DCPS teacher says she is burned out -- but there's more

[Anonymous]

http://www.assortedstuff.com/?p=3266


"So, why would smart, creative, highly educated college grads want to become teachers only to be handed a collection of recipes that dictates precisely how to present a narrow, test-driven curriculum?

Many of those same politicians declare that schools ought to be run like a business.

While that’s always been a lousy idea (repeat after me: schools are NOT businesses!), if there’s one element from the corporate world that can and should be adopted for education, it’s that people are your most important asset.

And that a constant and high turnover of talented employees is probably the most detrimental factor for any organization.

Losing half of new teachers every five years is doing nothing good for American education and any meaningful reform needs to start by figuring out how to fix that problem."

[Anonymous]

Go back and read the blog entry. This isn't a DCPS teacher -- it's a DC charter school teacher.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. She was a charter school teacher who might not have been so burned out if she had had a union to protect and support her.

[Anonymous]

And was not at the whim of a single administrator unanswerable to a higher authority. Bureaucracy can suck, but it also can provide accountability.

[Anonymous]

WTU doesn't seem to be doing such a great job of protecting DCPS teachers, many of whom seem to be at the mercy of the whim of a single administrator.

I find it hard to believe that DCPS, under Rhee, will attract and retain many smart, creative, highly-motivated teachers. In that sense, I think that the critique (and the mentality being described) is applicable to DCPS as well as the charters.

[Anonymous]

I have worked for charter schools in the past and I would rather have WTU protections, weak as they are, than work in a charter school. At least our union is fighting to maintain due process. Also DCPS teachers get liability insurance through the union.

The charter schools I worked for would arbitrarily increase the work day, require teachers to attend daily staff meetings, and require additional duties, such as leading clubs and coaching sports, without additional compensation. Many of these additional demands would be made during the schoolyear with little or no notice.

The two charter schools that I worked for had turnover rates much worse than what I've experienced in DCPS. There was also a very high rate of absenteeism.

Rhee will continue to attract all kinds of enthusiastic young people to teach in DCPS through Teach for America and DC Teacher Fellows. Some will be smart, creative, and highly motivated, for a year or two. I don't think she cares about retention.

[Anonymous]

Rhee has made it very clear that she does not care about retention. Many Teach for America teachers or Teaching Fellows leave the district after their tour of duty is over and not many make it past the 5 year mark. Rhee does not want teachers who are actually vested in the community in which they work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTU doesn't seem to be doing such a great job of protecting DCPS teachers, many of whom seem to be at the mercy of the whim of a single administrator.

I find it hard to believe that DCPS, under Rhee, will attract and retain many smart, creative, highly-motivated teachers. In that sense, I think that the critique (and the mentality being described) is applicable to DCPS as well as the charters.

The Union does not do much; would only look to them for basic liability (hey, better than nothing given some of the teaching circumstances in DCPS). Yes, Rhee does not care about retention. Not a bit. None of her policies so far work to consciously identify, nurture, train, retain talent.... -fmr DCPS teacher

[Anonymous]

Burnout may be the problem, but unions aren't the answer.

As the late Albert Shanker, former American Federation of Teachers president, once said: “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”

[Anonymous]

But that's the point of the quote. Unions are there to represent the interests of teachers. I believe there would less burn out among charter school teachers if they were union members. As it is, they have no one to represent them. That leads to high burn-out, low retention, and high absenteeism, which is not in the best interest of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Burnout may be the problem, but unions aren't the answer.

As the late Albert Shanker, former American Federation of Teachers president, once said: “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”

Rote answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Burnout may be the problem, but unions aren't the answer.

As the late Albert Shanker, former American Federation of Teachers president, once said: “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”

Rote answer.

AKA "RIGHT Answer!" Because it cuts through the union B.S.

[Anonymous]

And what union B.S. would that be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And what union B.S. would that be?

NP to this thread-- the BS that frames teachers' unions as professional organizations rather than labor unions.

[Anonymous]

I haven't heard that particular BS? Please enlighten me.