First, let's look at the nitty gritty of what "work-rule" changes Hite was referencing. They are, to say the least, predictable:
The sources said the PFT [Philadelphia Federation of
Teachers] had offered some work-rule changes at the bargaining table,
but nothing near what the district says it must have: giving principals
absolute authority over hiring and firing staff; weakening seniority;
and halting the practice of higher pay for advanced education, among
other shifts.
The common thread in all of those things, of course, is money. At a time
of dwindling resources, cheaper is better, and not rewarding teachers
for pursuing additional education (the Philly School District honors a
master's degree with a pay bump that ranges from $1,300 to $8,700,
depending on years of service) will save a few dimes here and there,
though someone will have to probably explain the "think about the kids"
rationale in trying to have
less educated faculty members.
Enhanced hiring and firing? Weakening seniority?
That is (a) entirely about money and (b) straight out of the charter
schools movement. It has long been part of the charter schools movement
ethos that experience in education is not only irrelevant, it can be
damaging.
For a superintendent, though, what would be awfully tempting is
having the free rein to replace an experienced teacher with a rookie. In
Philadelphia, at the master's degree column in their
salary schedule, replacing an experienced teacher with a newbie would net a savings of just under $30,000 per teacher.
And, if you can sell the public that creating a revolving door of
young teachers actually will improve the quality of instruction (despite
the existence of considerable evidence to the
contrary), all the better!
The architect of this newer, far more aggressive stance by management of the Philadelphia School District is one
Bill Green,
a veteran city councilman and the new chairman of the state-authored
School Reform Commission. Green is the third generation of a dynastic
Democratic political power family in the city, and was appointed to this
current role by the state's Republican Governor, Tom Corbett. It was
not a bipartisan gesture, however: Green's appointment was met with a
decidedly
tepid response from Democratic Mayor Michael Nutter:
“I find his nomination quite frankly perplexing,” Nutter said.
Nutter said Green’s track record of voting against some education
funding measures, coupled with his views on public education, raises
some concerns in the mayor’s office.
Particularly, Nutter wants Green to roll with some of his plans, such
as: a new state formula for education funding; the cigarette tax; split
the sales extension tax to pay for schools and pensions; plans to turn
around the worst performing schools.
“It is my hope that he will come to better understand the importance
of District-managed schools and that he will stand up and truly support
our school children and teachers,” Nutter said.
Nutter's hope for cooperation from Green, it would seem, is a bit of a pipe dream.
Before leaping into the "family business" in 2007, Green made a
fairly handsome living as a corporate lawyer. And like most of the
well-heeled folks in corporate land, his stance on public school
teachers is so retrograde and dismissive, it is almost painful.
Last month, he got the district's principals to capitulate on a
contract that included a double-digit pay cut. He did so by
strong-arming the principals, threatening an imposition of a more
draconian contract if they didn't play ball:
Bill Green's joining the SRC was a pivot point,
[administrator's union head Robert] McGrogan said: Green has publicly
suggested the commission has not been aggressive enough in using its
special powers, but the winds have now shifted.
If Green is going to take drastic action, McGrogan said, "he's not going to wait to do it."
Green, McGrogan said, "is coming with a gun out."
Green, for his part, did not deny the aggressiveness, and in praising
the principals' union for playing ball, he issued what might be the most
insulting statement about public school teachers possible:
"As leaders, they recognize they need the flexibility with
teachers they provided to Dr. Hite and his team," Green said of the
principals. "They led by example, and we look forward to working with
them to change outcomes for the 118,000 children in non-performing
schools. When the PFT makes that their goal rather than excessive
benefits and salary and impossible work rules, those children will have a
chance at success."
Read the whole thing again. Then, if necessary, scream into a pillow.
By the way, just to remind you, a
fifth-year teacher with a master's degree in Philadelphia schools makes $59,000.
Green, for what it is worth, made more than triple that amount
moonlighting in his former gig as a corporate lawyer in 2010, while still pulling down six figures in salary as a city councilman.
As
I wrote
last year, the corporate crowd loves the charter schools movement
because it takes some of the worst labor habits of corporate America and
superimposes them into the realm of "public education." It basically
takes what was, for generations, a noble lifelong calling to service,
and transforms it into just another temp job, filled with inexperienced
souls who are willing to endure absurdly austere working conditions,
safe in their belief that they won't be there that long, anyway.
Now, with the help of this state-sanctioned commission, we could
easily see the public school district in one of the largest cities in
America following this race to the bottom already started by too many
"education" corporations.
That should be terribly frightening to anyone who cares about
education, even those that haven't already been aware of the prevailing
zeitgeist in far too many public conversations that charter schools are
the only form of education worth saving at this point (hard to believe,
but it has been
over three years
since Diane Ravitch wrote this excellent piece on the subject). The
"charter schools as a panacea" myth has already taken a beating (this
study, which shows the
comical ease
with which charters deal with problem students, is but the most recent
example). Yet still, it's the only sacred cow left in education in the
eyes of far too many politicos (including those who like to call
themselves Democrats).
And, somehow, now public school districts feel that, rather than
advocate for their teachers and students, their time would be better
spent "competing" with charters? Compete with them how? Forcing their
employees to work
an additional 20-30 hours a week for free, while cutting their pay on top of that? Ripping health care benefits from staff? Income security? Job security?
If this becomes the norm, one must ask: who in the world will make
this their life's calling? The short answer to that question is: few, if
any will. Teaching will become something someone does for a year or two
or three, before they either (a) go into the rapidly expanding and
lucrative peripheries of education consulting or charter school
management, or (b) bide their time and network, until they go get their
MBA or go off to some other field.
Teaching will no longer be a career, it will be a snazzy line on
people's resumes. That's not good for the profession, and it sure as all
hell isn't good for kids.