When I got certified the implicit message to me from the state was “while we can’t pay you much, if you stick it out and do a good job, we’ll protect you and take care of you.” The teacher pension system, for example, is an extremely important benefit that allowed someone like me not only to become a teacher, but to stay in the profession.
Throughout the years, it has felt increasingly that I have been duped. First, we were told that what really matters is test scores of students. Forget individual passion, creativity and expertise. If I have a special area of passion (geology, for example, in my case), I have to curb that passion because the MCAS has only a limited number of questions in each area. While I am not opposed to standardized tests, they have become so all-consuming that every decision made in my school is somehow connected to bringing up or keeping up our MCAS scores. Now the state is moving towards tying teacher evaluations (and perhaps, salaries) to this very limited measure of student success. (There is also the little-discussed fact that there are corporate profit interests in the promotion of and expansion of these tests, but that’s a discussion for another day.)
Secondly, we have been told that we need to be tested, and continually educated, to obtain and retain our certification. In theory, that sounds like a worthy idea. Continuing education is a fine idea. But the process is a farce, and one that we are being taxed to undertake. I need to pay at least $100 every five years for the privilege of staying in the profession. Is that the money required to process my re-certification? Almost certainly not – this can’t be the case as I can’t even get a human being on the phone when I have a question from the Department of Education. Surely this is an underhanded way to tax teachers. (I would argue that if the governor wants to show goodwill to teachers, a simple gesture would be to waive the teacher re-certification fee.) In the meantime, teacher evaluations are a joke; we could be getting meaningful feedback from our supervisors, but that rarely ever happens. Instead, we fulfill our continuing education credits, pay our tax, and get re-certified. As long as we have the paperwork to protect ourselves in an audit, no questions are asked about our effectiveness, etc.
Thirdly, with recent moves to weaken the power of teachers’ unions and promotion of charter schools, my ability to deal with arbitrary decisions taken by incompetent administrators is being taken away from me. Unfortunately, a dirty little secret is that there is a shortage of competent administrators. (There should be no surprise as being an administrator is a thankless job for which one earns only marginally more than being a teacher.) I have worked in too many schools where teachers were treated unfairly or unprofessionally by administrators. To paraphrase the words of the president of the School Board Association, in the right hands this new power is good, but in the wrong hands it is a disaster.
The result for me, a teacher of almost 18 years, is that it has begun to feel that the state isn’t interested in my staying in this profession. (Perhaps lower cost trumps experience?) The state is essentially asking me to (1) be less creative and concentrate my efforts on preparing kids for a single test, (2) expect less flexibility and less protection from incompetent administrators, (3) accept lower salaries, and (4) expect less from your pension because you’re probably going to abuse it anyway.
At age 40, I feel more insecure about my career than ever before. I know I am an excellent teacher – I receive almost universal praise from all my “stakeholders” (students, parents, administrators). I have won several nationally recognized awards and grants. (And, for what it’s worth, my students consistently score among the highest in the state on the MCAS.) I continue to love my job, and I continue to look forward daily to working with the young people I am honored to teach. Yet I have begun to feel that the state of Massachusetts doesn’t value what I do. I suppose that what is really going on is that as I get more and more expensive to my school district, the state sees me as a liability – easily replaced by a younger teacher. What a fool I have been to expect the state to value my service rather than the bottom line.
As a parent, it pains me to read this eloquent statement and consider what it means for the future of our public schools.
<
p>In my experience as the parent of a high school junior and a sixth grader, it has been the best teachers–the most dedicated, experienced, knowledgeable, creative and compassionate–who chafe the most under our increasingly “remote control” education policies. It’s a tragic irony that we continue to impose policies that erode teachers’ sense of professionalism and autonomy while policymakers constantly tell us the most critical factor for education is the quality of the teacher. What excellent teacher wants to work in conditions that treat them like automatons who must stick to a script and a schedule aimed at getting the highest possible scores on the big test in the spring, damn the individual circumstances, needs or (god forbid) INTERESTS and PASSIONS of the students sitting before them. What inexperienced teacher really benefits and learns and improves under such mind-numbing and demoralizing conditions?
<
p>All I can say is don’t despair, come help organize and mobilize other teachers, parents and administrators who share your concerns. Citizens for Public Schools is trying to move things in a different direction, but we need large numbers to push back against the powers that be.
We NEED more teachers like you! Teachers that care and that know what we need to do to improve education.
<
p>These are tough times. Most districts are facing a budget crisis and may need to reduce staff, It is difficult. Perhaps you need to find a district that values passion, creativity, and expertise. They do exist.
<
p>Parent and taxpayers freak out when they hear the local school is not going to meet AYP. For the most part they do not understand what goes into those figures or do not know that the process is rigged against Massachusetts public schools.
<
p>Yes, good administrators are in short supply. You get what you pay for. I know on our school budget the Finance Committee can’t believe we pay a Supt. 170K, but this is what a district has to do.
<
p>Unions are in a tough position at the moment. With 10% unemployment a lot of taxpayers don’t have any sympathy for public sector positions. I do think it is a good idea to renew certification every 5 years. Who pays for it is a proper question open for discussion.
<
p>So keep the faith Opus, better times are ahead.
The ed reform bill that just passed was nothing more than a glorified grant application. At a time when districts all over the commonwealth need help, there was precious little in that bill that will help teachers and most students. Your sacrifice is awesome and your commitment is appreciated. Good luck from a former School Committee member.
<
p>By the way, the Governor is aware of the challenges facing non achievement gap communities. It’s his move.
What’s a “non achievement gap” community?
Sorry, bad terminology on my part. The “achievement gap” is the term used to describe chronically underperforming school districts. The recent education bill attempts to close the “achievement gap” thought the implementation of charter schools. My reference to “non achievement gap” communities is a bit harsh. I am only trying to distinguish school districts that are not dealing with “achievement gap” issues from those that are.
But my understanding is that it is designed to eliminate what are referred to as “failed schools.” Failed schools are those schools who score among the lowest in the state on MCAS, have poor attendance rates, and other measures (parent ratings, drop out rate, retention rate, etc).
<
p>Doubtless, no one would argue that these schools shouldn’t be re-formed. The governor’s reform plan intends to replace them with Charter Schools. The reason he is doing this is that the Feds are offering a boatload of money to states who do this. Massachusetts is in good position to get those Federal dollars. It’s really Arnie Duncan and Barack who are driving this train.
<
p>The shame is that we already know how to fix failed schools. You can close them. You can fire the administration. You can fire the teachers and make them reapply for their jobs. You can throw out the curriculum and provide mandatory professional development for teachers and administrators. All of these things work to one degree or another. But because Charters are where the money is, that is the solution.
<
p>To paraphrase Larry Cuban the reason it’s so hard to get good schools is that people have many different definitions of what that is, and different communities have differing needs. When the Feds get involved we tend to get a single definition of a “good school.” Right now that’s a Charter School. Under Bush it was the Texas model. Didn’t matter if they were crappy at everything else, if they had good test scores they were good.
<
p>At some point people will figure out that many (but not all) Charters, like the Texas model are playing a shell game. They “counsel out” the neediest students, have high drop out rates, and can’t or won’t take ELL and Special Ed students so that they end up with good test scores.
<
p>If we just put our focus on this problem we could solve it within the public school system as it currently exists.
Basically he duped most states into blindly adopting “reforms” with the promise of money that will only go to a fraction of the applicants. If I were in the legislature I would have told him to eff off. But I guess with the budget shortfalls and all, most states don’t feel they’re in a position to turn down money, no matter how tenuous the possibility of getting it and how draconian the conditions for being eligible. Massachusetts is unlikely to see a dime of that money anyway, since were not a Swing State. California has above and beyond the strongest application for High Speed Rail money, but where is most of it going to go? Florida.
Despite what many will say, one could find studies that either show Charters outperforming regular public schools, or vise versa. Translation: Charters are now shown to provide any significant advantage over traditional public schools. So why the push? The primary reason is to undercut the power of teacher unions.
<
p>I’m not against the idea of charter schools. But the promotion of them as the future of public education is more about breaking the unions than it is about improving public education.
Why would Deval Patrick want to piss off teachers? His support across the board is weak, so if the ONLY reason for charter schools is to break up the tachers union, then how does your comment make sense?
To clarify, I did not say the ONLY reason for charter schools is to break up the unions. I said it was the primary reason above improving public education. The public, by and large, sees the unions as the reason school reform isn’t happening. For Patrick, supporting the expansion of charters is a win-win. First, he gets his hands on more $$$. Second, he pleases the majority of his constituents who think unions are the problem and charters are the solution.
<
p>Democrats always assume the unions will come home to them during a general election. They may be right. The MTA will likely endorse Patrick, regardless of his position on charters.
<
p>Again, I’m not against the concept of charters as laboratories for new ideas, but it is unavoidably clear that what makes them politically popular is the fact that charter school staff isn’t unionized. More charters equals fewer teachers in unions. Education “reformers” love that possibility.
It doesn’t seem to do much good to point out to the MSM and the parts of the public that buy into the frenzy of union/teacher bashing that the more unionized states (like Massachusetts) generally have much higher achievement than non-unionized or weak union states, like many in the south.
<
p>In fact, education policy seems so completely politically driven these days it doesn’t seem to do much good to point out any of the evidence and research that argues against all the stuff that was put into this latest “ed reform” bill (ditto for Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind).
<
p>Others have cited the research indicating most charters perform similarly to or worse than traditional public schools.
<
p>Vermont superintendent and researcher William Mathis recently went item by item through the proposals required by Race to the Top and found no research basis for them. He quotes several researchers, including Diane Ravitch and Robert Slavin, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Research and Reform in Education, who said, “The race to the Top is missing a critical component –encouraging states and schools to adopt strategies that have been proven effective through rigorous research.”
<
p>On pay for performance, for example, he quotes Helen Ladd of Duke University: “One theory of action seems to be that holding teachers more accountable for the gain in their students’ test scores will induce them to become better teachers. At this point, I am not aware of any credible evidence in support of that proposition.” There is however, plenty of evidence that pay for performance harms education and other fields, see the Economics Policy Institute’s Richard Rothstein, for example.
<
p>Under the circumstances, the frustration expressed by Opus, a SCIENCE TEACHER trained to look at the evidence, is very understandable.
…is the lack of repeatable, practical innovations coming out of them. The whole point of charters is, as you say, to serve as laboratories. However, I have yet to hear of a charter innovation in any of my education courses from public or private sources. If they’re out there, I’d love to hear it.
Your point is well taken, and this is one of the things I find so frustrating. Under Romney, I expected us to get bashed. I had high hopes for a different attitude under Patrick.
<
p>We knew he was a supporter of charter schools, but I thought he was also a friend of labor. I expected that he would make overtures to teachers and our unions. Now I need to rethink this.
<
p>I volunteered some of my time to help him get elected. I’m not sure I’ll do so again.
<
p>Here’s an idea for Patrick – why not encourage teachers at charter schools to join one of the teachers’ unions? I’m sure the argument against this will be “it will undermine the mission of the school to change, innovate, etc.” This argument fails as each local union (i.e., the staff at a school) would negotiate their own contract. For example, if they all agreed to a longer school day, they can put it in there. (I’m active in my local union and still active in many innovative projects. My union encourages such participation.)
<
p>This to me would seem like a win-win solution – get the charter schools you want but don’t undermine the important accomplishments of teachers’ unions in the process.
<
p>But I wonder if the governor is interested in what I have to say or is he taking my vote for granted?
Actually, I think there are two motivations behind the push for charter schools:
<
p>One is the perennial right-wing urge to get rid of unions. The idea of the dignity of labor is one that has to be fought out in every generation.
<
p>The other is the perennial right-wing urge to dismantle public education. I think we’ve seen enough of charter schools by now to know that they really are the entering wedge of a policy that would create an explicitly two-tiered education system: a small set of schools at the top, with students who don’t fit in them encouraged to leave, and a poorly funded system for everyone else.
<
p>For several generations now public education has been systematically underfunded. Blaming the inevitable results of this underfunding on teachers unions and pushing charter schools as “laboratories of innovation” is just a way of institutionalizing an educational system that will not serve most students. What it will do is exacerbate the social and economic inequality in this country that has increased so dramatically over the last few decades.
<
p> –Carl Offner
If lunchtime conversations are any indicator of support, he’s not very popular these days among my teacher colleagues.
Opus, as to some of your specific concerns, I’m sure everyone would like a career path in which you make one choice (I’m a teacher, I’m an auto worker, I’m a lawyer) and your path is set, and nothing can change for the worse. I don’t know of any such jobs. You might have felt that that was “the deal”, but nobody, in any job, really has that deal anymore.
<
p>I agree that salaries for new teachers are very low and the risk of younger teachers being laid off is high. The system is built to reward longevity.
<
p>The pension is good, and as far as I know, has not been taken away from, or even reduced, for public school teachers. I don’t know of any proposed bill that would do that. By my calculation, a defined benefit pension under current rules can easily have a net present value at retirement of over $800,000 in savings, depending upon how early you retire. Not too bad, really.
<
p>How many public school teachers have suffered a salary reduction while staying in the same job? It sounds very unusual to me. I have not heard of it.
<
p>You have to pay $20 per year for certification. This is a problem?
<
p>In my town, we have relatively high MCAS scores. The MCAS has not prevented teachers from creating new courses that integrate art, music and history for our students. I think parents want both fundamentals and creativity.
<
p>I agree that MCAS does not measure everything, but very low scores indicate that something is awry, somewhere. I don’t really know if the Governor’s bill, as motivated by federal money, is the answer for these schools, but I doubt that the continuation of the status quo is the answer for these schools, either.
<
p>Its interesting to see what is, and what is not discussed in this thread. Why do some parents choose charters? Maybe some politicians are only interested in union busting, but are the parents? What drives this movement from outside the system? I think this question needs to be addressed.
I’ll counter:
<
p>You are right that many career paths are more insecure than they once might have been. I could complain about that fact overall, but I’m commenting only on teaching. Just because other professions face more insecurity doesn’t make it right.
<
p>The system was designed to reward longevity, but that is changing. There is more pressure, through charter schools, for example, to encourage schools to keep the age of their teachers young and edge out more expensive teachers. With talk of pension reform, giving more control to administrators (with, I might add, no additional scrutiny of those administrators), the handwriting is on the wall – the system will get worse.
<
p>Many districts have accepted pay cuts or no raise in the past few years. Way more common than you’d like to think.
<
p>I don’t have a problem with paying for certification if that’s really the cost of the certification. It irks me that the administrative costs of my recertification are pennies, while I must fork over $100. Sounds like a tax to me. Not a large fee, I admit, but a tax nonetheless. Why not be transparent about it?
<
p>No one is arguing that the status quo is acceptable. But we get what we pay for – cheap fixes will result in no change for the better. Where is the discussion about meaningful teacher training and evaluation? It’s not there because meaningful teacher evaluations are expensive.
<
p>As to what drives this from “outside the system”, you need to be honest here. Most people are not making very informed decisions on any issue, let alone education reform. The people controlling the message on ed reform are those who would like to see an end to public schools or at least an end to teachers unions. We’re an easy target.