doing its regular song and dance about needing more salary "for the kids." I told the speaker, the local union president, that I would make her a bargain: for every percentage of increase of standardized test scores, I would go with her to the state capitol and speak in favor of an equal percent raise. However, I wanted her to pledge to a wage cut equal to any percentage DROP in scores.
She told me that was ridiculous, to which I replied, "So it's NOT for the kids; it's for you. Case closed."