CONNECT
Campaign for America's Future / Op-Ed
Published: Saturday 12 May 2012
“Apparently, no one had sent the president the memo that charter schools are hugely controversial, particularly with teachers.”
Teacher Depreciation Week
It was Teacher Appreciation Week this week. Unfortunately, someone forgot the appreciation part.
President Obama, for one, kicked off the week by proclaiming that from now on the week would also (instead?) be forever known as National Charter Schools Week.
Declaring charters to be "incubators of innovations," the president praised charter schools for having "brought new ideas to the work of educating our sons and daughters."
Apparently, no one had sent the president the memo that charter schools are hugely controversial, particularly with teachers.
What's "Innovative" About Charter Schools?
In fact, the week before the president exuded about charter schools, a new study was presented by the National Education Policy Center revealing that one "innovation" that large charter school franchises definitely can not claim is cost savings.
The study looked at the per-pupil spending of charter schools operated by major charter management organizations (CMOs) in New York City, Texas and Ohio with district schools and found that many high profile charter network schools outspend district schools of similar size, serving the same grade levels and similar student populations.
But probably teachers' biggest beef with charter schools is that they don't have to play by the same rules that public schools do, while they loudly claim to be "innovative." As school finance analyst Bruce Baker explains:
Charter schools are limited public access in the sense that:
Furthermore, Baker continues, in many states, charters are allowed to operate completely outside the authority of locally elected school boards and municipal governments and can contract with private management firms and private boards that can require student disciplinary codes and parental participation regulations that would not be tolerated in a community-operated school. So in many respects, a great many charter schools -- although they receive public funds -- are not really "public" schools at all.
So it is quite likely that any supposed innovation coming from a charter school would have absolutely no applicability to a traditional public school because the student populations and set of circumstances governing those schools are so remarkably different. It's like doing a controlled experiment in which the test groups gets to change all the variables and manipulate the results.
So if President Obama had the power to choose when to honor charter schools with an unfounded proclamation about their "innovative" powers, he could not have picked a worse time to do it.
What Teachers Really Think
One wonders if the president's choice for when to proclaim National Charters Schools Week had to have come from his Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Duncan is undoubtedly a big fan of charter schools. But in his kick-off address for Teacher Appreciation Week, which appeared on the Huffington Post, Duncan avoided the subject of charter school altogether and instead ticked off a list of "what teachers say they want" without ever quoting a single teacher or sourcing a survey or research study of teacher attitudes and desires.
If Secretary Duncan had bothered to look up some actual evidence of what teachers feel about their current lot in life, he would have found that they are extremely dissatisfied with how they're being treated. Which is why the Secretary's post was triggered nearly 200 comments, most of them deeply critical of him and his policies, and mostly from teachers, practicing and former. This example from Alex Messer was particularly pointed:
The truth is Arne Duncan's policies represent a destructive force to education in America. Just this past month, 3-5th graders were subjected to NINE hours of high-stakes tests in NY State alone. And this is just the beginning. Teachers have had their names published with their employee evaluations in national newspapers - which happens in NO other profession. As if this public humiliation were not enough, the new evaluation framework being agreed to in NY State - and shepherded under Duncan - will lead to teachers being fired based on faulty data with margins of error over 50%. The current trend of high-stakes testing and teacher bashing will have ramifications that people aren't quite seeing yet.
Testing Teachers' Patience
Regarding those tests, at least some portion of the ever-expanding regime of high-stakes testing mandated across the country closely followed or preceded Teacher Appreciation Week in many states, including Texas, New York, and Florida.
Teachers by and large don't think too much of these tests. According to the education trade newspaper Education Week, a new survey of more than 10,000 public school teachers has found that "only 28 percent of educators see state-required standardized tests as an essential or very important gauge of student achievement. In addition, only 26 percent of teachers say standardized tests are an accurate reflection of what students know."
What teachers would prefer instead are ongoing classroom assessments that would actually tell them something about what their students are learning while the teacher can actually do something about it. And they would much rather see class participation and performance on class assignments-- the things they see going on in their classrooms everyday -- as more important measures of student learning.
Pink-Slipped Into Attrition
Another trying experience many teachers start being put through this time of year are the annual rounds of teacher layoffs that occur in school districts across the country.
As Valerie Strauss reports from her blog at The Washington Post, " two business days before National Teacher Day, D.C. Public Schools officials sent out notices to 333 teachers saying that their jobs had effectively been eliminated." Congratulations!
DC School is not alone in executing such an ill-timed slap to its employees. California also recently issued mass teacher layoff notices -- for the fourth year in a row. Many of these teachers -- perhaps 75 percent, according to one study -- may end up employed in school when the next school year begins. But how can you be certain you're not in the 25 percent?
You don't have to imagine what this does to the morale of teachers. Just listen to them:
Somehow I thought this year would be different. It's not.Every year for the six years since I entered education, I've been laid off. It is the same cycle. Tales of budget problems start in January. Preliminary layoff notices go out in March. Final notices are given out May 15. And until last year, every year I've gotten hired back to the same school in June or July.I realize it is not just me. It is not just Santa Clara County; it is not just California. Across the country, this has become the norm.[snip]Try as I might, this year is no different. I developed a love for every one of my students. I started talking about what my colleagues and I would collaborate on next year. And so I cried on March 15 and, once again, despite my best intentions, it will hurt deeply when I get laid off for real.Yet for the next eight weeks, I will teach my students with enthusiasm and commitment. I will stand up at Open House and greet prospective fourth-graders with excitement when they tell me how much they hope they can be in my class next year. And when my darlings are promoted and say they'll come back to see me next year, I'll tell them I can't wait to see them. And that's true.
Change Could Be Worse Than The Status Quo
With a general election coming up this fall, you would expect that the intolerable status quo of teachers would be a major point of contention for the opposition Republican party. Most seasoned observers believe that the 2012 election is "up for grabs," and Republicans know a wedge issue when they see one.
Yet prominent Republican governors -- such as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Virginia's Bob McDonnell, and New Jersey's Chris Christie -- are pushing education policies that are exceedingly harsher on classroom teachers, abolishing their rights to collective bargaining and due process, subjecting them to unfair and inaccurate evaluation processes, and threatening their health and retirement security.
At the national level, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney align on a number of key issues affecting teachers. As an article at The Fiscal Times observed:
Both politicians place great store in standardized testing to evaluate teacher performance and student progress, and both generally back former President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind program. Both favor charter schools as an alternative to failing public schools and merit pay to attract better teachers. And both have had their run-ins with teachers unions.
The only point of contention in regard to public schools teachers appears to be what to spend on them.
The Real Value Of Teachers
So what did classroom teachers think about all these pretty pronouncements about them this past week?
Here's how one teacher put it at the blogsite for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution's education reporter Maureen Downey:
It’s teacher appreciation week, again, and the fact that teacher morale is at the lowest it’s probably ever been shows that our nation is ignoring the reason that the week was started in the beginning. Think of it as the educational equivalent of taking the “Christ” out of Christmas. A holiday we’ll go on celebrating arbitrarily since it no longer has anything to do with teachers themselves.
A favorite bromide passed around by the political class is that the "value" of teachers is in their effects on the future earnings of the children they teach.
The data source for these fulminations is a study calculating that a "highly effective" teacher can lead to our kids earning many more thousands of dollars when they grow up.
While this conclusion may sound particularly impressive, it ultimately dehumanizes teachers, reducing their immense influence on our children's development and well-being to a mere cipher on a spreadsheet. And when teachers are treated almost exclusively as economic units -- a cost on a balance sheet to argue over its "value" in the much bigger enterprise that is America -- their immense real value will be continuously depreciated, and the greater purposes of education that certainly dwarf mere income -- goals like creativity and curiosity, responsibility and self-reliance, patriotism and active citizenry -- become diminished.
This week President Obama and many others in his administration did an immensely important and brave thing when they chose to break ranks from the stalemate on marriage equality. In doing so, they didn't talk about the dollars and cents of the matter and instead chose to talk about gay couples not as abstractions on a ledger but as human beings with feelings and rights and dignity. When are our leaders going to start talking about teachers that way?
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Jeff Bryant
Jeff Bryant is a Marketing and Communications Consultant for Nonprofits. He is a marketing and creative strategist with nearly 30 years of experience – the past 20 on his own – as a freelance writer, consultant, and SEM provider. He's written extensively about public education policy, most recently at OpenLeft.com and NationofChange.
Top Stories
By Aviva Shen
14 comments on "Teacher Depreciation Week"
May 13, 2012 1:02pm
charter schools are working here because the local principal is allowed flexibility -- the public school has just lost its accreditation but gets to keep all the $$$
May 12, 2012 10:17pm
That is completely missing the point. Why was your charter school so good? Quality teachers? Small class sizes? Individual attention? Why is that not offered at the public schools? The answer is because most people don't want to foot the bill to properly fund public schools. But where does that leave us? Charter schools DON'T EDUCATE ALL CHILDREN AND DON'T WANT TO! They want to say they outperform public schools, but don't work with the same number of ESL and Special Ed students. It never has been and never will be an apples to apples comparison, and that is what nobody wants to talk about. We are setting up a two tier model of education with the haves and have-nots, much like our society. People like you need to wake up and advocate to fix public schools and not set up a system where some students get top educations(which is actually a very debatable claim at most charter schools, although I will take your word on yours) while the rest are left to fail or lag behind. That should NOT be an acceptable option for any American who actually claims to care about children(other than their own, novel concept I realize). I just hope America wakes up and kicks the Walton and Gates goons out of education before they do irreparable harm.
May 12, 2012 10:17pm
That is completely missing the point. Why was your charter school so good? Quality teachers? Small class sizes? Individual attention? Why is that not offered at the public schools? The answer is because most people don't want to foot the bill to properly fund public schools. But where does that leave us? Charter schools DON'T EDUCATE ALL CHILDREN AND DON'T WANT TO! They want to say they outperform public schools, but don't work with the same number of ESL and Special Ed students. It never has been and never will be an apples to apples comparison, and that is what nobody wants to talk about. We are setting up a two tier model of education with the haves and have-nots, much like our society. People like you need to wake up and advocate to fix public schools and not set up a system where some students get top educations(which is actually a very debatable claim at most charter schools, although I will take your word on yours) while the rest are left to fail or lag behind. That should NOT be an acceptable option for any American who actually claims to care about children(other than their own, novel concept I realize). I just hope America wakes up and kicks the Walton and Gates goons out of education before they do irreparable harm.
May 12, 2012 3:55pm
Charter Schools are like religion. By some mysterious fiat, we know not what, privatizing schools magically makes them better, more efficient, and cheaper. That's what people think even in spite of evidence that shows the opposite, that charter schools are no better than public schools when all things are equal.
People simply don't question conclusions. The accept them. What we are being led to believe is that democracy doesn't work in that we, as the public, cannot, again for some mysterious reasons, teach ourselves, share with each other, be efficient, and take care of basic needs without the intervention of corporations and profit.
Of course that's not true, and the data supports that it isn't true, but data shmadda. People have always needed to believe what they need to believe, even when it results in harm to themselves.
(1) Like charter schools, private prisons are not cheaper than public prisons.
(2) Charter schools cost more than public schools while at the same time, do not generate miracles.
(3) When charter schools are given the same burden that public schools have, they fail more often than public schools.
(4) If you're worried about taxes, then you should worry about what charter schools cost.
(5) What is so magical about charter schools that is unavailable to public schools? In other words, if charter schools are more productive overall, and they are not, what is the necessary condition that keeps public schools from doing something similar or the same?
The answer is that anything a private sector can do, public sectors can to just as well in theory, and they can do it cheaper too because they are not for profit. It's all in a matter of how well things are managed.
For instance, Ronald Reagan cut the pay of top scientists and other executive types in government positions. They all left and went to work for companies. The quality of public sector innovation suffered as a result. Then Reagan declared that the public sector was inferior to the private, and the proof was the lesser performing public sector.
We, as a people, can take care of ourselves. And with our vast amount of tax dollars pooled in one giant powerhouse, we can afford to hire the best the world has--and employee them in the public sector. We can outperform any private sector because of our ability to drain the very best brains away from the private sector, and we can do it more cheaply because we don't need to profit. And, we can reward those people better too and still do it cheaper than private enterprise.
Private enterprise knows this and that's why they lobby to ruin the public sector. Evidence? If it weren't for public sector tax money bailing out and giving loans to the private sector, the private sector would dry up and blow away.
May 12, 2012 12:34pm
If an educated populace is valuable to our country, and I think most would agree (though maybe not profess) that it is, education should be made available to anyone who wants it and seems able to benefit from it. I graduated from a State supported college in North Carolina in 1966 and I think my total cost for tuition, fees and textbooks was under $12,000. I may be a little off on that figure but I am sure it is close. Why should it cost anyone hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a bachelor's degree?
The people of this country need to open their eyes and see what a great institution public school is. They need to quit letting opportunistic politicians and greedy privatizing corporations demean and demonize public education and those who dedicate their lives to providing it. They need to realize that there is a great opportunity to expand public education to offer every American citizen an opportunity to earn a four year degree paid for entirely by taxes.
Since the baby boomers have moved on through the schools most school divisions have unused, underused and often empty classroom buildings. These could be turned into public colleges owned, operated, funded and supported by the same school boards that currently exist. Those school divisions that do not have adequate space could add gradually, offer secondary education on a shift basis, teach many basic classes on TV or the internet, and even have large class loads (this is not unusual in even expensive colleges now).
There could still be private colleges and State colleges that collect tuition. Those who believe they can get an education worth paying high tuition for can work their way through or borrow money to attend these schools. The market pressure of free public colleges would force such schoools to keep costs, expenses and tuitions low to compete for students.
I believe that many citizens would be willing to pay moderately higher taxes at the local level to provide this educational opportunity for all Americans.
To discuss this idea cal 757-941-8177 and leave contact information.
May 12, 2012 12:24pm
I was a high school science teacher in AZ and also homeschooled my kids for 4 years. Education should never be seen as one size fits all. Public schools must be supported but alternatives should also be embraced. In AZ, we had a local charter school open that actually attracted many problem students who didn't like the high school! A very different outcome that what you hear about.
I taught many struggling kids for whom public school presented more obstacles than solutions and they dropped out. I was thrilled that some of them went on to get diplomas from PPEP TEC charter high school. It worked for them.
Please, let's look at this issue from a whole community viewpoint. Education does NOT just occur in public schools.
May 12, 2012 11:58am
Jeff: I think you mean well by this article, but the arguments against charter schools don't add up. In an odd way it reinforces further need. Most, not all, are getting the job done. It proves with the appropriate amount of funding, the needs of students (the customers) get what they pay for...usually that includes more time on the material. We need to compete globally and right now the trends show us trailing. Most often than not, it's the teachers themselves who were the agents of change who created these charter schools. It was hoped to give them a better shot at teaching the kids what they actually need to know. Look at the statistics of world education systems and then look at our antiquated system. Change is good in this sense and many experienced educators already understand that. Finally we can have education with meaning rather than participating in a daily sitcom of No Child Left Behind. We all need to tell our congress people to change the ESEA first. That will give us the education our students really need. Thanks Jeff, great topic!
May 12, 2012 8:23pm
Thanks for your thoughtful comment which deserves a thoughtful reply:
"Most [charters], not all, are getting the job done."
Depends on how you define "getting the job done" Using test scores as a basis, which is what reform enthusiasts use to bash traditional public schools, charters score no better and indeed do somewhat worse than traditional neighborhood schools. Google CREDO study on charter schools.
"It proves with the appropriate amount of funding, the needs of students (the customers) get what they pay for."
Disagree with this frame. All children deserve access to quality education. It shouldn't be about "getting what you pay for." All children should get the best of what we as a society must pay for. Are you made to shop for police and fire protection?
"We need to compete globally and right now the trends show us trailing."
Not true. Based on PISA exams, a global benchmark, our students who are raised in more well to do neighborhoods do the best in the world. Problem is we have 20% + students who live in poverty. Way more than the nations who have the top averages on PISA. And poor kids cost more to educate.
"Most often than not, it's the teachers themselves who were the agents of change who created these charter schools."
Again not true. If you click through to the NEPC study I refer to, the charters that increasingly dominate the sector are national chains, not teacher-parent led schools.
"We all need to tell our congress people to change the ESEA first. That will give us the education our students really need."
Agree. But "incentivizing" more charters is really not the answer. There is just no evidence that increasing charter school enrollments benefits our children in the long run.
May 17, 2012 11:48pm
“I know skeptics will want to argue with the results, but we consider them to be accurate and reliable, and we have to see them as a challenge to get better,” he added. “The United States came in 23rd or 24th in most subjects. We can quibble, or we can face the brutal truth that we’re being out-educated.” Arne Duncan 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/12/07/education/07education_graph...
Is this the PISA information you're referring to? Come to think of it, yeah, I think I would love to pick my police and fire department like the NFL draft. That would be sweet. Probably less racist too. Then we would get the best of the best. You're probably right though, the poor do cost more to educate because they are being treated as slaves by the 1%. That needs to be addressed.
If they (the 1%) would give us back our money and stop playing this capitalistic game, then we might be able to buy a damn snickers bar for a quarter again. Again, charter schools are going into neighborhoods providing choice and hope where most public schools have failed. There is no doubt the Republican ideology of No Child Left Behind needs to be revamped.
Society 3.0 with free education is the way to go anyways.
May 12, 2012 11:23am
In this election voters will decide between two different views of America. It has become fashionable to say there is no real difference between the two major parties but I believe that each represents a different view of what America should be and what it means to live in this country.
Members of one party reject large numbers of residents of this country. They reject those who look different from themselves. They reject those born outside the boundaries of this country. They reject those who do not have the same religious beliefs as themselves. They reject others who have different sexual preferences from themselves. They especially reject those residents of this country who are poor, disabled, unfortunate, or unsuccessful. Their rejection is seen in the wish to deny them the vote, marriage, health care, social security, credit, or public education.
Members of one party ignore large segments of the population. They allege that those who need a helping hand are stupid or lazy or criminal. They call them freeloaders. They pay no attention to the needs and rights of minorities, women, the elderly, and the disabled. If they do not have lots of money they are unimportant and can and should be ignored by this party.
Members of one party say it is ok to dislike those of whom we do not approve. It is all right to hate someone who has different sexual preferences. It is all right to make fun of someone because they have a sexually transmitted disease or an unwanted pregnancy. It is OK to exaggerate their character defects, eccentric behavior, and failures through cruel ethnic jokes and racial slurs. It is all right to tell lies about these people because they are to be disliked.
Members of one party advocate “rugged individualism”. They advocate each person working only for his own good with no concern for the welfare or needs of others. One must always strive to get more than his neighbor and, if possible to do so legally, take what the neighbor has. Members of this party advocate taking pride in what one does and never acknowledging the role others play in your success.
Members of one party can never admit to any weakness, dependence, or vulnerability. They always want to be seen as tough, independent, and successful. They only laugh at others and never at themselves. They are so afraid of being seen as vulnerable that they advocate preemptive war, first strike strategies, and stand your ground laws. They will kill before admitting weakness.
Members of the other party accept everyone. They understand that we are all in this together and none is favored by God or fate or luck, or destiny. They see racial differences as skin deep, Cultural differences as opportunities to learn, religious differences as normal and ordained. They see people as people first and all differences as merely different aspects of their worthiness. They see all people as deserving of a share in the blessings of liberty.
Members of the other party pay attention to others. They see a need for all Americans to work together for the benefit of all Americans. They see how this country was built by cooperation and collaboration, by people working together for the good of all. They seek to know people who are different from themselves to see how their presence will benefit everyone. They know that the best way to provide for the general welfare is through efficient government programs that spread the burden of helping those who need help over the entire population. They are not afraid to attend to the needs of those who are different.
Members of the other party have affection for all people. They view everyone with warm-heartedness and regard. They disapprove of much that others do but they do not take this disapproval as license to hate, hurt or deprive other Americans of security, rights, or opportunity. They do not lie about or belittle those whose behavior they disapprove.
Members of the other party appreciate individuals and groups of people different from themselves. They prize cultural, religious, and ethnic differences. They value accomplishments and successes of others. They feel a share in the good fortunes and a loss in the misfortunes of others. They do not base their own pride on some imagined superiority to others who look, act, speak, worship, or believe differently. Because of their appreciation for others they are less prideful and arrogant.
Members of the other party admit to mistakes. They acknowledge their shortcomings and seek to overcome them through effort. They take ownership of their susceptibility and assailablilty. They recognize that their weakness and defenselessness can be overcome only after it has been admitted and compensated for. They relate to others in ways that lets them know they can admit vulnerability and expect support and assistance.
So in the coming election American voters must choose between a party that wants to draw a line of demarcation and a party that wants to draw a circle of love. What do you want?
May 12, 2012 11:09am
keep the voter stupid and bribe them to vote looney left
May 12, 2012 10:45am
Charter Schools can also be very good. After moving to Florida in the 90's we found the school there to be lacking. I'm a proactive person so I became very involved in the schools, but was frustrated with all the red-tape and one-size-fits all education. As a result, when a charter school was prop0sed I investigated it. We ended up switching to this school, which turned out to be the best decision we could have made for our daughter's education. Great school which consistently received high test scores. Quality teachers were hired, small class size, individual attention to each student, everything a parent would want in their child's school.
May 12, 2012 10:25am
I resemble that comment.
May 12, 2012 10:15am
The war on education invades upon a simple premise. Uneducated people vote cancervative. Whereas educated people vote for a constitutionally equitable America. Keep 'em stupid.