GILROY, Calif. -- One of the hot button issues on this November's ballot in California is education reform. Each major party candidate talks of "fixing education." I have my concerns for what this term means. What does it mean to fix education? To some it means firing all the "bad" teachers, replacing them with "good" teachers so children can receive a "good" education. While each side uses vague terms to make this promise, there is one solution that seems to be loosely ascribed to the problem of getting rid of all these "bad teachers" -- charter schools.
According to the Center for Education Reform, "There are more than 5,000 charter schools serving more than 1.5 million children across the country." In California, there are about six million students in approximately 9,900 schools. Among these schools there are about 740 charter schools that serve over 285,000 students, according to ed-date. That means that about 1 in 5 students attend a charter school in California. Some think the assumed success of charter schools make this model the answer for bettering our schools, which of course starts by firing all the bad teachers. Few really understand the facts.
Many misunderstand that a charter school is not a private school. It is a school that is run, often by a for-profit business, using public funds. It is a public school. A charter school must abide by California laws just as all public schools do. Most of the teachers in a charter school are paid less than teachers in public schools -- often without benefits -- and are required to work longer hours. These teachers are often new teachers in their first five years of their profession -- young, energetic, inexperienced, and at entry level of pay.
Frederick Hess, education policy director at the American Enterprise Institute and a fan of charter schools, explains that "many charter sponsors rely on dedicated staff and a 'missionary zeal' to succeed. The most successful charter ventures to date have been boutique-style operations that are extraordinarily reliant on talent and passion, philanthropic funding, and exhausting work schedules, " as reported by the Center for Public Education.
It is this dedication and hard work of the teachers, coupled with the high level of parental involvement for fundraising and class participation that lends to the assumed success. If a teacher in a charter school does not meet with this level of dedication, they can easily be fired. That is why many believe charter schools are the answer. They believe it is the best way to get rid of all of those horrible teachers in traditional public education.
What it really means is that many, many excellent, experienced, hard working, dedicated teachers who are under union protection would be at risk of losing their jobs because the majority of charter schools do not cooperate with the teachers union. These teachers cost more money and in a year of budget cuts, it would be a way to get rid of the highest paid teachers--horrible or not.
Wouldn't it be better to take what is working in charter schools (parent zeal and extra funding) and apply that across the board to all public schools? Rather than going around the back door to try and destroy the little advantage a teacher has with union protection?
My husband is a hard-working dedicated teacher who works with a school filled with many teachers just as dedicated, yet the school scores are some of the lowest in the state. He has lost a week's worth of pay this year due to budget cuts. He has larger classrooms. He pays for most expenses out of pocket. He volunteers after school. He works long hours after he gets home to grade projects, design lesson plans, and complete paperwork.
Because the school scores are poor, many would immediately blame the staff without taking other factors into consideration. Factors such as lack of books, lack of parental support, lack of student respect, lack of funds, lack of language skills, lack of on-grade-level students at time of enrollment, the list is exhaustive. Yet many think it is simply a matter of firing all the "bad teachers". To have the power to do that, many think we need to have all schools become charter schools.
If all schools become public charter schools, wouldn't we just have the same thing we have now with the exception that teachers will make less than they do now? Do we really think that paying a teacher less will attract excellent, experienced, teachers? Do we really think that taking away teacher benefits will encourage teachers to work longer hours and have "missionary zeal" for 30 years? Do we really think charter schools will fix public education? Or is it a way for the government to save money by removing protections for teachers? Some things to think about in November.
Source:
http://www.edreform.com/Issues/Charter_Connection/?All_About_Charter_Schools
There are no comments yet