Monthly Archives: November 2010

Another Unwise Parent Involvement Effort

by

Yesterday, voters in San Francisco and in Portland, Maine voted down propositions that would allow non-citizens with children to vote in School Board elections.

In San Francisco, the proposition’s main sponsor said its purpose was to increase parent involvement in schools.

I think it would be great if non-citizens would be able to vote in school board elections. I’m not a political genius, but I also know that in this political climate the idea is non-starter (it was also voted down in San Francisco in 2004).

I just wish that the wasted energy that had been spent on these two campaigns had, instead, been used to promote genuine parent engagement in schools.

Facebook Money Used To Talk To Parents — Uh Oh

by

The Associated Press reports that the first use of the $100 donation to Newark schools by Mark Zukerberg will be to send our canvassers to:

…to reach out to parents of schoolchildren to find out what’s working and what isn’t. [Newark Mayor] Booker says that over the next two months canvassers will knock on doors and make phone calls. Billboards and ads on city buses will augment the effort.

I have serious reservations about how some foundations are getting involved in education (see Private Foundations Have a Place (& Have To Be Kept In Their Place). And this report reinforces those concerns.

It’s great that they recognized the importance of speaking to parents. However — and I recognize that the AP article is short and I don’t have all the details on what they’re planning — but just sending out canvassers who have no relationship with the people they’re visiting and knocking on doors without making an appointment is the worst form of what is often called “slash and burn” community organizing. It can provide the illusion of two-way “conversation” but, in fact, just be a form of one-way “communication.” It can allow those who are organizing it to say they are just doing what the people want done, without really involving anyone other than the parents who agree with them. It is not the way any effective organizer would go about building long-term engagement.

I hope I’m wrong, and, again, I need to learn more about their plans. But the description raises red flags.

Here’s another article on the effort — again, short on details.

Will This Report Put “The Nail In The Coffin” Of Conditional Cash Transfers?

by

I’ve posted — critically — several times about the use of what are called “conditional cash transfers” here in the United States. These are payments made to families to encourage them to do things like go to doctor appointments, and to children for increased school attendance and higher standardized test scores.

Newsweek has just published Patronizing the poor is proving to be a deadbeat strategy. Trusting those in need may be the answer.

The article reports that giving additional economic support without any conditions gains the same or better results that making the extra cash conditional on certain behavior gains.