
The Reality of Teaching in a Small School in the Bronx - REducator
http://www.anurbanteacherseducation.com/2011/01/could-you-make-my-job-more-difficult.html
======
noahc
I think the major thing here is to see that there are two types of problems.

The first type of problems are easy to fix. You can throw more money at broken
printers and leaky roofs. However, that's the easy part. Generate enough
political will and it will occur.

The other type of problem is systemic cultural issue. I grew up in a poor
rural area and teachers could leave us alone and we wouldn't get into their
desk drawers which always contained money and candy, let alone steal bathroom
passes and laptops. It seems clear to me that this is where the real work
needs to be done. I see what you might call a culture of urban poverty
slipping into Americas suburbs and rural areas.

Has anyone seen anyone doing anything meaningful to address the harder issues
found in the second type of problems?

~~~
InclinedPlane
_"The first type of problems are easy to fix. You can throw more money at
broken printers and leaky roofs."_

Can you? Schools receive a lot of money, and have been receiving increasing
amounts of funding per student over the last few decades. Some of the worst
performing schools spend some of the most per student. I doubt the problem is
truly a lack of funds, it's more likely to be a mismanagement of funds. In
that case throwing more money at the problem may eventually "trickle down"
results to individual class rooms and teachers as a side effect but ultimately
is not a solution to the problem.

The second type of problem seems as much of a ready scape goat as anything
else. If the school system is horribly mismanaged what would motivate them to
enforce discipline in the classroom? Then they couldn't blame the students for
the inevitable failure of education.

~~~
wisty
I heard this story about a Tsar in Russia, who was told that the province with
the most doctors also had the most illness. He promptly ordered all doctors
executed.

I'd say that bad schools get more money because they need it. In a school
that's practically a war-zone, you need lots of money just to replace the
essentials that students wreck.

Bad schools often have good inputs (students per teacher, facilities, etc),
but they also have things like ex-students lurking outside the school gate
(dealing drugs? signing up gang recruits? heckling the students? who cares);
and many of the parents don't exactly help the kids get their homework done.

There are programs (cash transfers to poor parents, if they meet certain
conditions) that have been proven to work (through randomised trials -
something that Mexican politicians are better at then US ones), but it's more
expedient to look for "root causes" (play the blame game) than look for
empirical solutions that work (even if you don't understand why).

------
zdw
TL;DR - Loads of organizational problems, disincentives, and cultural problems
make this job hard, and nobody who can do anything about it listens. There's
also not enough money.

~~~
watchandwait
These schools are awash in money. Per capita student spending has gone through
the roof the last three decades, and NY spends as much as any place in
America.

[http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/the-
highest-p...](http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/the-highest-per-
pupil-spending-in-the-us/)

The unions and bureaucracy suck the system dry. That's why less-funded private
schools in NYC consistently outperform public schools.

Every single rotten thing is the result of either dysfunctional culture or
dysfunctional management structure/incentives.

~~~
Anechoic
> _That's why less-funded private schools in NYC consistently outperform
> public schools._

The "less-funded private schools" are also allowed to choose the cream-of-the-
crop, are not required to enroll child with special needs and can jettison
problem students at the drop of a hat. As I wrote earlier, if the problem was
strictly "unions" you would expect states without collective bargaining
agreements to outperform states with those agreements and they don't:
<http://shankerblog.org/?p=895>

------
InclinedPlane
I couldn't find out exactly which school the writer works at (I'm sure he
wishes to remain anonymous as much as possible), however I was able to dig up
some other data.

Per student expenditures for public schools in The Bronx can be found here
(input district values of 08,09,10, or 11 for Bronx schools):
[https://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/exp01/y2...](https://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/exp01/y2008_2009/function.asp)

Per student spending in The Bronx appears to be around $17.5k. This is
significantly higher than the national average (of about $11k). More notably
it's the same as Stuyvesant High School (also in New York city,
[http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/02/M475/AboutUs/Statist...](http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/02/M475/AboutUs/Statistics/expenditures.htm))
which is regarded as one of the top schools in the country:
[http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/listings/high...](http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/listings/high-
schools/new_york/stuyvesant_high_school)

Given this I find little evidence to support the contention that Bronx schools
need more money. I think it's quite likely that important things (like
supplies and building maintenance) aren't being paid for, but I don't see
evidence that this is due to lack of funds rather than mismanagement.

~~~
Anechoic
> _Given this I find little evidence to support the contention that Bronx
> schools need more money. I think it's quite likely that important things
> (like supplies and building maintenance) aren't being paid for, but I don't
> see evidence that this is due to lack of funds rather than mismanagement._

That's an incredibly unfair conclusion to come to based on almost no
information. For example, you compare the average expenditure per studend in
the Bronx with the average at Stuyvesant - enrollment at Stuyvesant is based
on a competitive exam
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School#Enrollme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School#Enrollment))
and I've be willing to bet that Stuyvesant doesn't have to put up with SpEd
and disciplinary problems the author's school does which could easily chew up
a whole chunk of money.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Stuyvesant has the same per student expenditures for regular (non-special ed)
students as for many schools in The Bronx (check my links).

As for Stuyvesant's students, yes, it is a special school which takes gifted
students. So is your contention that it costs less money to educate gifted
students? That building maintenance is cheaper? That gifted students require
fewer equipment, can make do with fewer classrooms, or can do without
textbooks?

I can buy that it's easier to teach gifted students, but I can't quite buy
that it's cheaper to provide them the basic necessities like books,
classrooms, and laptops.

~~~
Anechoic
> _I can't quite buy that it's cheaper to provide them the basic necessities
> like books, classrooms, and laptops._

If unmotivated/uncaring students are constantly destroying books, and laptops
and require more supervision (extra paraprofessionals for example), yes, I can
buy that it's cheaper to provide motivated/well-behaved students necessities
that they actually care for.

My point is that you took a broad spending per pupil number and immediately
jumped to the conclusion that the problem was "mismanagement." Show me that
the per-pupil numbers are the same and that the rates of consumption (books,
etc), disciplinary, poverty/hunger, ESL, etc data are the same, _then_ I might
accept the problem is mismanagement. You haven't come close to doing that.

------
dpatru
Public schools could be improved if, instead of operating like prisons, they
operated like recipients of public housing vouchers. Right now most public
schools, especially the worst, are very similar to prisons. Students, like
prisoners, have to attend. Studends have no choice to attend another
institution or not to attend any institution. And, like prisons, public
schools must accept everyone sent to them, no matter how bad. Predictably,
schools, like prisons, end up being very depressing places.

In contrast, public housing vouchers are given to poor people who can then
redeem them with any qualified landlord willing to take them. All parties, the
poor person (tenant), the landlord, and the government, must agree before the
rental transaction happens. The tenant can choose among among any privately-
offered housing. The landlord can choose to reject any tenant that doesn't
meet the landlord's standards. And the government only agrees to pay for
housing that meets its own quality standards. The result is that good
landlords have waiting lists of tenants who want to rent from them and bad
landlords are shunned. Similarly, good tenants can find good housing while
tenants with a history of bad and destructive behavior find fewer landlords
who are willing to accept them.

Public schooling could be operated the same way. Poor people could receive
vouchers redeemable with any qualifying school. And schools could set their
own standards for the students they want to serve. Government would redeem
vouchers only from schools that met its own quality standards. The result
would be competition and waiting lists for the best schools, and pressure on
students to be accepted into the best schools.

Public financing of college education works the same way. Students and
colleges form voluntary agreements and government provides financing only for
qualifying schools.

------
emit_time_n3rgy
Two interesting stories I've crossed paths with are Bill Strickland, author of
Making the Impossible Possible, and Sugata Mitra and his "child-driven
education" and another referred to me by a friend:

\+
[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_543015...](http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_543015.html)

\+ <http://www.bill-strickland.org>

\+ [http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/bill-
strickland/topics/Bill%...](http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/bill-
strickland/topics/Bill%20Strickland)

\+
[http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_educa...](http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html)

\+ <http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com>

\+ <http://www.georgejuniorrepublic.org/programs.html>

------
maeon3
The solution is to bring more full time PARENTS into the school. Sounds like
an issue where teachers are subbing for a complete failure in parental
guidance.

Money won't fix the behavior, but money can provide a legion of full-time
parents to do some butt-kicking parental loving discipline to the hell
raisers.

~~~
eftpotrm
If we're talking about the parents of gang-member children who need metal
detectors and locked windows to stop them taking weapons into school, locked
toilets to stop them beating each other in there, who can't be trusted not to
steal school property, then I'm not at all convinced that they would have both
the willingness and the parenting skills to provide the sort of help that you
seem to think they would.

