"Aren't their teachers employed at will rather than part of a teacher's union which can allow these schools to demand more from teachers and as a side effect of this provide more from their students?"


You obviously aren't a teacher.  The teacher's union protects and assures rights to those of us willing to do a dangerous job for low pay, such as working in low-income neighborhoods where people are literally being shot right outside the schoolyard.  Otherwise an administrator who knows NOTHING about music could fire a music teacher because they didn't like him.  Same with an art or phys. ed. or library teacher.  Any teacher of a subject without a specific and exact curriculum would be vulnerable to job termination at the whim of administrators that are often ignorant of the subject being taught. (How many principals can play the clarinet or make a sculpture or run in a marathon or memorize the Dewey decimal system?)  We need teacher's unions to protect our jobs.  And if they want better job performance, maybe they should get out of our way and let us do our jobs.  And stop blaming us if a child isn't taught to behave at home; I am not my students' mother.  (A raise wouldn't hurt either.)

I'm not a teacher but if what you are saying is true then how come a teacher that is hired from a charter school in the same low income area does not need a union for protection?  How does the teacher's union protect you from getting shot while in what you described as a "dangerous" neighborhood?

By the way, I am all for higher pay for good teachers.  I think it is a no brainer.  Teaching our children is one of the most important jobs a person can have.  I do not believe bad teachers should be able to hide behind tenure or remain hired based upon contractual agreements when their performance is not up to par.

"how come a teacher that is hired from a charter school in the same low income area does not need a union for protection?"

A charter school teacher should have a union for protection.  I never once implied that they shouldn't.  And there are abuses of power by administrators all the time, which I'm sure happens in charter schools, too.  Those teachers should have a union to protect them from harrassment or from being fired without just cause, etc.


"How does the teacher's union protect you from getting shot while in what you described as a "dangerous" neighborhood?"

It doesn't.  Hopefully the school police and lockdown drills will protect the staff and students in these instances.  Besides, I never said the neighborhood was dangerous, I said the JOB was dangerous.  And when teachers are being attacked by students in the hallways, sometimes they get seriously injured (for instance one teacher had his neck broken, one had his nose smashed in, one had her arm shoved through a glass pane in the door, etc.)  And the teachers union helps make sure that the injured staff member is compensated and has their medical bills paid.  The union is your first line of defense against abuses of power by administrators and by insurance companies.

"I do not believe bad teachers should be able to hide behind tenure or remain hired based upon contractual agreements when their performance is not up to par."

Neither do I.  I am appalled at the way some of my co-workerd act.  Hoewver, there are ways to fire incompetant teachers.  They can be written up, and if it happens often enough, fired.  Tenure doesn't protect  teachers who break contract in any way.  So who gets to decide if a teacher is "up to par?"  How do we factor in elements such as overcrowding in classrooms, the number of ESL or special needs students, etc.?  It would most likely fall to an administrator to decide that, which brings me back to my original point.  Without unions and tenure, people could be fired because their principal simply doesn't like them, and we can't let that happen.

"does anyone really think public schools do not try to create systems that will affect the overall rating of a school or allow the school to receive more funding?"

Sweetie, when your school has textbooks from the 1980's and 35 kids in a class, when the windows can't shut so the kids all have to wear parkas, when there aren't enough chairs or desks for every student, don't you think we could use more money?  Is it so wrong to try to lobby to get our students the supplies they need, or hire enough teachers to give the kids the personal attention they need?  When you say "create systems" you must mean "teaching to the test" because test scores are what help your schools "overall rating."


"What about systematically classifying students that could easily be mainstreamed in order to get higher funding and change the performance scale entirely?"

I'm not so sure they can or should be mainstreamed.  When kids grow up in a violent household or an alcohol- or drug-using family, or when their parents don't want them or take care of them (eg. calling their child an a-hole in the main office of the school) they are often traumatized.  And many are so exhausted from cleaning the house and taking care of younger siblings that they don't have the time or energy to do their homework.  Also, with all of the uneducated young mothers who use drugs and don't get adequate prenatal care, there is often a high population of special needs students.  They can't function well in the regular classroom (with 35 kids, not enough desks or books); they need to be in special education.  Sometimes permanently, sometimes just till they catch up.  But from what I've experienced, in poor areas where medical care isn't readily available, there are more kids going un-diagnosed and ignored than there are kids being diagnosed unnecessarily.

I don't have scientific data to back that up, just anecdotal evidence.  Does anyone know of a study done on the subject?

Meredith, sorry, I almost missed this.  I think we are all coming here with different stories based on our experiences.  Perhaps the experiences and realities are as different as the communities creating them and so are the solutions.

I don't think it is wrong for schools to try to get as much funds as needed for their students, not at all.  I was making that comment only in relation to the blog's content. I do think there are better ways to get funding than to try to play the system though.  When I say "create systems" I mean any process created that undermines the ability for all children to receive quality education at the sake of the school wanting funding just to continue.

When we talk about mainstreaming there are varying degrees.  You are talking about an entirely different student population.

I can tell you that the organization I volunteer for is working on coming up with a solution to our state's "Abbott Districts" where students, even after receiving billions in parity aid since 1981, are still failing to meet NJ state requirements.  Money has been thrown at this issue right and left and yet students in the state's poorest districts can't compete.  After doing a lot of research I can tell you that money alone will fix nothing.  The one school district that is beginning to meet the state's requirements has a fairly new principal who focuses on including the community, motivating the children, implementing service learning, and recruiting and keeping teachers that care about all their students and expect the same from them.

I don't believe the outrage should be focused on charter schools or the debate should be charter school vs. public school.  I think we should be working, remodeling, and advocating change for any school that doesn't provide a great place for education regardless and any system that does the same.