Charter Blues

A writer on “San Leandro Progressives,” a Yahoo group that I hear from, has posed the question of whether San Leandro should develop another charter school. Here we go again. What masquerades as educational reform in the guise of a charter school really rips away at the fabric of public education.

In California, charter schools can only really exist at the expense of “mainstream” public schools. Every time a kid goes to a charter school, the neighborhood school loses money. The inherent difficulty is that every student does not cost the same to educate. But California’s emphasis on ADA doesn’t adequately fund the “more expensive” students (students in resource and ELL programs.) Also, neighborhood schools don’t often have the flexibility to easily shift students, teachers and classrooms. Unexpected shifts in attendance rip little holes into the district budget.

Charter schools get to pick and choose which students fit their charter. In other words, they can leave any kid behind. And they don’t usually accept the kids that cost more. Students with learning disabilities and physical disabilities, and students who are ELL (English Language Learners,) cost more because they require more staff support. (“We’d love to take Junie, but we just don’t have the facilities to accommodate her.”) Charter schools don’t have to take these kids. “Mainstream” schools do. The result is that the “mainstream” school is left with a higher percentage of students who cost more to educate, but are not compensated fully for the additional expense.

Charter schools often have required parental-participation responsibilities in order for their kids to attend. Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of encouraging parent participation. But what about the families who are simply unable to fulfill these obligations? Parents in single-parent, double-job families, or families where someone requires long-term care often don’t have the option of meeting a charter school’s participation requirements. So, their kids won’t have the same school opportunities, and they end up being stuck in the school where there are no such requirements.

Finally, charter schools lean hard on their teachers and parents. Without Union approved contracts, teachers are often asked (expected) to work 50 - 60 hours a week, must often be available for evening phone calls or extra tutoring sessions (without compensation), and survive without a whole lot of administrative support. Sure, fresh-out-of-teacher-school, school-reformer-type teachers are often anxious to take on the challenge. They just don’t last very long.

For a school to have long-term success, there really needs to be a good balance of new teachers and veteran teachers. If teaching is a career, you have to find some out-of-school balance in your life. It’s hard to find that balance when you’re working 50-60 hours a week. Call me lazy, but I actually believe that I can do my best teaching if I have a life outside of the classroom.

And finally, there is the problem of administration. Somebody has to watch where the money comes from and where it’s got to go. Each school is a little different, so there’s not really a how-to manual. The same person has to be the boss (no favorites, please), politick the parents and keep everyone smiling. In a charter school, that’s usually one person. And that person is probably looking for another gig. When that person exits stage right, the new challenge is finding a worthy replacement, and maintaining a sense of school identity and organizational memory.

In the end, I can’t help but seeing charter schools as a means for the slow disintegration of the neighborhood public schools. I lump them together with No-Child-Left-Behind, vouchers, and the crisis of pathetic funding as direct attacks on our kids. But despite all of the attacks on our schools, I still believe that the public school is perhaps (or should be) the last great institution – the only place in a multi-racial, multi-cultural community where we can all come together with a common cause and support each other.

Teachers on Steroids!

I'm a little jealous of Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds.  Cameras follow these guys wherever they go.  Government agencies want to hear from them.  Congress holds hearings.  But teachers can't even get local school boards to listen.

I keep wondering what it's going to take.  This week, 250 teachers (more than half) in my school district showed up at a board meeting - asking for a little attention.  It seems as though they were all fed up about the same things... low pay, low morale, low respect.  The crowd cheered support for speaker after speaker.

Official Board Response... A couple of smirks. 

Clemens has been the recipient of moral outrage and righteous indignation.  Congresspeople were tripping over each other trying to ask the next question.  The media is having a field day.   Don't get me wrong here, but Clemens is just a baseball player.  It's not like the future of our children is depending on anything that might have happened in those hearings.  Why aren't people all up in arms about the state of education?

Desperate times deserve desperate measures.  So, it's time for me to make some startling revelations about what goes on in our schools.

Teachers are using performance-enhancing drugs.  That's right, after numerous interviews from multiple sources, it's time to leak this story -- Teachers are on steroids.

A veteran teacher, who only spoke on the condition of anonymity, said, "The pressure is too high.  We face impossible test score expectations.  They're threatening to shut our school down."

Said another, "Those No-Child-Left-Behind expectations - every student above average - this isn't Lake Wobegon!"  

Yet another teacher who was interviewed for my story talked about the pressure of paying bills.  "I have to work two jobs just to pay the mortgage and health care.  I turned to steroids because I have no time to sleep."

These revelations bring every AYP and API ranking in the entire country under scrutiny.  It's unclear who is supplying our schools with steroids, though one teacher speculated that educational consultants who wander from school district to school district with their power-point staff-training presentations might be the source.  It's unclear the role that superintendents are playing in this, but it seems as though they have been knowingly looking the other way, hoping that those test scores would get the boost.

To do the important research for this story, I had to guarantee my sources that I would never release their names.  Subpoena me if you feel you must, but I will remain true to my word.  

Anyway, Bring on the cameras.  Schedule the hearings.  Call up the talk radio people.

Maybe our school board will pay attention to us now.

Why is the San Leandro School District Attacking Its Teachers?

(An open letter to the San Leandro School Board of Trustees)

As a 10 year teaching veteran of the San Leandro Schools, I am horrified by the district's recent attacks on its teachers and on our Union.

The biggest insult is the continuing saga of our pay scale.  The district has been dragging its heels at the bargaining table, despite knowing that teachers in San Leandro are among the lowest-compensated teachers in Alameda County.  The district has made no effort to improve the status of our pay-scale.  While neighboring district (Castro Valley most recently) have passed on  COLA increases to their workers, our District has refused to make a commitment to its teachers.

Several other districts in the County have lower revenue, but still manage to pay their teachers more than San Leandro.  As a Board, please examine how those districts succeed, and then instruct our Superintendent to make it happen.

Unfortunately, the disrespect shown to teachers by the District does not stop at the salary scale.  These recent events show the District's motives:

* Reduction of permitted release time for SLTA officers, and reneging on the agreement of how the release time should be compensated.  The district recently informed SLTA that it would significantly reduce the President's release time, and eliminate the release time for the Vice President altogether.  This is clearly a Union-busting maneuver.  The district has nothing to gain by this decision other than silencing the voices of teachers.  As a Board, did yoiu approve of this anti-teacher tactic?

* The Budget-Cut process, in which teachers (at staff meetings) were forced to state which vital student programs we could live without.  (District Office administrators' positions, perks, expense accounts and salaries were not listed in the menu of potential cuts.)  The Union's bargaining team represents teachers.  Talk with us at the table.  (That's the law.)

* Discouraging Union Input.  The SLTA President was given notice of his "invitation" to address the Board about budget cuts on the afternoon of the meeting that was scheduled later that night.  It's clear that his voice really wasn't wanted at your meeting.

While a cynical person might be able to dismiss some of the bargaining and budget-cut shenanigans as "business-as-usual" for a District that has never shown an interest in fairly compensating its teachers, the next insult from the district is unfathomable.

* Denial of Bereavement Leave.  A teacher whose spouse died was denied bereavement leave.  After the leave was denied, the grievance was rejected.  And now the district is going to fight this case all the way to arbitration.  Is the District really going to spend the $40,000 it takes to send a case to arbitration just to avoid spending a few hundred dollars?  Do you, as a member of the School Board, really approve the District's effort to deny leave for a grieving spouse no matter what the cost?  This is a dedicated, well-loved teacher in our District!

In the past, I had heard it said that even though teachers in San Leandro have always been under-compensated, that this was a good district to teach in because people are treated with respect.  Clearly, the spirit of respect has changed.  As Board Members, ultimately, the way the district treats its employees is your responsibility.  The Superintendents answer to you.

Sincerely,

Thomas B. Morse