1. Administrators can’t be trusted with firing, but are
perfect at hiring.
Actually, this is a make believe paradox that Mr. Ozimek has created. To all my teacher friends out there, please raise your hand if you believe your administrator's hiring practices are "impeccable". Anyone? As teachers, we have often seen people come into the profession who did not belong there. Often times, these souls either come to the realization themselves or are removed from the classroom within the tenure period. A study by the Alliance for Excellent Education found that nearly half of all new teachers leave the profession within the first five years of teaching. Not every teacher comes to this realization themselves- many are counseled out or find the stresses of the occupation to be overwhelming. Regardless, there are plenty of examples of poor hiring decisions to backfire on this claim.
However, in a roundabout way, I suppose what the author is truly trying to get at, is the use of due process in teacher removal from the classroom. In this case, he simply lacks a clear understanding of what due process represents. Tenure and due process laws do not protect a teacher from being removed, they allow for the due process rights of notification of allegations and redress of claims to prevent arbitrary use of power by administrators and boards of education.
We don't much appreciate poor hiring OR arbitrary firings. Poor hiring practices makes all teachers look bad. Arbitrary firings weaken student achievement and success.
We don't much appreciate poor hiring OR arbitrary firings. Poor hiring practices makes all teachers look bad. Arbitrary firings weaken student achievement and success.
2. Socioeconomic is the only thing that matters for
life outcomes, but standardized tests and insufficient school funding are a
serious problem.
Unfortunately, this isn't even a half-truth (or a paradox). Trust me when I say that teachers know, perhaps better than most, the benefits of a sound education in helping low-income students climb out of poverty to have a better and more productive life. In fact, for many of us, it's precisely why we ARE teachers. No teacher has ever claimed that socioeconomic background is the only determinant in a person's life achievement. Many of us, myself included, have benefited from public schooling- Pre-K through graduate studies- to rise out of impoverished beginnings to succeed in our professions. Schools DO
matter that much.
Socioeconomic standing helps explain why it is so difficult for children of poverty to achieve at a rate commensurate with affluent children. We public school teachers struggle each and every day with trying to explain to a young person the importance of an education when their biggest concerns are eating a decent meal, having a safe home environment and overcoming frequent illness. And let's be clear, low income does NOT equate to low achievement. As economist Richard Rothstein has noted, "Lower class families have lower parental literacy levels, poorer health, more racial isolation, less stable housing, more exposure to crime and other stresses, less access to quality early childhood experiences, less access to good after school programs (and less ability to afford these even if they did have access), earlier childbearing and more frequent unwed childbearing, less security that comes from stable employment, more exposure to environmental toxins (e.g., lead) that diminish cognitive ability, etc. Each of these predicts lower achievement for children, but none of these (including low income) itself causes low achievement, and lower social class families don’t necessarily have all of these characteristics, but they are likely to have many of them."
That's why we advocate for fair and adequate funding for all schools.
matter that much.
Socioeconomic standing helps explain why it is so difficult for children of poverty to achieve at a rate commensurate with affluent children. We public school teachers struggle each and every day with trying to explain to a young person the importance of an education when their biggest concerns are eating a decent meal, having a safe home environment and overcoming frequent illness. And let's be clear, low income does NOT equate to low achievement. As economist Richard Rothstein has noted, "Lower class families have lower parental literacy levels, poorer health, more racial isolation, less stable housing, more exposure to crime and other stresses, less access to quality early childhood experiences, less access to good after school programs (and less ability to afford these even if they did have access), earlier childbearing and more frequent unwed childbearing, less security that comes from stable employment, more exposure to environmental toxins (e.g., lead) that diminish cognitive ability, etc. Each of these predicts lower achievement for children, but none of these (including low income) itself causes low achievement, and lower social class families don’t necessarily have all of these characteristics, but they are likely to have many of them."
That's why we advocate for fair and adequate funding for all schools.
3. The power of corporate education reformers is a huge
undemocratic problem, but union power is not.
Corporate reformers and teacher's unions are hardly in the same league when it comes to democratic principles and spending power. If anything, unions exist as a counter-balance (albeit a diminutive one financially) to corporate power and plutocratic greed. Unlike corporate control, our union leadership is democratically elected by representatives of the membership and are held accountable on that basis. Failure to take up positions that benefit the constituency can lead to removal from office through elections and other means.
Public schools themselves do represent a democratic institution in many ways, particularly in comparison to the non-democratic and for-profit world of charter schooling. what teachers and their unions abhor, is the use of public funds being channeled into the pockets of for-profit and so-called "reformers" for personal gain.
The teacher's ability to negotiate a compensation and benefits package along with working conditions and delineation of responsibilities, hardly compares to the educational atrocities of for-profit schooling and corporate testing/data-mining.
The teacher's ability to negotiate a compensation and benefits package along with working conditions and delineation of responsibilities, hardly compares to the educational atrocities of for-profit schooling and corporate testing/data-mining.
4. The only way charters can prove they work is by
becoming exactly what they aren’t.
Choice and competition are not the answers to all modes of social and economic construct. The fallacy of choice in a competitive education market is a nice thought in the context of free-market reforms. Unfortunately, the evidence simply does not support their claims that either parents want choice or that competition is beneficial. As Mark Tucker has explained in Valerie Strauss' Answer Sheet blog, the major concern for parents when seeking schools is safety, not achievement, particularly among the lower income populations impacted or targeted by charters. Secondly, there is little to no evidence that charter schools provide any academic benefits beyond or greater than the achievements of public schools when accounting for socioeconomic factors.
5. Test scores don’t matter, but charters performance
on test scores matters a lot.
Test scores don't matter- at least not the kinds of tests that are being widely used to assess our students (and later evaluate teachers) today. Please see above and note that this does not amount to a request for using testing as a measure, it is simply using the testing regimes evidence against themselves.
6. Failing public schools need more help and time,
failing charters need to be shut down fast.
First, lets briefly address the holy grail of all big lies- the illusion that there is a failing public school structure. Plenty of economic and academic work has gone into describing the myriad of problems in using national and international testing to rank schools, countries and their effectiveness as school programs. As noted HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, AND HERE, arbitrary and malicious use of facts results in arbitrary and malicious outcomes.
When the environment is one of a (forced) competitive nature, it is easy to understand why public school proponents would be quick to jump on the closing of charter schools. After all, charter schools siphon money, space, resources and students from public schools. As Moody's noted in their 2013 report, Moody's: Charter schools pose greatest credit challenge to school districts in economically weak urban areas, "While the vast majority of traditional public districts are managing through the rise of charter schools without a negative credit impact, a small but growing number face financial stress due to the movement of students to charters".
If your raison d'etre is choice and better educational access, then failure to achieve that while also killing off public schools is reason enough.
In the end, Mr. Ozimek's shrill attempt at jumping on the reformist bandwagon was nothing more than the same old discredited junk from the same old self-interested heap.
When the environment is one of a (forced) competitive nature, it is easy to understand why public school proponents would be quick to jump on the closing of charter schools. After all, charter schools siphon money, space, resources and students from public schools. As Moody's noted in their 2013 report, Moody's: Charter schools pose greatest credit challenge to school districts in economically weak urban areas, "While the vast majority of traditional public districts are managing through the rise of charter schools without a negative credit impact, a small but growing number face financial stress due to the movement of students to charters".
If your raison d'etre is choice and better educational access, then failure to achieve that while also killing off public schools is reason enough.
In the end, Mr. Ozimek's shrill attempt at jumping on the reformist bandwagon was nothing more than the same old discredited junk from the same old self-interested heap.
