Showing posts with label New York City. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York City. Show all posts
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Happy Anniversary
I've been at my job for a whole year! And in New York for a year and a half! What an anniversary!
Friday, July 11, 2008
I am not one of the Wrong Teachers but I am Hot
Why are public schools so bad at hiring good instructors? This is what Slate's "Hot for the Wrong Teachers" wants to know.
KEEP THE PROMISES TO OUR CHILDREN (at Keyspan Park)
The article raises some interesting points. For example, a master's degree in education does not seem to be a predictor of future success as a teacher. Here, here. Yes, some classes are enriching and helpful, but that it is wholly dependent on your professors and program. Most of the time, it's just a big time suck that takes me away from planning lessons.
An apprenticeship program of considerable length is preferable to giving a new teacher 6 weeks of "training" as the Teaching Fellows and Teach for America programs do. I hear over and over again from other fellows that our training did not prepare them at all. I think that is probably the case for most people who switch careers and have no classroom experience other than their own years as a student.
Here's where the author gets it wrong. Yes, we should wonder, "What if there were a way to screen out the bad teachers before they get entrenched?" Yes, we do get our union cards the first day, but you'd have to be insane to want to go to the Rubber Room (which this author calls the "golden parachute out of teaching." Some golden parachute).
What about all the wasted potential in promising teachers who are hired to work in schools under incompetent, uninspiring, ineffectual or mismanaging administrators? Being a principal or an AP is a very hard job. That's no excuse for unintentionally (or intentionally) screwing up or derailing teaching careers. Let's get some accountability for the people at the top, some of whom are really entrenched, and I'm talking about more than just expecting them to hire good teachers.
And maybe it does take some gumption to do battle with a the teachers union. But it also takes gumption on the part of the teacher.
KEEP THE PROMISES TO OUR CHILDREN (at Keyspan Park)
The article raises some interesting points. For example, a master's degree in education does not seem to be a predictor of future success as a teacher. Here, here. Yes, some classes are enriching and helpful, but that it is wholly dependent on your professors and program. Most of the time, it's just a big time suck that takes me away from planning lessons.
An apprenticeship program of considerable length is preferable to giving a new teacher 6 weeks of "training" as the Teaching Fellows and Teach for America programs do. I hear over and over again from other fellows that our training did not prepare them at all. I think that is probably the case for most people who switch careers and have no classroom experience other than their own years as a student.
Here's where the author gets it wrong. Yes, we should wonder, "What if there were a way to screen out the bad teachers before they get entrenched?" Yes, we do get our union cards the first day, but you'd have to be insane to want to go to the Rubber Room (which this author calls the "golden parachute out of teaching." Some golden parachute).
What about all the wasted potential in promising teachers who are hired to work in schools under incompetent, uninspiring, ineffectual or mismanaging administrators? Being a principal or an AP is a very hard job. That's no excuse for unintentionally (or intentionally) screwing up or derailing teaching careers. Let's get some accountability for the people at the top, some of whom are really entrenched, and I'm talking about more than just expecting them to hire good teachers.
And maybe it does take some gumption to do battle with a the teachers union. But it also takes gumption on the part of the teacher.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Brooklyn Writers
If only the NY Times showed reciprocity in the same way as the Village Voice feature "Hate Us or Love Us," given the amount of times I quote the Times. We'd get more traffic.
There's a piece in the Book Review this week by Brooklyn-based writer Colson Whitehead called, "I Write in Brooklyn. Get Over It." What I love about the piece is that yes, it does seem a little silly to confuse "a geographical and economic accident with an aesthetic movement." It's true, there is nothing inherently creative about Brooklyn as compared to any other place in the universe. Although the water in the Gowanus canal does probably flow with some funky mojo.
What's interesting to me is the fact that my agreeing with Whitehead is, in a way, ironic. One of my favorite books of poetry of all time is Lunch Poems by Frank O'Hara, and a big reason I love it is for O'Hara's bopping-around-New-York thing. The first time I came to visit Brooklyn (and on subsequent trips), I wrote lots. I got pieces of multiple poems out of it. I thought a lot about how moving here would influence me as a writer.
Now that I live here, I haven't really written much of anything. I wrote a poem for a wedding, which included F train imagery (though I didn't name the train). I wrote a poem for a funeral, which included Manhattan skyline imagery. And that's it.
If living in this place influences me as a writer in any way other than superficially by giving me urban imagery, that'd be nice. But I probably won't find that out until much later, in a reflective mood, when I'm writing again. And probably not until I live somewhere other than Brooklyn.
PS. Whitehead asserts that if you Google brooklyn writer you'll get "Did you mean: the future of literature as we know it?" But, if you Google image search brooklyn writer you'll get this guy:
There's a piece in the Book Review this week by Brooklyn-based writer Colson Whitehead called, "I Write in Brooklyn. Get Over It." What I love about the piece is that yes, it does seem a little silly to confuse "a geographical and economic accident with an aesthetic movement." It's true, there is nothing inherently creative about Brooklyn as compared to any other place in the universe. Although the water in the Gowanus canal does probably flow with some funky mojo.
What's interesting to me is the fact that my agreeing with Whitehead is, in a way, ironic. One of my favorite books of poetry of all time is Lunch Poems by Frank O'Hara, and a big reason I love it is for O'Hara's bopping-around-New-York thing. The first time I came to visit Brooklyn (and on subsequent trips), I wrote lots. I got pieces of multiple poems out of it. I thought a lot about how moving here would influence me as a writer.
Now that I live here, I haven't really written much of anything. I wrote a poem for a wedding, which included F train imagery (though I didn't name the train). I wrote a poem for a funeral, which included Manhattan skyline imagery. And that's it.
If living in this place influences me as a writer in any way other than superficially by giving me urban imagery, that'd be nice. But I probably won't find that out until much later, in a reflective mood, when I'm writing again. And probably not until I live somewhere other than Brooklyn.
PS. Whitehead asserts that if you Google brooklyn writer you'll get "Did you mean: the future of literature as we know it?" But, if you Google image search brooklyn writer you'll get this guy:
Late to the Punch
So, it may seem as if I'm a little late to the punch, seeing as this NY Times article was posted exactly a month ago, but I'm going to comment anyway. Yes, now that Eric and I are both school teachers in public schools (and dues-paying members of the United Federation of Teachers), I have been paying more attention to news about education. And this story takes the cake for "outrageous" and "idiotic."
In our monthly union meeting yesterday, it was mentioned that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is planning on cutting more money from the education budget this coming fall. Basically the equivalent of at least three full-time teachers' salaries per school in the whole district (14,000 schools).
This is in addition to the budget cut he already executed, coincidentally, on the first day I started my new job. That cut was a surprise attack. Since all the schools are linked and receive their budgets through the city, the city can go in and take funds whenever they want. And that's exactly what happened. The budget cut was authorized, happened overnight, and the next morning, payroll secretaries and the like checked their computers to find that money they had already accounted for and/or spent was gone. Oh wait, it wasn't a total surprise. Schools received an e-mail the night before, notifying them that the money would be gone in the morning.
My favorite quote from the article is this gem: "Mr. Bloomberg, speaking on Thursday at Google’s offices in Chelsea, said the cuts would have 'no impact whatsoever,' adding, 'I know of no organization where you couldn’t’ squeeze out 1.7 percent, or even a lot more.'"
Sure, if you are a company who can raise prices, lower quality standards, or do whatever it has to do in order to sustain itself after a cut like that. But schools don't make a product, they educate students. So maybe each school should tell 1.7 percent of its students they can't go to school there anymore?
In our monthly union meeting yesterday, it was mentioned that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is planning on cutting more money from the education budget this coming fall. Basically the equivalent of at least three full-time teachers' salaries per school in the whole district (14,000 schools).
This is in addition to the budget cut he already executed, coincidentally, on the first day I started my new job. That cut was a surprise attack. Since all the schools are linked and receive their budgets through the city, the city can go in and take funds whenever they want. And that's exactly what happened. The budget cut was authorized, happened overnight, and the next morning, payroll secretaries and the like checked their computers to find that money they had already accounted for and/or spent was gone. Oh wait, it wasn't a total surprise. Schools received an e-mail the night before, notifying them that the money would be gone in the morning.
My favorite quote from the article is this gem: "Mr. Bloomberg, speaking on Thursday at Google’s offices in Chelsea, said the cuts would have 'no impact whatsoever,' adding, 'I know of no organization where you couldn’t’ squeeze out 1.7 percent, or even a lot more.'"
Sure, if you are a company who can raise prices, lower quality standards, or do whatever it has to do in order to sustain itself after a cut like that. But schools don't make a product, they educate students. So maybe each school should tell 1.7 percent of its students they can't go to school there anymore?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
