TOTAL GLEES
Written by Mockarena // January 28, 2011 // Weeps And Glees // 54 Comments
You know what’s completely awesome? When Obama touts the success of something in his SOTU, only to have to discover later that the reason for the success of that something is because that something did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Obama would normally support.
In his SOTU, Obama shone a spotlight on the Bruce Randolph School in Denver.
“Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver,” he said. “Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado. Last May, 97 percent of seniors received their diploma.”
Total success story, right? But here’s why. Five years after it opened, that school was given permission by the state to run completely autonomously – free from district and more importantly, UNION rules. And then, in the most brilliant move ever, the principal made every teacher reapply for his/her job. A grand total of SIX made the cut. Try THAT in a union setting. The school also transitioned from being only a middle school to a school for students ranging from 6th through 12th grade.
The principal who oversaw the transition said the success was simple: “Having the common expectations about what it means to be a student at Bruce Randolph school, and what it means to be a teacher at Bruce Randolph school. And every teacher agreeing to have the same rules and expectations.”
Wait. That’s confusing. I thought it was cadillac benefit plans and union protection and tons of administrative people working for the schools that was the secret of a good education. Huh.
54 Comments on "TOTAL GLEES"
This is exactly the outcome we would see in all cases where government was divested from public education and the entire system privatized. It’s an extreme move but the argument for privatization is complelling. Check my thoughts on the subject here.
http://pledgetoamerica.tumblr.com/post/2623650243/national-private-education-system-a-model-for-change
KA-CHING! Ladies…..I bow to your brilliant observation! UNIONS…they do what again?
They help who? They provide what? Oh I know: They hold the world HOSTAGE!
They had their place, but that time has past. We need the competitive market to make these changes, and GOVERNMENT needs to step back and LEARN!
HAHAHAHAAAAA! Thanks for bring it up Pres!
Wait…are you kidding me???? A school where teachers are…TEACHING? I’d be curious to hear from the teachers in the school. Are they out there looking for “something better”*? Are they utterly MISERABLE not having to pay a portion of their salary to support the unions? Are they disgruntled at having to pay a portion of their salary for their health care benefits? Are they jumping ship faster than rats on the Titanic?
OR…are they, dare I even say it, HAPPY? Knowing they are finally making a difference.
Teachers teaching without interference…someone pass me my parka ’cause I think he!! just froze over.
*something better=job that includes a cadillac health plan for which they have to pay NOTHING
And the sooner government takes a smaller role and parents and teacher take a larger role in education, the sooner we’ll see our kids being more competitive on the world’s stage.
When has more state/government oversight and control EVER resulted in better performance? When will we as a society ever learn??
Do you think they have a bus that will pick up my kids in Texas?
This is awesome!
I would like to know the principal’s bench mark for hiring.
All true – but will we here anyone in the lamestream media actually mention that the Teleprompter-In-Chief was actually wrong?!? Of course not….
oops – “hear” not “here” Me speak good English….
Major, many of the countries that the US is considered “behind” on the world stage have large government fingerprints on their education systems’. With this in mind, how do you reconcile your comment that less government involvement will make us more competitive with these very same countries?
Because, the countries that the US trails place a much higher priority on eduction at the personal and family level. We give it lip service and throw money at it while focusing on how well our kids play sports.
Talk about what you know about. We’d hear a lot less from you.
“Because, the countries that the US trails place a much higher priority on eduction at the personal and family level. “
I agree with that–however you ducked the government involvement portion of the question.
Those countries spend more on education because they truly value education on a personal level and want things to work that way. Although, I’m not sure about that, really. I mean, do you have per pupil expenditure numbers? I can’t help but wonder if anyone spends that much more than us per pupil. Maybe they do, I don’t know.
But it’s a reflection of their actual concern for their kid’s learning. Also, those places have MUCH longer school years.
Our spending is far too often a function of inefficiency. I work in the industry.
Talk about what you know about.
This is old data, but we’re third in the world. So…maybe your premise sucks.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student
The chicks have contact info for me. If you’ll contact them directly, I’ll happily send you five bucks if you’ll admit you’re wrong.
More proof you’re wrong.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/does-spending-more-on-education-improve-academic-achievement
I’ve got picture of President Lincoln waiting for you. All you have to do is admit you were wrong. You can admit it. We all know.
Just one more so I can link this to my email. In case you reply.
Wait a minute. What am I wrong about?
Well, I’m not sure there’s enough space for everything here, but I’ll just go with the stuff I’m currently discussing.
1 “Major, many of the countries that the US is considered “behind” on the world stage have large government fingerprints on their education systems’. With this in mind, how do you reconcile your comment that less government involvement will make us more competitive with these very same countries?” Well, as I pointed out above, only two countries have higher per pupil expenditures on education. Unless you consider two to be “many” you’re kinda off the mark on this. And that renders my point about less government being more effective rather valid. This is the one the $5 applies to.
2 The Maddow/Olbermann/Imus post also renders you a little less than on point since you argued a point for which you have no evidence.
3 Finally, there’s a post that devolved into budget discussions and I rendered you pretty much wrong on that one and you abandoned it.
That’ll do for now, but #1 is of particular interest, as if you didn’t already get that.
In regards to point #1, I’m not sure where you get the idea that I think spending per pupil equals success. I never said that, nor do I believe it. But I can’t think of any countries ahead of us that are decreasing their investment in education. Can you?
We don’t invest in education, we invest in the retirement benefits and health insurance for retired teachers. Let’s get rid of the unions, pay good teachers more, fire the dead wood, and let the well-paid excellent teachers save for their own futures like the rest of us do.
“Major, many of the countries that the US is considered “behind” on the world stage have large government fingerprints on their education systems’. With this in mind, how do you reconcile your comment that less government involvement will make us more competitive with these very same countries?”
Pretty clear implication that you are taking issue with my assertion that less government involvement will make us more competitive. In fact, you actually said MOST of that.
So, I point out that per pupil spending is lower in most of the countries that we’re worried about competing with (primarily asian countries) and your response is that you don’t think you stated that higher spending is better?
Which is it Ace? Am I right by asserting that less government can work, as it does in Asian countries or are those countries actually trailing us and not making strides.
You live in an alternate reality.
BTW, if you’ll admit to being wrong, the $5 is still yours.
A couple of things…
I never made the assertion that higher per student spending is equivalent to greater government involvement. But if you want to combine that with a belief that less government spending will make us more competitive, then you probably think that countries that currently spend less than us perform better–right? You mentioned Asian countries. But surely they are not the only ones that spend less than us. (and what of the Swiss?–they spend more and perform better)
Ultimately, I’d like to see data to back up your assertion that less government spending makes countries’ education systems perform better.
um.. Obama has never been the biggest friend of teachers’ unions.. Hes been a proponent of merit pay for teachers, so I don’t really see how this proves him so wrong anyway..
Is this a choice school? In other words, do the students have to apply and are they selected to attend, much like a private school? Because I’m betting that is the case. And that, more than the teachers is the reason for the school’s success.
Parental involvement is the number one reason for student success. End of story.
Terry Peterson
I have long been a proponent of the idea of taking the public out of public education. I think that we as citizens have a responsibility to pay for the education of our future generations. But paying for it is not the same as doing it.
We should privatize the entire thing. Put all public education out to contract and if the contractor does a good job they get to bid to do the job again when the contract comes up.
No more public education unions, no huge public education bureaucracy.
Insta-lanche!
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/114033/
gwalms – the fact of the matter is that unions overwhelmingly support Obama and Democrats. My point is that I find it amusing that Obama didn’t bother to mention the LACK of union involvement in this particular school.
Wouldn’t have fit his usual agenda, now, would it?
Will – holy moly! It IS an insta-lanche!
“I can see the moon from my house.”
I live in the Denver area and recall the unions raising h*ll about Randolph School going union-free. I’ve got some nice baked crow for them to eat, but none have accepted my invitation…
I’m so glad to learn this about the Bruce Randolph school. Although I didn’t know Daddy Bruce personally, I knew about him as did almost everyone in Denver when I lived there. His barbecue food was exceptional, and his free meals on Thanksgiving grew to be a major event. How fitting that the school named for him is now turning out the quality students that would do his legacy proud. Bravo, ladies.
Oops.
Oh H*ll next he will try to sell himself as Reganlike! Bahahhaaha
I don’t think people should oversell this story – when the school starts performing better on measures that are externally valid (e.g., state tests), then it is time to make the union eat crow. Right now, the school is still in the basement when compared to other schools in the state. It’s heading in the right direction, though, especially in reading scores.
Grade 10
Reading
52% (2010)
The state average for Reading was 66% in 2010.
Science
13% (2010)
The state average for Science was 47% in 2010.
Writing
16% (2010)
The state average for Writing was 47% in 2010.
Math
12% (2010)
The state average for Math was 30% in 2010.
The only problem with school choice is that the capacity of alternative schools would stand to be overwhelmed by requests. The transition period from the Government Gulag schools to free schools would undoubtedly be messy, but that is the genius of America: responding to market-based signals with alacrity.
My retired superintendent friend points to the statistics of zero improvement over the past few decades despite increased spending as a vindication: “Gee, haven’t we done well not to lose ground given all the problems in society?” Well, no, since you are the genesis of many of the problems and not simply bystander.
Ace: I like the new pic!!!
What is it that the Swiss do differently with the money as opposed to what we do? Do you know?
Thanks Laurel. But sorry, I can’t answer your question. I’m sure md can tell us
“The idea was to give teachers more time, money and other resources to work with struggling students. ”
Well, gee. Isn’t that what all teachers ask for an never get?!! You can’t blame it all on bad teachers and union rules. Obviously the school spent the time and money getting more help for their students.
Read more: Obama singles out Denver middle school’s Bruce Randolph school in State of the Union – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17197878#ixzz1CYdYuiIG
Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Laurel….compare the poverty and minority rates in the US to the Swiss…that might be one clue.
I’d say the two glaring items would be socioeconomic status (already a HUGE indicatory of academic success), plus the fact that they have a literacy rate through the roof! So, the society clearly values education with their time and effort as well as their money. Not sure we can say the same about the US.
Now, I can’t say those are definitive, but they matter.
Would just like to say that I’m studying to be a teacher. (History) And I absolutely DISPISE teachers’ unions!! They are terrible. All they do is protect old, bad teachers.
I forgot about this post, and missed the last response:
’I’d say the two glaring items would be socioeconomic status (already a HUGE indicatory of academic success), plus the fact that they have a literacy rate through the roof!”
From what I read, socioeconomic status is the biggest factor when considering education success. But what of government spending? You said less spending would make us more competitive. How do you come to this conclusion? The two links you offered as “proof” prove nothing of the sort.
Trackbacks for this post