The Education Gadfly Weekly

Paul T. Hill, Lydia Rainey, and Andrew J. Rotherham
Center on Reinventing Public Education's National Charter School Research Project
October 2006

This short but informative report summarizes and draws lessons from the proceedings of a May 2006 symposium on teacher unions and charter schools. It finds some common ground between the two camps. The authors point out, for instance, that both union and charter leaders are "united against a common enemy: the school district bureaucracy." Both sides agree that successful schools require "respect and trust between teachers and management," and some union leaders see in charters an opportunity for teachers to secure greater input in school operations and further "professionalize the profession" in general. But overall, the mood was less congenial, and this report evokes the sources of contention between the two sides. Chief among these is that unions and charter supporters often have different perceptions of the facts, such as whether or not teachers are more satisfied working in charter schools. Charter supporters and union advocates also disagree about "how to get good teaching," clashing on issues such as control over hiring and firing and differential pay. The report presents no elixir, but the authors do include a few general recommendations for moving "toward coexistence--if not détente." One idea is to encourage representatives from both camps to visit charter schools that have invited unionization in California and UFT-run charters in New York. Also, as unilateral steps, charter advocates should acknowledge and address the labor abuses that can and do exist in union-free charter schools. The unions, for their part, should quit strategically eliminating leaders with a moderate stance on charters. But why would more charter schools (especially successful ones) invite divisive unions into their ranks? And why would teachers unions support reforms that weaken their power? The authors would like to think that a "third way" exists in this fight, but like the Cold War, we will only have "détente" when one side goes away for good. Read the report here.

Susan Sclafani and Marc S. Tucker
Center for American Progress
October 2006

International education comparisons (see here and here) are in vogue. And the Center for American Progress has joined the soiree with this, a review of teacher and principal compensation policies internationally (mainly OECD countries), and of the research that gauges their effectiveness. The report addresses six major topics: teacher compensation levels, incentives for teaching in challenging schools or in shortage subject areas, performance-related salary systems, principal compensation systems, the relationship between teacher salary and class size, and the influence of unions on compensation. It argues that nations are increasingly adopting policies targeted at younger, reform-minded teachers (merit pay, higher initial salaries, and the privilege to negotiate individual salaries with principals) as part of the push to "professionalize" teaching. It also argues that the United States has a long way to go if it wants to recruit more of its best and brightest into teaching. For example, American teachers may earn the most among teachers in G-8 countries in terms of purchasing power. But when the salaries of G-8 teachers are compared with those of other jobs in their respective countries, U.S. salaries are the lowest in the pack. (However, this finding doesn't consider benefits, which are much more generous for American teachers than their private-sector peers, and which may not be true for the rest of the world.) And, according to the report, as the world continues to "flatten," recruiting and retaining enough quality teachers in developed countries will grow more challenging. Extensive appendices provide a country-by-country breakdown, too. Although a useful compendium, this isn't really a study--it's more of a hodgepodge of facts about teacher and principal compensation across the globe. Even if it doesn't break any new ground or offer any fresh recommendations, it's still an enlightening read. See it here.  

This October, the Halloween treats came early for supporters of Ohio's 300 charter schools. In a 4-3 decision handed down Tuesday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state's charter school program, much maligned by critics, is indeed constitutional. The ruling is consistent with decisions by other state courts across the nation. And what had served as a five-year distraction is now a victory that paves the way for serious--and long overdue--reforms to the state's charter school program.

Charter school advocates are jubilant-most notably the families of the 70,000-plus students that attend the state's "community" schools, as state statute calls charters. The case of Ohio Congress of Parents and Teachers v. the State of Ohio Board of Education not only firmly ensconces the charter program as a lawful alternative to troubled district schools, but also guarantees parents' right to select the best education options for their children.

Meanwhile, state teacher unions, the Ohio School Boards Association and other opponents are fuming about the court's decision. Understandably so. The ruling nullifies all of the appellants' constitutional objections and leaves little room for future litigation--at least in Ohio.

Central to the opponents' case was the claim that charters were not part of the system of "common schools" largely because they do not have to meet the same standards as traditional district schools. In the majority opinion, Justice Judith Lanzinger wrote that the charter school program meets the constitutional definition of public education--thereby reaffirming the General Assembly's prerogative to structure the state's education system and making it clear that the definition of "common schools" needn't be limited to historical structures (such as the traditional district system)--and allows for innovation and customization. (Too bad Floridians weren't so lucky earlier this year.)

The court discredited the argument that charter schools do not meet the same standards as traditional public schools, noting that charter schools are required to administer state assessments, maintain adequate facilities and meet all health and safety standards as their district counterparts. Justice Lanzinger indicated that there are some requirements from which community schools are exempt, but "upon closer examination, many of these exemptions are picayune in nature."

Another major part of the suit against charters was that these schools siphon precious local dollars from traditional school districts and thus hamper their ability to provide a "thorough and efficient" system of education. The court rightly recognized that charter schools are funded separately from traditional districts. When a student moves from a district school to a charter school, he or she actually leaves the local share of education dollars with the district. Thus the district is left to educate the remaining students with more money per pupil.

In gross terms, the ruling was a shellacking for charter school opponents. Many will no doubt tend to their wounds and retake the field freshly armed to continue battle against charter schools, both in Ohio and elsewhere. Yet one can hope that the stakeholders in both camps can get back to the more important task of educating children. Certainly, the legislature can return to the equally noble task of reforming the state's education system, charters included. After all, many charter laws do need to be changed-or in some cases completely rewritten (see here). Poor schools need to be shuttered, effective ones supported and replicated, and charter school sponsors more closely evaluated.

With the Ohio Supreme Court decision, the state's charters-public schools all-have fought and won their legitimacy to educate Ohio's youngsters. Now we must help them succeed.

"Ruling backs Ohio charter schools plan," by Jim Provance, Toledo Blade, October 26, 2006

"Grammar Greiner" suddenly has a following at Westfield High School in Northern Virginia. Although he's known as the toughest English teacher in the school, students who want to do well on the SAT's new essay-writing section know they have to improve their grammar. So they sign up and endure his lessons on commas, apostrophes, spelling, and sentence structure. This is part of a discernible, if small, national trend to reintroduce grammar into the classroom. Even the group that once condemned grammar as "a deterrent to the improvement of students' speaking and writing," the National Council of Teachers of English, has changed it's tune. Its about time. And if you missed the apostrophe errors in the previous sentences, call Greiner. He'll set you straight. (Or just for fun, test your knowledge of punctuation here.)

"Clauses and Commas Make a Comeback," by Daniel de Vise, Washington Post, October 23, 2006

Low high school graduation rates have headlined the education woes of many urban districts, worrying educators and Oprah alike. But the data on dropouts have always been inadequate and rather one-dimensional, denoting that X out of every 100 students fail to graduate. Now, urban districts are starting to take a closer look at who's leaving their schools early and why. Over the past week, Philadelphia and New York each reacted to findings from two independent reports detailing not just how many students fail to graduate high school, but also when and why they veer off the education path. In Philadelphia, for instance, eighth grade is the tipping point--eighth graders who regularly skip classes and fail either English or math have a 75 percent chance of dropping out of high school. New York City's study discovered that 93 percent of dropouts from the class of 2003 had at some point in time fallen behind in accumulating graduation credits. (This takes some pressure off the state's Regents exams, which is often blamed for the dropout deluge.) Knowing you have a problem is the first step in solving it; kudos to these two cities for finally acknowledging their harsh reality. Now let's hope they show the same seriousness in changing it.

"Study Takes a Sharp Look at the City's Failing Students," by Elissa Gootman, New York Times, October 22, 2006

"Dropout crisis in city emerges from research," by Martha Woodall, Philadelphia Inquirer, October 19, 2006

The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik, himself an Upper East Sider, believes "that a constant obsessive-compulsive anxiety about children--their health, their future, the holes in their socks, and the fraying of their psyches--is taken entirely for granted" in New York City. Such becomes plain when one surveys the landscape of Manhattan private schools, its preschools in particular, some of which charge close to $20,000 per year (for a few mornings a week, that is) and require entrance exams and résumés for three-year-olds. (And when it comes to Kindergarten, some parents are holding their children back to give them more time to burnish their counting and shoe-tying credentials.) But a recent article in the New York Times--revelatory for Manhattan's elite Moms; a big yawn for the rest of the world--puts forth that small kids may not actually benefit all that much from the ritziest private pre-K. According to the piece's author, the admissions directors at Harvard typically don't ask applicants where they preschooled (what, what?). And, anecdotes aside, the available data don't ascribe to private schools the type of educational advantages that their tuitions (and tuition-payers) often presuppose. "Child obsessiveness is a substitute for status obsessiveness," Gopnik writes. It's murky, however, what it does for the child in question. (Though, for the record, nothing is too good for Gadfly's granddaughter.)

"Relax, It's Just Preschool," by Hillary Chura, New York Times, October 23, 2006

Adam Gopnik, Through the Children's Gate (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006).

Paul T. Hill, Lydia Rainey, and Andrew J. Rotherham
Center on Reinventing Public Education's National Charter School Research Project
October 2006

This short but informative report summarizes and draws lessons from the proceedings of a May 2006 symposium on teacher unions and charter schools. It finds some common ground between the two camps. The authors point out, for instance, that both union and charter leaders are "united against a common enemy: the school district bureaucracy." Both sides agree that successful schools require "respect and trust between teachers and management," and some union leaders see in charters an opportunity for teachers to secure greater input in school operations and further "professionalize the profession" in general. But overall, the mood was less congenial, and this report evokes the sources of contention between the two sides. Chief among these is that unions and charter supporters often have different perceptions of the facts, such as whether or not teachers are more satisfied working in charter schools. Charter supporters and union advocates also disagree about "how to get good teaching," clashing on issues such as control over hiring and firing and differential pay. The report presents no elixir, but the authors do include a few general recommendations for moving "toward coexistence--if not détente." One idea is to encourage representatives from both camps to visit charter schools that have invited unionization in California and UFT-run charters in New York. Also, as unilateral steps, charter advocates should acknowledge and address the labor abuses that can and do exist in union-free charter schools. The unions, for their part, should quit strategically eliminating leaders with a moderate stance on charters. But why would more charter schools (especially successful ones) invite divisive unions into their ranks? And why would teachers unions support reforms that weaken their power? The authors would like to think that a "third way" exists in this fight, but like the Cold War, we will only have "détente" when one side goes away for good. Read the report here.

Susan Sclafani and Marc S. Tucker
Center for American Progress
October 2006

International education comparisons (see here and here) are in vogue. And the Center for American Progress has joined the soiree with this, a review of teacher and principal compensation policies internationally (mainly OECD countries), and of the research that gauges their effectiveness. The report addresses six major topics: teacher compensation levels, incentives for teaching in challenging schools or in shortage subject areas, performance-related salary systems, principal compensation systems, the relationship between teacher salary and class size, and the influence of unions on compensation. It argues that nations are increasingly adopting policies targeted at younger, reform-minded teachers (merit pay, higher initial salaries, and the privilege to negotiate individual salaries with principals) as part of the push to "professionalize" teaching. It also argues that the United States has a long way to go if it wants to recruit more of its best and brightest into teaching. For example, American teachers may earn the most among teachers in G-8 countries in terms of purchasing power. But when the salaries of G-8 teachers are compared with those of other jobs in their respective countries, U.S. salaries are the lowest in the pack. (However, this finding doesn't consider benefits, which are much more generous for American teachers than their private-sector peers, and which may not be true for the rest of the world.) And, according to the report, as the world continues to "flatten," recruiting and retaining enough quality teachers in developed countries will grow more challenging. Extensive appendices provide a country-by-country breakdown, too. Although a useful compendium, this isn't really a study--it's more of a hodgepodge of facts about teacher and principal compensation across the globe. Even if it doesn't break any new ground or offer any fresh recommendations, it's still an enlightening read. See it here.