In a post Friday, Brian Hull at the RIFuture blog worries how changes will affect education at Central Falls High School. Writing from a union viewpoint, Hull’s worries are reserved mostly for the teachers, and he claims those who seek to put students first are taking the debate to “new lows”. In truth, the situation in Central Falls is about kids more than teachers. Questionable are the motives of those who claim otherwise.
I was more than a little surprised to hear that over 800 applications have been received to fill the 93 positions that are available at the high school.
To be surprised is to misunderstand the employment opportunities for teachers. There are so many who want to make education a career, but cannot find jobs. More importantly, there are many professionals who believe that all students, regardless of their home environment or socioeconomic status, can learn, graduate, and be successful. I suspect many of those applications received from outside the state are from teachers up for the challenge.
There seems to be an assumption that “operational flexibility” will force teachers to be better instructors because their job depends on their performance. In this scenario, teachers are the problem. Teachers are lazy, teachers are spoiled, and teachers never care about the students, only about their huge salaries and benefit packages that come without fear of losing their jobs, no matter how poorly they perform. I don’t agree with this vision.
Dr. Gallo believes change is necessary at Central Falls High School. With the low student achievement and graduation rate, who can argue against the need for change? But Hull’s assumptions are faulty. The reason for the mass firing is because current teachers were unwilling to make the changes necessary to better meet the needs of the students. Proposals by Dr. Gallo were rejected or ignored. Backed by the union, teachers demanded the status quo be maintained. Student performance simply could not allow this. While the change of faculty will mostly likely have an impact, it will be the change in the way instruction is delivered that will bring about the most change.
On the other side of the coin is job security, high wages, and decent benefits as incentives for attracting the best and brightest to be teachers, and a commitment to support teachers with additional training and development so that they can be the best instructors possible. Stripping away the safeguards and protections will make the teaching profession less attractive (especially for math and science teachers), and in the long run students will suffer by not having the most qualified and effective teachers in the classroom.
This has been the long-term position of the unionists. Only if teachers are given more will the best become teachers. The 800 applicants for the positions at CFHS, many willing to relocate, should end this argument. Dr. Gallo and the hiring committee will have a giant pool from which to choose the strongest teachers. Undoubtedly applicants will be asked if they are willing to work longer school days, use some Saturday mornings for professional development, and eat lunch with students. Those who agree will be hired, or rehired, and the community at the school will begin to change almost immediately. Because all of the teachers will be non-tenured, it will not be difficult to send packing those that don’t meet the higher expectations.
My fear is that because the assumption from the reform movement seems to be predicated on “bad teachers are the problem and all teachers are bad,” there is no movement toward fixing the actual problems that exist in the state’s education system which lay outside of the classroom: poverty, stable education funding, language barriers, teen pregnancy, special needs students, family instability, lack of professional support, lack of stability in curriculum, lack of stability in school leadership, etc. etc.
The real fear of unionists and union supporters is that education at CFHS will improve. But it’s sophomoric to suggest those who seek reform simply believe “bad teachers” are the cause of all problems in education. In fact, most praise the work of individual teachers. I understand that school funding, language barriers, special education laws, and educrats are all factors that negatively impact public education. And while social conditions are a significant, if not the most significant, factor that causes our public schools to fail, I realize this is the most difficult factor to change. Decades of time, effort, and money have not made families more stable, have not decreased poverty or teen pregnancy, and have not helped to maintain the nuclear family that can provide the best foundation for children. Such social conditions will not change overnight, but we must do what is best to educate the kids in our schools right now.
I do not solely blame teachers for the failings at Central Falls High in particular, or in public education in general. Those who regularly read my opinions should know I believe many are to blame, including administrators, bureaucrats, unions, and the society at large.
The situation in CF has not been about blaming teachers. Dr. Gallo pointed to the failings at CFHS and explained to teachers that the kids needed more from them. The teachers, on the advice of their union, refused. The city’s leadership is now looking for teachers who are willing to provide more. The kids in Central Falls, more than more, deserve it.