Steven P. Barrett"POTTERVILLE'S" PRICEY PRINCE OF PUBLIC SNOBBERY IN PUBLIC EDUCATION
June 29th 2008 23:20
Steven Barrett
RESIDENTS OF BEDFORD, NY -- HOW MUCH, BESIDES $250,000 DO YOU REALLY WANT TO PAY FOR THIS PRICEY PRINCE OF PUBLIC SNOBBERY IN PUBLIC EDUCATION?
BEDFORD, NY HIGH SCHOOL - - OKAY KIDS, PULL AROUND YOUR CHAIRS TODAY, I'VE GOT GREAT NEWS FOR YOU, MY NAME IS FUZZY FEELGOOD AND I'M GOING TO BE YOUR NEW FACILITATOR. OH, YES, THAT WORD "TEACHER" IS GONE, AND SO ARE THE OLD WAYS OF TEACHING. WE'RE ALL GONNA HAVE FUN AND FEEL GOOD AT THE END OF THE CLASS? "
ARE YOU FEELING GOOD TODAY? WONDERFUL!
Sure, you bet a bunch of high school kids will think it's wonderful. Next to Jack Nicholson leading the inmates in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and letting all the inmates run every nuthut left in the country, this has got to be a h.s. class' best dream come true -- no thanks to the pampered kids who've grown used to being told THEY are the center of the universe by such soft-touch Superintendents like Bedford Falls, NY's Jere Hochman, formerly of Amherst, MA. Why, they'll be treated just like the Amherst kids.
Hochman, I'm sure isn't going to completely drop the word teacher, but who knows, give him time and his pet theories.
The kids had better enjoy their run of (false) luck because given this guy's recent track record, he's not likely to be hanging around too long. Before arriving in Amherst, Hochman's three year contract with the Parkway School District (which is St. Louis County's (MO) second largest, was NOT renewed according to a report filed May 2nd, 2004, by Carolyn Brower for the St. Louis District. When you're a superintendent and your local school committee -- your boss -- FAILS TO RENEW YOUR CONTRACT, YOU'RE FIRED.
That's not what Amherst residents were told. Why, these unsuspecting, but otherwise very intellectually astute, public school insiders literally had the wool pulled over their eyes by an extremely slick-talking and writing professional education careerist bureaucrat when he ever so nobly told his new digs that he was taking a $38,000 "pay cut" to take the Amherst job. In an age of ever rising avariciousness in the education business, Hochman's announcement that he'd come to the the town as a bargain seemed too good to turn town. In most cases, that's when deals ARE turned down because they AREN'T anywhere as good in real life as they seem on his peddled papers or public proclamations.
AFTER ALL, IT ONLY STANDS TO LOGIC THAT YOU CAN'T SAY YOU'RE GIVING UP SOMETHING THAT YOU NO LONGER HAVE. HOW CAN ONE SAY HE'S TAKING A PAY CUT FROM A JOB HE LOST?
OHHH, I GET IT, HE MIGHT'VE GOTTEN THAT $38,000 SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT TOOK THE AMHERST JOB INSTEAD. BUT OF COURSE, SOMETHING'S LEFT OUT OF THE EQUATION HERE: THERE'S NO INDICATION ON HIS PART THAT HE WAS OFFERED THE DIFFERENTIAL IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO HOCHMAN PROBABLY HAD TO TAKE THE AMHERST JOB WHICH WAS PROBABLY IN HIS "PLAN B, C, D ... " LEFT-OVER "OPTIONS."
Such logic is a bit too obvious for some members on the Amherst School Committee who are more interested in furthering their own careers the business of public education as opposed to doing the right thing and demonstrating more discernment, and for some reason (I'd prefer NOT to know, God forbidding or helping us from whatever else they have up their sleeves) they completely missed or elected to turn a blind eye to HOCHMAN'S FIRING.
According to the Dispatch:
Most men would've told them to shove it. But when you're afraid of never seeing a nice six-figure income again, diplomacy will always trump self-dignity. He grovelled.
According to Michael Beasley, the Parkway committee president, "... under Hochman's direction, school officials have addressed tough cost containment issues and salary negotiations, while raising student achievement across the district. But voters also have twice rejected proposed tax-rate increases that would buy computers, repair aging schools and keep teacher salaries competitive."
Just by looking at Beasley's comments, it looks like Hochman should've told the committee to "shove it," but like that $38,000 "pay cut" that was too good to be true, even this has a hidden lead lining. He must've cut the living crap out of more departments than he had any friends left in them to save his sorry rear when he needed their support. And in "right-to-work" states, workers, be they teachers or lunch ladies, when they get budgetarily canned or outsourced "under new management" that's a lot stingier, the results are a lot more draconian, thus leading naturally to less support from the "lower ranks."
If he was an officer in combat, you might say it looks like he allowed himself to get "fragged" or shot by his own troops. That, my friends, isn't a good reference, no matter how many tax dollars you can save (or squeeze out of your employees.) Nor will raising student test scores at the expense of relations with the workers help you either.
What a coincidence, he faced a "peasants' revolt" and came out on the short end of the pitchforks -- just like he did in Amherst a year ago. Remember above? " ... voters also have twice rejected proposed tax-rate increases that would buy computers, repair aging schools and keep teacher salaries competitive."
In fairness to the guy, he should've prevailed on the merits of the argument if the schools needed repairs that badly. But wait a moment; it's not like he didn't have enough time before to make his case: The Dispatch again:
I've read some of his work which borders on narcissism and arrogance honed to a fine art, as well as watching him deal with the lunch ladies when they were speaking one night during a very short time alloted for them to speak out for their town jobs. Oh, he was very attentive: to the papers he was shuffling and signing right in front of them, scarcely (if at all) averting his eyes upwards. He flat out didn't give a damn.
His decision to gut the Amherst Lunch Ladies job is no sudden change in his career m.o. He says his mission is always to support the kids, kids, the kids -- but in fact, he's NOT doing the kids any service at all with his arrogant disdain for a group of any workers he just doesn't see fit to occupy the same social level. What kind of lesson does he think he's getting away with imparting here?
As a PUBLIC school superintendent, social or intellectual snobbery of any kind is out of the question, no matter how "human" he is like the rest of us with our personal likes or dislikes. When you take a job serving the public, whether or not you're on a private or public payroll, you cannot allow any form of snobbery color your decision-making. ESPECIALLY IF YOU COLLECT A FAT PAYCHECK PAID FOR BY THE VERY PEOPLE YOU'RE LOOKING DOWN YOUR NOSE AT.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY GALLING WHEN A FORMER SUPERINTENDENT AND THE PRESENT SCHOOL COMMITTEE HE LEFT BEHIND ARE SO PROMINENT IN THEIR CALLS FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL JUSTICE, EQUALITY FOR THIS, THAT AND EVERYBODY ELSE -- BUT WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUALLY PRACTICING WHAT THEY SO ELOQUENTLY PREACH -- THEY PROVE TO BE THE BIGGEST TIGHTWADS WHEN IT COMES TO PUTTING THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE.
I was originally going to delve a little into Hochman's "educational philosophy," particularly his pet philosophy called constructivism as it pertains to education and I apologize for perhaps beating on this "lunch lady issue" maybe too often if you're looking for other kinds of posts. And, yes, I'll admit it's personal. But that's the beauty of writing a blog.
My major reason for bringing attention on Hochman isn't purely what I think about this individual, but a CLASS OF PEOPLE LIKE HOCHMAN WHO ARE TAKING CONTROL OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. THEY ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH LOOKING LIKE WORLD BEATERS, MEETING THIS OR THAT FEDERAL AND STATE EDUCATION MANDATE, AND LOOKING LIKE THE ALL-TIME CHAMPS OF ACCOUNTABILITY -- ALL THE WHILE NEGLECTING THEIR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS HUMAN BEINGS IN THEIR TREATMENT OF OTHER HUMANS -- REGARDLESS OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ESPECIALLY EDUCATIONAL STANDINGS AND PLACE IN THE COMMUNITIES THEY ARE ENTRUSTED TO SERVE WITH FULL IMPARTIALITY.
IF THEY BELIEVE MEETING THE LAST PART OF THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE IS TOO DIFFICULT, THEN THEY CAN GET THE HELL OUT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ALTOGETHER!
RESIDENTS OF BEDFORD, NY -- HOW MUCH, BESIDES $250,000 DO YOU REALLY WANT TO PAY FOR THIS PRICEY PRINCE OF PUBLIC SNOBBERY IN PUBLIC EDUCATION?
BEDFORD, NY HIGH SCHOOL - - OKAY KIDS, PULL AROUND YOUR CHAIRS TODAY, I'VE GOT GREAT NEWS FOR YOU, MY NAME IS FUZZY FEELGOOD AND I'M GOING TO BE YOUR NEW FACILITATOR. OH, YES, THAT WORD "TEACHER" IS GONE, AND SO ARE THE OLD WAYS OF TEACHING. WE'RE ALL GONNA HAVE FUN AND FEEL GOOD AT THE END OF THE CLASS? "
ARE YOU FEELING GOOD TODAY? WONDERFUL!
Hochman, I'm sure isn't going to completely drop the word teacher, but who knows, give him time and his pet theories.
The kids had better enjoy their run of (false) luck because given this guy's recent track record, he's not likely to be hanging around too long. Before arriving in Amherst, Hochman's three year contract with the Parkway School District (which is St. Louis County's (MO) second largest, was NOT renewed according to a report filed May 2nd, 2004, by Carolyn Brower for the St. Louis District. When you're a superintendent and your local school committee -- your boss -- FAILS TO RENEW YOUR CONTRACT, YOU'RE FIRED.
That's not what Amherst residents were told. Why, these unsuspecting, but otherwise very intellectually astute, public school insiders literally had the wool pulled over their eyes by an extremely slick-talking and writing professional education careerist bureaucrat when he ever so nobly told his new digs that he was taking a $38,000 "pay cut" to take the Amherst job. In an age of ever rising avariciousness in the education business, Hochman's announcement that he'd come to the the town as a bargain seemed too good to turn town. In most cases, that's when deals ARE turned down because they AREN'T anywhere as good in real life as they seem on his peddled papers or public proclamations.
AFTER ALL, IT ONLY STANDS TO LOGIC THAT YOU CAN'T SAY YOU'RE GIVING UP SOMETHING THAT YOU NO LONGER HAVE. HOW CAN ONE SAY HE'S TAKING A PAY CUT FROM A JOB HE LOST?
OHHH, I GET IT, HE MIGHT'VE GOTTEN THAT $38,000 SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT TOOK THE AMHERST JOB INSTEAD. BUT OF COURSE, SOMETHING'S LEFT OUT OF THE EQUATION HERE: THERE'S NO INDICATION ON HIS PART THAT HE WAS OFFERED THE DIFFERENTIAL IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO HOCHMAN PROBABLY HAD TO TAKE THE AMHERST JOB WHICH WAS PROBABLY IN HIS "PLAN B, C, D ... " LEFT-OVER "OPTIONS."
Such logic is a bit too obvious for some members on the Amherst School Committee who are more interested in furthering their own careers the business of public education as opposed to doing the right thing and demonstrating more discernment, and for some reason (I'd prefer NOT to know, God forbidding or helping us from whatever else they have up their sleeves) they completely missed or elected to turn a blind eye to HOCHMAN'S FIRING.
According to the Dispatch:
Hochman said in a statement, "I admire the board for having the courage to 'raise the bar' for the superintendent as we have done for all employees. Just like other employees, superintendents need to improve in some areas, too."
Most men would've told them to shove it. But when you're afraid of never seeing a nice six-figure income again, diplomacy will always trump self-dignity. He grovelled.
According to Michael Beasley, the Parkway committee president, "... under Hochman's direction, school officials have addressed tough cost containment issues and salary negotiations, while raising student achievement across the district. But voters also have twice rejected proposed tax-rate increases that would buy computers, repair aging schools and keep teacher salaries competitive."
Just by looking at Beasley's comments, it looks like Hochman should've told the committee to "shove it," but like that $38,000 "pay cut" that was too good to be true, even this has a hidden lead lining. He must've cut the living crap out of more departments than he had any friends left in them to save his sorry rear when he needed their support. And in "right-to-work" states, workers, be they teachers or lunch ladies, when they get budgetarily canned or outsourced "under new management" that's a lot stingier, the results are a lot more draconian, thus leading naturally to less support from the "lower ranks."
If he was an officer in combat, you might say it looks like he allowed himself to get "fragged" or shot by his own troops. That, my friends, isn't a good reference, no matter how many tax dollars you can save (or squeeze out of your employees.) Nor will raising student test scores at the expense of relations with the workers help you either.
What a coincidence, he faced a "peasants' revolt" and came out on the short end of the pitchforks -- just like he did in Amherst a year ago. Remember above? " ... voters also have twice rejected proposed tax-rate increases that would buy computers, repair aging schools and keep teacher salaries competitive."
In fairness to the guy, he should've prevailed on the merits of the argument if the schools needed repairs that badly. But wait a moment; it's not like he didn't have enough time before to make his case: The Dispatch again:
Hochman has worked for seven years as Parkway's superintendent. Before that he served three years as a north area superintendent for the district.
With nearly 19,732 students, Parkway is the second largest school district in St. Louis County.
With nearly 19,732 students, Parkway is the second largest school district in St. Louis County.
I've read some of his work which borders on narcissism and arrogance honed to a fine art, as well as watching him deal with the lunch ladies when they were speaking one night during a very short time alloted for them to speak out for their town jobs. Oh, he was very attentive: to the papers he was shuffling and signing right in front of them, scarcely (if at all) averting his eyes upwards. He flat out didn't give a damn.
His decision to gut the Amherst Lunch Ladies job is no sudden change in his career m.o. He says his mission is always to support the kids, kids, the kids -- but in fact, he's NOT doing the kids any service at all with his arrogant disdain for a group of any workers he just doesn't see fit to occupy the same social level. What kind of lesson does he think he's getting away with imparting here?
As a PUBLIC school superintendent, social or intellectual snobbery of any kind is out of the question, no matter how "human" he is like the rest of us with our personal likes or dislikes. When you take a job serving the public, whether or not you're on a private or public payroll, you cannot allow any form of snobbery color your decision-making. ESPECIALLY IF YOU COLLECT A FAT PAYCHECK PAID FOR BY THE VERY PEOPLE YOU'RE LOOKING DOWN YOUR NOSE AT.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY GALLING WHEN A FORMER SUPERINTENDENT AND THE PRESENT SCHOOL COMMITTEE HE LEFT BEHIND ARE SO PROMINENT IN THEIR CALLS FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL JUSTICE, EQUALITY FOR THIS, THAT AND EVERYBODY ELSE -- BUT WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUALLY PRACTICING WHAT THEY SO ELOQUENTLY PREACH -- THEY PROVE TO BE THE BIGGEST TIGHTWADS WHEN IT COMES TO PUTTING THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE.
I was originally going to delve a little into Hochman's "educational philosophy," particularly his pet philosophy called constructivism as it pertains to education and I apologize for perhaps beating on this "lunch lady issue" maybe too often if you're looking for other kinds of posts. And, yes, I'll admit it's personal. But that's the beauty of writing a blog.
My major reason for bringing attention on Hochman isn't purely what I think about this individual, but a CLASS OF PEOPLE LIKE HOCHMAN WHO ARE TAKING CONTROL OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. THEY ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH LOOKING LIKE WORLD BEATERS, MEETING THIS OR THAT FEDERAL AND STATE EDUCATION MANDATE, AND LOOKING LIKE THE ALL-TIME CHAMPS OF ACCOUNTABILITY -- ALL THE WHILE NEGLECTING THEIR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS HUMAN BEINGS IN THEIR TREATMENT OF OTHER HUMANS -- REGARDLESS OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ESPECIALLY EDUCATIONAL STANDINGS AND PLACE IN THE COMMUNITIES THEY ARE ENTRUSTED TO SERVE WITH FULL IMPARTIALITY.
IF THEY BELIEVE MEETING THE LAST PART OF THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE IS TOO DIFFICULT, THEN THEY CAN GET THE HELL OUT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ALTOGETHER!
| 71 |
| Vote |
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
A wise man once said that the measure of a man was the way he treated those from whom he could gain nothing. It looks like Hochman has some infamous company. May they all be seen in the clear light of day before any of them can cause further damage!
Comment by Anonymous
Even Bill Cosby who graduated from the UMass School of Education has given up on the kind of gobbledygook that the Hochman's and his buddies on the Amherst School Committee have of late been infamous for pushing. We've got more than our fair share of Kerrys, Obamas and a whole basketful of others like them in this neck of the woods. Had 'em for years and I suspect will for many years to come. Like maggots to a dead carcass of what used to be a good school system.