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.

So, What should we expect from a school administrator?

I thought I'd follow up on two of my previous entries, and start posing some questions that should be considered when evaluating a school administrator.  I'd be glad to hear anyone else's thoughts.

These are in no particular order.

1.  Does the administrator do a good job hiring quality staff?

2.  Does she/he hire staff which reflects the diversity of the student community?

3.  Does she/he do a good job retaining the proven/quality teachers already on staff?

4.  Does she/he facilitate a school-wide effort on developing a positive school climate in which all students feel safe and welcome?

5.  Does she/he facilitate a school-wide effort to create a schoolwide climate where all students can excel to their best level?

6. Is staff development meaningful?

7.  Are staff meetings well-used (as opposed to being wastes of time)?

8.  Are meetings with parent groups well-thought-out to encourage parent participation?

9.  Does staff feel like they are connected to school wide efforts?

10.  Do teacher concerns get adequately heard and dealt with?

11.  Do parent concerns get adequately heard and dealt with?

12.  Do teachers get adequate support for their initiatives?

I know I'm missing some really important questions, but this is a start.

A Way Through the State Budget Crisis

Dear Progressive State Legislators,

 

So I understand that you folks in the State Capitol aren’t having any fun.  Budget stalemate, $20 Billion deficit, Republicans swearing not to raise taxes ever.  State programs already cut to the bone.  You need 60% of the votes to pass a budget, and you’re looking for a way out right about now.

 

Well, how about playing hardball.  If the Republicans won’t allow you to approve some new revenue sources (there are lots to choose from) then pass legislation changing the way that school districts are funded, stressing equity between districts.  You should be doing this anyway.

 

The way school districts are funded, you’ve got more money going to richer communities that have FEWER needs.  Meanwhile, more urban, diverse, working-class school districts are left trying to figure out how to do more with less revenue.    The difference is compounded when you consider a wealthier community’s ability to raise more money locally.  Wealthier communities are more able to pass local parcel taxes and bonds, and usually have very substantial community foundations that also support their schools.

 

Here are some Bay Area examples from 2006-2007.  Pleasanton, a suburban district with only four percent of their students on reduced lunch and only five percent of their students classified as language learners, received $6,199 per student in base revenue limit from the State.  San Leandro, also in Alameda County and adjacent to Oakland, has 50% of its students in the reduced-lunch program and 26% in a language learner program, yet only receives $5,517 per student.  The difference between how the state funds the two districts is $682 per student.  Add in other sources of revenue, and the Pleasanton USD is able to spend $800 more per student than San Leandro USD.

 

Not surprisingly, Pleasanton teachers make a lot more than San Leandro teachers, anywhere between 12 and 17 thousand dollars per year per teacher.  If you’re an experienced teacher with proven classroom success and you’re district-shopping for a new job, where do you apply?

 

So, dear state legislators, here’s your mission.  If the Republicans aren’t willing to approve some new revenue, then change the way the money gets spent.  Fix the disrict-by-district inequity. 

 

Here’s the new piece of legislation you should champion.  Rank districts by state revenue received through the last 10 years.  Flip the rankings.  Give more money to the districts that have received less. Then, give bonuses for the number of language learners, the number of resource students, and the number of students who qualify for reduced lunches. Of couse, you should allow for regional variation (obviously it’s more expensive to operate in the Bay Area than in Fresno).  In other words, give more resources to the schools with most need.  Dare anyone to tell you why this shouldn’t be the way that it works anyway.

 

At the very least, float this idea.  Use it as a bargaining chip.  Imagine the reaction in those rich Republican enclaves when they find out that their school districts are going to be sacrificed if their legislators don’t approve some new revenue sources.  

It's the "Principal" of the thing!

A few years ago, when a friend told me that he was going to get his school administration credential, I remember saying that was great, we need good people becoming prinicipals.  But I also told him he was out of his mind, that I would never wish the job on any friend.

 

Being a principal is an impossible job.  You get all the responsibilities of running the school, including student achievement, school climate, employee relations and community spokesperson, but very limited power.  Long hours, low budget, and everyone expects you to live up to their very specific expectations.

 

So, what qualities make a good principal?  How can we measure success?  In my head, the answer is we need some combination of circus skills in your basic principal – some combination of juggler, high wire act and ringmaster.  However, it’s best to avoid the people who see themselves as lion-tamers and dart-throwers.  Those are the types that can run a staff ragged.

 

I believe that a principal can do more harm in a school than good.  A bad principal can easily marginalize parent groups, divide a staff or shove students into a box.  Then run.  And leave Pandora’s box open for the next unlucky person to come on in and take the job.  But a good principal’s best gift to a school community is to simply encourage the good things that other people are doing.

 

With all that said, I think it’s the duty of people in a school community to expect and demand good principals.  I actually believe that experienced staff members need to take it on themselves to train principals how do their jobs, which is awkward, because the principal is the “supervisor” in the relationship. 

 

Awkward, but necessary.  The teachers, office workers, counselors, aides and custodial staff are the folks who have been in the school community the longest, and also the people who will last the longest.  Teachers carry school culture and remember school history.  Staff members develop working relationships with each other that last long past the principal’s tenure in a school. 

 

A good principal should inspire the people around her or him to add their talents to a mosaic – which becomes a shared vision for how the school should be serving the community.  That’s the basic job description for a quality principal.  The more you impost, the more the staff, parents and students resist. The principal who recognizes this basic truth about the way a school functions is the one who fits the school the best.

Evaluate Your School Administrator

Just before the end of the school year in a survey monitored by the San Leandro Teachers' Association, ninety percent of the teachers who participated voted "no-confidence" in the Superintendent.  The results didn't come as a surprise to many people, including some of the board members.  Our Superintendent has been in her position for five years, and has never been a staff favorite. But this is the first time we've actually quantified how 'un-favorite' she is.  

I generally think that school administration is an impossible job, with pressure from too many interest groups.  Every good administrator has to piss off someone with almost every decision, whether you're answering to state mandates, parent relationships, board relationships or Union relationships.  But when ninety percent of your staff won't follow your leadership, it's time to look at what you're doing that isn't working.

What's the lesson from this?  I think it's time for school districts to institute staff evaluation of their administrators as a normal part of the cycle of the school year.  Superintendents, principals and program directors could all benefit from a bottom-up evaluation.  In the education community, administrators often play musical chairs, moving from position to position frequently, and often burning their bridges as they go.  The teachers are often far more experienced than the administrators, usually much more firmly established in the school community, and an evaluation can lead to a better vision of where the school community has been and where it ought to be going.

Think about how teachers' insights could improve an administrators' performance in these areas:  the quality of internal staff communication,  staff (stakeholder) involvement in school-wide decisions, leadership development (remember that teachers usually last much longer than principals and superintendents), school climate and discipline, even new teacher orientation and support.

What's the catch?  Administrators might not go for it.  Why would they ever want to give their employees that much power?  Because it makes for better schools.  I wouldn't stop there, either.  I would also ask for leaders of the parent community to conduct an administrator evaluation.  These are the voices (teachers, faculty, parents) we say are important, yet they are excluded from the process of determining who runs our schools, and how our schools are run.

What happens when an administrator refuses to be evaluated?  Conduct the evaluation anyway!  Union leadership at a school should conduct surveys and share the results with the administrator (or the school board if the administration won't listen).  What message would be sent if the administrator didn't want to participate in such an exercise.  Think of the benefit to the school community of organized groups of people regularly meeting to talk about whether a school or a district is being well administered.

Here are the questions I have, which I invite your comments on.  What performance areas should a school administrator be evaluated on?  Which people should be involved in the evaluation?  What should be the process of dealing with the evaluation?

Every administrator gives lip service to involving parents and staff in school and district decisions.  An annual evaluation of administrators by teachers and parents would give a school community another important opportunity to talk.

The Blog is Back!

Shockingly, I have readers!  A few people have actually asked me when I’m putting something fresh on my blog.  Now that our contract is ratified, and the 7^th grade research papers have been read, I have no other excuses.

While I’ve been busily diverted, I’ve been thinking about how I want this blog to function.  I’m actually hoping that it serves as a forum with multiple participants on public education issues.  In other words, I’ll float a topic idea, then give folks a few days to think and comment, sharing experiences and opinions with each other. Also, feel free to propose topics for future blogs.

I’m developing a series of future topics.  Please e-mail me (mistermorse109@yahoo.com) if you have a knee-jerk reaction for any of these ideas.  One of the ideas I’m working on is what should a Teachers’ Union be working on after the contract has been ratified for the year.  For another piece, I’m worried about the impact that the Federal Government’s ICE immigration raids in our schools will have on whether children attend class.  

I’m also thinking about the role that schools should play as the center of a community as keepers of culture, which might become a critique on cultural relativism.  In other words, I’ve heard arguments recently that we ought to just look the other way when black kids use the “n-word” while talking to their friends on campus.  Funny how none of the black teachers agreed with that viewpoint.

 

Meanwhile, I’d like to divert your attention to three links.

Raleigh McLemore sent me a connect to the Educator’s Roundtable comment on “closing the achievement gap:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVmPKvhsNVk

 

Tammy Johnson sent me Chela DelGado’s comments about testing:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90167642

 

Gina sent me a piece from www.racewire.org about the ICE folks using a school’s database to get information which would help them in immigration raids.

Pick up that Picket Sign!

The picket signs have been going up all over our district again.  Well, some of them.  We had a few loud and raucous events, but now that the fight is rolling into Act II, the angry expressions of fury have dissipated a little.  I think we had 12 of our 50 teachers at the last before-school informational picket.

People often think that Unions are old-fashioned and irrelevant.  I get asked almost as many questions about car insurance as I do about the contract.  And damn, they sure take a lot of dues!  When people discover how much they need a Union, it's often too late.  One of the problems with teachers' Unions is that every member is college-educated.  That means that almost every member grew up in a family that had the capacity (i.e. - upper middle class) to send them to college.  And they didn't grow up in a Union household.

I guess that makes me one of the lucky kids.  I grew up in a Union household, in a Union town; and I still managed to go to college.  Even though the Unions were being blamed for all of the economic woes of the entire midwest, I got to hear what my Dad was thinking about.  If you work hard at the factory, then you deserve the basics:  a house, a retirement, a vacation and health care.  And if you save up your money, you should be able to send your kids off to college.

While I'm writing, I better give equal time to my mother, who was not in a Union, but worked hard and also made sure I was going to get all of those things.  Her ethos was a little bit more conservative.  She believed that if a company treats you right, you don't need a Union.  And when Dad was layed off or on strike, it was Mom's paycheck that kept us in chicken noodle soup.

But here's my truth.  Without the U.A.W., I don't go to college.  Well, maybe community college, but no way can my parents pay for the University of Michigan.  Without the Union, I don't get to see the rest of the country with my family (family vacation = camping trip through some little corner of North America.)  And mostly, without the Union, my Dad's cancer bankrupts my Mom.  Its hard enough watching a spouse die.  But getting the bills ...

All these basics were brought to us by a Union.  They're all being slowly eroded because the Union movement is losing its momentum.  We've already lost our grip on health care.  And those of us who have it find out that it doesn't cover half of what we might get.  Now people are losing their ability to keep their homes.  

Look, I know life is expensive.  But in the end, my Dad was right.  You work your whole life for a school community, there are some things you ought to get from the deal.  A house.  a retirement.  A vacation.  See the Doctor when you're sick.  And send your kids to college.

Pick up that picket sign so we don't lose the basics.