February 25, 2004
Backfired...I just love it
According to this Boston Herald story, a letter campaign by students, at the behest of school officials, has backfired in a most delightful way...
...If I didn't think a charter school was necessary, these letters have convinced me the high school was not doing an adequate job in teaching English language arts,'' [School Board Member] Schaefer said.Using school children this way is despicable. And I'd guess the "controversial" is only in the eyes of the Teacher's Unions. And the stuff about "competing for funds" is misleading. The funds go with the students, and a school that loses students get less money, but also needs to spend less, because it needs fewer teachers and staff.Despite the letter-writing campaign, which Schaefer said was orchestrated by school officials, the Marlboro-based Advanced Math and Science Academy Charter School as well as new charter schools in Cambridge, Lynn and Barnstable were approved yesterday.
Opponents vowed a renewed campaign against the controversial public schools, which compete with traditional districts for state education dollars.
``We're going to pursue this legally and through the Legislature,'' said Kathleen Kelley, president of the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers...(via Betsy Newmark)
Of course, to the unions, providing livings is the whole purpose of the school system...
Posted by John Weidner at February 25, 2004 04:59 PM | TrackBackI'm all for charter schools, but you need to understand that the public schools *do* stand to lose bucks if they lose students to charters.
Certainly *if* a public school lost, say, 150 students of 1800 or so to charter schools, in theory the public school could reduce its teacher hires by one and it'd be a push. But in reality, a bunch of classes would be a few percent smaller, so the school wouldn't have the option of laying anyone off.
Also, even if this wasn't the case, teachers who wouldn't be rehired for the next term would be in dire straits. And of course they don't lay off the worst ones, but typically new, young teachers--the ones with most enthusiasm, who are farthest removed from retirement age! Often some of these are offered jobs at the last minute by another school, but usually at an inner-city school that hasn't been able to keep teachers in-place due to ghastly conditions.
Again, I'm a fan of charters, but misunderstanding the financial consequences might cause you to underestimate the intensity of opposition among public-school employees and their families.
Posted by: sf at February 28, 2004 08:20 PMI'm no expert, but what I've read is that public schools have a very high ratio of staff to teachers--often 1:1. Private schools tend to have 3 or 4 teachers for each staffer. Charter schools tend to be closer to private schools.
SO, overall, I suspect there will be more slots for teachers if charter schools increase. And the fact that public schools lay off good teachers instead of bad is a damning indictment of them, and shows how much good teachers have to gain from the rise of charters.
Wonder if parents who do not agree with the teacher unions are allowed to know their children were being told to write the letters? If a parent did not agree with that, would they have any means to stop it, or have any right of redress againt the union?
I'd guess it's against the rules if done without permission---but that the rules aren't enforced by lefty officialdom.
Just another reason why some people are in a panic at the thought of Republicans as majority party.
Posted by: John Weidner at March 1, 2004 12:33 PM
