Saturday, October 19, 2013

Why Do Teachers Quit?-The Atlantic article- 10-19-13


Why Do Teachers Quit?

By Liz Riggs
[IMAGE DESCRIPTION]
Paramount Pictures
Richard Ingersoll taught high-school social studies and algebra in both public and private schools for nearly six years before leaving the profession and getting a Ph.D. in sociology. Now a professor in the University of Pennsylvania’s education school, he’s spent his career in higher ed searching for answers to one of teaching’s most significant problems: teacher turnover.
Teaching, Ingersoll says, “was originally built as this temporary line of work for women before they got their real job—which was raising families, or temporary for men until they moved out of the classroom and became administrators. That was sort of the historical set-up.”
Ingersoll extrapolated and then later confirmed that anywhere between 40 and 50 percent of teachers will leave the classroom within their first five years (that includes the nine and a half percent that leave before the end of their first year.) Certainly, all professions have turnover, and some shuffling out the door is good for bringing in young blood and fresh faces. But, turnover in teaching is aboutfour percent higher than other professions.
Approximately 15.7 percent of teachers leave their posts every year, and 40 percent of teachers who pursue undergraduate degrees in teaching never even enter the classroom at all. With teacher effectiveness a top priority of the education reform movement, the question remains: Why are all these teachers leaving—or not even entering the classroom in the first place?
“One of the big reasons I quit was sort of intangible,” Ingersoll says. “But it’s very real: It’s just a lack of respect,” he says. “Teachers in schools do not call the shots. They have very little say. They’re told what to do; it’s a very disempowered line of work.”
Other teachers—especially the younger ones—are also leaving the classroom for seemingly nebulous reasons. I spoke with nearly a dozen public and private school teachers and former teachers around the country. (I used pseudonyms  for the teachers throughout this piece so that they could speak freely.) Many of them cited “personal reasons,” ranging from individual stress levels to work-life balance struggles.
“We are held up to a really high standard for everything,” says Emma, a 26-year-old former teacher at a public school in Kansas who now works for a music education non-profit. “It stems from this sense that teachers aren’t real people, and the only thing that came close to [making me stay] was the kids.”
In my interviews with teachers, the same issues continued to surface. In theory, the classroom hours aren’t bad and the summers are free. But, many young teachers soon realize they must do overwhelming amounts of after-hours work. They pour out emotional energy into their work, which breeds quick exhaustion. And they experience the frustrating uphill battle that comes along with teaching—particularly in low-performing schools.
“What people are asked to do is only the kind of thing that somebody can do for two or three years; you couldn’t sustain that level of intensity throughout a career,” said Thomas Smith, a professor at Vanderbilt University’s education school. He was referring specifically to charter schools, but his sentiment is one that resonates with many beginning teachers in challenging schools. “[It’s] the same way that people might think of investment banking. It’s something that people do for a few years out of college, but if you want to have a family, or you want to have some leisure time, you know, how do you sustain that?”
Joseph is a former Advanced Placement U.S. History teacher who loved his first years in the classroom; after a couple of years, though, he came to a saddening realization about the future of his career.
“I realized that most older men I taught with eventually felt pressured to advance into higher-level administration as their careers progressed in order to better support their family,” he said. “What many of them working in high-need schools told me, however, was that being successful at school directly conflicted with being successful husbands and fathers. While this is certainly true of any occupation, most occupations don't leave your children asking you, ‘Why do you go to more basketball games of the kids at school than mine?’"
Pay is also an issue that came up in my interviews. A starting teacher salary in the U.S. is $35,672.
“What is expected of great teachers and the amount they are paid is shameful,” says Hayley, a former teacher from the Northwest, referring to just one factor in her decision to leave the classroom to work for an ed-tech startup. “Yes, if you love something you should do it regardless of pay, but when you take into consideration the time, the effort, the emotional toll and what teachers are asked to actually do everyday, it was painfully obvious that teaching is not a sustainable job. I really wish it had been.” Hayley taught for three years before finding herself emotionally drained, physically exhausted, and interested in pursuing a career that provided more balance and financial security.
Higher pay doesn’t necessarily lead to a better retention rate, though. “[Some] studies suggest that teachers are more interested in working at schools where the conditions of work are good rather than in getting paid more,” Smith, the Vanderbilt professor, said. He pointed to a study by the Benwood Foundation that offered teachers in Chattanooga large bonuses to go teach in lower-performing schools. The study found that few teachers were willing to move for this kind of offer. (In fact, according to Smith, the initiative had to be reengineered to offer bonuses to teachers already in those schools.)
With the exception of retirement, studies suggest that there are only a handful of overarching factors that push teachers out the door—family or personal reasons, other career opportunities, salary, administrative support and overall job dissatisfaction. These are largely the same issues that arose in my interviews. Some were wholly unhappy or drained and left in pursuit of another career completely, some wanted more money; some wanted both.
Another study done by the National Charter School Research Project suggests lack of job security is a factor in teachers’ decision to leave public charters; however, this was not a concern of any charter teacher I spoke with. Most teachers sounded simply frustrated, overworked and underpaid—sentiments that are certainly echoed in the research. 
The teacher-turnover problem has a flipside, of course: If 40 to 50 percent of teachers leave the classroom within the first five years their career, that means that 50 to 60 percent of teachers stay.  Who are they? Where are they teaching? What is keeping them?
Becky is a retired teacher who taught for nearly 30 years in just about every capacity imaginable.  After starting in Chattanooga in a public school, she moved all over the country, teaching in Houston in a low-income school and then Chicago in a wealthy suburb before teaching at a private school in Ohio.
She loved teaching, but even in her years before retirement, she still felt the weight of the work on her constantly.
“When you’re in your early 60s and you’re still coming home with 65 hours of grading over two weeks…that’s very overwhelming. [But] I love working with teenagers. I love the relationships and I love being able to help them.”
This overwhelming desire to help students is a common thread among all the teachers I speak with. They all cared for their students deeply, but even this couldn’t keep teachers like Hayley or Emma in the classroom. Simply put: everything else—the workload, the emotional toll, the low pay—was just too much.
A range of factors influences teacher retention, according to Ingersoll’s research, but he tells me that the way administration deals with both students and teachers has a “huge effect” on teacher satisfaction. He cites this as being one of the potential ways to keep teachers without spending billions of dollars increasing salaries.
“Those schools that do a far better job of managing and coping with and responding to student behavioral issues have far better teacher retention,” he says. And, in both public and private schools, “buildings in which teachers have more say—their voice counts—have distinctly better teacher retention.”
Ingersoll has also done extensive research on beginning teacher support and found that teachers who have even just two small initiatives in place (working with a mentor and having regular supportive communication with an administrator) are more likely to stay in the classroom.
Based on other education statistics, parental involvement, student achievement and the career entry point for teachers can also impact retention. Parental engagement and high student achievement arekey factors. Where these numbers grow, teachers are more satisfied and presumably more likely to stay in the profession. And teachers who sought teaching as their first career are more likely to stay in the classroom in comparison with teachers who entered the profession mid-career.
Regardless of why teachers stay or leave, the revolving door of teacher turnover is a problem that affects students and entire schools. Ingersoll maintains that it doesn’t have to be a problem that continues to spiral out of control; the revolving door can be stopped. And while there are a number of ways to fix it—from increasing salaries to mentoring young teachers—the mindset behind the solution is simple.
“Respected, well-paid lines of work do not have shortages,” Ingersoll says. He adds that he is happy with his new career, but he would still be a high school history teacher had it not been for the lack of respect and low salary he experienced. For a lot of teachers I spoke with, this seems to be the common sentiment: If the overall attractiveness of teaching as a profession gets better, the best teachers will enter the profession, stay, and help increase the effectiveness of schools.
“To improve the quality of teaching,” Ingersoll says, you need to “improve the quality of the teaching job.” And, “If you really improve that job… you would attract good people and you would keep them.”
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-do-teachers-quit/280699/

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Clarification Memo from Sen. Mike Johnston on Amendment 66





Charter School 66 Impact- Legislative Council Staff Memo



Important Information for Charter Schools about Amendment 66- From the CO League of Charter Schools

Colorado League of Charter Schools     
Important Information for Charter Schools
about Amendment 66 
Dear Colorado Charter School Leaders,
 
Colorado ballots are being mailed this week, and as you know there's a very hot topic to be decided by voters -- Amendment 66, the proposed tax increase tied to the Future School Finance Act (SB-213). 
 
Because there are a variety of differing views on Amendment 66 within the Colorado charter school community, the Colorado League of Charter Schools has chosen not to take an official position on this ballot initiative. 

However, the League is committed to providing you with access to information and resources needed to help you and your school community make an informed choice at the polls about what's best for your charter school. 

Information from Bi-Partisan Legislative Council
Hot off the press. Today we received new resources from the Bi-Partisan Legislative Council, including a cover letter explaining their interpretation of how Amendment 66 will affect charter schools, and a spreadsheet of dollar figures showing what SB-213 will mean for each charter school if Amendment 66 passes (be sure to read the cover letter as it explains the dollar figures in more detail). 

Memo from Senator Johnston's Office
Click here to view a memo from Senator Michael Johnston (legislative sponsor of SB-213) about charter school considerations regarding Amendment 66. 

Amendment 66 Debate
The League is in the process of uploading video from the Amendment 66 Forum/Debate that took place during the Charter School Policy & Facility Summit in Aurora on October 15. We will forward links to those videos as soon as they are available (later this week).

If you have questions about the resources in this email, or want to discuss the League's decision to not take a position on Amendment 66, please don't hesitate to contact me at 303-989-5356, ext. 109 or nflood@coloradoleague.org. 
 
Sincerely, 
Nora-Flood-Signature
Nora E. Flood, President 
Colorado League of Charter Schools 

Amendment 66 is good for small business- Denver Post Op-Ed- 10-16-13


Amendment 66 is good for small business
By Barbara B. Grogan Guest Commentary The Denver Post Posted: DenverPost.com
In the last few weeks, I have heard several people say that Amendment 66 would hurt our small businesses. The small-business owners I know do not agree.
For 23 years, I was a small-business owner. I was the founder and CEO of Western Industrial Contractors. We started out with three employees and a 1969 pickup truck (in 1982) on a dead- end, unpaved street across from a junk yard. I know the challenges of growing a small business.
Along the way, I became involved in the small-business community as chair of the Greater Denver Chamber of Commerce's Small Business Council and the founding chair of Gov. Roy Romer's Small Business Council, as well as a member of the U.S. Small Business Administration's Advisory Board under Erskine Bowles.
All businesses, large and small, care deeply about the availability of an educated and trained workforce. It is a vital component of their ability to grow and succeed. Amendment 66 will be a boon to our economic development efforts. It will allow us to attract large businesses to our state because we will have a strategic advantage: our commitment to a highly educated workforce that includes all of our children. And small business will be the beneficiary of those large companies locating here and expanding our economy and providing more jobs and contracts.
That is why so many of our local business leaders of large, medium and small companies are supporting Amendment 66, including successful CEOs such as David Merage of Consolidated Investment Group; Mark Cordova of Centennial Bolt; Katherine Gold of Goldbug; Richard Lewis of RTL Networks; Kate Paul of Delta Dental; and Natasha Felten of Colorado Commercial Companies.
Other supporters include Donna Lynne, group president of Kaiser Permanente Colorado; Mario Carrera, chief revenue officer of Entravision; La Rae Orullian, founder, past chair and CEO of the Women's Bank and past chair of Frontier Airlines; Zee and Mike Ferrufino, CEO and VP/GM of KBNO, KXRE and KAVA Radio; and Patricia Barela Rivera, the former Colorado district director of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Hundreds more business, foundation, education and community leaders are supporting Amendment 66.
Here is what they know: Their future and our country's future is absolutely dependent upon the education of our children. Amendment 66 will increase the number of teachers and teacher's aides in our children's classrooms. Principals will be able to bring back art, music, physical education to their students. All children will have full-day kindergarten. And our most vulnerable children — 3- and 4-year-olds — will have early childhood education.
My dear friend and mentor, Brad Butler, who was chairman and CEO of Proctor and Gamble, used to say to business leaders across the nation, "You can support your public schools because it is the right thing to do for our children or you can support them because is the only economically viable decision you can make for the future of your business. But you must support them." Amen, Brad.In passing Amendment 66, we have an opportunity to do something great for Colorado — great for our children, our schools, our community, our economy and great for small business.
Barbara B. Grogan is a former chair of the Greater Denver Chamber of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's Denver branch.

Now, he can have this dance- DRO Herald Article- 10-16-13


Now, he can have this dance

Policy change allows charter students to join homecoming celebration
Photo by: JERRY McBRIDE/Durango Herald
Animas High School student and Durango High School Demons football player David Etz listens to the national anthem before this year’s homecoming game. After being denied entry to last year’s homecoming dance, Etz, a charter school student, attended the dance for the first time this year.

By Chase Olivarius-Mcallister Herald staff writer
For high school boys, dances can provoke great, if unacknowledged, anxieties.
According to received wisdom, the terrifying questions such dances elicit – “Who will I dance with? Will Hannah Abbot laugh if I ask her?” – are usually easier for football players to answer.
This proved untrue last year, when 14-year-old David Etz, a freshman playing on the Durango High School football team, tried to go to the DHS homecoming dance.
Though Etz’s coach had told the team that all players were welcome, when Etz went to buy a ticket, he was rebuffed: He was enrolled at Animas High School, a charter school with few extracurricular activities, and therefore couldn’t attend.
“I felt excluded,” David said.
According to Executive Director Michael Ackerman, about 42 AHS students go to DHS to participate in extracurricular activities.
“It runs the gamut from sports to orchestra to theater, but the largest majority is athletics,” he said.
Instead of celebrating DHS’s game with his teammates, indulging in punch and awkwardly contemplating how best to talk to the fairer sex, David spent last year’s homecoming on his friend Lathan’s couch, playing X-Box as his teammates danced.
David’s father, Ron Etz, was outraged, and demanded a meeting with Durango School District 9-R Superintendent Daniel Snowberger.
“They were invited by their football coach last year – ‘Hey, all you Animas guys, don’t forget about this homecoming stuff.’ And Animas kids, DHS kids, these kids are a team,” Ron Etz said in a phone interview this week. “The coaches preach ‘family,’ preach ‘team.’ I’ve been bringing these kids to 6.30 a.m. workouts all summer long. I love high school sports, and I support them as much as I can.”
Etz said the issue of Animas students attending homecoming boiled down to a question of equality.
“Are they Durango Demons or not? The bottom line for me really is, is this Mississippi in the ’60s or are we really as liberal and progressive and love everybody as we say we are? Or are we really just (angry) at kids from Animas High?”
At Ron Etz’s meeting last year with Snowberger, Etz said Snowberger assured him the district’s policy would change: the walls were coming down between the district and Animas High School, a charter school.
But when David Etz tried to get a ticket for this year’s homecoming, he was again unwelcome.
He was told he could attend homecoming – but only as the guest of a DHS student, and “we were supposed to have signed up by Sept. 27” a date that had passed 11 days before. “But there was no word of that, no one said anything,” David said.
Ron Etz emailed Snowberger, saying “What happened to ‘the walls between Animas High and 9R coming down’?”
During a spirited and extensive correspondence, Snowberger at one point responded saying, “I am human and this issue snuck up on me.” 
Snowberger arranged for a last-minute policy change, whereby David Etz, along with other Animas High School students who play for DHS’s football team, were allowed to attend the DHS homecoming dance.
Jake Lauer, head of school Animas High School, said DHS Principal Leanne Garcia “has actually been fantastic working with us. With this particular situation, she has really gone above and beyond to figure out a way for our students to attend that dance,” he said.
By the standards of high school dances – with Carrie’s pigs’ blood drenched prom and the ensuing homicidal telekinesis being the gold standard – the night was a smashing success.
David said he wore “nice jeans, a button-up gold/tan shirt and a tie that was white and golden brown striped.”
“I danced with one girl. Otherwise, I just did my own little weird dance or hung out with friends. It was just a fun experience, and I wanted to try going to a dance that wasn’t right after or during school – like in the middle school.”
A paragon of adult sophistication, this year’s homecoming dance began at 8 p.m. and went till 11.
Julie Popp said under Snowberger, the district’s new policy was that any Durango student can attend school-district events as long as they are in good standing and have written permission – no matter where they go to school.
Ackerman said he was grateful for Snowberger’s commitment to Animas High School kids.
“Animas does not have a homecoming, nor do we have cheerleaders – we don’t have any of the normal trappings of high school,” he said.
Ackerman said though there has been some animosity between DHS and AHS in previous years, but that’s firmly in the past.
“There may still be some tension at the building level, but I have complete trust in what Dan is saying. I mean, Dan has proven to be nothing but a man of his word and genuine in everything he’s offered to Animas High, and the proof is in the pudding. We have AHS students representing DHS on the football pitch, thespians, musicians,” he said.


Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Why Doesn't the Constitution Guarantee the Right to Education? Article from the Atlantic


Why Doesn't the Constitution Guarantee the Right to Education?

By Stephen Lurie
[IMAGE DESCRIPTION]
Ron Edmonds/AP Photo

“The Learning Curve,” the global ranking of education systems produced by the publishing company Pearson, is by most accounts a beautiful publication. A harmonious blend of narrative, appealing infographics, and images of joyous learning, the report sets about rating the performance of various school systems as nicely as it can. For the American reader, once they scroll past the advice and best practices, finding the U.S. slot isn’t as pretty. By the report’s latest edition, in 2012, the United States education system sits at 17th place out of 40 countries, and it’s not just behind those socialist Scandinavians. In addition to the classic northern European bloc—Finland (1st), Netherlands (7th), Denmark (9th)—the superior contenders also come from Asia (2nd through 5th), Oceania (New Zealand, 8; Australia, 13), the rest of Europe, and indeed, even Canada (a respectable 10th).
Each of the countries ahead of the U.S. has a fundamental commitment in common, one that the America doesn’t: a constitutional, or statutory, guarantee of the right to education. By centralizing education as a key focus of the state, these countries establish baseline requirements that set the frame for policy and judicial challenges, as well as contribute to what the Pearson report calls a “culture” of education: where “the cultural assumptions and values surrounding an education system do more to support or undermine it than the system can do on its own.” As the U.S. is about to embark on another national attempt at education reform in the Common Core, evidence suggests that a constitutional amendment, that rare beast, is both timely and vital to improved results. Comparing the American to the international approach to educational rights suggests that this reform might be a wise one.
***
Looking at the fundamental guarantee of education doesn’t just mean looking up the ladder. Thanks to the new Constitute Project, searching the global expanse of constitutions for a particular theme is now possible. “Education” is found in 174 country constitutions—i.e. nearly every single one. For some context, that’s just less than “free” (appearing 176 times), and just more than another term missing from the U.S. Constitution, “health” (170 times).
Every country that bests us in the education rankings either has a constitutional guarantee to education, or does not have a constitution but has ensured the right through an independent statute. Each has constructed law around education as a fundamental right of citizens, at least until the age of adulthood. Finland, the world leader, succinctly asserts, “Everyone has the right to basic education free of charge.”(Chapter 2, Section 16). South Korea’s Article 31 on Education has six sections. Switzerland’s constitution mentions education more than two dozen times. For countries with no formal constitution, many have included the right in supplementary documents like the Human Rights Act of the United Kingdom (1998) or the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act (2005). Others still, like New Zealand, form the basis for the right to education by incorporating international laws like the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, whose Article 13 provides expansive assurances of education. In addition, each of these countries—well, almost every country in the world—is also party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most widely accepted human rights treaty in history. The convention, which prohibits among other things the kidnapping and sexual exploitation of children, vigorously asserts the right of a child to education. Of UN members, only Somalia and the United States have not ratified that agreement.
There simply hasn’t been a movement in the U.S. to establish the rights of children in respect to equal, free, and adequate education. One of the few pending constitutional amendments (meaning approved by Congress but not by 3/4ths of States) is the Child Labor Amendment of 1924, limiting and prohibiting labor for those under 18. Though the amendment failed to gain ratification from enough states, including Louisiana who rejected it multiple times, child labor was effectively nixed by FDR in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 14 years later. When it comes to the rights of children in education, traditional interpretation has deemed the 10th amendment sufficient to shift responsibility to the states, and the 14th amendment adequate to ensure fairness. The Supreme Court decision in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), though, ran directly counter to that logic, denying appellant claims that unequal education funding violated a fundamental right and the Equal Protection Clause. Even as America assumes the responsibility for education rests somewhere, its clear that the right to that education has clearly fallen through the cracks.
Of the over 11,000 proposed amendments to the Constitution, there have only been a couple that directly address the right of an education (rather than various rights within school, such as the School Prayer Amendment). Though likely incomplete, Congress.Gov records indicate that there have only been two proposals—one by Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) and repeated efforts by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)—for an education amendment, ever.  The now-infamous Jackson Jr. introduced an identical education amendment in every Congress from 1999 to 2012 “regarding the right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality.” Though one year joined by 37 cosponsors (all Democrats), that was the extent of the support. In each case, the resolution was referred to and killed in the House Judiciary Committee.  Despite his annual persistence, though, even Jackson’s push didn’t seem too concerted in light of his particularly buckshot approach to constitutional reform.  In a House session in 2003, for example, Jackson introduced seven different constitutional amendments on everything from voting to the environment and taxes.
Take that in comparison to the four separate resolutions regarding “parental rights” introduced in the 112th Congress alone. Those Republican lead efforts assert that the educational rights at stake are not those of children, but of “the liberty of parents to direct the education of their children” as “a fundamental right.” It’s hard to understand how the fundamental right in education is that of the “educators,” but that’s exactly what the record of constitutional reform suggests.
When it comes to non-constitutional legislation, federal lawmakers have obsessed over logistical concerns. With no central basis for reform, national initiatives have long offered varying approaches to improve disparate school systems. The idea is that the problems of the American education system are solved with policy and metrics, by technical requirements, and uniting standards. They assume that the American value on education is implicitly ingrained. The basis for this thinking is founded, in the modern era, in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, implemented as part of the War on Poverty, and periodically reauthorized since. This act, and its descendants like No Child Left Behind, begins its work—funding, setting standards, and outlining federal requirements—from a rather bizarre premise. In striking out to reform education, their “purpose” is to “ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education.” Yet, picking the procedural fight—the “ensuring” of a right that has no legal basis—hasn’t enabled practical solutions to vast educational inequality.
A real solution, as international precedent and common sense suggest, is to finally promote education as a national value through a constitutional amendment. If there is something still sacred to both of our political parties, it is certainly based in the fundamental assurances of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (even if there is vast disagreement of which amendments to care for, and how to interpret them). When it comes to education, the Pearson study confirms that the one of the greatest boons to education is a supportive national culture: where our national culture revolves around constitutional rights, the course of action is natural.
An emotional attachment isn’t the only benefit of adopting a national right to education—the benefits for students are tangible. The Southern Education Foundation’s 2009 report “No Time to Lose” thoroughly details the harmful disparities of the current education system and how a constitutional amendment could help. Besides the important ability to catalyze a national discourse on education and legitimize federal leadership, a constitutional amendment provides a vital opportunity for court challenge. As influential as the decision in Brown v. Board proved to be for de jure discrimination, relying on the 14th Amendment for equal protection has proven inadequate to ensuring de factoeducational equality across race, state, and income.
When there is a constitutional guarantee to education, the report and history suggest, direct litigation can produce lasting results. If a true right is established, soft forces and hard law can begin to fundamentally alter the immense flaws of the education system nationwide. This is the exact phenomenon that plays out time and again in other countries—and particularly the ones besting American education. The constitutional guarantee develops a national culture of education, a baseline for rights, and allows—if necessary—for legal protection of that standard. Such an amendment won’t be a panacea for American education, but without it the U.S. will stay average in the rankings and yet remain that one country left behind.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-doesnt-the-constitution-guarantee-the-right-to-education/280583/