Teachers Say Why They Stay

It is no mystery why teachers stay at Program Improvement schools.
Why then, are there not more proactive measures to ensure the type of issue-relevant professional development and administrative actions which would support educators in staying at low performing school sites in order to provide a more equitable education for students from high risk backgrounds?

REASONS TEACHERS STAY:

• Being dealt with as professionals
• A safe place to work
• Having a say in the content they taught and the strategies they used in their classrooms
• Ability to use their authority and make choices at their school sites, both has individuals and as groups
• Mutually respectful feeling among staff
• A principal who was encouraging and sympathetic
• Being valued by parents and the community
• Close personal relationships forged at the school site
• Frequent team-related associations with colleagues
• Love of students existed
• Feeling effective with their students
• Raising salaries and incentive programs (Posnick-Goodwin,2008;UNCG,2006).

The data gathered with my surveys and during interviews confirmed this information. Teachers especially cited their positive relationships with colleagues; effective, inspiring, and supportive administrators; doing what they felt was best for their students despite mandated curriculum; and the love of their students as reasons they stayed.

One fascinating piece of data was: though hard-to-staff schools have challenging student populations, this was seldom mentioned as the reason for leaving.

Conclusions are continually being drawn as more research is uncovered and data analyzed. However, I am beginning to see if administrators would listen and act on the common concerns and realities of PI teachers, perhaps more teachers would stay and teach.

The Making of a Low Performing School

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend Math training at the district office. You see, we adopted a new math program and must be retrained...again.

So, there I sat for 8 hours with fellow grade level teachers from throughout the district. In between deconstructing standards and comparing and contrasting the composition of problems, we had some time to chat. For the first time, in a long a time I had the chance to speak to teachers who are at "high performing schools". One gentleman enlightened me.

Let me back up.

I am at a new school site. Previous to being at my new school, my present class of students had been divided amongst three overcrowded school sites. Two of these sites are in the top three of the high performing elementary schools in our district. The other school is middle-of-the-road, but still not in Program Improvement.

Our campus is surrounded by new subdivisions, but intermingled within these groups of homes are neighborhoods which are less stellar, old, and quite frankly... scary. In fact, just this week, the mother of one of my students was mugged as she went outside to take out the trash. This was no knock-down-and-run crime. Her arm was broken and her eye blackened. Needless to say, her child was not interested in learning for the rest of the week.

Back to the conference:

We were talking about our students, and I was telling the gentleman, I mentioned earlier, that while I have students who are proficient, I have many who are basic and below. This man confided in me that all of the students who transferred to our school were those at the bottom of his class. This did not surprise me, as the majority of the demographics at my school lean towards students who are English Language Learners, ethnic minorities, and from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and these subgroups tend to struggle academically (while acquiring conversational and academic language, and coping with family and other issues), while those students at his school are mostly White students, with English as their primary language, from middle to upper class backgrounds ( not to say these children do not have problems, but they at least come to school speaking the language of instruction).

Read the title of this piece. Do you think it is unfair?

My research data confirms that Program Improvement schools ALL have demographics which are similar. A large majority of the students on these campuses are English Language Learners, who are ethnic minorities, and from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Those are the facts. They are indisputable.

BUT now, I must say this. While PI schools are similar in their demographics, and while crushing state mandates can drain the joy out of teaching, and make learning a much despised chore, there are campuses, though they bear the ignominious PI label which still have a positive feeling about them.

What makes the difference? I have found it is largely due to administrators who support their staff members and are realistic about the implementations and demands No Child Left Behind makes upon their staff and students.

So far, my campus still has a light feeling, though a PI label may be looming in the future, and we can feel the breath of rigid demands upon the back of our neck.

Fire or Inspire?

In one of my interviews, an educator said, and I quote, "Well, I think sending a brand new teacher into a Program Improvement school is like throwing the Christians to the lions. Seriously, you’re going in there, and you have no idea what you’re getting yourself into. I mean, even an experienced teacher coming to a PI school, I think it’s very difficult because the rules of the game have changed. "

I suggest a new hiring policy and practice in districts throughout the nation.

NEW POLICY: No first or second year teacher will be hired at Program Improvement school.

Why?

It is unfair.

Think about it. Two new teachers, equally qualifed. One is hired at a PI school. One is hired at a Non-PI school. One has a greater chance of being "let go". One has a greater chance of getting burned out and leaving their assignment.

Are there any guesses as to which one it would be?

I am surprised Teacher Union Presidents throughout the nation have not picked up on this inequity to new educators.

Let me tell you how things currently are in our district. All teachers are being hired on a temporary basis. Just today, I was told, the way things are now, a teacher gets tenure in our district in FIVE years. This was news to me. I thought it was three years.

Every year, in the Spring, when birds are laying eggs in nests, our district is laying "pink slips" in the boxes of untenured teachers. It's an unnerving process.

So, here comes the gratitude.

After the first year of working at a Program Improvement school, I was brought into a "secret meeting" with my area administrator and my principal. Mind you, I had a CLAD and clear credential. At this meeting, I was told if I continued to work at this school site I would have tenure the first day I taught at the PI school my third year. So, after three years, I was tenured...safe. Phew!

Hm. I wonder why? Well, apparently the only "perk" of staying at a PI school in our district is that sometimes, and I want to stress sometimes, if a teacher can hold up under the stress and pressure of PI requirements, build positive relationships with staff members, get good evaluations, submit to any demands asked of them, and remain in the good graces of the administrator, an early tenure might...might...be offered.

Here's the trouble.

Now, I do not claim to be an expert on the hiring and "tenuring" processes of other districts, but in our district, campuses are required to "let go" two untenured teachers a year. My understanding is that those teachers are not ever allowed to be hired in our district again, and the principal is not required to give any explanation as to why the teacher was not "adequate enough" to be retained.

So, let's do some deducing. If Non-Program Improvement schools have higher teacher retention rates, as a whole, they probably also have more veteran tenured teachers. Therefore, they have less teachers who are "let go". This leaves PI schools with the bulk of positions in the districts to be filled, year after year, and therefore, these are the campuses with the least experienced teachers, which can affect student learning.

My qualitative research data has established how stressful, anxiety producing, and restrictive working at a PI site can be, especially under the leadership of a militaristic controlling principal.

Do any teachers out there remember their first year of teaching? How did you feel? Please post if it was the most relaxing, easiest, dreamy time in your life.

I was stressed out...all the time. I remember if I went to my teacher's box and saw a piece of paper a feeling of dread would come over me, each piece of paper seemed that it could be "the thing that could break the teacher's back." There were so many feelings of doubt and inadequacy. I knew I had so much to learn...and learn I did.

Lucky for me, I was assigned a peer mentor ( one thing I can definitely give my administrator credit for), who helped me with classroom and behavior management, organization, and engagement strategies. She actually CAME INTO MY CLASS (ideal) while I was teaching, and when I would give her a signal, she would casually move in and take over, so I could see a model. She saved me my first year and made PI requirements bearable. Giving up my "credential class ideals" and submitting myself to the stagnating horrors which come with commercial mandated base programs also helped to relieve stress. Plus, I tried to have positive outlook ( believe it or not). All of this got me tenure in three years.

Now, I think of other new teachers, perhaps, more timid than me, less able to ask for help, less of a worker-bee (translation:work-a-holic), but still good teachers. What if, instead of being dropped into the "lion's den" to be torn up and spit out by conditions at PI schools, districts everywhere allowed new teachers a few years to "ease in to the teaching profession" and become inspired as professionals at less stressful Non-PI school sites?

Surely, there would still be teachers who would leave Non-PI schools, statistics tell us they always do, and always will. But, if teachers could get over the first two years of teaching and then get transferred to a PI school ( after a LOT of issue-relevant professional development), they would have more confidence, experience, and could more readily contribute to the education of the students at PI school sites.

Please don't make me think in a sinister manner. Please do not tell me that a policy, as mentioned above, would make it more difficult for districts to "rid themselves" of teachers, and therefore would never be enacted. That would just be too sad.

Dismissal Versus Professional Development for Teachers at Program Improvement Schools

Good morning friends and guests!

Nothing is more effective than a brisk early morning run than an adrenalin-rousing, fire-in-the-belly promoting email from the NEA, such as this:

D.C. schools chancellor imposes plan for dismissing ineffective teachers.
The Washington Post (10/3, B1, Turque) reports on the front page of its Metro section, "D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee made good yesterday on repeated threats to bypass labor contract negotiations by imposing her own program to fire ineffective teachers, including a measure that gives poor-performing instructors 90 days to improve or face dismissal." The move follows the city and its teachers reaching an impasse on a previous pay-for-performance plan. The "Plan B" program "includes a new teacher evaluation system based primarily on student test scores and other achievement benchmarks." In addition, Rhee will "employ rules that are on the books but seldom used, including one that allows her to" overlook seniority in determining "which teachers would lose jobs in the event of declining enrollment or school closures." Meanwhile, "Washington Teachers' Union President George Parker denounced Rhee's decision." According to Parker, Rhee should focus on supporting and professionally developing teachers, rather than terminate them.
The AP (10/3) and WJLA-TV Arlington (10/3) also report the story.
Editorials tout merits of two-tier pay plan. In an editorial titled "D.C. Teachers Left Behind," the Washington Post (10/3, A22) argues that "D.C. teachers ought to be asking whose interests their union leaders are tending to at the bargaining table." The Post notes that Rhee not only "hoped to make the union a partner in her efforts," but was also "offering teachers a choice" with her previous, two-tier plan: "No one would be forced to give up tenure, and those opting for the lower pay level would still get...a 28 percent salary boost over five years, plus $10,000 in bonuses." However, since the plan was not approved, "the $200 million Ms. Rhee has raised from private foundations willing to pay for the first five years of her plan" is uncertain. As "Rhee's offer is still on the table," the Post concludes that "teachers who have confidence in their students and in themselves" need "to find their voice and speak out."
The New York Times (10/3, A24) is also running an editorial that is largely in favor of Rhee's plan. According to the Times, "The higher salaries and bonuses would make the city a magnet for teacher talent, and the new rules would make it easier to dismiss teachers who were not meeting the requirements of the job." Although "Rhee's proposal represents a dramatic break with the past," the Times argues that, "with student achievement lagging, and Washington's school system still seen as one of the worst big-city systems in the country, a dramatic break may be exactly what it needs."

***********************************************************************************

You know I could not just read that and go back to Saturday cleaning. Instead, I sat down and wrote our local teachers' union representative ( for those anti-union folks reading this--- just become a teacher in the current politically charged insane environment that is education at this moment in time---you'll convert to pro-union mentality in no time).

Good morning [ Union President's Name],
I just thought you would be interested in this article ( though I am sure you have already seen it).
Scary. Scary. Scary. I especially worry for new naive inexperienced teachers who are thrown into inner city and Program Improvement schools and have no idea what the expectations are despite their years of pre-entry training ( believe me, I have been there). These types of measures will be critically unfair to teachers who work at PI schools...it's a bit discriminatory.
Stupidity often begins in D.C. and is refined in California, so I worry about these things. Just look at the current financial mess!
I am doing my Masters project on retaining teachers at PI schools. Teachers I interviewed have all said the same thing about the exceptional stresses and pressures which exist on these campuses ( poor administration creates even more difficulties). They all say, especially those who have moved on to Non-PI schools, that teachers outside the "PI grind" have no idea what it is like to work at one of these exceptional sites.
My question is: At the end of the day, when teachers have been "dismissed" for being "ineffective" because they are unable to raise test scores because of the many current flawed educational demands on children( and therefore their teachers), and additionally commercial curriculum and subject matter which lack motivational elements children need to have more success, and administration which negates the realities of many of the statistical limitations which exist when expecting test scores to rise ( especially among students who are English language learners, from low socio-economic backgrounds, and from underprivileged ethnic minority groups), who is going to teach the children at these at-risk schools? Who will want to risk the the financial investment and time in a teacher credential and their career to work at these schools?
It is these children who will suffer.
Who are these administrators? They are OUT OF TOUCH with R-E-A-L-I-T-Y!
Sincerely,
Lovable Me
*********************************************************************************
And now let's go to the court of public opinion regarding this matter (refer to the NEA email above). The New York Times is running an editorial that is largely in favor of Rhee's plan, eh? Hm.

Let me just guess that the reporter/writer has not worked at an inner city or Program Improvement school.

It's just a guess.

They said, "The higher salaries and bonuses would make the city a magnet for teacher talent..." True. New teachers would be drawn by mercenary minded ideals. And how would this benefit their teaching or their students? In my research survey, teachers at PI schools said they DID NOT stay at PI schools because they were paid more money to work there.

Sure, these new teachers will get their cash, but without proper training, specifically for issues they would deal with at a PI school, they will probably not even have to be "dismissed". As statistics have revealed many of these new teachers will take their money, along with their high anxiety levels, and disillusionment and run, as soon as they get a chance!

The Times writer also concluded, "...and the new rules would make it easier to dismiss teachers who were not meeting the requirements of the job." Hm.

And what are those requirements exactly? From my experience at a PI school, I can say the requirements and "rules of the teaching game" change with an irritating frequency. So, let Ms. Rhee beware. She should make a careful decade long detailed study of the differences between the teaching requirements at expectations at PI versus Non-PI campuses. My study reveals there are many. Perhaps in Administrationland, the land of unrealistic dreams and outcomes, there is a master list of requirements that will be fair for educators at ALL schools and for the students who they teach.

Thank goodness for reason! Thank goodness for people like Washington Teachers' Union President George Parker who denounced, Administrationland Hostess, Rhee's decision. Parker's admonition for Rhee to focus on supporting and professionally developing teachers, rather than terminating them, is what my research shows teachers who have worked at PI schools feel would be "absolutely" effective.