Chartering education for undisciplined spoiled brats

I am not a great fan of former New York City Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz, who has gone entrepreneurial and has founded the Success Academy franchise for New York City Charter Schools.

Charter schools, you will recall, are chartered to provide education and are an effective admission that the New York City Department of Education's own schools are dysfunctional.

So now, there is whining and moaning from diverse quarters that Success Academy is too strict with its students (including those who pose disciplinary problems) and some reporters from the New York Times (of which I have never been, and do not expect to be in the future, a fan) have uncovered a "got to go" list used by Success Academy to circumvent the mandated expulsion procedures by making life so difficult for the students and their parents that the parents withdraw the students.

My take on it:  Perhaps Success Academy is being overly strict with its underage students.  And their circumvention of the expulsion regulations does not endear them to me.  But why shouldn't the Charter Schools be able to discipline their students? 

When I was growing up, there were (and still are today) various military-themed educational institutions (Virginia Military Institute, The Citadel, and Valley Forge Military Academy come immediately to mind) where disciplinary problem children were sent in order to straighten out their behavior.  These institutions have many successes to their credit.  The main difference between the Charter Schools and the private military boarding schools is that the latter charge tuition, so that the parents, having made the investment, are more prone to back up the school in the imposition and maintenance of a disciplinary regime.

At the Charter Schools, on the other hand, there are some spoiled parents who sabotage the education of their children.

Effective in his Ineffectiveness

The term "teacher accountability" has long been uttered from various quarters, and the teachers usually see red when they hear the term because a disproportionate percentage of those who use the term have some sort of agenda which is hostile to the teachers.  A number of years ago, when I served on the board of a Jewish day school, there were many an anguishing moments involving the question of teacher accountability.

I am all for teacher accountability, but teacher accountability is meaningless unless there is administration accountability, school board accountability, student accountability and parent accountability.  If you are not pushing for accountability for all, then chances are that you have some sort of ulterior anti-teacher motive when you say the words "teacher accountability."

New York State has recently instituted a new system for evaluating teachers.  It is called the Annual Professional Performance Review.

The teachers unions are, of course, against it, and while I normally do not side with the teachers unions on too many matters, I really, really am most skeptical at the entire concept behind the APPR.  Teacher effectiveness is difficult to quantify.

If my teachers were effective in teaching me, they were effective because they were given nearly absolute backing from my parents (the few exceptions were for good cause, including an instance where a certain vice-principal made an illy-veiled anti-Semitic remark to my Mom, and then wondered why I continued to have a piss-poor attitude about school for the remainder of the school year).

The APPR system requires teachers to submit various data and documents to the evaluators, who will then use those documents to rate the teachers.

But Craig Charvat, a teacher at Center Moriches High School on Long Island who has 15 years of experience and a known track record and reputation, refused to submit any documents.  He did it as a protest against the APPR system.  Because he failed to submit the required materials, he was rated as Ineffective.  And he has stepped forward to identify himself to the public.

One problem with the educational system is that it now teaches students what to think instead of how to think.  I do not know what Craig Charvat's politics are.  What I do know is that the best way to teach is by example; actions speak louder than words.  Craig Charvat's actions are effectively teaching his students (whether enrolled in his classes or otherwise) that one need not let "the system" do the thinking for them.  Craig Charvat's actions are teaching his students that sometimes one must take risks by standing up for what one believes.  Craig Charvat's actions are teaching his students that the governmental authorities are not infallible, and need to be questioned from time to time.

Would that all teachers be as "ineffective" as Craig Charvat.

Opting for Wimphood

I have mixed sentiments regarding the standardized tests administered by the educational system.

On one hand, they are very useful in apprising students and parents as to where the child stands.  On the other hand, the standardized test as a predictor of a child's future, while highly reliable, is not 100% accurate, and educators can misguide at least a small percentage of students if standardized test scores are the sole evaluative criteria used.

I myself have always done well on standardized tests, from the third grade ones to the Multistate Bar Exam.

Quite frankly, I have seen the quality of school administration/administrators decrease since the time I was a student.  I have seen it from the perspective of a taxpayer, a parent, a college faculty member, and a former board member of a non-public school.

So I have nothing against standardized testing per se.  My chariness is based upon the misuses to which the various standardized tests can be put, whether against individual students or in the administration of the tests themselves.

And the misusers are not necessarily the school administrators who administer the standardized tests, or those who use the scores of standardized tests to classify students or prospective students.  A misuser can be a parent who refuses to allow their child to take a standardized test.  In fact, the organized parental standardized test refusers are tied in with the OccuShmucks who made such a mess (figurative and literal) of Wall Street.

There are valid reasons for a parent to refuse to allow his or her child(ren) to sit for a standardized test.  But then again, some parents, such as Jeanette Deutermann of North Bellmore, New York, opt out their children because they cannot bear to see their little darlings having to focus their energies towards meeting the challenges of the standardized testing.

Such parents are shmucks.  Worse yet, many of the children they are raising are being put on the path to developing into irresponsible, fawning wimps who will not be able to think for themselves.  The proliferation of such people in the population, of course, makes it far, far easier for tyrants to take over the nation.

First Amendment, Second Class Education

When I was in senior high school (let alone junior high), it was well understood that students were expected to attend classes for the duration of the class session, until dismissed by the teacher. We were not allowed to cut classes, and we were not allowed to leave the classes before dismissal.

And if, by whatever circumstance, we deigned to walk out of class (or, more commonly, were ordered out by the teacher on account of our suboptimal decorum), we were required to report directly to the Vice Principal's office for such action as he deemed appropriate. All else being equal, the consequences would be a one day after-school detention for the first offense, a two day after-school detention for the second offense, and a one-day suspension for the third offense (a level I was skillful enough to personally achieve).

But now, the New York Civil Liberties Union takes the position that students should be allowed to walk out of classes with impunity if the action is for political purposes! Some students at the Ralph J. Reed Middle School in Central Islip, NY, walked out of classes in protest against some proposed budget cuts by the school district.

Hey, aren't the students allowed to exercise their First Amendment free speech rights by talking about whatever the wish during travel time between classes, during lunch, before and after school, et cetera? Shouldn't the teachers have the right to demand the undivided attention of the students during classes? Apparently, the NYCLU (and by extension, its parent organization, the ACLU, from whose policies the NYCLU would never deviate) thinks that freely walking out of classes in the name of free expression and the First Amendment is more important than a first-rate education.

I can see reasons for prioritizing free expression over education. But if students seek to walk in and out of classes, willy-nilly, and thereby subvert the educational process and the teachers' lesson plans, then they should exercise their First Amendment rights on their parents' dimes, and not the taxpayers'. Because if the teachers are not allowed to teach, then they are relegated to being babysitters, and should be paid babysitter wages with our tax money and not teacher wages.

Better still -- Get the students who do not want to learn out of the classrooms, so that those dedicated professionals in the classrooms can get their smaller class sizes, and those students who do wish to learn can do so without the distraction of the other pantywaist.

There is a time and place for political protest. But there also is a time and place for the education of our children.

To Central Islip School District Superintendent Craig Carr, I say stand by the suspensions and tell the NYCLU to go take a hike!

The Challenge of Teaching Common Sense

Having, way back when, done a stint requiring a security clearance, I am a bit more security-conscious about my students' exams and papers than are many of my colleagues with their students' papers, exams, et cetera. Specifically, the exams are kept in a locked filing cabinet for 2 years (the effective time limit on my campus for appealing a grade) and then they go through the shredder. And I never discuss any particular student's performances or grades with another student (and only discuss particular students with other faculty on a need to know basis).

As a faculty member, I am privy to the last 4 digits of my student's SSN. But I never use this chain of digits to identify my students; I just use their names.

Yesterday I finished grading the exams administered the day before to my students. This particular examination is all multiple choice, and answers are encoded by the students onto the Scantron form to be graded by an optical reader machine.

My verbal instructions to the students included a statement that while they needed to put their names on the answer sheets, it was completely unnecessary for them to enter their Social Security Numbers on the answer sheets. In fact, I mentioned that, generally speaking, it is NOT a good idea to use or divulge your Social Security Number unless absolutely necessary.

Notwithstanding this, out of the 41 students in the class, 2 put their SSNs on their answer sheets!

I didn’t ping the 2 students for failing to follow directions. But perhaps I should have. I cannot help but question their good sense and judgment. And I cannot help but wonder whether they will go onward in future years to exercise their wonderful judgmental skills while in the employ of the Coast Guard or the EPA.

The two students were not the highest scorers on the exam, to say the least.

I long ago realized that I cannot teach common sense in a classroom setting. Sometimes common sense can be learned through experience. And, in the long run, the principles enunciated by Charles Darwin do eventually kick in.

Flushing all Discipline down the Toilet

Now, some officials and parents are getting all upset because some students at Bronx's In-Tech Academy have apparently been tasked to latrine-cleaning as a punishment for misbehavior. See here, here and here.

[I have, with unusual and atypical self-restraint, resisted the temptation to insinuate some excretory pun into the title of this posting, but I cannot prevent you, dear reader, from thinking of any and grinning.].

I really, really, do not see what the problem is. The students misbehaved, so they were compelled to clean toilets as a punishment. So what?!?!?

The kids involved have misbehaved in school. This, while in no way commendable, is, within limits, normal.

The misbehaving kids were given some practical negative feedback (known in my day as "punishment" or "discipline") for their misbehavior. This, once upon a time, was normal, but all of the liberal sob sisters hung up on the rights of the poor misguided and deprived children have made it increasingly difficult for school teachers or administrators to mete out any meaningful punishment without being subjected to punishment themselves.

What is happening is that the perpetuators are being cast as victims. And the school administrators who tried to discipline them (who are the good guys/gals in this scenario) are now being vilified as wrongdoers.

And so, whatever disciplinary regime the school administrators have tried, against all odds, to maintain in their school, is now being flushed down the toilet!