RHEE-form, Kaya-Form, BS

[Anonymous]

What about the fact that free breakfast is given to most kids in the cafeteria at 8:15 and instruction (or non-instruction, as many the case may be) doesn't start in classrooms until 9? You're wasting daylight, folks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the fact that free breakfast is given to most kids in the cafeteria at 8:15 and instruction (or non-instruction, as many the case may be) doesn't start in classrooms until 9? You're wasting daylight, folks!

?? Sorry, what's your point here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the fact that free breakfast is given to most kids in the cafeteria at 8:15 and instruction (or non-instruction, as many the case may be) doesn't start in classrooms until 9? You're wasting daylight, folks!

?? Sorry, what's your point here?

We do Breakfast in the Classroom. Frankly it's one of the few positive policies implemented over the past year. Everyone learns better when they've had breakfast. It's a no-brainer. I think City Council rather than Rhee/Henderson get credit for this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i work in public health and face similar issues. it's crystal clear to me that most public health programs are really solving problems of poverty, at base, and not health. the same is true for education and schools. for a long time, i thought like the OP. i became very disillusioned with public health because i felt like our programs were not as effective as they could be, mostly due to the underlying poverty issue. as the years have gone by, i've just readjusted my thinking about disciplines like education and public health. i now think of them as part of an anti-poverty movement. the gates foundation is a great example--billions of dollars directed nominally toward education and health. the reality is that those monies are really supporting anti-poverty campaigns under the banner of "education" and "public health."

i do wish our culture could just find its way toward dealing with poverty head on. the programs would therefore be more effective and, ideally, the effects would set in before you need major public health interventions like the ones i work on. but we can't. we haven't. what we DO have are funding streams in education and health and some other places. while it isn't the field i thought i was getting into, i am proud and professionally content trying to solve the problems of poverty.

Specifically, which Gates Foundation programs in education are dealing with poverty?

Another poster here. It's not a specific program it's the underlying idea that education is the way out of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i work in public health and face similar issues. it's crystal clear to me that most public health programs are really solving problems of poverty, at base, and not health. the same is true for education and schools. for a long time, i thought like the OP. i became very disillusioned with public health because i felt like our programs were not as effective as they could be, mostly due to the underlying poverty issue. as the years have gone by, i've just readjusted my thinking about disciplines like education and public health. i now think of them as part of an anti-poverty movement. the gates foundation is a great example--billions of dollars directed nominally toward education and health. the reality is that those monies are really supporting anti-poverty campaigns under the banner of "education" and "public health."

i do wish our culture could just find its way toward dealing with poverty head on. the programs would therefore be more effective and, ideally, the effects would set in before you need major public health interventions like the ones i work on. but we can't. we haven't. what we DO have are funding streams in education and health and some other places. while it isn't the field i thought i was getting into, i am proud and professionally content trying to solve the problems of poverty.

Specifically, which Gates Foundation programs in education are dealing with poverty?

Another poster here. It's not a specific program it's the underlying idea that education is the way out of poverty.

That's fine, but there's a chicken and egg problem here. When you address poverty, you support education. However, many of the Gates Foundation education programs are based on the premise that low-income students aren't achieving because they have lousy teachers. The Gates Foundation has a very mixed record on education reform. Read Diane Ravitch's book. He actually does more harm than good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:47: We are many people but speaking for myself, I'm a parent. I've been involved in PTAs and LSRTs making positive change before the much-wanted Mayoral takeover happened (I wanted it too). Most of us are not cloudy-minded who passionately argue against the reform agenda of Fenty/Rhee/etc... Now I'm a parent out a lotta $$ because at the end of the day you have to send your kid where you're able to get the best education. If we didn't have the $$ the next option would be to move to a neighborhood with a good track record. The people who run DCPS now threw out the good with the bad, the good will and energy of communities that helped numerous schools be successful (the ones that were still are and always will be), and a few teachers who relied on WTU protection when they should have retired. Overall, more talented, educated and experienced educators have been fired, left on their own because of the nasty climate, or turned to new careers to avoid the insane no-accountability of the accounters that run our rodeo these days. Now that the "data" shows how much these RHEEFORMERS were full of it, it's too bad we can't just call so much talent back to the front line.

Yup. And if you are familiar with the spanking new DCPS hiring system -- three rounds of interviews, sample lesson in a fishbowl with critics -- you are going to get a certain type of teacher who makes it through (or wants to). As an educator of many years, I have seen many unassuming teachers who truly blossom in a classroom, who would wither in this CIA interrogation, deer in headlights, high octane interview process. I assume some of the ones who make it through are very good, but they are also ballsy, probably extrovert etc. etc. It definitely weeds out anyone with a less than Army ranger psyche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP it is not going to happen. People with money today don't just give it away and wait for the ribbon cutting. The real question is how you engage that money...

Engage the money with tech resources and training, after school math a science--stuff the Gates Foundation should be good at. Using money to influence policy--bad!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

"Yup. And if you are familiar with the spanking new DCPS hiring system -- three rounds of interviews, sample lesson in a fishbowl with critics -- you are going to get a certain type of teacher who makes it through (or wants to). As an educator of many years, I have seen many unassuming teachers who truly blossom in a classroom, who would wither in this CIA interrogation, deer in headlights, high octane interview process. I assume some of the ones who make it through are very good, but they are also ballsy, probably extrovert etc. etc. It definitely weeds out anyone with a less than Army ranger psyche."

So true. It feels like the process is there to seek out those who give a great sound byte, instead of great educators. The collaborative, non-combative, more gentle types really don't excel at this sort of interview.

I've found quieter, more reflective children can really be turned off by the "Army Ranger" type.

When you think about great educators, especially in the younger grades, it's often those quiet, unassuming types that have the magic with the kids. It's sad to lose these sorts of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[

Yup. And if you are familiar with the spanking new DCPS hiring system -- three rounds of interviews, sample lesson in a fishbowl with critics -- you are going to get a certain type of teacher who makes it through (or wants to). As an educator of many years, I have seen many unassuming teachers who truly blossom in a classroom, who would wither in this CIA interrogation, deer in headlights, high octane interview process. I assume some of the ones who make it through are very good, but they are also ballsy, probably extrovert etc. etc. It definitely weeds out anyone with a less than Army ranger psyche.

Might work better as an audition for motivational speaker, or defense attorney or TV quiz show contestant or rock star.

[Anonymous]

Or it may actually produce some great teachers. I have seen several shy teachers in DCPS that can hardly handle the kids let alone their parents. If you can't do a lesson on you feet then I don't really think you should be doing the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or it may actually produce some great teachers. I have seen several shy teachers in DCPS that can hardly handle the kids let alone their parents. If you can't do a lesson on you feet then I don't really think you should be doing the job.

doing a lesson on your feet is not the same as doing a lesson for an audition.

I suppose some great teachers will come through this method, but I suspect more will be lost. Teaching is more a relationship than it is a performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the fact that free breakfast is given to most kids in the cafeteria at 8:15 and instruction (or non-instruction, as many the case may be) doesn't start in classrooms until 9? You're wasting daylight, folks!

?? Sorry, what's your point here?

My point is that almost an hour of prime morning time is taken up by kids sitting around in the cafeteria being served packaged foods. Breakfast in the classroom (where a teacher can begin instruction) is an entirely different scenario. A lot of us eat and learn or eat and work. I have no qualms with that.

But if you want to start changing outcomes, sure: work on after school hours, but also consider what kids are doing with their time when they're IN the school. Why doesn't DCPS start to offer free breakfast in the cafeteria 7:30 - 8:15 am and have instruction start at 8:15? Why is almost 1/6 of the educational day (7 hour day that assumes 1 hour for lunch/recess) all about serving/eating/cleaning up breakfast?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the fact that free breakfast is given to most kids in the cafeteria at 8:15 and instruction (or non-instruction, as many the case may be) doesn't start in classrooms until 9? You're wasting daylight, folks!

?? Sorry, what's your point here?

My point is that almost an hour of prime morning time is taken up by kids sitting around in the cafeteria being served packaged foods. Breakfast in the classroom (where a teacher can begin instruction) is an entirely different scenario. A lot of us eat and learn or eat and work. I have no qualms with that.

But if you want to start changing outcomes, sure: work on after school hours, but also consider what kids are doing with their time when they're IN the school. Why doesn't DCPS start to offer free breakfast in the cafeteria 7:30 - 8:15 am and have instruction start at 8:15? Why is almost 1/6 of the educational day (7 hour day that assumes 1 hour for lunch/recess) all about serving/eating/cleaning up breakfast?

It's 15 minutes in the classroom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the fact that free breakfast is given to most kids in the cafeteria at 8:15 and instruction (or non-instruction, as many the case may be) doesn't start in classrooms until 9? You're wasting daylight, folks!

?? Sorry, what's your point here?

My point is that almost an hour of prime morning time is taken up by kids sitting around in the cafeteria being served packaged foods. Breakfast in the classroom (where a teacher can begin instruction) is an entirely different scenario. A lot of us eat and learn or eat and work. I have no qualms with that.

But if you want to start changing outcomes, sure: work on after school hours, but also consider what kids are doing with their time when they're IN the school. Why doesn't DCPS start to offer free breakfast in the cafeteria 7:30 - 8:15 am and have instruction start at 8:15? Why is almost 1/6 of the educational day (7 hour day that assumes 1 hour for lunch/recess) all about serving/eating/cleaning up breakfast?

It's 15 minutes in the classroom

Exactly. It takes much longer to serve/eat/cleanup in the cafeteria and then move all those students from there to classrooms than it does if it's served before school or in a homeroom class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or it may actually produce some great teachers. I have seen several shy teachers in DCPS that can hardly handle the kids let alone their parents. If you can't do a lesson on you feet then I don't really think you should be doing the job.

doing a lesson on your feet is not the same as doing a lesson for an audition.

I suppose some great teachers will come through this method, but I suspect more will be lost. Teaching is more a relationship than it is a performance.

Well put.