What Delaware’s Libertarian said
The News Journal’s editorial page: distorting the facts for political gain
If one’s only source of information regarding the disagreement between the Christina School District and the Delaware Department of Education were the News Journal editorial page, one might be excused for drawing the conclusion that
but in fact…
Portraying the CSD School Board as not wanting great teachers, as reneging on prior agreements, as being untrustworthy partners with the State, and as being lone wolf crazies flying in the fact of all Delaware education reform is–to put it bluntly–editorial prostitution that defies the facts of the whole case.
Not only is today’s editorial content disingenuous and rife with a one-sided misrepresentation of the situation but it was concocted from either hearsay or deliberately misleading guidance from DOE. I can say this very assuredly since I have attended and participated in three recent board meetings and a private meeting (along with two of my legislative colleagues) where I asked direct questions and received deliberately evasive answers from Chris Ruskowski, Sec. Murphy, Mary Kay McGlaughlin, Rebecca Taber and other Administration and DOE staff which I in turn relayed to Supt. Williams and the full board asking them to meet face to face with these same people. The Supt. and Board and DSEA agreed and I (along with my two colleagues)was in attendance at that meeting to attempt reconciliation and seek a compromise. At that meeting I was astounded by the total disregard given to any of Christina’s good faith attempts and the abject intransigence of Mr. Ruskowski, Sec. Murphy and Ms. McGlaughlin to even consider the obvious validity of the Districts proposal. I followed up at the next board meeting with my eyewitness, first-hand knowledge of all that transpired at all the meetings (you may listen to the Board meeting minutes.
Now, the very real point that should be considered in reading and analyzing this subjective and biased “editorial” is the absolute fact that the Editorial Board states that “the governor and some equally miffed STATE REPRESENTATIVES understand the implications of what’s at stake locally” without naming one (and I challenge them to do so) state representative that has knowledge of or personally attended any of the meetings with both parties (as I and my colleagues did) who is willing to express support for the Administration and DOE’s and the News Journal’s editorial boards position.
I certainly have taken a very vocal and firm position that the DOE and Administration position (from personal eye and ear witness participation) is wrong, incomprehensibly obstinate, dis-serving to the teachers and most importantly selfishly ignorant of the needs of the children and an insult to every fiber of intellectual honesty that seems to be woefully lacking here. So let me publicly add my name, (State Representative John Kowalko), to that editorial, (which chooses to blithely ignore the tenets of any journalistic integrity), but please pencil my name in as a “state representative” who “understands the implications of what’s at stake locally” and sides with the reasonableness of Supt. Williams and the Board and against the overreaching, bullying and disingenuous political tactics chosen by the administration and DOE.
State Representative John Kowalko
What is incredibly odd about the NJ position is that they end up trying to beat up CSD for wanting to put these new found resources into classrooms. So they are being penalized for wanting to invest in the daily business of teaching kids, rather than handing out big bonuses. What does *this* sound like?
Michele Rhee got paid alot of money (maybe some bonuses?) and she paid nice bonuses to principals and administrators and the system was rife with cheating in standardized tests. So throwing money at the staff seemed to reward bad behavior. (This blog post — Michele Rhee’s Reign of Error is quite good.) You wonder what might have been in DC if that money went to a classroom.
Not that I oppose bonuses, but as has been pointed out, CSD has a great many issues that contribute to the retention problem and is surrounded by plenty of other teaching opportunities.
This is a sickening situation – way out of control. John Kowalko and I have been talking about it for a few days now. He suggested that I listen to the recording of Tuesday’s meeting for the detailed line-by-line rebuttal of the lousy information published in the NJ’s editorial. Corrections were made by both Elizabeth Scheinberg and Rep. Kowalko.
The paper has to start getting honest about the facts. They don’t run wiht the DDOE and the Governor ‘just because’. Nor with Jea Street and George Evans for that matter.
Our entire school system nationwide and statewide from pre-k to college level is completely screwed up, but the CSD and DOE and their supporters and foes are in a pissing contest. Why can’t the legislature and governor, congress and president do their job and address serious problems instead of engaging in petty BS.
Yes, serious problems like the fact that on May 1 we might have 410 Pencader students getting a day off school, or two, or three, or thirty or forty, because the doors might be locked on theirs. That is 18 days away.
Tom, I’ve seen corporate pissing contests. (males usually win btw) and this isn’t “no” pissing contest.
Listen to the tapes of the meeting.
http://www.christinak12.org/apps/video/video_rss.jsp?categoryREC_ID=180377
I believe anyone who does, will find only one party is pissing. The other is scared to death over what is happening to their children.
In the grand scheme of things this is petty. Our system is a mess but, we keep getting caught up in diversions. It certainly easier than seriously devoting our resources to really solve our problems. There are too many groups protecting their own self interests. Let’s think about the children first.
Actually, this isn’t all that petty. The larger issue is who runs these schools — is it the DEDOE or is it the local school boards and admins? One of the things that these education reformers and usually wringing their hands over is making sure that there is more decision-making authority closer to the kids, presumably because they will know better than the DOE suits or their corporate task masters. In this case, it looks to me that the “local control” is pretty meaningless. Much like the corporations who make a big deal out of empowering their employees and yadayada, but who are amongst the most top-down driven places on the planet.
I spent many years working in schools in a job unrelated to education. I found the most important factor in good schools was the principle. Good teachers flock to good principles.
My concern is we worry about this fight, while children go to school hungry and poor students are already behind other students when they start kindergarden.
If our legislators had the nerve to spend time, energy, and money solving these problems we would be much better off.
That’s just the thing we’re trying to get across to the EdReformers, Tom. IN my school — which is very high-poverty — the things you mention are often the things we worry most about. Kids coming to school hungry and filthy with some extreme emotional baggage. We don’t get additional resources to combat these issues, but we are expected to perform the same as a school with a 5% free and reduced lunch rate? Until the EdReformers admit that the challenges our high-poverty schools face are quite great, then all the foolishness spewed by DoE is just that — foolishness.
Your notion of good principals is pretty dead on. Extend that to teachers, then you have a good school, without any “program of the year”…
If students have someone they like, they learn. Despite all we know about the brain, when it comes to learning, … we learn what we like….
The “programs of the year” are just tools, not for teachers, but for middle administrators who can use them to prove to THEIR supervisors, their worthiness. They have to push these programs hard, because they know,… were they to disappear, no classroom would even notice…