Hi guys. Thanks for hosting comments from The Chalkboard. I actually didn't object to your KIPP piece. As I wrote on the blog, I found it very revealing. What I do object to, however, is the AFT's dogged determination to keep more schools like KIPP from opening in New York State. It's fine that you guys don't want to work a 10-hour day and/or take phone calls from parents in the evening. But why are you so opposed to allowing other teachers who are willing to go the extra mile to do so if they think it is appropriate?

Thanks again for hosting this discussion. Please go easy on the KIPPsters, they had a long week!

Glad we can be of service, Joe W., and welcome to our site.

Your phrase "more schools like KIPP" gets right to the heart of the issue. Some people who push for more charter schools seem to be confusing run-of-the-mill charter schools with KIPP charter schools. By most accounts, KIPP schools are extraordinary. But, according to a recent study by two University of Illinois researchers, typical charter schools fall somewhere below ordinary. (See our "Myth Busters from the Land of Lincoln" posts from Jan. 25.)

You asked a question, and it should be addressed. It was a tricky question, so I used a special technique to analyze it. I used Google to translate it into Russian. Then I used Google to translate it back into English. The result was "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Come on, Joe W. No one here is stopping teachers from going the extra mile. You've been reading too many articles in Education Next. Try American Educator instead.

Hey Joe W., can't really blog right now, off to a preschool openhouse for my son. Running late since, despite being up since 5:30 am, he didn't want to take a morning nap. Yep, that's me, old lazy bones.

Wish me luck-hope he gets in for this fall. You really gotta scramble as a parent, preschool slots are competitive since we don't have public, universal preschool in this country. Thanks for visiting our site!

I'm a busy parent myself (and I've been through the pre-school rat race, so I feel your pain and wish you luck.) That's one reason I find it so discouraging that you wouldn't want busy parents to be able to call you at night if they had questions about homework, specific academic support they could be providing at home, etc. (And if you think the pre-school scramble is bad, try getting your kid into one of the few NYC public middle schools that doesn't completely suck. We'll find out in May just how screwed our son is...) No one is talking about 16-hour days for teachers(and in fact, you guys were the ones who threw out the 10-hour day figure, saying that much work and giving out your number would cut into your lives.) In fact I credit the UFT in NYC for recognizing that extended day programs are very important in terms of helping traditionally underserved kids catch up. (The Chancellor's District that the UFT had long supported has since been scrapped, to the disappointment of many.) One more note: Your point about the disparity in quality among charter schools is well taken. Bad charters should be shuttered, as is happening in many communities. But right now not even "extraordinary" charters can not open up in neighborhhoods that desperately need them because of the cap on charters that your state organization so strongly supports. Parents in those neighborhoods are feeling the same anxiety you are about their children's future. Why can't good public charter schools and traditional public schools exist together so that parents like you can have more options?

Thanks for mentioning the Chancellor's district and the extended time schools in New York City, and for recognizing the union as a partner in that effort. One thing your post didn't mention, though, is that teachers in these schools received a 15 percent pay boost for working longer hours.

We previously referred our readers to this American Educator article about the Chancellor's district, but as John points out, the magazine is such a good read, it's worth another look.

http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/winter2002/UsingTeachers.html

Joe W., you wrote, "Bad charters should be shuttered, as is happening in many communities." But I'm not sure what you mean by charters closing in "many communities."

A 2004 report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education suggests that "few communities" or "hardly any communities" would have been more accurate.

According to the study, conducted by SRI International, "Charter schools rarely face formal sanctions (revocation or nonrenewal). Furthermore, authorizing bodies impose sanctions on charter schools because of problems related to compliance with regulations and school finances rather than student performance. Authorizers have difficulty closing schools that are having problems."

Until charter school authorizers start doing what they're supposed to, it makes no sense to let them sponsor more and more schools.

I've been reading Frank McCort's "Teacher Man." At one point, he talks about "the bag": 175 papers waiting to be graded, all 350-500 words each. If he spends just 5 minutes on each (when I grade essays, it takes me much longer than that), it's 14.5 hours just for the one assignment. That's outside of prep time - almost an additional 3 hours a day during the week, assuming one assignment a week.

I don't know much about KIPP; I'll assume it's great. But I know something about teaching, and if you overload a teacher, SOMETHING'S got to give. We already do plenty outside of the classroom that is directly related to instruction; how much more are we expected to give?

You can't fake enthusiasm - the kids are too smart for that. You can't fake a lack of preparation - they'll eat you alive if you try. How are we supposed to maintain both if we also assume the role of tutors?

When I need to speak to a doctor after office hours, I call the practice, and they put me on with the nurse or doctor on-call. I don't automatically get my doctor, and that seems to work out fine.

Why should a teacher be on-call at all hours of the day and night if a doctor isn't?

Hi Mark W., I haven't read the Frank McCourt book, but I recall a similar discussion on correcting papers in Theodore Sizer's book, Horace's Compromise. Although it was written over 20 years ago, some of the issues for teachers are probably the same. Might be worth a glance.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/61-0618516069-0

Thanks for hosting this discussion, it's very enlightening. In fact, it's the best example I've seen in quite a while (actually since I read my home district's collective bargaining agreement) of the vast difference between the interests of adults and the interests of children.

I also think it's fascinating because this is the first time I've seen the establishment willingly give up the moral high ground. Usually, the debate is filled with stuff like "we must do EVERYTHING possible to help all of our children" and "no price is to too great if it means helping disadvantaged boys and girls."

So, there IS an upward limit on what some are willing to do for low-income kids, e.g. work really long hours.

Andy S posits that teacher unions do not have kid?s best interests at heart because teachers want to work hours similar to those of other professionals. But as Mark W. points out, it becomes increasingly difficult for teachers to do their jobs well when they are asked to do too much. He writes, "You can't fake enthusiasm - the kids are too smart for that. You can't fake a lack of preparation - they'll eat you alive if you try. How are we supposed to maintain both if we also assume the role of tutors?" Good question.

Andy S. writes, "it's the best example I've seen in quite a while (actually since I read my home district's collective bargaining agreement) of the vast difference between the interests of adults and the interests of children."

Well, we could skip the history of teacher unionism and the explanation of why schools were neither for children nor adults for several decades before the 1960s wave of teacher union activism. Or the comparison of union states to non-union states (so, are Mississippi schools that much better for kids than Michigan schools?).

Let's focus instead on this dichotomy that you're either for adults or for kids. I don't have to agree with Seymour Sarason to think that schools have to focus on the needs of both to serve any purpose well. Pitting teachers against students is ineffective as well as vicious.

Andy S. writes:

"So, there IS an upward limit on what some are willing to do for low-income kids, e.g. work really long hours."

In a word, yes.

My community is willing to place a limit on the amount of money the schools can have to educate our kids.

My state and my nation are willing to do the same.

Corporations and individuals have set a limit on how much they are willing to be taxed to pay for education. Zoning boards limit the building of new schools even when there is money for it.

Parents limit the amount of time they are willing to spend helping their kids with homework (as they should - homework should not be the primary activity of a family).

So, if all of these parties are placing limits - rational and appropriate limits, by the way - why shouldn't teachers?

I work hard, Andy. Most of the teachers I work with work hard. But we are not saints. We are people with families and spouses and partners and children of our own.

It is unfair and far too facile to blame us for "not working hard enough" when every other partner in our education system has also set limits on what they will do to educate kids.

Thanks for the honesty. Some doctors don't want to treat Medicaid patients. Some lawyers don't want to represent criminals. But for teachers who DO choose to be "missionaries", let's be sure to provide schools like KIPP in which they can make their desired extra efforts.

Even in "regular" public schools, some teachers will want to arrive early and stay late to work with students. Others can't or prefer not to. So long as we respect the decisions of each -- "let a thousand flowers bloom".

Even though this discussion has run its course, I feel I have to respond to Prof210�s last comment:

I�m afraid your analogy is not relevant to this discussion. Doctors and lawyers choosing patients and clients is NOT the same as a teacher arguing for a reasonable workload. As a public school educator, I teach anyone who walks through my door.

But doctors are not allowed to work at all hours of the day and night. Hospitals require doctors to have time off, as an exhausted practitioner is no good to anyone: in fact, she can be dangerous.

Lawyers are also limited in their abilities to serve clients: if it is found that they have stretched themselves so thin that they can�t offer sound defenses, they lose their licenses.

I question how many teachers really want to be missionaries, especially after they�ve been on the job for a couple of years. But for those that do, I offer some advice: pace yourself. You can�t sustain a grueling workload for years to come, and the profession needs you for the long haul.

We�ve all seen the statistics about teacher burnout. What good is it for society to spend a good bit of money training a teacher only to have him leave after five years? Why would a KIPP school want a teacher to burn herself out within a few years?

This isn�t about teachers who �want to arrive early and stay late�; most teachers do, no matter what you�ve heard. This is about recognizing the difficult work that is teaching, creating a work environment where that work is valued, and maintaining a passion for education within our teaching corps.

Flowers can�t bloom all year. Nurture them, however, and they�ll continue to bloom regularly for years to come.

Hi there -

I'm still not sure I fully understand your KIPP teacher position. I hope you'll indulge another stab at it...

1. I agree with your distinction between KIPP schools and typical charter schools.

Would you support allowing only high-performing schools like KIPP to launch more charter schools? I.e., lift the cap for any high-performers that want to replicate, keep the cap for "typical" non-high-performers?

2. You wrote: "Even in regular public schools, some teachers will want to arrive early and stay late to work with students. Others can't or prefer not to. So long as we respect the decisions of each -- let a thousand flowers bloom."

I agree with that. But certain schools, like KIPP, attracts teacher who want to work long hours but also want to work exclusively with similar teachers. That way, they can work together at times like 4pm or even 6pm. Do you respect their decisions too - even if their choice is essentially to "burn themselves out" over 5 years and then do something else?

Sometimes teachers like these feel you perceive them as "weeds" not "flowers."

Thanks for your questions.

1. There is no federal cap on charter schools, of course. Our Ohio affiliate was part of a "Keep the Cap" campaign to limit charter schools there, where there had been many cases of questionable use of funds and low performance in charter schools. Some of Ohio charter schools' problems are described here -- http://oh.aft.org/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=cfc73653-b3c0-4ac2-ab87-13753a3c7e7d

2. It was a commenter on our site, not one of the bloggers, who wrote about letting a thousand flowers bloom. We can't speak for the commenters, so I'll leave it to Mark W. to respond if he comes back to the site.

Actually, it wasn't me, it was Prof210. It can be a little difficult to tell who posted what with this format.