Response to the 3-29-06 Dispatch Editorial
To the Editor,
Your prejudices are showing in the "Try something different" editorial (March 29). You suggest that the Columbus teacher union's insistence on using union teachers in the district's charter schools has "the appearance of intimidation." Logically, such insistence is no more intimidating than the superintendent's proposal to use non-union employees.
You also write, "Hopes for the school's success depend on the union keeping that promise [to be flexible]." While, perhaps, flexibility can play a part, you seem to assume that flexibility on the part of the union is the crucial factor. The Dispatch recently ran a story about non-union charter schools - which are apparently as flexible as you could hope for - that seem far from successful academically. If the Columbus experiment fails, will you blame the union?
You say, "Old-fashioned schooling has failed to reach those students. District administrators and teachers should look for new ways to engage them." Besides the fact that teachers and administrators are always looking for ways to engage students, and that it is true that more can always be done, attempting more does not guarantee success. If the Columbus experiment fails, will you blame the union?
You point out that "Ohio parents are flocking to charter schools because they want something different." You do not explain whether this search for something “different” results from academic, political, religious, cultural, security or other concerns. Many non-public charter schools I've read about seem to have attracted parents for other than academic reasons. Is this satisfactory? Does it help you overlook these schools’ academic failure because they are non-union schools or because, in a number of instances, voucher-supporting entrepreneurs like David Brennan are accruing millions of dollars in profit as a result of the scheme?
Finally, by concentrating in your editorial on the teachers, their union, and their administrators; you – intentionally or unintentionally – avoid dealing with the real problem. Teachers and their unions – and even administrators – didn’t invent racism, classism, poverty, and segregation. Society did.
The same quality of teachers and administrators, and the same union extant in Columbus all exist in suburban schools as well, where luckier families CAN “afford private schools” but where the vast majority are content that THEIR “old-fashioned” public schools have NOT “failed to reach” the students. The Dispatch, however, does not recommend that vouchers be provided in sufficient denomination to move everyone to the suburbs or even - less expensively - to make “private school” affordable to anyone who wants it.
I don’t expect that you ever will. It’s a lot easier to blame those trying to address the problem than it is to challenge the system which caused it.
- Uke Man
Your prejudices are showing in the "Try something different" editorial (March 29). You suggest that the Columbus teacher union's insistence on using union teachers in the district's charter schools has "the appearance of intimidation." Logically, such insistence is no more intimidating than the superintendent's proposal to use non-union employees.
You also write, "Hopes for the school's success depend on the union keeping that promise [to be flexible]." While, perhaps, flexibility can play a part, you seem to assume that flexibility on the part of the union is the crucial factor. The Dispatch recently ran a story about non-union charter schools - which are apparently as flexible as you could hope for - that seem far from successful academically. If the Columbus experiment fails, will you blame the union?
You say, "Old-fashioned schooling has failed to reach those students. District administrators and teachers should look for new ways to engage them." Besides the fact that teachers and administrators are always looking for ways to engage students, and that it is true that more can always be done, attempting more does not guarantee success. If the Columbus experiment fails, will you blame the union?
You point out that "Ohio parents are flocking to charter schools because they want something different." You do not explain whether this search for something “different” results from academic, political, religious, cultural, security or other concerns. Many non-public charter schools I've read about seem to have attracted parents for other than academic reasons. Is this satisfactory? Does it help you overlook these schools’ academic failure because they are non-union schools or because, in a number of instances, voucher-supporting entrepreneurs like David Brennan are accruing millions of dollars in profit as a result of the scheme?
Finally, by concentrating in your editorial on the teachers, their union, and their administrators; you – intentionally or unintentionally – avoid dealing with the real problem. Teachers and their unions – and even administrators – didn’t invent racism, classism, poverty, and segregation. Society did.
The same quality of teachers and administrators, and the same union extant in Columbus all exist in suburban schools as well, where luckier families CAN “afford private schools” but where the vast majority are content that THEIR “old-fashioned” public schools have NOT “failed to reach” the students. The Dispatch, however, does not recommend that vouchers be provided in sufficient denomination to move everyone to the suburbs or even - less expensively - to make “private school” affordable to anyone who wants it.
I don’t expect that you ever will. It’s a lot easier to blame those trying to address the problem than it is to challenge the system which caused it.
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home