By Tracey
As I’m sure you’ve heard, Wisconsin Governor Walker succeeded in his aim to remove collective bargaining rights to teachers and other public employees. And, following right behind, Providence, Rhode Island issued pink slips to all of their 1,926 teachers. Sure, most will likely get hired back. But what this move effectively does is remove collective bargaining for these teachers. If you watch the heart-wrenching video of the board meeting, the teachers were begging to be laid-off rather than terminated. A termination for everyone means that the district can hire whomever they want back, regardless of seniority. It’s difficult to sit back and watch these two demoralizing attacks on teachers and teachers’ unions.
In both of these stories, the governor of Wisconsin and the mayor of Providence claimed these were necessary moves because of severe budget shortfalls. While it’s true they’re experiencing a budget crisis; it’s false to presume these actions will aid in alleviating the budget. We know that Walker offered tax cuts to businesses and is further diminishing state revenue by eradicating collective bargaining for public employees.
Unfortunately, people seem to be buying the argument and agree that everyone “needs to sacrifice.” I wonder if these drastic moves are being blamed on budget issues because if Gov. Walker and Mayor Angeles Taveras came right out and said, “We want to dismantle labor unions and end collective bargaining for working Americans,” they know they wouldn’t get elected. A recent poll shows that Americans are still in support of collective bargaining. This brings me some hope. However, there’s no question teachers’ unions are under attack. And the fervor behind this comes from the mistaken notion that teachers’ unions are all about protecting bad teachers.
We know this isn’t true thanks to Tom’s post, where he featured data showing that about two percent of public school teachers get fired each year. Unions provide teachers, whether good or bad, with due process. They don’t protect a bad teacher from being terminated. If that’s not happening in your school, look around and you’ll also find an ineffective principal.
One thing we all seem to agree on is how important quality instruction is to a child’s education. I hear this idea repeated from everyone discussing education policy: teachers, administrators, parents, teachers’ unions, politicians, Davis Guggenheim. It’s a common-ground issue. So, why did congress lower the standard for defining what it means to be a highly qualified teacher to include “teachers in training?" Valerie Strauss, education blogger for the Washington Post, calls it “a gift for Teach for America” since their teachers enter the classroom with only five weeks of training under their belt.
Teach for America, as I’m sure you know, is made up of young college graduates from elite institutions who commit to teach in high poverty schools for two years. It’s a sort of “Peace Corps” experience before moving onto graduate school and other careers and leadership positions, such as, say… for example, superintendent of DC Public Schools. (Michelle Rhee got her three years of teaching experience by becoming a TFA teacher.)
There’s no labor union for teachers of Teach for America, unless you’re including NEA, AFT, and local affiliates. These teachers aren’t negotiating for lower class sizes and health care benefits. But they are moving into areas where there aren’t teacher shortages. And, yes, in some cases, they are taking the vacated classrooms of laid-off, more experienced teachers and competing with brand new teachers fresh out of teacher education programs. Starting next year, TFA teachers will be in both Seattle and Federal Way school districts. Likewise, they'll also be in Providence, Rhode Island. According to the TFA website, they are hoping to hire 35 new TFA teachers for the 2011-2012 school year.
You might think that TFA would have the benefit of alleviating budget issues, such those facing the Providence school district. Teachers with the least amount of experience are lowest on the pay scale. Hiring TFA teachers could save money. But that’s not the case. In fact, due to their high turn over and necessary training, they actually cost districts $70,000 a year per recruit. Districts pay the same salary to TFA teachers as they do to their regular teachers, plus a $5000 finders fee to the organization.
Regardless, the Teach for America model seems to be a success. They’re in their 20th year and expanding to more regions. The Department of Education awarded them $50 million to broaden their work.
Does this raise questions for you like it does for me? If TFA isn’t working to improve the quality of instruction students receive, reaching out to address teacher shortages, or reducing the cost of educating students, why is it getting so much praise and attention? I can see how putting high energy, bright people in classrooms with high needs can have a positive outcome. I’m all for more people in the classroom. But who is it benefiting? Is it benefiting kids? Maybe. However, this account doesn't suggest that. Nor does this one. Research also doesn't support this claim when comparing test scores of students of TFA teachers with students of certified teachers. But, we know how murky test scores can be.
Is it possible that TFA benefits another group of people we’re not thinking about? Maybe, people who want to see the demise teachers’ unions? What do you think, does Teach for America weaken teachers’ unions?
Here’s an internet game you can play. Open up the page listing the Board of Directors for Teach for America and Google the members. Try, in your search, not to bump into Texas oil billionaires, off-shore oil drilling ventures, and financial consultants for 80% of the 70 biggest banks and financial institutions. I’m not saying these are bad people. I have no idea. Their mission seems extremely admirable. I’m just questioning if they share the same interests I have as a public school teacher who wants to see public education become the best it can be for a free democracy. Or, might they be more concerned with removing one of the last obstacles restricting the privatization of the public sphere? NEA president Dennis Van Roeke made a statement regarding these recent attacks to our union, "America Cannot Have a Middle Class without Unions." I hope that once we get through this recession and our next series of elections, we can still find quality instruction from teachers who enjoy their work, students who are curious and engaged in valuable learning, and labor unions protecting the interests of the middle class.
Also, behind Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, and TfA is the Chicago-based Broad group. Seattle’s superintendent is of this group as well, and the Broad Group has not been shy about stating that a major agenda item in its business plan is to place its people in leadership roles around the country (in education) and to “reform” education into a testing and competitive arena.
Brian, thanks for the book recommendation. I just started rereading Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. It’s been a while since I read that and wanted to revisit his account of labor history. I will add your recommendation to my reading list.
Thanks for clarifying these statistics, Anthony and Dr. Pezz. I’m not convinced that TFA’s methods to reform education is through the classroom. They seem to be aiming much higher by creating leaders who will go into policy.
It turns out, George Will has been thinking about TFA, too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022506991.html
His editorial, published today, criticizes the government for pulling funding for TFA. Oh, and Mark, you’ll love what he says about it:
TFA has become a flourishing reproach to departments and schools of education. It pours talent into the educational system – 80 percent of its teachers are in traditional public schools – talent that flows around the barriers of the credentialing process. Hence TFA works against the homogenization that discourages innovation and prevents the cream from rising.
The timing is interesting to me. I also wondered how much public school experience the TFA teachers have had. Did they go to public school? I don’t know… but I’m guessing that since they’re recruited from elite universities, perhaps not. If that’s the case, and they’re thrown into the most run-down, high poverty schools across the country, what must they come away thinking about public education? It can’t be very good.
The 60% figure is entirely misleading. That statistic (“in education”) includes those who return to school to get another degree, undergraduate or graduate. The actual number who remain in teaching is between 15-25% depending on the objective study.
There was a fairly comprehensive analysis of the TfA’s misleading stats. I’ll see if I can find it again and post it.
Teach For America shares statistics that are vague when it comes to retention rates. The figure 60% stay “in education” is very hard to pin down. These people could be working as TFA staff, or whatever, but many are not in the classroom. In my urban district, Oakland Unified, we track the retention of teachers, and three years after they start, 75% of our TFA interns are gone. I work running a mentoring program and have served as a mentor to about ten TFA interns over the past three years. Most are gone or will leave soon, taking with them the expertise they have developed. And they will be replaced by another crop of bright-eyed, enthusiastic recruits, who will do a few years of missionary work and move on. This is NOT systemic change.
In the 70’s I was working at Bethlehem Steel in Seattle. I was a member of the United Steelworkers Union. A fellow worker gave me a copy of Labor’s Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais. It’s a history of the labor movement in the United States, and I highly recommend it.
http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/untold.html
Thanks, Emily. I went back to the document where I found that information and it says “up to $5000”. I’ll paste the paragraph below that discusses the costs. It comes from research paper out the University of California: http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/PB-TeachAmerica-Heilig.pdf
To estimate these costs, we can consider the special costs incurred by TFA, the extra costs incurred by districts, and the costs of traditional teacher preparation, which all TFA recruits undertake during their two years in the class- room. In 2006, for example, TFA spent approximately $22,455 for each entering core member it recruited and placed.47 To these costs must be added the ―finders‘ fees‖ local districts are frequently charged by TFA—as much as $5,000 per re- cruit—plus salary costs and the costs of attrition districts must pay, which typical- ly exceed $15,000 for each teacher who leaves.48 A third cost is that of the local teacher education, mentoring, and professional development programs in which TFA corps members enroll, which exceed $25,000 on average.49 Thus, the total cost of a two-year commitment from a TFA recruit exceeds $70,000.
I see in rereading it that I also missed the cost to districts “exceeds $70,000” for every two year commitment. It’s good to know that 60% of TFA alums stay in education. Do you happen to know how many of them actually stay in classrooms, teaching?
Your information about Teach for America is not entirely accurate. There is no “finders fee” paid to the organization. Instead, districts pay $3,000 (not $5,000) for training corps members receive over the summer. Also, over 60% of TFA corps members stay in education.
You know what actually irritates me more than anything? That this bill is continuing to be touted by Walker and the GOP as a “budget bill.” I cannot recall such blatant dishonesty in recent political history.
On a separate note, your revelations about TFA are astounding. It has always felt a little shady to me, for some reason… not the least of which being that I’m a little offended that people seem to think that someone with a passion and few weeks of training is automatically “better” than me or other teachers who have certifications AND degrees AND experience AND passion.