Student: "Ms. Chew, when are you gonna get married?"Ms. Chew: "Well I kind of think you need two people for that sort of thing."Student: "Can I be your best man?"Ms. Chew: "Kind of missing a key part of the equation."Student: "So you're still looking? Or waiting?"Ms. Chew: "You could say that."
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
A Punch Up at A Wedding
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
If There's a Rocket Tie Me to It
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/09/MNSC1CCPHU.DTL
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10rel27.asp
Shit? Fan? Oh, I see you've met.
The four east-side SFUSD high schools (mine included) have all been deemed "persistently lowest achieving" schools by the state, putting them in danger of reconstitution (aka hostile takeover by the state). Let's not sugar coat this.. the east side schools are also the poorest and most under-enrolled schools in the district. Where for art thou, equity??
Begin rant now.
We are the poorest schools. We have little money to fund our sisyphean efforts to improve our schools. Our staff works hard to pull our schools out of the gutters, most of the time paying for our supplies and professional development classes out of our own pockets because we have no money from the state to help. Yet, every year more staff get laid-off or moved around because we have under-enrolled student bodies. For each year I've been at my school, we've lost one English teacher and one math teacher due to consolidations. Now I know money doesn't solve everything, but that's also something that rolls of the tongues of rich people. No, money isn't the solution. But money could sure help. And we're seeing less and less of it every year. For instance.. the last two years at my school the science classes were allocated $500 for supplies. Yes, $500 to buy everything from perishable bacteria samples to pencils and paper. It's not a lot. And this year we got $350.
Oh did I mention that other than being the poorest, most under-enrolled schools in the district, the east-side schools are also those that serve the low-income, largely immigrant/non-native speaking English crowds? Historically disadvantaged, underrepresented.. call it what you will, but I smell a rat. People wonder what it is I have against schools like Lowell. There's nothing wrong with high achieving students in a well-funded, easily over-staffed school. But it's a vicious cycle.. schools in SFUSD get their funding based on the number of students enrolled in the school. With high enrollment, there is more money available to hire staff, buy supplies, support new programs, and operate at a competitive level. With low enrollment, there is less money available which leads to larger class sizes, higher (involuntary) teacher turnover, lower test scores.. Families don't want to send their kids to low-performing schools, so they send them to the high-performing schools (like Lowell) and they continue to flourish while the underenrolled schools shrink to extinction.. chicken, egg, who knows which was first.
All I'm trying to say is it's not our fault that we are consistently low performing schools. Anyone who sets foot into one of these schools will see innovative teaching styles and energetic, dedicated staff trying to make do with the little resources available. We would appreciate help from the state, sure. But "help" does not look like.. replacing the principal, replacing the staff, shutting down and reopening schools under a charter model, etc. "Help", I think, should look like.. come, visit our school. See what we're doing well. Reward what is working. Suggest alternatives to what is not working. Work with us. We obviously don't intend on staying at the bottom of the class (pun intended?) but coming in and cleaning house is not the way to fix things. Not when children are involved. Can you imagine being at a school that hires almost an entirely new staff? What would happen to the relationships you have built with your teachers, some of which might be the only adults in your life that you consider safe to talk to?
And don't get me wrong, our school is improving. Maybe not fast enough by the state's standards. And maybe not on (culturally biased) standardized test scores. But we're doing what we can. So throw us a frikkin' bone, already.
End rant.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10rel27.asp
Shit? Fan? Oh, I see you've met.
The four east-side SFUSD high schools (mine included) have all been deemed "persistently lowest achieving" schools by the state, putting them in danger of reconstitution (aka hostile takeover by the state). Let's not sugar coat this.. the east side schools are also the poorest and most under-enrolled schools in the district. Where for art thou, equity??
Begin rant now.
We are the poorest schools. We have little money to fund our sisyphean efforts to improve our schools. Our staff works hard to pull our schools out of the gutters, most of the time paying for our supplies and professional development classes out of our own pockets because we have no money from the state to help. Yet, every year more staff get laid-off or moved around because we have under-enrolled student bodies. For each year I've been at my school, we've lost one English teacher and one math teacher due to consolidations. Now I know money doesn't solve everything, but that's also something that rolls of the tongues of rich people. No, money isn't the solution. But money could sure help. And we're seeing less and less of it every year. For instance.. the last two years at my school the science classes were allocated $500 for supplies. Yes, $500 to buy everything from perishable bacteria samples to pencils and paper. It's not a lot. And this year we got $350.
Oh did I mention that other than being the poorest, most under-enrolled schools in the district, the east-side schools are also those that serve the low-income, largely immigrant/non-native speaking English crowds? Historically disadvantaged, underrepresented.. call it what you will, but I smell a rat. People wonder what it is I have against schools like Lowell. There's nothing wrong with high achieving students in a well-funded, easily over-staffed school. But it's a vicious cycle.. schools in SFUSD get their funding based on the number of students enrolled in the school. With high enrollment, there is more money available to hire staff, buy supplies, support new programs, and operate at a competitive level. With low enrollment, there is less money available which leads to larger class sizes, higher (involuntary) teacher turnover, lower test scores.. Families don't want to send their kids to low-performing schools, so they send them to the high-performing schools (like Lowell) and they continue to flourish while the underenrolled schools shrink to extinction.. chicken, egg, who knows which was first.
All I'm trying to say is it's not our fault that we are consistently low performing schools. Anyone who sets foot into one of these schools will see innovative teaching styles and energetic, dedicated staff trying to make do with the little resources available. We would appreciate help from the state, sure. But "help" does not look like.. replacing the principal, replacing the staff, shutting down and reopening schools under a charter model, etc. "Help", I think, should look like.. come, visit our school. See what we're doing well. Reward what is working. Suggest alternatives to what is not working. Work with us. We obviously don't intend on staying at the bottom of the class (pun intended?) but coming in and cleaning house is not the way to fix things. Not when children are involved. Can you imagine being at a school that hires almost an entirely new staff? What would happen to the relationships you have built with your teachers, some of which might be the only adults in your life that you consider safe to talk to?
And don't get me wrong, our school is improving. Maybe not fast enough by the state's standards. And maybe not on (culturally biased) standardized test scores. But we're doing what we can. So throw us a frikkin' bone, already.
End rant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
