WTU Contract and Charter Schools

[Anonymous]

Council will soon be reviewing and approving the new WTU contract for teachers. It includes ~$170M for retroactive raises and bonuses. Though charter schools educate nearly half of students attending publicly funded schools in D.C., there is nothing in the legislation about providing $$$ for retroactive raises for charter schools.

If charters are willing to commit to spending the money on compensation/raises, why would we want to exclude nearly half of the teachers working in the District from this legislation? Personally, I don't think my child or my child's teacher should have access to fewer resources because we opted into a charter. How is this equitable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Council will soon be reviewing and approving the new WTU contract for teachers. It includes ~$170M for retroactive raises and bonuses. Though charter schools educate nearly half of students attending publicly funded schools in D.C., there is nothing in the legislation about providing $$$ for retroactive raises for charter schools.

If charters are willing to commit to spending the money on compensation/raises, why would we want to exclude nearly half of the teachers working in the District from this legislation? Personally, I don't think my child or my child's teacher should have access to fewer resources because we opted into a charter. How is this equitable?

This is stupid. The contract with between the WTU and the city. The charter teachers aren't in the WTU.

Look, I don't really like the WTU bc I think they do a massive disservice to their members, but your argument is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Council will soon be reviewing and approving the new WTU contract for teachers. It includes ~$170M for retroactive raises and bonuses. Though charter schools educate nearly half of students attending publicly funded schools in D.C., there is nothing in the legislation about providing $$$ for retroactive raises for charter schools.

If charters are willing to commit to spending the money on compensation/raises, why would we want to exclude nearly half of the teachers working in the District from this legislation? Personally, I don't think my child or my child's teacher should have access to fewer resources because we opted into a charter. How is this equitable?

Because the teachers in your kids' charter (and ours) are not employed under the terms of the contract?

Is your point that Council should hold individual charter LEAs to an expectation/requirement that they increase teacher salaries?

[Anonymous]

Your wrong to think of this as legislation. This is oversight. Charters can pay their teachers more if they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council will soon be reviewing and approving the new WTU contract for teachers. It includes ~$170M for retroactive raises and bonuses. Though charter schools educate nearly half of students attending publicly funded schools in D.C., there is nothing in the legislation about providing $$$ for retroactive raises for charter schools.

If charters are willing to commit to spending the money on compensation/raises, why would we want to exclude nearly half of the teachers working in the District from this legislation? Personally, I don't think my child or my child's teacher should have access to fewer resources because we opted into a charter. How is this equitable?

This is stupid. The contract with between the WTU and the city. The charter teachers aren't in the WTU.

Look, I don't really like the WTU bc I think they do a massive disservice to their members, but your argument is dumb.

Exactly. You (OP) must not have really understood how charters work before you "opted" for a charter school. Charter school teachers are not DC (city/government) employees, like DCPS teachers are, nor as PP said, WTU members. This has nothing to do with "equitable". Charters can also raise funds and/or some are owned/operated by large for-profit companies, which is not the case for DCPS schools. Hopefully teachers who work at charter schools know this before "opting" to take a job at a charter school

[Anonymous]

Your child's teacher chose to work at a school where they are neither a government employee or a union member. Both of those come with a lot of benefits that those teachers chose not to have when they applied at a charter school. I assume there are benefits of working at a charter as opposed to a neighborhood school, but I am not sure what they are. This is often why the average age of teachers and years of experience at a charter school is much lower than at a neighborhood public school. This has nothing to do with resources for your child except that they are less likely to have a teacher with as much experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Council will soon be reviewing and approving the new WTU contract for teachers. It includes ~$170M for retroactive raises and bonuses. Though charter schools educate nearly half of students attending publicly funded schools in D.C., there is nothing in the legislation about providing $$$ for retroactive raises for charter schools.

If charters are willing to commit to spending the money on compensation/raises, why would we want to exclude nearly half of the teachers working in the District from this legislation? Personally, I don't think my child or my child's teacher should have access to fewer resources because we opted into a charter. How is this equitable?

Maybe your child’s teachers should form a union. Aren’t the Mundo verde teachers represented?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Council will soon be reviewing and approving the new WTU contract for teachers. It includes ~$170M for retroactive raises and bonuses. Though charter schools educate nearly half of students attending publicly funded schools in D.C., there is nothing in the legislation about providing $$$ for retroactive raises for charter schools.

If charters are willing to commit to spending the money on compensation/raises, why would we want to exclude nearly half of the teachers working in the District from this legislation? Personally, I don't think my child or my child's teacher should have access to fewer resources because we opted into a charter. How is this equitable?

If they want to spend the money on it, they can go right ahead and do it now. No need to wait on the WTU.

If you don't like it, there's a seat waiting for you at your assigned DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your child's teacher chose to work at a school where they are neither a government employee or a union member. Both of those come with a lot of benefits that those teachers chose not to have when they applied at a charter school. I assume there are benefits of working at a charter as opposed to a neighborhood school, but I am not sure what they are. This is often why the average age of teachers and years of experience at a charter school is much lower than at a neighborhood public school. This has nothing to do with resources for your child except that they are less likely to have a teacher with as much experience.

This. It's just the reality of charters versus DCPS. Charters will sometimes tout it as a feature, not a bug -- since their teachers are usually not unionized, charters will argue that it's easier for them to get rid of ineffective teachers. A lot of people dislike WTU or teachers unions generally and choose charters in part for that reason. But the downside is lower pay for teachers means it's harder to attract good, experienced teachers, and harder to retain them. Pretty much all DC charters struggle with teacher turnover, you will see it even at some of the most popular and successful charters. They do find replacements but none of the DC charters have the kind of established core of experienced teachers that you will find at most DCPS schools. And that's for better and for worse -- often the experienced teachers are phenomenal. Sometimes they are terrible and they never leave. A common occurrence is that they are good teachers who get set in their ways and may not make adjustments with changes in pedagogical theory or student needs. But they are a major source of stability in DCPS schools.

Right now, we are in a serious teacher shortage right now, and charters are scrambling for teachers. DCPS has also lost teachers, but the benefits of being a WTU member and a city employee have kept a lot of dissatisfied teachers in their jobs even through the pandemic. There are just major financial incentives to sticking it out, and DCPS teachers are reaping the benefits now with the new contract and the retroactive pay/bonuses. It's honestly why the district didn't see a mass exodus during the Covid years because it has been HARD to be a teacher these last few years, but teachers knew that eventually they would get a new contract and also knew that in the meantime, they had a lot of job security and benefits. Teaching is a tough job but it's also something you can retire from at 55 or 60 with a pension and good benefits. It's worth it to a lot of people, especially since most teachers actually do enjoy teaching itself.

[Anonymous]

Charters are independent businesses with some oversight by DCPCSB (laughable). Do some research and you'd be surprised at how much autonomy they really have. The Charter Boards have all the power. We learned the hard way. So they can pay whatever they want for teachers and admin.

[Anonymous]

Charters can spend whatever they want on teacher salaries. Maybe write the board.

[Anonymous]

In addition to what has been explained above, the payment system to charters from DC is not a line-item situation where they pay x amount for teacher salaries, y amount for janitorial. The payments are based on butts in seats. The funding calculation is not impacted by teacher salary increases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child's teacher chose to work at a school where they are neither a government employee or a union member. Both of those come with a lot of benefits that those teachers chose not to have when they applied at a charter school. I assume there are benefits of working at a charter as opposed to a neighborhood school, but I am not sure what they are. This is often why the average age of teachers and years of experience at a charter school is much lower than at a neighborhood public school. This has nothing to do with resources for your child except that they are less likely to have a teacher with as much experience.

This. It's just the reality of charters versus DCPS. Charters will sometimes tout it as a feature, not a bug -- since their teachers are usually not unionized, charters will argue that it's easier for them to get rid of ineffective teachers. A lot of people dislike WTU or teachers unions generally and choose charters in part for that reason. But the downside is lower pay for teachers means it's harder to attract good, experienced teachers, and harder to retain them. Pretty much all DC charters struggle with teacher turnover, you will see it even at some of the most popular and successful charters. They do find replacements but none of the DC charters have the kind of established core of experienced teachers that you will find at most DCPS schools. And that's for better and for worse -- often the experienced teachers are phenomenal. Sometimes they are terrible and they never leave. A common occurrence is that they are good teachers who get set in their ways and may not make adjustments with changes in pedagogical theory or student needs. But they are a major source of stability in DCPS schools.

Right now, we are in a serious teacher shortage right now, and charters are scrambling for teachers. DCPS has also lost teachers, but the benefits of being a WTU member and a city employee have kept a lot of dissatisfied teachers in their jobs even through the pandemic. There are just major financial incentives to sticking it out, and DCPS teachers are reaping the benefits now with the new contract and the retroactive pay/bonuses. It's honestly why the district didn't see a mass exodus during the Covid years because it has been HARD to be a teacher these last few years, but teachers knew that eventually they would get a new contract and also knew that in the meantime, they had a lot of job security and benefits. Teaching is a tough job but it's also something you can retire from at 55 or 60 with a pension and good benefits. It's worth it to a lot of people, especially since most teachers actually do enjoy teaching itself.

And WTU jumps into an otherwise reasonable thread with cogent explanations of why OP was confused to spout garbage. All schools across the country are having challenges attracting and retaining teachers. This is not specific to charters and I am aware of no actual data illustrating any one area being disproportionately impacted. There are some great teachers in DCPS as well as in charters. There is also a lot of dead weight in DCPS and some in charters. The tenured dead weight in DCPS is a major issue for younger, hungrier and better DCPS teachers as well as families in DCPS.

The narrative of better teachers in DCPS or piss poor teachers in charters is old hat. I respect the fact that you will continue to make this case even in the face of data. WTU argues that the charters in DC with the best academic outcomes in the city are staffed with bad teachers. As if the parents in those schools are going to be swayed by this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In addition to what has been explained above, the payment system to charters from DC is not a line-item situation where they pay x amount for teacher salaries, y amount for janitorial. The payments are based on butts in seats. The funding calculation is not impacted by teacher salary increases.

This, which also means that if DC allocated more money to charter schools, the charters would be free to spend that money on administrators or facilitators and NOT teachers, because charters have freedom to budget as they wish.

So even if OP's wish was granted and DC gave charters X amount of money for teacher salaries, many charters would just use it to pad out administrator salaries or on other items and teachers wouldn't see a dime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child's teacher chose to work at a school where they are neither a government employee or a union member. Both of those come with a lot of benefits that those teachers chose not to have when they applied at a charter school. I assume there are benefits of working at a charter as opposed to a neighborhood school, but I am not sure what they are. This is often why the average age of teachers and years of experience at a charter school is much lower than at a neighborhood public school. This has nothing to do with resources for your child except that they are less likely to have a teacher with as much experience.

This. It's just the reality of charters versus DCPS. Charters will sometimes tout it as a feature, not a bug -- since their teachers are usually not unionized, charters will argue that it's easier for them to get rid of ineffective teachers. A lot of people dislike WTU or teachers unions generally and choose charters in part for that reason. But the downside is lower pay for teachers means it's harder to attract good, experienced teachers, and harder to retain them. Pretty much all DC charters struggle with teacher turnover, you will see it even at some of the most popular and successful charters. They do find replacements but none of the DC charters have the kind of established core of experienced teachers that you will find at most DCPS schools. And that's for better and for worse -- often the experienced teachers are phenomenal. Sometimes they are terrible and they never leave. A common occurrence is that they are good teachers who get set in their ways and may not make adjustments with changes in pedagogical theory or student needs. But they are a major source of stability in DCPS schools.

Right now, we are in a serious teacher shortage right now, and charters are scrambling for teachers. DCPS has also lost teachers, but the benefits of being a WTU member and a city employee have kept a lot of dissatisfied teachers in their jobs even through the pandemic. There are just major financial incentives to sticking it out, and DCPS teachers are reaping the benefits now with the new contract and the retroactive pay/bonuses. It's honestly why the district didn't see a mass exodus during the Covid years because it has been HARD to be a teacher these last few years, but teachers knew that eventually they would get a new contract and also knew that in the meantime, they had a lot of job security and benefits. Teaching is a tough job but it's also something you can retire from at 55 or 60 with a pension and good benefits. It's worth it to a lot of people, especially since most teachers actually do enjoy teaching itself.

And WTU jumps into an otherwise reasonable thread with cogent explanations of why OP was confused to spout garbage. All schools across the country are having challenges attracting and retaining teachers. This is not specific to charters and I am aware of no actual data illustrating any one area being disproportionately impacted. There are some great teachers in DCPS as well as in charters. There is also a lot of dead weight in DCPS and some in charters. The tenured dead weight in DCPS is a major issue for younger, hungrier and better DCPS teachers as well as families in DCPS.

The narrative of better teachers in DCPS or piss poor teachers in charters is old hat. I respect the fact that you will continue to make this case even in the face of data. WTU argues that the charters in DC with the best academic outcomes in the city are staffed with bad teachers. As if the parents in those schools are going to be swayed by this nonsense.

(1) I'm not a teacher and am not part of WTU

(2) I never said charter teachers were "piss poor". I have known great charter teachers. They are, on average, younger and less experienced. And charters in DC have much bigger retention issues than DCPS schools. Yes, the flip side of this is that DCPS schools sometimes have older teachers who probably should retire, and in some DCPS schools there is a contingent of teachers who are "dead weight" and negatively impact the culture of the school, and the education of students, but not much can be done because they are job protected. But it doesn't change the fact that charters deal with a lot of teacher turnover because those jobs don't pay as well and don't offer the same good benefits.

It's just how it is. It's the double edged sword of teachers unions. On the one hand, teaching is a tough profession and public teachers unions help to make the profession more appealing to people so that we do in fact wind up with experienced teachers who stick around for decades and are good at their jobs and offer continuity for families. On the other hand, the same incentives the union fights for that help ensure people want to become teachers can make it hard to get rid of someone who really should not be teaching, especially in a time like this when there is, in fact, a teacher shortage.

I'm not even pro-union 100%, I'm just explaining to OP that this is way it is, and you can't just opt for a charter and then get mad when you have to deal with the negative aspects of charters (like lower teacher pay, often less experienced teachers, and higher turnover). Just like you can't opt into DCPS and then get mad when you have to deal with the negative aspects of having a union workforce, especially in DC where you do have the option of charters. We've created a bifurcated system and this is the consequence.