When Politicos Do Education

George Norcross took time out from running the South Jersey political machine to weigh in on vouchers. It ain't pretty:

This program would give parents who want a better education and future for their children the option to pursue it while, at the same time, saving taxpayer dollars. It is estimated that the recent rash of Catholic school closures is costing the state an additional $800 million a year to accommodate those displaced students in public schools.

Giving 25% of the vouchers to kids who already attend private schools will save us money... how?

Underperforming schools are failing not because of a shortage of money. And not for a lack of talented, dedicated teachers who take pride in their work and do their very best in a dispiriting environment. They are failing because public officials, school administrators and others in charge of running the schools have refused to embrace the meaningful change we so desperately need. That change would include eliminating teacher tenure; instituting merit pay for teachers; and offering other performance-based incentives for teachers, such as bonuses and promotions.

So the way to help those proud teachers in dispiriting conditions is to turn their jobs into rewards for political cronies by eliminating tenure? And eliminating collaboration in schools by having teachers vie for limited amounts of merit pay?

Unlike the private sector, the world of public education offers no rewards for superior performance, nor does it impose consequences for poor performance.

First of all, not all rewards are money, George. I know that may be hard for you to understand.

Second: look at your own industry. Are you telling me there were consequences for poor performance in the financial sector? Executive, heal thyself.

For school superintendents, administrators and teachers, there is little or no concern about losing their jobs due to unsatisfactory results.

So why do 50% of teachers leave in the first five years? Especially when schools can refuse to renew their contracts within the first three years and give them no reason? As I keep asking: where is the evidence that there is a sizable group of "bad" teachers who are keeping kids from learning? Is it not possible that there are maybe some other, larger problems that need to be addressed here?

School board elections should be moved to November, when larger numbers of citizens vote, making it more difficult for a small group of special interests to dominate the process. 

Let me get this straight: the political boss of the South Jersey machine wants to move school elections to November - when his candidates are running - so that "special interests" don't "dominate" the process.

Because if George Norcross is about anything, he's about keeping elections from being dominated by a small group of insiders...

And our public education system should demand greater accountability and responsibility on the part of parents; schools should require parents to be fully engaged in their childrens’ education, which, in turn, would increase the motivation of teachers and students to do better.

And what should we do with those parents, George, if they are only partially "engaged"? Since you will now insist that the schools "require" full engagement, I guess you have some plan to compel parents to be "fully" engagement. What is it? I can't wait to hear you explain to the voters of NJ how schools will now "require" them to be better parents.

The problem with our education system is that the very people who have failed it - politicians - are the only ones who seem to be allowed to come up with schemes to change it. What Norcross and his machine should be doing is working to find ways to create a stable and adequate funding source for the schools.

Leave the educational policy to those of us who know what the hell we are doing, OK?