By Jack Gerson
Sept. 30, 2007

Teacher turnover is soaring in urban school districts and inner city schools across the country. It’s commonplace for schools to lose more than one-fourth—and sometimes more than one-half—of their teachers, year after year after year. Since studies consistently show a strong positive association between teacher experience and student learning, this exodus of teachers from low-income schools makes the sad state of our inner city schools sorrier still. It also spells increased instability for kids with little else fixed in their lives and for neighborhoods that are already desperately unstable.

Why can’t inner city schools retain their teachers? What can be done to address the problem?

Jonathan Kozol, in "Letters to a Young Teacher" (Education Week, August 29) takes issue with the prevailing wisdom that young teachers leave inner city schools out of frustration borne of inability to relate to minority students. Instead, Kozol points to

"the systematic crushing of their creativity and intellect, the threatened desiccation of their personalities, and the degradation of their sense of self-respect under the weight of heavy-handed, business-modeled systems of Skinnerian instruction, the cultural denuding of curriculum required by the test-prep mania they face, and the sense of being trapped within ‘a state of siege,’ as one teacher puts it, all of which is now exacerbated by that mighty angst machine known as No Child Left Behind."

There’s a lot of truth to what Kozol says. And it applies to veteran teachers, too—and even to teachers whose students score high on high stakes tests. Here’s an excerpt from an email posted recently to a national list:

"I returned to urban public school teaching last school year, after having left public schools before NCLB was authorized. The school environment and teacher satisfaction pre- and post- NCLB is like day and night. I speak not as a teacher who struggled with standardized test scores last year, but as one whose class reached 100% proficiency in reading and almost 100% proficiency in math (the one child who was not "proficient" came to third grade with a preschool level understanding of math - it’s a miracle that he scored as well as he did on a third grade math test). When the results came out my principal called me at home with the "good news". She asked me my "secret", how did I do it? Unfortunately, I wasn’t honest with her in my response, but I’ll be honest with you. I sold my soul to obtain those test results. For one hundred forty days I acted in complete opposition to my personal educational philosophy because I am a driven individual who wants to be at the top of my profession and right now NCLB defines what a "good" teacher is. It is imperative that educators take back control of our profession, redefine the goals and mission of our schools, and understand and support the means by which truly good teachers and school leaders develop."

This teacher is right. Educators don’t run public education. There’s been a hostile takeover of most of our country’s major urban school systems by the proponents of the "business model" for education—run everything by the numbers, "bottom-line" oriented. Treat school districts like corporations. Run schools as though they were "profit centers". Consider kids to be "revenue sources".

Not by accident, the advocates of the business model are among the most ardent supporters of the No Child Left Behind Legislation. The Broad Foundation (proprietor, Los Angeles billionaire Eli Broad, the most outspoken proponent of the business model) has officially partnered with the U.S. Department of Education around the implementation of the No Child Left Behind legislation. And NCLB enforces the mind-numbing high stakes testing environment that is driving teachers out of public education and turning kids off to learning and creativity: Eliminate electives, focus on two subjects: reading and math. Dumb these down to the lowest (and—importantly—most easily quantified and measured) rote common denominators—kill and drill ‘rithmetic, narrowly focused phonics. Hold teachers and schools accountable for their students’ performance on standardized tests, and punish those that do poorly (even if most of that teachers’ kids live in group homes, or get only one meal per day, or have no quiet place to do their homework, or …). Schools that don’t measure up to NCLB’s ridiculous criteria—which means nearly all inner city schools—first get punished, then can be shut down or "reconstituted"—students and staffs scattered. After two or three years of trying to teach under these conditions, it’s no wonder teachers leave in droves. It’s a wonder that so many stay.

In addition to the reason Kozol gives for young teachers leaving inner city schools—the crushing of their creativity and intellect by the NCLB-driven teach-to-the-test environment—there’s another critical factor at work: the "philanthropreneurs" of the business model for education don’t view teaching as a career, but as an entry-level job into the business of education. Thus, many new teachers are explicitly recruited to be short-timers. Teach for America (TFA), for example, places its inductees in inner city schools for two years. Those TFAers who make it through two years have a large part of their student loans excused. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of TFAers walk away from their inner city school job after two years.

And now, Teach For America and the Broad Foundation are partnered in a program that will give new teachers still more incentive to leave teaching. According to the October 3 Education Week, TFA—with Broad’s assistance—has established a pipeline to facilitate and accelerate TFA teachers becoming principals. Select TFAers will be groomed to become principals as little as four years after college graduation—two years as a TFA teacher, one year studying educational administration at Harvard, one year as a "resident principal" (business-ese for principal-in-training)—and then, presto, principal.

This is part and parcel of the business agenda many of us recognize: force out higher-salaried veteran teachers. Bring in lower-paid new teachers. Press to cut back on health and pension benefits. Press for longer work day, work week, work year.

The combination of "standards-based" teach-to-the test rote learning with measures that accelerate teacher turnover can lead nowhere but down. This is bad for teachers, worse for schools, worst of all for students. It is high time—past time—to say, "Enough!"

• Scrap NCLB—increased federal funding for education, but without the high stakes testing-based accountability and punitive measures.
• Scrap the "business model for education". Quality education is the right of every citizen, and society needs to pay for and provide it.
• Make teaching a career, not an entry level job into the business of education. Decent compensation and livable working hours for all teachers
• Foster authentic mentoring—team teaching, pairing new and veteran teachers, with ample additional collaboration time

By Jessie Muldoon

THE NO Child Left Behind Act is the Bush administration’s deeply flawed legislation that claims to be the solution to the many problems of public education. Signed into law in January 2002, it won bipartisan support–most notably, from liberal Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy.

NCLB promised to close the achievement gap between middle-class suburban students and those at under-funded inner-city or rural schools. Bush and others spoke of accountability and equity, but the critics of NCLB saw through the rhetoric for what the law really is–an attempt to privatize education and transfer the responsibility and cost of educating our children from the federal government to individual and often impoverished school districts.

NCLB is built around the use of standardized tests–with the promise that gaps in testing will begone by 2014. Progress toward this goal is to be measured by AverageYearly Progress (AYP) scores, with sanctions imposed on schools that don’t make the annual goals.

The law promises parents that their children will be taught by “highly qualified” teachers andallows them to request a transfer to a different school. The lawopens the door to vouchers and charter schools, threatens to privatize services currently provided by unionized public schoolemployees and welcomes faith-based groups into school programs. Butthe real centerpiece of NCLB is standardized testing.

* * *

THE NATIONAL Education Association(NEA)–the country’s largest teachers union–has filed a lawsuitagainst NCLB, charging that due to under-funding, the law forcesstates and school districts to comply with impossible demands. Schooldistricts are required to implement curriculum, structure andrestructure programs, and hire or lay off employees.

Since 2002, shortfalls in federalfunding for NCLB are estimated at $27 billion. Ultimately, stategovernments have made up the difference, putting a further strain ontheir budgets. This burden has caused a quiet rebellion against thelaw. The state governments of Michigan, Texas and Vermont areprotesting the law and participating in the lawsuit.

However, teachers have a joke aboutthis question: “Republicans won’t fund No Child Left Behind, andDemocrats say they will. We don’t know which is worse.” Thepoint underlying the joke is that there’s no reason to believe thatNCLB, even fully funded, would really improve the educational system.

For one thing, NCLB’s overemphasis ontesting forces teachers to “teach to the test”–by focusingmainly on areas covered in the standardized tests. Currently, mathand reading are the most-tested areas–so social studies and science,and even more so, art and music, are shoved to the side.

Most education experts believe that aneducational program has to be balanced. Cutting the arts or historyto make way for test prep will likely improve a student’s testscores–as will eliminating libraries so that a school can buyrequired test prep materials or replacing a literature class with aone-size-fits-all scripted reading curriculum. But this does littlefor students beyond helping them “bubble in” answer sheets.

What does testing really tell us?Crudely, it shows little more than how well a student takes a testand how well a teacher prepared their class for the test.

In fact, testing is big business.Testing companies–especially the ones that also publishtextbooks–make huge profits from the tests and supplementarymaterials that schools are often forced to purchase. According to thearticle “Testing Companies Mine for Gold” from RethinkingSchools, the two largest testing companies, Harcourt and McGraw-Hill,are billion-dollar giants.

In the same article points out anotherprofitable element of the testing industry: scoring. The GeneralAccounting Office report on NCLB estimates that it costsapproximately $7 to score a test with open-ended questions, comparedto $1 each for scoring tests with all multiple-choice questions. Itis no surprise, then, that under-funded school districts opt for thecheaper, but less meaningful, multiple-choice tests.

THE NATIONAL Education Association(NEA)–the country’s largest teachers union–has filed a lawsuitagainst NCLB, charging that due to under-funding, the law forcesstates and school districts to comply with impossible demands. Schooldistricts are required to implement curriculum, structure andrestructure programs, and hire or lay off employees.

Since 2002, shortfalls in federalfunding for NCLB are estimated at $27 billion. Ultimately, stategovernments have made up the difference, putting a further strain ontheir budgets. This burden has caused a quiet rebellion against thelaw. The state governments of Michigan, Texas and Vermont areprotesting the law and participating in the lawsuit.

However, teachers have a joke aboutthis question: “Republicans won’t fund No Child Left Behind, andDemocrats say they will. We don’t know which is worse.” Thepoint underlying the joke is that there’s no reason to believe thatNCLB, even fully funded, would really improve the educational system.

For one thing, NCLB’s overemphasis ontesting forces teachers to “teach to the test”–by focusingmainly on areas covered in the standardized tests. Currently, mathand reading are the most-tested areas–so social studies and science,and even more so, art and music, are shoved to the side.

Most education experts believe that aneducational program has to be balanced. Cutting the arts or historyto make way for test prep will likely improve a student’s testscores–as will eliminating libraries so that a school can buyrequired test prep materials or replacing a literature class with aone-size-fits-all scripted reading curriculum. But this does littlefor students beyond helping them “bubble in” answer sheets.

What does testing really tell us?Crudely, it shows little more than how well a student takes a testand how well a teacher prepared their class for the test.

In fact, testing is big business.Testing companies–especially the ones that also publishtextbooks–make huge profits from the tests and supplementarymaterials that schools are often forced to purchase. According to thearticle “Testing Companies Mine for Gold” from RethinkingSchools, the two largest testing companies, Harcourt and McGraw-Hill,are billion-dollar giants.

In the same article points out anotherprofitable element of the testing industry: scoring. The GeneralAccounting Office report on NCLB estimates that it costsapproximately $7 to score a test with open-ended questions, comparedto $1 each for scoring tests with all multiple-choice questions. Itis no surprise, then, that under-funded school districts opt for thecheaper, but less meaningful, multiple-choice tests.

WHAT HAPPENS when a school “fails”?If a school falls short of its AYP goals two years in a row, itbecomes a “Program Improvement” (PI) school. PI schoolsbecome subject to a complicated, high-pressure timeline in which theyare set up to fail. By law, if PI schools don’t make satisfactoryprogress–as measured by NCLB–at the end of four years, they facemajor restructuring.

PI schools are supposed to be entitledto extra resources to help them catch up. Do they get thoseresources? Not likely–hastening the school’s restructuring.

In Oakland, Calif., by December 2004,the district was gripped by the fear of restructuring under NCLB. Inthe midst of heated and controversial contract negotiations with theteachers union, the state-appointed district administrator–pointingdirectly to language in NCLB–announced that 13 “Year Four”schools would be converted into charter schools.

Becoming a charter school is one of theNCLB options for a “Year Four” school–along withreconstitution, when the entire staff of a school is transferred, anda new staff is brought in. In many cases, charter schools arenon-union, and sometimes even run by for-profit companies.

The most famous charter schoolcorporation is Edison Schools, which was affiliated to Gap Corp.Edison was touted as the solution to the problems in public educationwhen it took over several elementary schools in San Francisco in thelate 1990s. But within a couple years, the schools were faring nobetter, and many suffered from massive teacher turnover.

In Oakland, the state administratortried to play a clever shell game. Most of the 13 schools on the listto become charters were to be governed by a new company launched andstaffed by…the Oakland Unified School District itself!

The school district described theseschools as “internal charters”–something that theCalifornia Teachers Association says is illegal and needs to benegotiated through the regular bargaining process. This is preciselywhat school administrators are trying to avoid.

Activists partly backed the districtoff its drive to charterize. Currently, five of the original 13schools will not become charters. Teachers were able to prove thatthey could meet the requirements to restructure by extending theschool day (optional, with pay) and reducing class sizes. This was asmall but significant victory.

Nationally, the NEA’s lawsuit isdrawing attention to the flaws in NCLB. It is highlighting whatschool districts have had to cut–arts, music, extended-yearprograms–in order to comply with the law. Fighting against theseharsher elements of the law calls NCLB into question as a whole.

Some educators are working to reformthe law. But tying funding to scores, punishing teachers and studentsin the most difficult districts and privatizing public education arenot things that can be reformed–nor is the Bush administrationlikely to let go of these provisions easily.

Pushing for reforms may put a dent inNo Child Left Behind, but ultimately, the law has to be scrapped.

Full funding of quality educationshould be a top priority. Money should flow into the schools untilevery child has what they need, until every teacher has all theresources and space they need, and until every school is renovated orrebuilt into a safe, asbestos-free learning environment.

Why doesn’t this happen? Thepoliticians say, “You can’t just throw money at the problem.”Instead, they blame the teachers, scapegoat students and parents, andtest, test, test. In fact, the U.S. government has always beenwilling to throw money at the Pentagon, and corporations and thewealthy in the form of tax breaks. But when it comes to education,health care and other services that impact our human and civilrights, they say no. We shouldn’t stand for it.

How the law aids military recruiters

ONE LITTLE- known provision of NCLBrequires high schools to turn over names, phone numbers and addressesof all students to the military, or risk losing NCLB funding. Parentshave the right to opt out, and many school districts have organizedto educate students and families of their rights.

In Montclair, N.J., schools tellparents about the requirement as soon as their child enters 9th gradeand follow up with letters home and reminders. The school districtreports that at last count, 92 percent of families had requested thattheir child’s information not be sent to the military. At many highschools in the Bay Area, teachers have organized similar opt-outcampaigns.

With the military regularly fallingshort of its recruitment goals, this NCLB provision is becoming evenmore important to the Bush administration. The movement to kickrecruiters off campuses is a natural ally to the teachers’ unions andparent organizations opposing No Child Left Behind.

Jessie Muldoon is a teacher in Oaklandand member of the Oakland Education Association.

Oakland teachers challenge the claim that standardized testing and punitive measures increase student learning. We also challenge the claim that running public schools like private businesses improves them. Our vision directly addresses the real causes of educational inequality, and calls for creating the best conditions for teaching and learning for all students. Here is a list of ten proven ways to ensure student success (no band-aids or quick fixes included).

1. Reduce class size to 15 students per teacher. Research consistently shows that reducing class size to approximately 15 students improves student learning most dramatically,giving each student greater opportunity for personal attention, and focused assistance for all abilities.

2. Provide teachers sufficient time to plan, collaborate, and meet with staff, parents and students for problem solving, lesson planning, events, and school governance. Authentic school improvement and innovation is time consuming, so educators need support to engage in long-range planning and governance without shortchanging their ongoing teaching.

3. Put qualified teachers and instructional aides in every classroom. Credentialed, experienced teachers—and fully supported newer teachers—provide the most effective education to students of all abilities. Team-teaching and partnerships between new and experienced teachers add strength to both and maximize the talents of each. Teaching must be honored and respected as a long-term career, not an entry-level position into the business world.

4. Provide sufficient material resources for every student and teacher. Students need current books and materials, adequate supplies, and up-to-date, well-maintained technology.

5. Ensure all facilities are clean,healthy and comfortable. Students working in clean classrooms with sufficient space, lighting, ventilation, temperature control, and ergonomic furniture can focus on learning rather than distractions and discomforts.

6. Provide the intervention personnel required to support student needs and keep schools safe. A low student-to-counselor ratio allows for adequate attention to students’ academic and extracurricular needs,providing psychological, social, and medical services. Provide tutoring during and after school hours.Well-designed and effectively implemented school policies, adequate campus supervision, and conflict resolution programs all ensure safety.

7. Tailor educational programs to the specific needs of students. Every community is different, so staff,parents, and students must respond to the needs of their school. Quality schools work both independently and cooperatively to provide libraries,counselors, AP classes, special education classes, PE, and electives such as foreign languages, and arts. Educators must have the freedom to creatively and authentically assess learning, in order to better teach students with diverse needs and abilities.

8. Provide relevant instruction to meet the needs of every student. Students need lessons that not only prepare them for college and/or work in any field they may choose, but also for social and political empowerment and major life choices.Excellent schools offer rigorous curricula that connect authentically to students’ needs and interests,cultures, races, religions, and real-life experiences.

9. Make Early Childhood programs and Adult Education classes available to all at each site. Research has long confirmed a strong correlation between early childhood learning and later success and also between children’s and parents’ educational achievement. Coordination between early childhood education programs(before and after school) and elementary schools supports effective academic intervention. Parents with easy access to assistance in literacy, English language, and other skills, are better able to support their children.

10. Achieve real equity by addressing the needs of diverse students. Provide resources and training to address social and emotional issues of poverty and racism that many students face

How do we get there from here?

We start with points 1 and 2, reducing class-sizes to 15 and increasing preparation time. And we start where the needs are most urgent: in schools labeled as “failing” under No Child Left Behind rules, and in the classrooms of new teachers. These steps will enable teachers to meet students’ diverse needs while developing the skills needed to teach successfully in Oakland for many years.

Yes, it will take money.

These steps will be costly, but failing to educate our youth is more costly. We will be creative and relentless in obtaining funding levels many times greater than what we have now. We have already begun raising public awareness and building a movement to reverse fiscal and tax policies that enrich a few at public expense. Oakland’s metropolitan economy is ranked in the top 20 nationally. For example, the Port takes in over $33 billion annually, yet is not required to pay a penny for public education. This must change.

Public schools should be democratic.

Martin Luther King Jr. said that “to repair the damage of centuries of denial and oppression means appropriations to create jobs, job training…and equal education.” He warned us not to be satisfied with “limited reforms…at bargain rates for the power structure.” Our district must return to local control,and corporate wealth must be tapped on a regularized, sustained basis—not as “charity” with strings attached—to help us all achieve our vision: to provide and maintain quality public education, controlled by the community it serves.

Please join us in this vision!

What we want to leave behind:

private control of public schools • one-size-fits-all scripted programs geared solely to high-stakes tests • narrow curricula • a lack of libraries, nurses, early childhood education, adult ed • classes of 30 or more • counselor ratio of 750:1 • new teachers unsupported •inadequate prep time • unchecked charters abusing our system and students •consultants, management, and software first; kids and classrooms last •finger-pointing and blaming teachers,students, and parents.

© OEA 2007

Download the file here.

View the document here.

President’s Report to Rep Council
November 5, 2007
 

Update on the District

 “Expect Success!” Or Expect Distress? Payroll problems continue, we’re getting more
complaints about the increase in assessments and paperwork, and substitute teachers are
getting fired, even though they’re hard to come by. Letters to parents informing them that
their student’s teacher is not “highly qualified” under NCLB will be going out shortly.
Credentialing issues continue to be widespread, with teachers being held to ever higher
standards of accountability with coursework.  Meanwhile, at last week’s Halloween
School Board meeting, the real trick was in the parade of charter school proponents who
all want a piece of the Measure E renewal pie. I hope all of you saw the October 10 issue
of the East Bay Express, with Robert Gammon’s article “Eli’s Experiment” featured on
the front cover. If not, we have plenty of copies available. It’s a must read, linking Broad
money to the takeover of our school district. 
 

No Child Left Behind gets… Left Behind!

NCLB will not be reformed this year:
The AP (11/3, Zuckerbrod) reported, "The top two lawmakers on the Senate Education
Committee said Friday they are putting off consideration of a new No Child Left Behind
law until next year. Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) have
decided that there’s not enough time this year to complete work on the legislation, which
has not yet been formally introduced." Negotiators from the House of Representatives
"have not decided whether to keep trying to bring a bill to the floor in what little time is
left in this calendar year," but with many unresolved issues, action seems unlikely. The
AP notes that "it may be even more difficult to pass a rewritten No Child bill next year
because it is a presidential election year," when partisan tensions are often at their
highest. "Deep divisions remain over some proposed changes, including merit pay for
teachers and whether schools should be judged based on test scores in subjects other than
reading and math."

 Education secretary says NCLB reauthorization may be tough during election
year. The Christian Science Monitor (11/3, Cook) added, "There is growing doubt
whether Congress will reauthorize the No Child Left Behind law in the waning days of
the current session.  Even Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is tempered in her
confidence."  On Thursday, Spellings said, "I have worked hard to get a reauthorization. 
The bad news is that we are attempting to do it…on the eve of a presidential election." 
 

Bargaining Convention

 
Our first Bargaining Convention was powerful and productive, even though relatively
small. (The main presentations are included in your packet.) Strong voices emerged from
each of the breakout groups, and the Bargaining Team will take all of the ideas raised
into account while crafting our sunshine proposal. When you report to your school sites,
please pay special attention to the proposal that we bargain health care collectively with
the other OUSD unions through the Health Benefits Improvement Committee (HBIC).
Get the sense of your members on this very important proposal. 
 
As your President and spokesperson, it is my strong opinion that we need to commit to
this process. I am well aware of the concerns, but still maintain that going forward with
this effort will show the administration that we are united with the other unions, and it
will put us in the best position to fight for the highest level of health care for ALL OUSD
employees. 
 

State Council

 
Your OEA delegates submitted a number of New Business Items to State Council in
October, including the one passed by Rep Council last month calling for statewide
demonstrations after school in opposition to the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
All were referred to the CTA Board of Directors.

A very interesting floor debate erupted over the adoption of CTA’s Educational Change
Work Group report, specifically the section dealing with alternative forms of
compensation. There was great concern on the part of a number of us that this section
could be interpreted as condoning merit pay based on test scores. Working with members
from San Diego, San Francisco, and others, we were successful in preventing this section
from being adopted. It will be revised and revisited in January.  
 
Finally, your delegates made sure that no one left State Council without being aware of
Eli Broad’s hold on Oakland. We took copies of the East Bay Express, spoke about it
from the floor, and had many conversations with other delegates who are now seeing the
influence of Broad and others in their districts.  
 

Website

 
I had hoped to be able to launch the new website at this meeting, but we are still in the
stage of putting on the “final touches.” Keep looking at oaklandea.org for the launch!
 

Member Socials/Seminars/Actions

 
Our last Member Social was again well-attended, with a great mix of new and veteran
teachers. Our next social will be in December – stay tuned to the website for further
details!
 
We had two well-attended seminars on retirement and plan to host individual meetings
with Bill Britton from STRS in January.

Do many of your newer colleagues resist being active in OEA? Do they wonder why they
have to pay dues to a union? Invite them to come to an informational meeting exploring
the reasons for belonging to a union, where the dues go, how the union relates to social
justice issues, etc. On November 15th OEA will participate in a 411 Forum organized by
one of our new Reps. (See your packet for details.)
 
As many of you know, OEA endorsed and participated in two anti-war events in October.
A number of OEA members helped to organize the October 20 Labor Conference
Against the War, initiated by the ILWU. Bob Mandel and I spoke at the conference,
along with trade union leaders from Britain and Japan, a British Member of Parliament,
and Cindy Sheehan. (My remarks are included in your packet.) The following weekend,
OEA members participated in the Day of Action against the war in San Francisco. If you
haven’t yet googled “Cost of War,” I urge you to do so for an interactive display of how
our tax dollars could be put to better use in preschool, education, health care and public
housing. Since then I have met with Cindy Sheehan and we are exploring ways to work
together on connecting the cost of war to the desperate need for more funding for
education and other social services.  
 

Vacancy on Executive Board

 
We regret to say that Eva Redd Hornsby has resigned from the Executive Board, so we
have another vacancy. This seat is open to nurses, counselors, psychologists, and speech
therapists. Elections will be held at the December Rep Council meeting.
 
We had our first Leadership Training of the school year October 29th, and were glad to
see a number of younger, newer teachers turning out. I have recommended five teachers
for Minority Incentive Grants for upcoming CTA conferences.
 
Thank you again for being OEA Representatives!

In unity,
Betty Olson-Jones