Wednesday, May 18, 2011 The only thing Louisiana’s next schools superintendent needs to build is momentum for reform. By Walter Pierce
Paul Pastorek looked like a broken man in the photograph on last Wednesday’s Advocate front page. Taken at the press conference in which he announced his sudden and unexpected resignation — rumors of his departure began circulating just hours before the presser, to the shock of supporters and, no doubt, the unmitigated relief of the public-education establishment — the 57-year-old lawyer was clearly spent, tears welling in his eyes. After four years battling the often intransigent, turf-sensitive public-education system in Louisiana, Paul Pastorek was beaten — a wobbly-kneed boxer resigned to the TKO.
Pastorek was at the vanguard of one of the very few issues that rallies our disparate ideological spectra: public education reform. Democrats, Republicans, independents, liberals and conservatives generally agree: public education in the United States, and especially in Louisiana, needs not just a little tinkering under hood; it needs an overhaul.
Pastorek tried to do that. What he got for his efforts was a series of blows beneath the belt. And the guy who was supposed to be in his corner was slow between rounds with the stool and bucket of water.
When asked by a reporter whether pressure from Gov. Bobby Jindal precipitated his departure, Pastorek politely hedged: “I don’t respond well to pressure anyway,” he said, which isn’t exactly answering the question.
Although the Board of Elementary & Secondary Education appoints the state superintendent, the governor, who controls three of the 11 seats on the board, has a great deal of sway in who holds the post. Pastorek, the former BESE president, was appointed during the term of Gov. Kathleen Blanco, but Jindal recommended that his contract be renewed.
What Jindal didn’t do in the intervening years is have Pastorek’s back when it counted. The governor occasionally said the right things — that he supported the school-reform measures championed by the state super — during Pastorek’s four-year fight with the collectively formidable Louisiana School Boards Association, Louisiana Federation of Teachers, Louisiana Association of Educators and Louisiana Association of School Superintendents. But Jindal’s “support” never warmed above tepid when we could gauge its temperature at all.
Pastorek went it alone, save for a small cadre of state lawmakers, newspaper editorial boards and good-government groups. It was a fight he was destined to lose.
It didn’t help that Pastorek had a terrible bedside manner with the education establishment. He could be brusque, dismissive, condescending even. And as a lawyer he was painted an outsider by the professional educators stung by his candor.
More than 650,000 kids are in our public-education system. Considering where Louisiana stands nationally, it’s fair to say hundreds of thousands of them are getting the shaft.
Losing Pastorek, who announced he’s taking a job as lead counsel for a major aerospace firm headed by his old pal Sean O’Keefe, isn’t the worst thing to happen last week to public education in Louisiana. Jindal’s announcement that he hopes a “consensus builder” replaces Pastorek is.
What consensus, pray tell, will the next state super build? School boards, district superintendents, teachers and the unions that represent them have had their heads in the sand for far too long. We don’t need consensus, unless the consensus is that the way we’ve been educating students in our public schools has been somewhere south of lacking; that there’s been too little accountability and low expectations; that we must do better.
That’s the kind of consensus Paul Pastorek tried to build. And that’s what broke him.
... written by Gary McGoffin , May 18, 2011 - 06:42 pm
Change is always uncomfortable. But change is what we need to advance the state of public education in Lafayette and Louisiana. The most controversial position that Pastorek advocated was the fact that ALL children can succeed regardless of their family circumstances. He never said that the classroom teacher bore that sole responsibility. Or that charter schools were the only answer.
What he did advocate was a realistic community response to the circumstances of children who are disadvantaged due to economics, race or parenting. It's not their fault. But the reality is that we, as a community, need to provide the opportunities to succeed if their families are unable to do so. That's why early childhood developement is so important. We can either provide quality pre-K assistance or we can build more jails, hire more police and lament the unfairness of it all.
... written by Cajunhiker , May 18, 2011 - 09:33 pm
A well written commentary. More importantly your commentary is the simple truth
... written by Soop. , May 19, 2011 - 02:53 pm
This is proof yet again that the ultimate care and concern of the various "education" interests is to protect their jobs and patronage. The actual schooling or teaching of our kids is way down the list (and I am assuming it is on the list at all).
I am tired of everyone knowing there is a problem but having no real solutions. The public education sector's solution is more of the same. I for one am about ready to punt on public education altogether. Or at least on a national or statewide level. The only thing that will solve the education problem is for everyone involved to step up and take responsibility. Go back to neighborhood schools and put accountability back in the hands of the parents rather than the BESE board or even a local board for that matter.
All the best,
Soop
... written by Steve Monaghan, President, Louisiana Federation of Teachers , May 20, 2011 - 02:16 pm
The article errs with its obvious support for the assumption that the "my way or the highway" approach to school improvement is a formula for success. The Louisiana Federation of Teachers rejects the idea that in order to improve a community, an institution, a profession, or a school, it must first be conquered.
The underlying assumption – that teachers, school boards and superintendents are not interested in improving public education – is simply not true. This Federation is very interested in research-based reforms with proven track records.
However, we do have a problem with ideologically driven or market-driven schemes that almost always begin with an attack on educators and public education and often conclude with a scheme to enrich so-called education entrepreneurs while depriving public schools of resources.
There is ample evidence to question many of the reforms rushed into practice following the devastating storms of August 2005. And, yes, there are dueling data. However, thus far, an honest discussion and reconciliation of the facts has not occurred. We welcome you to visit Research on Reforms in New Orleans for an examination of this data at this Web site: http://www.researchonreforms.org/.
... written by ragin_cajun , May 20, 2011 - 02:32 pm
"Go back to neighborhood schools and put accountability back in the hands of the parents "
I like that. A lot. That's how it should be, that's how I thought it was always intended to be.
But what happens when one neighborhood has GREAT schools, and some other neighborhood has BAD schools. What then? That would offend someone's sense of "fairness".
Would you, in that hypothetical situation, support a law that forbids outside government interference to remedy that situation? Because you and I both know, some busy body would come along and DEMAND that all the schools be equal in OUTCOME, as well as opportunity.
... written by ragin_cajun , May 20, 2011 - 04:22 pm
"The underlying assumption – that teachers, school boards and superintendents are not interested in improving public education – is simply not true."
Can you briefly outline what efforts you, your organization, your membership would support to improve the state of public education Louisiana? Also, could you give us a sense of what you and your members see as the condition of our public schools, and what you see as the main problems?
If Pastorek or the writer of this article are in error, then as a leader of a group teachers, please educate us. I am very serious.
I think many of us in Louisiana are very impatient with the politicization of all this. I invite you to start the reasoned public discussion of this issue here.
... written by ragin_cajun , May 20, 2011 - 05:30 pm
Also, looking into this further, I found a short paper discussing the difference between "charter schools" and "magnet schools". http://www.researchonreforms.o.../Admission Requirements and Charter Schools.pdf
The paper explains the difference between "equal opportunity" and "conditioned opportunity". The crux of the paper is that New Orleans Charter Schools are actually magnet schools because they don't provide equal opportunity, they provide a conditioned opportunity.
They have admissions standards, require parents to sign contracts and attend meetings, and require students to fulfill academic and behavioral expectations to attend.
That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but the author of the paper disagrees.
Are we seriously trying to educate kids that won't study, won't try, won't behave in class? Are we seriously trying to educate kids whose parents refuse to help, refuse to be involved, refuse to sign written agreements and live up to them, refuse to attend meetings with the school?
Is that what this has all come down to? There's no point at which a school can say that a child and his/her parents are uninterested in education, so they just shouldn't go? I think there should be.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
... written by Soop. , May 23, 2011 - 12:19 pm
All due respect Steve, schools aren't getting better, they are getting worse. Organizations such as yours have had decades and decades to improve the problem and they haven't been able to do so. Our schools are more primed for social engineering and protecting teachers than they are for teaching children.
The biggest laugher of your comments was the Federation is interested in "research based reforms with proven track records." That means - "we want the status quo until you can definitively prove something else is better." And proven track record? How does a program get a proven track record if the education interests beat back every single attempt to change the status quo?
And let me break down "research based" - that means more eggheads spending government money "studying" various things for years on end.
And I never said the teaching institution wasn't interested in teaching kids .... I said it wasn't their primary concern. The fact that you are willing to keep things as is ad infinitum is proof of that fact. If the education of kids was your primary concern, you would recognize the dire situation and form an "educational fire brigade" to put out the flames. But apparently the only things that incenses you to take action -- are comments on a website blog.
All the best,
Soop
... written by Soop. , May 23, 2011 - 01:42 pm
To ragin, that answer for bad schools under a "Soop" School District gets a little complicated. First some background - my mom is an educator. My wife is an educator. Both in public schools and both served stints in "good schools" and "bad schools." I was reared in public schools. The one common denominator of "good schools" is parent participation. The one common denominator of "bad schools" is a lack of parent participation.
I don't need to see test scores, the tenure papers of the teachers or know how many kids are on free lunches to tell which one is good vs. bad. You look at parent participation and that tells the tale. Because those parents who are active at school are the same ones who read to their kids at night, who help their kids with homework and who generally present a positive learning environment for their kids.
So, I think the question becomes, how do you re-create that parent environment in schools that don't have a parent environment. I think the answer is to lower student-teacher ratios (I'm talking down to 5 to 1); have teachers stay with the kids for two years instead of one (teachers teach K and 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 4th and 5th) at least through elementary school; and go to closer to year round schooling (same number of days but just bigger breaks - including about a 4 week summer break).
Gotta run -- All the best,
Soop
... written by ragin_cajun , May 23, 2011 - 06:48 pm
Soop --
I've heard that about parent involvement before, from teachers, and seen it myself, and I agree. I've been told that's why magnet/charter schools are more successful, too. Those schools by definition skim out kids from public schools whose parents care enough to move them into a charter/magnet school, and that is why those schools are more successful. The parents care....period.
I've even been told that parent involvement skews results of educational research because lots of things are "proven" successful but they are tested on kids whose parents are involved, so those kids would have succeeded anyway. Makes educational research very hard.
I'm personally don't think that anything can re-create parent involvement in schools. But, I think that most places in the US have enough money to throw around that I'm not averse to schools trying. We waste tax dollars on a lot more hopeless causes.
But, what I'd like to see is some recognition from government, and school systems, that good kids need to be separated from not so good kids.
I've had some friends whose kids have had some pretty bad experiences in public schools because the school system won't control the situation, won't let parents onto the campus, won't separate out kids with serious problems, and won't accept that they can't be reached.
... written by Soop. , May 24, 2011 - 12:14 pm
Ragin,
I don't think you can re-create parent involvement or create a substitute parent. In fact, my advocating that borders on being too touchy-feely liberal to me but I just concluded that if you REALLY want to solve the problem of under-performing schools - you have to create a greater connection between teacher and student. That is why I came up with lower student teacher ratios, two year teaching blocks and more of a year round schooling period.
Of course, I don't really think anything will ever be done. Reality is that more and more parents who truly care will move their kids into private schools leaving public schools as nothing but glorified day care. And over time (next 10-20 years), a conservative city like Lafayette will not approve any new taxes for schools and you might even see renewals not getting passed. Of course, the "rich" will be blamed for failing the public schools but the truth will be that the dye was cast decades earlier.
All the best,
Soop
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.
Advertisement
Read the Flipping Paper!
Click Here for the Entire Print Version of IND Monthly
David Calhoun and Elizabeth “EB” Brooks are the first two employees of Lafayette Central Park Inc., the nonprofit charged with turning Lafayette Consolidated Government’s 100-acre Johnston Street Horse Farm property into a passive public park. Calhoun was named executive director, and Brooks is director of planning and design.
There will soon be a whole lot of shakin’ going on at Benny’s Sportshack Supplement Depot, a new concept by Opelousas native Benny Nele. Located at 2002 Johnston St., the supplement shop, smoothie bar and café, featuring hot off the press paninis and wraps, plans to open in late May.
This year’s Cool Town issue is all about people who are not native to South Louisiana but made a conscious decision to be here, to be among us, to participate in our culture and contribute to it.
A shelved ordinance transferring $200,000 from a northside drainage project to a south Lafayette development may not break any laws, but it stinks to high heaven.
An effort to restore a shuttered dancehall and document other vacant or razed honky-tonks could serve as a model for saving an endangered species of entertainment.
Lafayette’s gene pool has been host to a long line of eccentric characters who have blurred the lines between crazy, genius, disturbed and curiously entertaining.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
What he did advocate was a realistic community response to the circumstances of children who are disadvantaged due to economics, race or parenting. It's not their fault. But the reality is that we, as a community, need to provide the opportunities to succeed if their families are unable to do so. That's why early childhood developement is so important. We can either provide quality pre-K assistance or we can build more jails, hire more police and lament the unfairness of it all.