Why Bill De Blasio's Cellphone Policy And Other Issues Are Resulting In Lower Academic Achievement.

One of the most damaging policy directive by the Bill de Blasio Administration is allowing students to bring cellphones to school.  Unfortunately, for many classroom teachers that adds to their classroom management problems and results in less instructional time and more time in getting students to put their cellphone away.  Defenders of the Mayor's misguided policy will claim that allowing students to have a cellphone at school does not mean they condone their use in the classroom.  However, unless the school administration does what Lehman High School in the Bronx did once the student brings the cellphone to school it will end up being used in the classroom.  The bringing of a cellphone to school results in student distractions and a lowering of student academic achievement.

Once the Mayor's ill-advised cellphone policy took effect in April of 2015, classroom teachers immediately saw an increase in classroom management problems.  Students who listened to the instruction and took notes started to see their focus wander as  friends and family, including parents, started to text message the student during class time, who of course, must text back.  Instead of focusing on the lesson, the students became more focused on their cellphone.  The school administration is of little help since they refuse to discipline students for cellphone use and demand instead that teachers take action.  Without administrative backing and the required "scholarship"  requirements, few teachers could reasonably take any real action except to constantly call parents who  couldn't or wouldn't discipline their children.

Add the disruptive nature of the cellphone with the school accepted (certainly tolerated)  student lateness and this combination results in lower student academic achievement as precious instructional time is lost day in and day out.  This is especially true for the first period of the day but is also common throughout the school day.

In Regents Science, you can add the shortened instructional time to factors that lower student academic achievement.  Only in New York City does the DOE allow for four rather than five instructional days plus a lab period.  The policy causes over a month of instructional time being lost when the Science Regents requires a five day instructional week to reasonably cover the full curriculum. The result is that their is little or no time to review for the Regents and lower Regents test grades are the final product for New York City schools that adopted the four day instructional program.  This is an example of the DOE's "education on the cheap" policy that shortchanges schools of their fail student funding (averaging 89% in 2015-16 school year) and reduced the amount of Science teachers needed to staff.the school.

When you combine the distracting cellphone policy, tolerating excessive student lateness, a permissive student discipline policy, large class sizes, reduced science instruction time, and scholarship requirements, is it any wonder that student academic achievement is a major issue?

"Children last"........Always.

How High Schools Are Shortchanging Students In Science Education.

One of the more unfortunate aspects of the DOE budgeting process is the reduction of a quality Science education as the high schools reduce their Science departments to the bone.  This results in hurting student academic performance and puts the NYC high schools students at a competitive disadvantage with other New York State schools.  The DOE funding program called "fair student funding" (fsf) inadequately funds the schools,who, in turn, eliminate popular electives, reduce Advanced Placement (AP) courses, and cut extracurricular activities, the very programs that make for a successful school.  In addition, many teachers are encouraged to teach a "sixth period" and suffer burnout by the end of the school year as schools try to keep their staff salaries down.

In the New York City high schools principals are hamstrung with the unfair fsf fiasco that find many schools underfunded by receiving only 85% of what the formula should allow for.  Moreover, since 2008, the average school budget has been reduced by 14% and the disappointing Chancellor shockingly froze it at 2013 levels rhis school year. Therefore, principals have cut their expenses any way they can and that includes staff.

One of the ways that high schools have cut payroll is to reduce the amount of Science teachers needed at their school.  In far too many schools the principal has replaced the New York State recommended 5-1 program to a 4-1 program.  This means that students will have one less instructional day as the laboratory requirement will replace the instructional day once a week for Regents Science subjects.  This means that the students are receiving a month's less of instruction and the Regents results show a significant drop off of Regents passing grades. Moreover, many schools encourage non-certified Science teachers to teach , especially when it comes to Earth Science and that also results in a lower Regents passing percentage.  When you combine the three issues, many students who may have passed the Science Regents don't and fail to receive the coveted advanced Regents diploma that colleges look for.

Unfortunately, the DOE's "education on the cheap" policy extends to AP courses as well.  Many schools either don't offer the classes or limit them to six periods weekly rather than the recommended ten classes  as recommended by the College Board.  The result of this shortsighted approach puts the students at a competitive disadvantage with the nation and few students achieve the grade of 3 or higher, the minimum necessary to receive college credit.

Finally, some high schools have inexplicably replaced Regents Earth Science with non-Regents courses such as Astronomy, Environmental Science, Forensics, and conceptional Physics. Making it virtually impossible for the students to get an advanced Regents diploma unless they take the much more difficult Regents Chemistry or Physics courses.

A prime example of the short-sighted approach is happening at Cardozo High School, once the shinning jewel of the NYC high schools that has dulled in the last few years. It was only a few years ago that Cardozo has a 34 person Science department.  However, due to excessing, sixth period assignments, and  reduction in courses, the Science department is down to 19, a 45% reduction in staff!  AP courses are six periods weekly and many students don't get college credit/  Moreover, the school has one certified Earth Science teacher for a school of 4,000 students.  Is it any wonder that two thirds of the students failed the Earth Science Regents last year?  Of course that's better than at Bayside high school who excessed two Earth Science teachers and saw their passing percentage drop from 73% to 30% last year! Noe Chemistry is converted to a 4-1 course and I suspect the Chemistry Regents passing rate will drop accordingly.

How in the world can the DOE keep a straight face and claim that student academic achievement will improve when their very policies are putting students in a competitive disadvantage when it comes to all other schools in the State and Nation.  No wonder NYC's "college and career readiness" scores are dismal.  The disappointing Chancellor, Carmen Farina, needs to wake up from her dream world and face the reality  of the consequences of the DOE's "education on the cheap" policy that's hurting the children.

DOE's Education On The Cheap Policy - Its Not About The Students, Its About The Budget.

One of the issues the news media fails or doesn't want to discuss is how the NYC public schools have been shortchanged of needed resources and the questionable funding priorities the DOE has taken that finds most every school struggling to provide the proper educational services for their students.  Despite a 26 billion dollar budget, the DOE, has reduced the average school budget by 14% since the 2007-08 school year despite the fact that the DOE's own  budget had increased 39% since that time.  Furthermore, and shockingly, the disappointing Chancellor, Carmen Farina, froze school budgets at least year's level, adding to the financial pain at the schools.  Where did the increased funding go?  Obviously, not to the schools and the students.  Let's look at the various items that have been part of the DOE's "education on the cheap " policy.

School Budgets:  Every school I was in last year claimed they were short of resources.  In many schools, teachers had to buy their own classroom supplies, even copy paper!  Photocopy machines and smartboards lay broken for weeks at a time.  In the schools where there is an active and engaged PTA, the fundraising by the group pays for things such as class trips, and technology upgrades, taken for granted in the suburbs. When the disappointing Chancellor shocked everyone by freezing the already inadequate and tight school budgets, it just adds to the financial squeeze that the schools are in.

Librarians:   Many schools either don't have a librarian or have a part timer in the school library.  Once, every school was required to have a full time librarian.  In many of the Bloomberg small high schools, there is no librarian and the libraries that once was a hallmark of the big high school is usually locked and unusable to the students.  The problem is so acute that even the Commissioner of NYSED has required that the DOE hire librarians.

Guidance Counselors: The lack of enough Guidance Counselors  in schools has become a real issue for the majority of schools.  Guidance Counselor caseloads of 400 or more students are commonplace. Students are lucky if they see their Guidance Counselor more than once a semester.  How many students fall through the cracks when these students are not able to develop that close personal relationship with a trusted adult trained to help them because of the infrequent contact between the two?  Worse, the DOE unwisely decided to assign ATR Guidance Counselors to a weekly rotation, making them useless to the school's Guidance Department.  Finally, some principals  brought in poorly trained and low paid community relation specialists that simply provide a bandage to an infection. The City Council has told the DOE to address this situation through their Education Committee.

Sixth Periods:  It seems that most every high school I was in had a significant number of teachers teaching a "sixth period".  While some of them were actual "shortage areas", most of them were teaching a "sixth period" as a way for the school to hire less teachers.  Many of these teachers were paid "per session", if it wasn't a shortage area or was outside their school schedule.  In quite a few cases, Earth Science programs were being taught by non-certified Earth Science teachers and schools went from a 5-1 to 4-1 Science program as a way to reduce the amount of Science teachers, even when Regents scores and passing rates plummeted as a result of the change.

Class Size: Shockingly, despite the new Mayor's campaign promise to reduce class size, the

disappointing Chancellor failed to do so.  Class sizes in New York City are the highest in the State and will remain unacceptably high for the foreseeable future.  Oversized classes are once again in the thousands with an estimated 3,500 in violation of the contract, according to the UFT website.

Principal Quality: approximately 20% of all New York City Public School principals came from the infamous "Leadership Academy".  Many of these principals have limited classroom experience, some never earned tenure!  Their primary concern is their budget and to intimidate staff.  They have little idea how the classroom environment works nor do they care.  To them its about the bottom line, test scores, keeping their "Children First Network" happy, and using funds as they see fit.  Its not about the students, its about the budget.

Bloated Bureaucracy:   It goes without saying that too much money is paid out to high priced consultants, accountability experts and lawyers.  Furthermore, the schools are forced to choose and fund the useless and money sucking "Children First Networks" that provides little real support to the schools.  Finally, the lack of transparency at the DOE makes the flow of funds hard to trace and that's why we end up with stories like this as the DOE rarely holds themselves accountable.

Fair Student Funding: Probably the biggest reason for the failure of New York City schools to show real and relevant academic improvements since it encourages Principals to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best" teachers" for their students.  Case in point, the City hired 6,000 new teachers this school year, while most of the 2,000+ ATRs couldn't even get interviews, especially, the ATRs who have ten or more years in the system.

If the City was really serious in improving student academic achievement, they need to centrally and fully fund the New York City Schools and under the new Mayor and disappointing Chancellor, its not happening, at least for another year.

The Education On The Cheap Era Continues Under The Disappointing Chancellor.

When Bill de Blasio replaced Michael Bloomberg as Mayor of New York City, many of us were looking forward to a new era of collaboration and respect.  The new Mayor's selection of a long-term educator as Chancellor was also an encouraging sign as it signifies a change away from the failed business model which was the hallmark of the Bloomberg era.  While the new Chancellor, Carmen Farina, has had a troubling past, she seemed like a breath of fresh air when compared to the top-down non-educators who were chancellors during the Bloomberg era.  Even the UFT leadership hailed the new Chancellor as a person they can work with and UFT President, Michael Mulgrew, even hugged her.  Unfortunately, in the first semester plus of Carmen Farina's tenure as Chancellor she has been a disappointment.

The Chancellor, has so far, failed to make any meaningful improvements in the schools and the classroom.  First, she froze the already tight school budgets that has averaged 14% less than it was back in 2008.  Second, she did not reduce class sizes, a campaign promise by the Mayor, third, she did not "clean house" and retained many of the architects of the destructive Bloomberg policies.  Fourth, she retained the "fair student funding" that forces principals to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their schools.  Fifth, she failed to get rid of the money sucking and useless Children First networks.  Finally, the new Chancellor has targeted ATRs and made them "second class citizens".

In hindsight, Chancellor Carmen Farina does have a "dark side" that people seemed to ignore.  Like the 80% turnover in staff when she was Principal, her rise to become a Deputy Chancellor under Joel Klein before being forced to retire, and this from Philip Nobile.   In addition,  Betsy Combier in her Rubber Room Reporter blog is a must read when going over the Chancellor's past. She has continues to suffer from verbal lapses such as her "its a beautiful day comment" during a monster snowstorm that trapped students in their schools. Moreover, her verbal attack on ATRs and her statement that she will train principals how to terminate them rather than encourage principals to hire them for their vacancies is not only unprofessional but continues the demonetization of the ATRs that started in the Bloomberg era.  Most disturbing of all she told new teachers at a conference not to listen to those disgruntled veteran teachers in the lunch room.  

With Carmen Farina as Chancellor do not expect any real academic improvement or a narrowing of the racial/income academic achievement gap as she continues the failed and destructive policies of the Bloomberg era.  A very disappointing Chancellor is Carmen Farina as she continues to practice the "education on the cheap" policy of the Bloomberg era.

Memo To President Obama. In New York City Its Not About Hiring Quality Teachers But The Cheapest Teachers For The Schools.

Today President Obama has finally decided that all school districts must have an "educator equity plan" by April 2015 that requires all States and school districts to place "quality teachers" in front of the classroom.   This long neglected part of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that all classrooms have an equally high percentage of "highly qualified teachers", regardless of income or racial composition. This long neglected provision of NCLB allowed school districts to hire whom they pleased and in many "high needs" communities that meant hiring uncertified or alternate certification instructors who lasted a year or two and then left the school.  Teacher turnover is a serious problem and negatively affects student learning as many of these teachers are hired simply because they are cheap and its not children first but money first!  It now appears the Obama Administration will no longer give waivers to this part of NCLB as it has previously.  However, time will tell if they don't bow to political pressure from Teach For America and education reform groups who depend on an influx of poorly trained and unqualified "newbie" instructors to fill the schools. The Federal Department of Education's website has the entire initiative called "Excellent Educators For All".

That brings me to the New York City DOE who has long practiced "education on the cheap" policy and with their perverse "fair student funding" requirements forces schools to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their schools.  This is in apparent contradiction to the new imitative. Will The Obama Administration penalize the City for their policy that fosters teacher inequality in the schools or will they ignore the blatant violation of the educator equity plan of the NCLB as they have been doing for a decade?   Furthermore, how can the City explain the hiring of uncertifed TFA and Fellows for these schools while "highly qualified teachers" as defined by NCLB , languish in the ATR pool being used as glorified babysitters?

It will be interesting to see if the Obama Administration is serious about the teacher inequity problem and refuses to give waivers to States and school districts from the educator equity plan as they have been doing previously.   If the President follows through on his initiative then the DOE must rethink how they fund schools and eliminate the "fair student funding" that hinders the hiring of "highly qualified teachers" for the schools most in need of these teachers.  Only time will tell if the enforcing of the educator equity plan under NCLB will actually happen.  If it does, I'm sure the DOE will try to tiptoe around the educator equity plan and maintain their "education on the cheap" policy at the expense of the poor and minority students of the affected "high needs" schools.

Finally, At Least One Journalist Got It Right About Why Principals Won't Hire ATRs - Its About The Money!

I was pleasantly surprised when I read Charkbeat and saw the article Geoff Decker wrote about the contract negotiations that also included the ATR issue.  While he didn't specifically identify the "fair student funding" as the culprit, the article did show that principals took money into account in their hiring decisions and that the DOE budgeting was the cause.  This is the first article I have read where the money equation was factored into a school's hiring decision.   The Chalkbeat article also referenced my blog where I explained why principals hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" and you can find it here. 

The Chalkbeat article was fair and presented both sides of the ATR issue and to me that is real journalism, not he ideological attacks the ATRs have faced from the City newspapers who still blindly follow the Bloomberg line of a corporate model that has shown to have failed when it comes to public education.  Moreover, these very same newspapers always seem to ignore how a "newbie teacher", with a steep learning curve ahead, is good for student academic achievement.  I guess, for them its "don't let the facts get in the way of a fairy tale" that the Bloomberg administration's  "education on the cheap" policy is good for student outcomes.

Interestingly, according to the article, the City has not asked for an ATR time limit in their negotiations but are trying to work out an arrangement with the union to get the ATRs back into the classroom.  This will make the corporate education reform groups and their media allies very unhappy but putting the ATRs back into the classroom will be what's best for the students. To counter the building seniority issue, the ATR will be picked up "provisionally" for the first year and if the ATR and the Principal both agree, the ATR is appointed for the second year and gains his or her building seniority.

Back to the money issue.  Maybe our union needs to be be more proactive and explain how the DOE budgeting system works against students having the "quality teachers" they deserve not the "inexperienced teachers" that principals are hiring which is not in the best interests of student academic achievement.

The Real Truth About Mayor Bloomberg's Education Improvements.

Mayor Bloomberg is making the rounds proclaiming he he has improved the New York City education system.  However, his so called accomplishments are really "smoke and mirrors" and his claims fall apart under scrutiny.  Let's look his claims and what I think is the truth.  In his propaganda pamphlet he  calls his education policy a success.

Mayoral Control Of The Schools:  His dictatorial control of the Department of Education made the PEP a "rubber stamp" and a joke.  The PEP meetings are remamisent of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin rather than the Democratic and "fairness" principals we all grew up with in this country.   How is that educational progress?

Raising Student Performance:  He shouts about the improved graduation rate but fails to mention how the "graduation rate" was  greatly affected by the use of "bogus credit recovery courses" and  the pressure for grade infrlation by principals.    The resut is that the student "college and career readiness" rates show only 22% of the graduates are "college ready" and 50% come from only 35 high schools, many of them specialized and screened schools. Furthermore, the actual achievement gap between Asian'Whites and Blacks/Hispanics are higher then when he took office.

Promoting Teacher Excellence:  He boasts that he increased the hiring of STEM (Math and Science teachers since its important for students to have certified Math and Science teachers.  However, if that's true why are there hundreds of Math and Science teachers rotating weekly in the ATR pool?  The teacher evaluation system does not make for good teachers but will allow unscrupulous administrators to target teachers they don't want or like. Finally, the Bloomberg Administration practiced an "education on the cheap" policy when it comes to meeting the NCLB definition of a "highly qualified teacher".  Instead it was getting the cheapest teacher not the best at the expense of the students.

Empowering Principals:  He takes credit for the " Principals Leadership Academy"  but many of their principals have little or no NYC classroom experience, unable or unwilling to collaborate with their staff, and are on top of the most despised principals on the DOE's Learning Environment ratings.  Moreover, many principals hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their school and the school's students are the real losers when 50% of these teachers quit or are terminated in the next five years. Finally, the near useless and money-sucking "Children First Networks (CFNs) minimizes community and parent interaction with the schools and hopefully will be eliminated next school year.
 
Holding Schools Accountable:  Making school grades that are based primarily on test scores and are considered worthless by most educators.  Moreover, his failing schools policy frails the "means test".  The Bloomberg created small schools were given extra funding, screened out "high needs students" and to make them even look better "stacked the deck" against the struggling large schools by dumping the "over the counter" students, many of them "high needs", on the already struggling schools.
 
Increased Classroom Funding: This is a very misleading statement.  Yes the Bloomberg Administration did cut the Central Bureaucracy and  did increase total funding to the DOE but the schools actually saw a 14% reduction in funding since 2007.  Much of the extra money went to high priced consultants and their programs, technology that had little or no classroom application, and the DOE's policy to require schools to fund services that the Central Bureaucracy had done before the Bloomberg years resulted in simply a "shell game"" to make it look like the Bureaucracy was cut but went to other DOE uses instead.  Furthermore, class sizes are the highest in a decade.so it certainly did not go into the classroom.  In addition,  The "fair student funding formula" ushered in an  "education on the cheap " program for staffing the schools.. The result was that principals hired the "newbies " and not the "quality teachers" they so desperately need for their student's academic success.  The result is an ATR pool of 2,000 + members, many of them excellent teacher but cannot be hired because of their salary and age.

If the media should do some real "fact checking" they too would find that Mayor Bloomberg's educational improvements is simple a "mirage". Of course, I will not hold me breath waiting for that to happen.

What If The UFT Called Mayor Bloomberg's Bluff In Layimg Off The 4,700 Teachers Back In 2011?

Back in 2011, Mayor Bloomberg threatened to lay off 4,700 teachers as the City was slowly crawling out of the recession.  A major part of his threat was to have the law changed on who gets laid off.  However, his attempt to change the "last in, first out" (LIFO) failed and if the Mayor had tried to follow through, the New York City schools would have had to eliminate the "cheapest teachers", the "newbies". Once the Mayor lost the LIFO battle, he was not laying off anybody and most people knew that.  However, our union "snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory" yet again and caved into the Mayor's demands and eliminated teacher sabbaticals for the 2011-12 school year and allowed the DOE to impose the idiotic and asinine ATR rotation system that saves little money and a wastes a lot of talent. What would have happened if our union had called the Mayor's bluff?  Let's look at the two possible scenarios.

Scenario #1:  The City would have laid off the 4,700 "newbie teachers" as the layoffs are by seniority ranking.  The result would be that principals would have two choices.  They could keep the now suddenly vacant positions unfilled but that would severely hurt the students.  Or the most likely effect would be to hire the ATRs and demand that the DOE help pay the cost.  The result, would be the elimination of the ATR pool and the reintroduction of experienced and in many cases, "quality teachers" back into the classroom.  The good part of this is that the ATRs would not be "forced placed" but apply for the positions that they believe they are "a good fit" for as the principals compete to hire the many "quality teachers" to their classrooms.

In this scenario the students win because they are no longer the "guinea pigs" for the many "newbie teachers" who have no clue how to teach and half will leave the teaching profession in five years. Instead the students will thrive under highly experienced teachers with good classroom management skills and deep curriculum knowledge guiding them to academic success,.


Scenario #2:  Mayor Bloomberg's layoff bluff is called and he retaliates against the UFT by reducing school budgets, raises class sizes, closes more schools, and refuses to negotiate a contract. Furthermore, he blasts the union and demonizes teachers by refusing to issue tenure and to implement policies to terminate as many teachers as possible.  Moreover, he would try to eliminate teacher "due process rights" while lowering the already low morale and making the classroom environment as hostile a place as possible.  Finally, he imposes the "education on the cheap "policy that forces principals to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their students.

In this scenario. the students lose because of higher class sizes, lack of resources, and inexperienced teachers who have no classroom management skills or curriculum knowledge. Come to think of it had our union not capitulated to Mayor Bloomberg's bluff, nothing would have changed from scenario #2.. Except we would not have lost our sabbatical rights for a year and the ongoing and ridiculous ATR rotation system that wastes $160 million dollars a year and demoralizes those 2,000 + teachers who must rotate from school to school.

To the union leadership, good job, once again in screwing the members.

The DOE's Idea Of Academic Excellence Is Different From The State And The Colleges Know It When It Comes To Science.

I was always wondering why the State's and the City's idea of academic excellence were somewhat different.  So I decided to look at what differences are there in Science and to my shock I found out that the City was allowed to quietly water down the Science requirements.  No wonder, that the City would always report different results than the State.

For example, two years ago the City DOE quietly changed the academic requirements metric for Science by allowing schools to get two years science credit for a one year Regents course.  That's right, by quietly changing the standards the DOE enabled some principals to give double credit for a Regents Science course as long as they gave double periods or made it a two year course.  One school in particular went as far as giving their students a two year "Living Environment" course and then take a non-Regents course in Earth Science, Chemistry, or Physics to satisfy the Physical Science laboratory requirement. If this sounds like shortchanging the students and fooling their parents, it certainly is to me.  However, the CUNY and SUNY colleges are not fooled one bit and one recruiter told me that when they see no second Science Regents, the chances of the student getting into her college is diminished.  The recruiter went on to say that the City and State colleges are aware of the watering down of the City's Science curriculum and  their Admissions Office investigate more closely the student's transcript.  Finally, the "college readiness" scores for the NYC high schools showed that most of the "college and career ready" students (50%) came from only a few schools (10%). The watering down of the Science curriclumn will not help the scores any.

This is not happening only in the struggling City schools but in schools that are solidly middle-class and high achieving.  In one case, the Principal of this high achieving school has decided to have his students skip Earth Science altogether and give a double period of Chemistry.  While it will take a year to see the results, the Science staff is not optimistic since many students cannot handle the Math and advanced scientific concepts that are required in Chemistry.  For many of the students it will be a wasted year of frustration and failure. 

While I cannot say anything about the rest of the core subjects, the DOE is apparently allowing principals to dumb down and narrow the science requirements at the expense of their student's academic achievement and this is a problem for many students and their parents who expect academic excellence and not shortcuts or watered down requirements that will hurt their chances of going to a four year college.

The DOE should be ashamed of themselves for their "watering down" and narrowing the Science curriculumn and allowing principals to practice "education on the cheap" at the expense of their students academic success..

Why Education Reformers Ignore Poverty In Student Academic Achievement.

In just the latest example of how Education Reformers will go to any lengths to ignore poverty as a major cause of poor student academic achievement, the founder of "Common Core", David Colman, in a conference where no school-based administrators or teachers were on the panel, stated that critics who blame poverty on poor student academic outcomes should help eliminate poverty by cutting teacher salaries and distributing the money to the poor.  David Colman's outrageous statement is just another example of Education Reformers attempt to minimize poverty as a major cause of poor student academic achievement and not seriously addressing the problem.  Why do they ignore poverty as a cause of poor student outcomes?  It's because they know that a child's social-economic environment is the major factor in academic achievement and to eliminate poverty costs tremendous amount of money and human resources.  Therefore, it is easier to blame the schools and in particular, the teachers rather than spend the money and human capitol necessary to eliminate poverty and improve student academic outcomes.

Be it ex Chancellor Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and Bill Gates, it is best to ignore the effects of poverty on student academic achievement and blame it on other problems, namely teachers.  While study after study shows that poverty is linked to poor student outcomes the Education Reformers will go to great lengths to ignore this linkage.  In fact the Education Reformers will tell anybody who bothers to listen to them that poverty is no excuse for poor academic achievement, as if they can wish away with a magic wand the educational problems associated with poverty. Instead, these Education Reformers have decided that blaming teachers and making them scapegoats to their failed educational programs rather than face the reality of what really is the root cause of a child's educational problems, poverty!.  How many times have we heard that "if only were can hire and fire teachers at will so that we only have great teachers teaching our students" as if a "great teachers" is a cure all for the world's ills.

While we are now starting to see a backlash against the education reform agenda, it will be quite a "high needs" students with appropriate wraparound services such as family counseling, adequate food, medical checkups, and after school programs not the phony programs that serves the political needs of the Education Reformers at the expense of the students, especially the children who live in poverty..
while before education reform is exposed as a farce it is and will fade into history as just another failed experiment.  However, until that time in the future we must stand fast against the Education Reformers and protect our

Mr. Mayor, Child Poverty Is The Primary Cause For Student Academic Failure Not Their Teachers.

Ex Chancellor Joel Klein and his education reformer friends, which includes hedge fund managers, profiteers, and misguided billionaires such as Bill Gates will tell the media that it's "excellent teachers" and not eliminating poverty that closes the student academic achievement gap. While not true,  unfortunately, they have the ear of many influential politicians such as President Obama, Chris Cristie, Andrew Cuomo and of cause Mayor moneybags himself, Michael Bloomberg.  The reason that these politicians believe the education reformer myth that "excellent teachers" can eliminate the student academic achievement gap is that poverty, the real reason for the student academic achievement gap, is difficult to fix. In fact poverty is actually increasing!

A case in point, he latest poverty statistics for New York City has shown an increase in the City's poverty rate to 20.9% in 2011 up from 20.1% in 2010.  Worse the NYC Public School child poverty rate is an astounding 69% based upon the 2010 figures and might exceed 70% once the 2011 poverty rate numbers are analyzed. In fact 48 schools in the city had student poverty rates of 97% or higher and coincidentally, they have the lowest student academic achievement.  It needs to be noted that the devastation of the superstorm Sandy could increase the student poverty rate when next year's statistics are finalized. Study after study has linked child poverty to poor academic achievement, yet this is a blind spot for education reform groups who simply ignore the poverty issue with their "no excuses" mantra.. The simple reason that Education Reformers ignore poverty is that they realize that there is little they can do about poverty without a massive influx of resources and wraparound services which costs money.  Instead the education reformers look for the cheap way out by falsely claiming that an "excellent teacher" would erase the effects of poverty.   Moreover, by playing the "excellent teacher" card it allows politicians like Mayor Bloomberg to camouflage his dislike for experienced teachers, who cost the City money, pensions, and retiree health benefits, by trying to get rid of seniority and tenure under his education reform agenda.  His real objective to have replaceable and non-tenured teachers who last less than five years and don't have pensions is provided cover with the education reforms he professes to embrace. The reality is it is all about saving money.not helping children.

 Poverty, and its effects are the cause of poor academic achievement and the large student achievement gap, not teachers.  Mr. Mayor, stop blaming teachers for the widening academic achievement gap and blame yourself for your failure to reduce the City's poverty rate.

You Get What You Pay For When You Practice Education On The Cheap Policies.

It is no secret that the DOE's "fair student funding" fiasco has encouraged principals to hire on the cheap when it comes to teachers.  Many of the Bloomberg small schools are populated with "newbie teachers" and at the high school level that is a real crime when it comes to the education of the students in those schools.  Is it any wonder that the "college and career readiness" rates for those small schools are 10.7%, compared to the 20.7% for all New York City high schools?

An example of this problem was played out in a recently created small school that is one of the small schools replacing a closing school that was targeted by the DOE.  In this school, only in it's third year of existence, the school had recently excessed an experienced Physics teacher because the teacher failed half the students and obtained poor Regents results.  Was he a terrible teacher?  Well, I taught with him for eight years and he always obtained good Regents grades in Physics and rarely failed students at the closing school that the new school now occupies.  The real answer was the students of this new Bloomberg small school.lack the academic ability to handle the math and scientific concepts necessary for high school Physics.  However, it is always easier to blame the teacher than the ill-prepared student body.

To replace the excessed Physics teacher, the school hired two "newbie science teachers", one in Chemistry and the other in Earth Science.  My friend, the ATR was assigned to the school for the first five weeks and the Principal had asked him to shadow the two teachers and help them adjust to the New York City classroom.  He did as he was told but found that both teachers lacked pedagogy, had poor knowledge of the curriculum, and had terrible classroom management skills.  The Chemistry teacher was foreign born and had trouble with the English language and made many grammatical errors when trying to explain Chemistry..  However, what was worse that he made science errors such as telling the students that Helium is la lighter gas than Hydrogen, despite what the Periodic Tables of Chemistry shows.   Moreover, his classroom was noisy and the students were distracted and not engaged.  My friend felt very sorry for those Chemistry students.  He believed they are in for a long and frustrating year.

The Earth Science teacher was a "wet behind the years" newbie who looked like she should be a student rather than a teacher.  Worse was her apparent lack of curriculum knowledge when she incorrectly told her students that latitude were vertical lines and longitude horizontal lines.  The opposite is true.  In addition, she could not run the lab and screwed up a simple density experiment.  Like the Chemistry teacher she had trouble controlling the classroom, seemed very frustrated,  and keeping the students engaged was difficult. My friend doubts she will be teaching next year.

My friend, who is a twenty-two year Science teacher, said to the Principal why did you hire the two science teachers when there are so many good science teachers without classrooms?  The Principal was blunt, she told him that her budget is very tight and she could not afford to pick up a higher salaried teacher, no matter how great the teacher may be.  She felt badly that she could not hire the "best teachers" but the budget made it impossible to do so.  Her parting words to my friend was that she wished she could keep him around to work with the two teachers but the DOE does not allow for it without picking up his salary which she cannot afford.

Is it any wonder why the small schools do so poorly when it comes to "college and career readiness"?  When teachers are selected based upon their salary and not on their ability, the future looks bleak for those students that end up in these small schools. 

The DOE's Ultimate Goal Is To Get Rid Of Experienced Senior Teachers Not To Retain Quality Teachers In The NYC Public School System.

I am sick and tired of hearing the Emperor, Michael Bloomberg and his pet poodle the Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, want only "great teachers" in front of the classrooms teaching our children.  When the Bloomberg/Walcott agenda is quite different than their stated goals.  The Bloomberg/Walcott real agenda is to eliminate as many senior teachers as possible and replace them with untrained "newbie teachers"  in their "education on the cheap" policy.  Let's look at the actions of the DOE that belie the Bloomberg/Walcott stated goal to improve the teaching profession.

Recruitment over Retention:

If the DOE really wanted to retain "great teachers" they would reduce class sizes, provide adequate resources to the classrooms,  ensure Administrative support, and raise salaries to compete with the suburbs.  Instead, the DOE  has  increased class sizes, starved the classroom for resources, protects poor Administrators (19% of the principals come from the "Leadership Academy") with little or no classroom experience, and have eliminated pay raises for the last four years.  Worse, under the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration, teacher choice was eliminated and many of the teachers of the large comprehensive schools find themselves without a position for next year.

If the DOE really wanted "great teachers" they would do everything in their power to improve the classroom environment not worsen it.

Focus on "Bad Teachers":

The primary focus by the DOE is the removal of "bad teachers" from the school system rather than programs and polices to improve teacher quality.  First, Chancellor Dennis Walcott called ATRs "bad teachers" and offered them generous buyouts to get them to leave the school system.  Then he wants to terminate all elementary school teachers who receive two consecutive "U" ratings.  Finally, the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration wants to right to impose their own version of a teacher evaluation system without teacher and union input which would simply be a termination process for "ineffective teachers".

Nowhere does the DOE propose or prepare programs to improve teacher quality except for hiring more "newbie teachers" from Teach For America  or the Teaching Fellows programs. A dubious policy at best and a likely worsening of teacher quality overall.

The Imposition of Terrible Programs and Bloated Budgets At Tweed: 


The DOE insisted on expensive and wasteful programs like SESIS and spent almost 900 million dollars on wasteful technology.  Furthermore, they fund their bloated Bureaucracy while starving the schools and the children.  This is no way for an agency to operate when it is supposed to be "children first" instead it is Tweed first and "children last".

Next time you hear the Emperor or his pet poodle, the Chancellor claim they are improving the schools and want "quality teachers", the truth is by far very different.

The "Restart/Transformation" Schools Are Shortchanging The Students By Not Giving Them A Proper Science Education.

I have been to three "Restart" Schools this school year and one of my ATR friends have been to a "Transformation" school and we both found that the four schools are shortchanging the students by not providing a proper science education and jeopardizing their ability to obtain a "Regents Diploma".

All four schools only give four, not five classes of science weekly. These schools shortchange the students who take Science by one class weekly. This means that more pressure is put on the teachers to keep the students on task since the Science curriculum is based upon five classes weekly, plus a laboratory period. This requires that enrichment lessons to make science more interesting has to be abandoned as the teachers strain to fit five days of work into four, not an educationally sound plan. Especially for struggling students. Worse yet, many of the teachers teaching Earth Science, the second Science needed to get a High School diploma, are not certified in the subject. Many of the Science teachers teaching Earth Science are Living Environment teachers and are required to teach the Earth Science classes which is not educationally fair to the students. Especially, the ones who want the more valuable Regents diploma. Furthermore, all these schools appear to have vacancies, either hidden or announced and have failed to fill them. The question is why?

You might ask why would the "Restart/Transformation" schools shortchange the Science students and not fill their other vacancies? Don't they need to show academic improvement to survive? Wouldn't extra teachers help student academic achievement? You would think so. wouldn't you? However, it is really about the budget for these principals. First, by shortchanging the students one class weekly, the school does not have to hire two Science teachers and by having uncertified Science teachers teaching Earth Science, they don't have to hire hard to find Earth Science teachers who tend to be highly paid. The schools know that they only need to achieve a 60% graduation rate and reduce the dropout rate by 5% to meet the federal funding requirements so if the students are failing their courses, just give them "credit recovery programs" for the last month to get them to pass and not dropout. Knowledge, what knowledge? Who cares if these students are not "career or college ready"? That's society's problem. For the school it is meeting the 60% graduation rate and reducing the dropout rate by 5% by any means possible.

As for the long-term future of these students? It is not the school's problem once they award the academically challenged students their bogus diplomas. "Children last. Always".

The Mayor's Poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott, Demostrates Why He Is Clueless About The Classroom.

The Mayor's poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott, held a press conference where he stated that he will close 50 poorly preforming middle schools and replace them with Charter schools and new public schools. He will use the "turnaround model" which means replacing the leadership and 50% of the teaching staff, while leaving the students in the schools. UFT President MIchael Mulgrew responded to the Chancellor's speech by claiming " that all you are doing is rearranging the deck chairs". However, the most serious aspect of the Chancellor's middle school proposal will result in 2,000 more ATRs or a doubling of the current ATR population. Furthermore, the Chancellor apparently has the right to decide which teachers to keep based upon some obscure and undefined merit selection process. Since the Mayor has already stated that the "best teachers are our new teachers" and experience does not count in teaching, guess which teachers will be retained by the "turnaround schools"? Moreover, how many public school teachers will actually accept assignments in the new Charter schools? Not many, if any, since many of these Charter schools do not have the union benefits and teacher "due process" that the public school teachers do. That means some of the "turnaround schools" that become Charter schools will replace their entire teaching staff! Who will replace the teachers that leave or excessed from those schools? Well. the Chancellor already has solved this problem. He stated that the entire class of "Teaching Fellows", with their five weeks of training will be sent to the "turnaround schools". Yes, for the Mayor's poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott, the "best teachers" are those"newbie teachers" that cost the least amount of money. In other words its "education on the cheap".

I can just picture what will happen in a classroom as the "newbie teaching fellow" is confronted by the unruly middle school students who were largely responsible for the problems of the school in the first place. The "Teaching Fellow", with no classroom management skills, working in a new and challenging, if not hostile environment, and struggling with a new curriculum is just what the Chancellor ordered to improve these schools. Yeah right! If you really believe that "newbie teachers" are the answer then I have a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Besides putting the entire recruiting class of "Teaching Fellows" in the "turnaround schools" some of the schools will be the first middle schools to participate in the online based IZONE, where students are essentially self-taught on computers with little teacher guidance. Even in the carefully selected high schools this technology based online program has received mixed reviews at best. Now the Chancellor and his minions naively believe that technology alone will succeed by making immature children responsible in a self-taught program that requires the academic discipline which many of them do not have. Finally, to make matters worse, the already large class sizes will continue as the Chancellor has no intention of lowering class size, an integral part of improving student academic achievement.

Let's see, the Chancellor expects improvements by replacing experienced teachers with poorly trained "newbie teachers" and in the IZONE schools no teacher, keeping large class sizes, and ignoring the social-economic problems these students are exposed to outside the school environment which is the primary cause of the problems with the failing schools. To me that is simply a fantasy and it shows how clueless the Chancellor really is about the what goes on in the classroom.

How Does One Define A "Quality Teacher"? To The Various Groups It Means Many Different Things.

Everybody wants a "quality teacher" in the classroom. It doesn't matter if you are a traditional educator or an education reformer, a "quality teacher" is an important element for successful student academic achievement. The problem lies with the definition of what is a "quality teacher"?

Most people in education believe that a "quality teacher" is a teacher that rises student academic achievement and is a dependable and reliable presence in the classroom. However, beyond these general elements there is a wide difference of opinion on the specifics of what is a "quality teacher"?

Pseudo Education Reform:
It is easy to discount this group. The Bloomberg/Klein/Walcott political rhetoric that the "best teachers" are the young and cheap teachers, many of them recruited from alternate teaching programs like the "Teaching Fellows" or "Teach For America" who seem to disappear from teaching a few years down the road (E4E leadership are a prime example). For these politicians it is simply "education on the cheap" and a temporary, replaceable teaching staff means low salaries and no vesting rights for pensions and retiree health benefits. I am sure you all remember Mayor Bloomberg's press conference where he called experienced teachers irrelevant. These pseudo education reformers are simply people who want to reduce public education expenditures by encouraging Charter schools, reducing funding to public schools, and eliminating union protections.

Education Reformers:
For many education reformers the "quality teacher" is by far the most important factor in student learning. These same education reformers ignore class sizes, social-economic issues, Administrative competence, and lack of school resources as factors in student academic achievement. Furthermore, these education reformers blame teacher unions for many of the problems in schools. For example, they claim that teachers have "tenure for life", knowing full well that teachers accused of incompetence or misconduct can be terminated at an Administrative hearing in front of an impartial Arbitrator where the school board can present their case against the teacher. To most of us this is called "due process". Furthermore, the education reformers claim that teachers get automatic tenure. Again, this is a lie. Tenure can only be granted by an Administrator after three years of satisfactory service. Tenure can be denied or a teacher's probation can be extended until the Principal is satisfied that the teacher deserves tenure. Therefore, tenure is awarded not automatic and tenured teachers can still be terminated if the school district presents sufficient evidence to prove teacher incompetence or misconduct. Many education reformers support Charter schools and vouchers and believe that technology is a way to improve student academic achievement. Some of these reformers even believe that technology can replace teachers and support online learning as a way to improve student learning. In New York City $50 million dollars are being wasted in the izone program where almost all student learning is done online with little or no teacher interaction and at best has been received mixed reviews by schools who are part of the program. In fact, in Minnesota there are more dropouts in these online learning schools than regular public schools.To the education reformers a "quality teacher" is a teacher that raises student scores on standardized tests (test prep), and are always available day and night for student needs. Moreover, a "quality teacher" is a teacher willing to take over many non-teaching duties, without added compensation and does not hide behind the union contract. That is why the education reformers love Charter schools since teachers must do additional duties besides teaching, work an extended day and year, and have little "due process" in hiring/firing decisions. Of course the education reformers ignore the high teacher turnover and burnout that comes with their definition of a "quality teacher".

Traditional Educators:
The vast majority of educators who came from the classroom understand that education can be improved by slowly and carefully incorporating new ideas and testing them in the classroom. For example technology can aid teaching by supporting a lesson rather than replacing the lesson with its own. For the traditional educator a "quality teacher" is a teacher that not only know the curriculum but can go deeper into what each lesson means to student learning. Further, the "quality teacher" has the ability to tailor his or her lesson to best help the students in maximizing their academic improvement. In other words, "let teachers teach" A "quality teacher" can enhance the curriculum by telling his or her students a story that shows how a lesson comes alive and why it is important to understand the significance of the subject taught to the student. A "quality teacher" has the ability to place the student into the lesson taught and actually experience the academic significance in the real world. An example is to teach lower grades the significance of Math by using money to buy food to eat, buy toys, and save. For many traditional educators, a "quality teacher" is a teacher that can successfully impart knowledge, cares for the students, and can handle classroom management issues to maximize student academic achievement. Additionally, manageable class sizes, adequate resources, and Administrative support are all an integral part of being a "quality teacher".


The bottom line is a "quality teacher" is a one of the many important elements of student academic achievement. However, the definition of a "quality teacher" is very different for the different groups who dominate education policy and that is the major problem in shaping a truly effective education policy.

The DOE "Job Fair" Was Like Going To An Oldies Convention But Without The Music. What A Waste Of Time.

I went to the mandatory DOE "job fair" for ATRs at the Brooklyn Museum and I felt I was at an oldies convention with almost all the teachers there being in their 40's, 50's and 60's. Only WCBS-FM was missing to supply the music. Conspicuous by their absence were young teachers. Of course the young teachers in excess were quickly gobbled up in the "Open Market Transfer System" and the "job fairs" over the summer as principals were looking for the cheapest, not "quality teachers" to fill their vacancies. What happened to the DOE's slogan of "children first"?

In my subject, which is considered a shortage area, I could found no Queens high schools looking to fill the position at the "oldies convention" oops I mean the DOE "job fair". Only a transfer school and a closing high school both in Brooklyn had openings in my field. On the positive side I did meet old friends I haven't seen in a year or two, including many who were excessed from my old high school. Normally, seeing so many excessed teachers my age could be depressing. However, meeting many of my peers and hearing their stories actually made for interesting conversation as we compared our futile search for jobs only to find how the principals were hiring "Teaching Fellows" and the "Teach For America" candidates and getting exemptions for the bogus "DOE hiring freeze" despite not having any teaching experience. I guess you can call it "education on the cheap".

If I were the DOE I would be very embarrassed about the "job fair". The preponderance of senior teachers, many of them "quality teachers" the DOE claims they need in the schools submitted resumes to the very few schools that seem to fit. In fact, almost half the seats where schools were supposed to be at the "job fair" were empty as the schools didn't bother to show up!. Moreover, the vast majority of the ATRs found few if any positions in their district or even Borough. To say it was "slim pickings" would be an understatement. The DOE should be ashamed of this travesty and the union has a lot of explaining to do in being part of it. Even the DOE promise of free parking was a lie as many of us were forced to pay between $5-$9 dollars to the museum parking lot even after showing them the paper we were at the "job fair". Of course, this is the DOE and lying to the teachers are just part of the game to disillusion us into resigning. Fat chance of that happening.

The DOE's Open Market Transfer System Is Simply A Joke As Few, If Any, Senior Teachers Are Hired And Most Don't Even Get Interviews.

On Monday the DOE's Open Market Transfer System (OMTS) ends and few, if any, senior teachers were hired through the process. In many cases teachers who applied didn't even get a courtesy interview. First, let's look at the history of the OMTS. The OMTS was created by the DOE in the wake of the infamous 2005 contract that eliminated seniority-based bumping and worst of all eased the excessing restrictions in the District. In other words, the School District no longer had to fill their vacancies with excessed teachers before they offered them to "newbie teachers". The result was an explosion of excessed teachers, called ATRs that ranged from 1,200 to 2,800 teachers depending on the time of the school year.

The union hailed the OMTS by claiming principals were no longer able to hide their vacancies (before principals were allowed to hide 50% of their vacancies). "Unity's" top propagandist and supporter of the infamous 2005 contract, Leo Casey, once even bragged how well the OMTS worked in the first year. Of course this was before Tweed's "fair student funding formula" was implemented (However, I believe even those statistics showed that schools did not want to hire higher salaried teachers). Of course as the DOE's "fair student funding formula" was fully implemented and principals were financially punished if they hired a senior teacher, those statistics changed drastically. By 2008 even Leo Casey obviously realized there was a problem and not to embarrass his "Unity" bosses, he failed to follow up on these more disturbing statistics that reared their ugly head in age and salary discrimination for the years that followed. I know the UFT has the numbers, why don't they publish them?

Now we come to the end of the latest OMTS and nothing has changed. I am in a DOE shortage area and applied to ten vacancies as well as going to a "job fair". Despite being an excellent teacher, I did not get one interview, not one! Why? Because I am an older teacher and make too much money. Is it just me? No, I know many ATRs in my situation and not one I know received a job offer and almost all did not even get an interview. Worse, I overheard a conversation at the "job fair" between two administrators who talked about how they are are looking for young, inexpensive, and preferably untenured teachers in excess to fill their vacancies.

The OMTS is simply a "waste of time" if you are a senior teacher and seems only to work for younger, lower paid teachers looking to transfer to a better school. "Children first"? Don't make me laugh. It is really "children last...Always" as great teachers are no longer given the opportunity to compete for a vacancy if they are a senior teacher.

P.S. tell me your story about the OMTS.

The Education Reformers Real Mission Is To Make Money And Make Teachers An Expendable Commodity - Not To Help Children Succeed Academically.

Over the last few years the buzz words for the anti-education crowd has been "education reform". Before "education reform" became the the cause celeb for the anti-education crowd the two political parties had different visions to change public education. For the Republicans (especially the right wing of the party) it was school vouchers to private or religious schools and home schooling with little or no union interference. While for the Democrats it was forced integration, school choice, everybody should be given a chance for college, and adding support for struggling schools in poverty areas. Both political parties wanted to find a way to reduce education spending and get more "bang for the buck" but had completely different ideas of how to do it. This difference in the philosophy of the two parties made it difficult to come to a consensus on what is best for the public schools. The result was an education budget that was subject to the whims of the political party in power. However, with this schism, it was easier for smart education leaders and unions to "play the system" by pitting the political parties against each other to support education in the country and educators (many of them former classroom teachers) were able to guide education policy and the funding that went along with these programs.

This all changed in the last decade as the anti-education crowd started to attract supporters from both political parties. More importantly, the for-profit organizations, many of them supported by Hedge Fund Managers smelled a chance to make loads of money by investing in them, started to lobby for "Charter Schools". Increasingly these non-educators started to take control of various school districts, especially inner-city urban areas (New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C., etc.). Many of these "education reformers" had these issues in common.

• School choice.
• Privatization of schools.
• Joint private/public funding of new schools that are not subject to union rules.
• Weakening of teacher "due process" rights.
• More efficient use of money for schools.
  

These "education reformers"came together in their advocacy of "Charter Schools". For the Republican members it incorporated their agenda of funding of a semi-private school with little or no union presence and the privatization of school finances for for-profit organizations. For the Democrats, it was the school choice issue and the "Charter Schools" offered the poor minority students a different path for success. Finally, for both it was supposed to be more efficient in allocating funds to the schools. Therefore, the "Charter School movement" became the program for the "Education Reformers". Who could disagree with the formation of "Charter Schools" that help the poverty level minority student? As we shall see, these "Education Reformers" had a different agenda then helping the children. For these for-profit groups their main goal was to make a profit for their "Hedge Fund Managers" which included destroying the teacher unions, eliminate educator " due process rights", and make the teaching profession a temporary job where teachers would be gone from the system before they qualified for a pension or retiree health benefits. By not paying out employee benefits, especially pensions, these for-profit organizations can maximize profits.

The problem with "Charter Schools " are many. First, they require significant public funds, even the ones that claim they are privately owned. These public funds usually come out of the neighborhood school in a "rob Peter to pay Paul" scenario. Second, many of the "Charter Schools" fail to take ELL or Special Education students and try to council out children with behavioral problems claiming they do not have the "resources" for the child. These children end up in the local public school in increasing percentages making a comparison between the two schools meaningless. Third, there is a rapid turnover in school staff, especially teachers, as the workload makes the Charter School a hostile and stressful environment for them. Many Charter Schools now rely on the "two year TFA wonders" for their staffing needs in their high turnover environment. Finally, they are "at will" employers and teacher have limited or no"due process" making it difficult for teacher long-term employment. Therefore, despite trying to get the best students, the Charter School grades are no better than the Public School because of the high teacher turnover and the lack of both classroom management skills and curriculum knowledge of the "newbie teachers" that work there. I can add more but you get the message.

The main goal be "Education Reformers" is to take control of the Public School system and that means destroying the power of the educators, especially the teachers' union. Hence, the attack on teacher tenure, seniority-based layoffs known as " last in, first out" (LIFO), teacher evaluations, and collective bargaining rights. For them the teacher is simply a "tool" to use and abuse and eventually leave the system before they pay out a pension or retiree health benefits. That is why the "Education Reformers" support "merit pay". They can simply say a three year teachers should be retained over a fifteen year teacher by subjectively claiming that the three year teacher is more effective. When you challenge them about how you define merit, they sheepishly claim "test scores" and Administrator observations, knowing full well that such simple and questionable standards are prone to errors, manipulation, and abuse.

Finally, the main goal for "Education Reformers" is not what is best for the children, it is how cheaply to run an education system and make a profit for their hedge Find Managers or as I say "education on the cheap".