Broadway shows of old premiered in New Haven, Ct. And recently, the city premiered another type of show that’s gearing up for a national run: fake school reform supported by the teachers’ unions. If we are not careful, this model could sweep the nation, blocking the real educational progress American children need.
Earlier this month, Yale University and the City of New Haven jointly announced a new program that will offer to send every public-school student to college. Titled “New Haven Promise” and funded with $4 million a year from Yale, the program pays full tuition for public-school students who attend Connecticut universities and $2,500 a year for those who attend private institutions in the Nutmeg State. National news media including the New York Times and the Washington Post have showered New Haven Promise with praise. The program, critics say, will bring positive results for urban youth and should serve as a model for cities across the country.
Will New Haven Promise send some students to college who otherwise could not attend? Yes. A few students will benefit from this scheme, and for that I am grateful. However, Yale’s $4 million a year could pay for more substantial programs, such as a voucher system for low-income families, or funding for cash-strapped New Haven charter schools. What is more, this band-aid fix will stifle progress. It will give the impression of true reform and defeat the political impetus for change.
The movie Waiting for “Superman” recently documented how unions vigorously oppose school reform. They defend tenure, shorter school days, and an apathetic school environment without student or teacher accountability. We cannot fix our schools until we tackle these problems — problems that New Haven Promise ignores.
To combat this poor PR, Ms. Weingarten and her political bedfellows have astutely embraced a strategy of fake reform. A few weeks ago, Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, came to Yale and praised New Haven Promise. She spoke about how she loves reform.
The unions hope to defuse the situation created by Waiting for “Superman” and co-opt the movement to wrest control away from the unions and put it back in the hands of parents. Scholarship programs such as New Haven Promise are ideal moves in this strategy. They are financed by affluent, well-intentioned benefactors (such as Yale) but perpetuate the core problems in public schools.
Similarly, New Haven mayor John DeStefano claims to support reform, and even to confront unions head-on. A new teacher contract supposedly abolishes tenure in failing schools. However, on examination, this contract (supported by the union) continues to shelter poor teachers from being held responsible for the improvement (or lack thereof) of their students.
New Haven Promise is the mayor’s (and the unions’) latest attempt at pseudo reform. It solves none of the problems in New Haven public high schools, at which the drop out rate is 27.4 percent. Mayor DeStefano and Ms. Weingarten can point to this Yale-funded initiative as proof of their good intentions without actually solving the root causes of failing schools — tenure, and an apathetic, union-driven environment which disheartens teachers and students.
— Nathaniel Zelinsky, a sophomore at Yale University and lifelong New Haven resident, has tutored, taught, and worked with New Haven public-school students.
"The unions hope to defuse the situation created by Waiting for “Superman” and co-opt the movement to wrest control away from the unions and put it back in the hands of parents."
This doesn't make any sense.
"A new teacher contract supposedly abolishes tenure in failing schools. However, on examination, this contract (supported by the union) continues to shelter poor teachers from being held responsible for the improvement (or lack thereof) of their students."
Failing schools are not solely the products of poor teaching, and punishing the teachers that do work there doesn't help the problems of under-funding and unsafe school environments. Firing for lack of progress without considering the whole situation holistically also scares off (qualified) teachers from these environments, where their skills will be most valuable.
It solves none of the problems in New Haven public high schools, at which the drop out rate is 27.4 percent.
It motivates. That is a clear benefit.
Teaching staff is not the primary problem in poor districts. A lack of resources is a huge restraint on success, as is the often poor home environment of students in these areas. If students are not well-fed, and thus hungry, unsafe outside of school, and thus scared, working a job, and thus tired, or in other ways distracted, there are simply not going to be able to perform adequately. The whole system needs to be changed, you cannot just pretend pruning substandard teachers is the fix when the whole situation, the whole plant, is diseased, malnourished, and in trouble.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseZelinsky claims to be arguing against the New Haven Promise when in reality he is not. He has no criticisms of the program itself, and instead must hold on to the weak claim that the money could be better spent. To support this claim he underplays the purpose of the New Haven Promise and overplays the idealistic notion that throwing money at charter schools works miracles, both of which are simply not true.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseZelinsky is right to say that education reform requires more than a simple band aid fix. But he is wrong to claim that the New Haven Promise is merely a band aid fix. The New Haven Promise is an important step in changing the culture of the city. Educators have long acknowledged that getting students and parents to change their views of education and its importance is as important as having effective teachers and school. The New Haven Promise, in conjunction with the city’s partnership with CollegeSummit, will be a tremendous step towards shifting the culture of New Haven students towards a greater focus on their education.
Zelinsky would argue that vouchers for students would be a better use of the money. I’m a big fan of charter schools, but they are better as incubators of innovative education ideas. Though some charter schools have stood out, overall charter schools have not proven to be any better than public schools. Due to this, I’d be more dubious of the benefit of sending students to charter schools instead of public schools than I am of the benefit of the New Haven Promise. Furthermore, Zelinsky is also wrong to assume that the New Haven Promise will have a limited impact. Unlike student vouchers, the New Haven Promise will affect far more students than will receive money from the program. It will give students an incentive to do their best in school and take away any excuses that they wouldn’t be able to afford college no matter what. Zelinsky argues that Yale’s 4 million dollars could have been better spent, but frankly the examples he gives don’t seem better.
Are Mayor DeStefano and the teachers union trying to avoid real reform? I don’t know, and perhaps Zelinsky would have more of an argument on that topic. If the mayor and the unions treat the New Haven Promise as the last step in education reform in the coming months than I’d love for Zelinsky to write about that. But regardless of the mayor’s intentions, the New Haven Promise is a great program. Zelinsky would be better off attacking what truly bothers him, the mayor and union’s views on education reform, rather than a program that will improve the lives of many New Haven students.