The Daily News is all excited about the advent of the Common Core. Never mind that it has never been tested anywhere, ever. The vital thing is that we implement it immediately. Doubtless the editorial writers, should they ever fall ill, would want to be treated with experimental medicines that have never been tried on anyone, and hope for the best. Because that, in fact, is pretty much what they're advocating for our children, amazingly, as "just what" they "need."

The hero of their story is reformy John King, who's not afraid to do whatever it takes to bring more testing to our children. The villain, of course, is that awful teacher union, which wants to delay it. Apparently, NYSUT, full of radical unionists, is not of the opinion frustrated unprepared children are a net plus.

The News, though, says King is "fighting the good fight."

It is conceivable that the pass rates could fall well below 40%, with some local districts down even into the single digits.

I want to retch when I read Arne Duncan is going somewhere to pay tribute to MLK. In fact, King was assasinated while in Memphis, supporting striking workers. Duncan, conversely, is in the pocket of billionaires like Bill Gates and Eli Broad, tinkering with ineffectual pipe dreams that target working people and do nothing whatsoever to help the kids it's, ostensibly at least, his job to represent.

Four years ago, I voted for Barack Obama, hope and change. Yet, for the most part, all I see is the same corporate-friendly nonsense we saw for eight years under GW Bush. In Obama's defense, yes, he at least seemed to have gotten more votes than his opponent. And when I looked at John McCain's proposals for education, it seemed imperative to oppose him. Yet now, four years later, there seems little in educational policy that differs between McCain and Obama.

Bill Clinton had a Sister Souljah moment that he used to his political advantage. Obama has nothing whatsoever to say about that, because he's made teachers his Sister Souljah. When accused of being too liberal, he'll assert that he's all for screwing the teachers, so he's independent after all. But Obama, in fact, is not only screwing teachers. By lending legitimacy to the nonsense spouted by billionaire-backed "reformers," he's attacking what is likely one of the last bastions of vibrant unionism in this country. This, in fact, is why Gates, Broad, and the Walmart family support this nonsense.

What is being done to address the very real problems that lead to kids failing in school? Nothing. That's complicated. Far easier to blame unionized teachers and compare all-inclusive public schools to preposterously selective charters. Amazingly, with all their advantages, charters tend not to out-perform public schools. Nonetheless, all that money gets them films like Waiting for Superman, glorifying folks like Geoffrey Canada, who dismissed an entire cohort to juke his stats. Can you imagine what public schools could do, given such options? Of course, that would mean emulating the "ethics-shmethics" approach of the corporate "reformers."

How dare the corporate union-busters invoke MLK in their nonsensical and cynical attempts to bust union under the shallow pretense of helping children? Even now, uber-"reformer" Mike Bloomberg is suggesting it's a good idea to shed 33 schools of half their teachers. This would inevitably toss these schools into abject chaos, and Bloomberg doesn't give a golly goshdarn one way or the other. Because the kids, in fact, are the least of his concerns. He and his buds prefer to sent their kids to elite private schools with the small class sizes he denies public schools (despite taking hundreds of millions of dollars to create them).

And now Bloomberg, who thwarted voters to buy a third term, so as to work his financial genus on  NYC, wants to spend 350 million, at least partially to save 60 million in federal funds. Makes sense to him.

But MLK would never support these corporate "reformers." MLK would stand with working people. And MLK would know these children the corporatists purport to put "first" will grow up to be working people. In fact, teaching is a path to the middle class for kids like those I teach. Worsening working conditions for teachers not only hurts working people, but also narrows the options for these kids.

On this day, we should celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., and be absolutely confident that he would stand with us in our struggle against the cynical, ruthless billionaires who would gleefully reduce us to the status of McDonald's fry cooks or Walmart "associates."

Shame on those who sully his memory by associating their self-serving agendas with him.

Mike Winerip's column today gives us a pretty forceful rebuttal to Steven Brill's latest adventure in teacher-bashing. Specifically, he finds a pretty bald-faced falsehood. Did Brill even bother to check this stuff before publication? Hasn't he got an editor?

He notes that charters are criticized for having fewer children with learning challenges, but “none of the actual data supports this.” 

Actually, it does. According to the city, in 2010 P.S. 149 had more children poor enough to receive free lunch (76 percent vs. 67 percent for the charter); more children for whom English was a second language (13 percent vs. 1.5 for the charter); and more children with disabilities (22 percent vs. 16). 

This, in my view, is typical of what gets written about public schools--unchallenged nonsense presented as unvarnished fact. And even Winerip neglects to note the degree of disability. It's far more likely that more disabled students wind up in public schools. I can't imagine Eva Moskowitz picking up alternate assessment kids who will neither receive a traditional diploma nor embellish her statistics.

Brill sees career teachers as lazy slobs sitting around and waiting to collect pensions. That's the favorite stereotype of the "reformers," so why not toss it out yet again. No stats, no support, just tar working Americans as a bunch of lazy bastards. But what's the alternative? Charter school teachers are harried, overworked, and underpaid, and appear unable to sustain what's asked of them for any substantial length of time. This, of course, is the vision of the "reformers---"cheap, replaceable McTeachers for poor kids. (Brill sent his kids to private schools, so that won't be a problem for them.)

It's pathetic that at this point in our history Americans can be manipulated to believe that teachers and other working people are responsible for the excesses that have scuttled our economy. We should be thankful for the few prominent voices, like Winerip, that will speak the truth.

So says the New York Post, which seems to make the rules up as it goes along.  The Post supports every "reform" that comes down the pike.  They applaud when schools close, and never, ever question why.  They do cartwheels when public schools are replaced by charters.  Yet they're shocked, shocked when they find that credit recovery programs are shams designed to make students pass by any means necessary.

The Post, which applauded while GW Bush cheated, lied and drove the country into the dirt, has no patience for public schools that don't want to close.  They can't wait to make room for new schools with disposable McTeachers.

The test-prep factories that the Bill Gates/ Wal-Mart coalition is spawning are fine.  The non-union charters are fabulous.  The only problem, apparently, is that some unreasonable public school principals are unwilling to just lie down and die.  This is troubling to Gates and Wal-Mart, who need to save the world by supplanting public schools with non-union charters ASAP. 

It's unfortunate that billionaires who know nothing about education, including ultra-right wing Post publisher Rupert Murdoch, are the dominant forces in education today.  It's disgraceful that faux-Democrats like Barack Obama are eager to do whatever the billionaires request, and have no interest in representing the people who put them in office.   Of course I expect one-sided, shallow nonsense from the Post, and they rarely disappoint.

But these stories are the inevitable consequences of the test-prep, do or die frenzy that's gripped the nation.  Any thoughtful person can see that such incidents will multiply rapidly as the Gates/ Wal-Mart/ New York Post crowd make their imprint on education.

That's just one reason we should drop this nonsense and go back to teaching children.

Maybe you're in the wrong line of work. CNN states that high school teachers have one of the most stressful and poorly paid jobs anywhere. That's certainly not encouraging. It makes you think you aren't half as smart as you thought you were.

Personally, I don't see it that way. Of course the job is stressful. There are constant demands from administration, both on-site and from the anti-union, anti-labor psychos at Tweed. And dealing with the demands of 170 teenagers on a daily basis can be harrowing. But those of us who've toughed out the first few years have found ways--we've learned from experience.

Don't believe the teacher-bashers who say we don't get better after 3 years. They just don't want to pay you. They want disposable McTeachers who will never mature enough to stand up for themselves or the kids they teach. It's fairly easy for them to sit around in air-conditioned offices and criticize us. In fact, that's because they themselves have a very low-stress occupation. They can't do what we do.

In fact, it's fairly easy for me to sit behind this laptop and condemn them. I could do a much more thorough job of it if I weren't hampered with having to show up to work each day and help kids. Now I don't mind doing that, and with 25 years, I'm confident I'm the best teacher I've ever been. I've dealt with hundreds of situations and I've learned from results, both good and bad.

In both lessons and social situations, I've got a wealth of experience to draw from. It's sad that our titular leaders would just as soon toss me into the Absent Teacher Reserve as look at me, and that their protégés, like Michelle Rhee, will disregard convention and break laws just to get rid of teachers like me.

Make no mistake that given his druthers, Chancellor Klein would do exactly the same thing. We always hope that age brings wisdom. It's pathetic that our top-dog educational leaders would not only ignore that, but do everything they can to deprive our children of it--just to save a few bucks.

And that's what stresses me out.

Billionaire Mayor-for-life Michael Bloomberg is not just some windbag spending petty millions on TV commercials that promote him as a regular guy. To prove this, his innovative programs to help working New Yorkers continue. Just recently, to serve them better, he closed all the kindergartens in city day care centers. And now, to help out even more, he's going to raise class sizes in existing kindergartens.

That means we can wedge even more kids into kindergartens that already have the highest class sizes in the state. But even now, naysayers are raising their cynical concerns:

"This is totally unacceptable to me," City Council Education Committee head Robert Jackson (D-Manhattan) told reporters.

"I did not work for almost 20 years pushing the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case to get extra money to reduce class size to sit idly by and watch us move backward."

Naturally, that's nonsense. Although Mayor Bloomberg certainly accepted hundreds of millions, if not billions, to reduce class sizes, the fact is those dollars offset the cost of sports stadiums that accommodate important people willing to spend 2500 clams to see the Yankees. Shouldn't they have good seats, even if your children do not? After all, your kids don't pay 2500 bucks a day to sit in class.

In any case, there are always trailers, closets, and toxic waste sites available for your kids, and learning under those conditions will build character. And, of course, you can always play the charter school lottery, and you may even luck out and get a place for your kid in a class of 17 students, with a real classrooom and everything. You gotta be in it to win it.

Sure, the overwhelming majority of kids will be stuck in the public schools, with the oversized classes in trailers and bathrooms. But the rest of the system is in place to give huge salaries to folks like Eva Moskowitz, while promoting the kind of non-unionized workforce your kids can expect to be part of, with more work for less pay, no job protections, reduced benefits, and so much work they almost certainly won't last but a few years. This not only keeps salaries down, but also saves money for the important and inevitable renovation of sports stadiums for Mayor Bloomberg's buds.

So stop whining, work hard, and be nice.

...you'll love Maverick Johny McCain. In September 2002, he predicted victory in Iraq would be easy. Then he said we could stay for a hundred years. He then made the rosy prediction that we could get out by 2013. With typical foresight (and hindsight), Maverick John is getting into bed with Joel Klein and Al Sharpton.

Now no one can deny that Joel Klein's educational "reforms" have proven just as effective as the Iraq War, and when you consider we're spending 3 billion a week out in the desert, Mr. Klein's 80-million dollar non-functioning computer seems a drop in the bucket. And while Mr. Klein left hundreds of kids to freeze in the streets on the coldest days of the year, at least opposing combatants weren't shooting at them. Not this year, anyway.

Mr. McCain, of course, supports school vouchers, while that nasty Barack Obama opposes them. This, apparently, is a big selling point for Mr. McCain. It's very clear that if we could only dispose of those nasty teacher unions and hire temporary employees for a pittance we could seriously lower Steve Forbes' tax bill. And honestly, if the United States of America doesn't stand for lowering Steve Forbes' tax bill, then what on earth does it stand for?

So forget that Maverick Johny has embraced Bush tax cuts, Bush's war, and the religious zealots he once stood up to. Forget that he was wrong from the beginning about Iraq, and continues to be wrong now. Forget his endless contradictions. Never mind that, despite frequent rhetoric to the contrary, he consistently votes against the interests of the men and women who actually fight the wars he supports. The important thing is he'll get more cash into the pockets of those who have more cash, and he'll oppose unions in education. It's all about giving the poor kids instruction in how to work long days and long hours for little reward.

After all, someone has to serve drinks at Steve Forbes' house. You tend to get thirsty a lot at poolside, even at the indoor pool.

Isn't it odd when four years in, you find yourself the senior teacher at your grade level? Perhaps not, in New York City. There's not a whole lot of sense of continuity, and perhaps that's par for the course nowadays. But what happens when you're stuck in such a place? Ask Jules from Mildly Melancholy:

I have no friends at school, I have no trusted colleagues to talk to about my teaching, I don't feel like I'm a valued member of the department, I don't feel like I am an important part of the school community.

This doesn't bode well for teacher retention. Now folks like Mayor Michael Bloomberg and UFT President Randi Weingarten pay lip service to teacher retention, like class size reduction, but rather than address it, they focus on "reforms" that reduce prep time, eviscerate seniority privileges, and pile on extra work. Oddly enough, the theory that teachers leave because the work is too easy and the pay too high does not appear to hold water, and worsening working conditions does not make teachers want to stay:

I've been pondering next year for weeks already. This good year with the kids is encouraging, but I'm exhausted by all the internal change at my school--everything has changed, yet things remain the same. And I think it's going to be time for me to be the new blood. The West is calling...

And unfortunately, the cookie-cutter "reforms" imposed by Bloomberg and tacitly approved by Weingarten do not appear to encourage teachers like Ms. Malarkey:

When BloomKlein took over and Balanced Literacy became the law, our literature anthologies and class sets of novels were taken away.

Can you imagine such a thing? Taking away novels and literature so as to impose a particular methodology? Taking away the teacher's choice as to what kids will read? How can you make kids love reading when you're prohibited from sharing literature you love? What happens when you take such options away from conscientious teachers?

I’ve begun to ask myself how much longer I can do this. I suspect that the more frustrated I get, the less effective I am as a teacher. After more than ten years in the city, I’ve finally started to ask myself if it’s worth shelling out a small fortune in gas money to come here.

This, actually, is precisely the sort of thinking the mayor and the chancellor revel in. The more of us leave, the less they have to spend on teacher pensions. They've just reaped a bonanza by taking back 1.85% of teacher salaries for pensions, and it's highly likely they'll keep the majority of these funds, while frustrated would-be teachers head for the hills.

Clearly experience is not valued. A recent agreement between Weingarten and Bloomberg allows entire faculties to be disbanded, with 50% of said faculties dumped into the demoralizing, dehumanizing ATR brigade--anything to discourage and dissuade people from making it to their pensions, thus diverting funds which could be used for sports stadiums.

The picture above is not a real rib. Real ribs take time. It's some sort of processed McDonald's food product painted with barbecue sauce and made to look like a rib. In Texas they call such things faux-Q. Fake ribs and disposable teachers are becoming all the rage.

I don't take my kid to McDonald's, and I don't want her to have McTeachers either. We owe our teachers better, and more importantly, we owe our kids better.

Thanks to Schoolgal

Here's Chris Cerf, Deputy Chancellor of the NYC Department of Education, on teacher effectiveness:

But let's hope we are past the point of evaluating success based on "inputs"- how much we care,

Note that one of the first things Mr. Cerf rejects is how much teachers care about students. Personally, it's impossible for me to condone hiring a teacher who doesn't care about kids, nor would I want such a teacher in charge of my own kid. Teachers who don't like kids, in fact, are the very worst teachers there are.

Now caring alone does not guarantee a good teacher. Still, it's an absolute prerequisite, and does not bear belittling.

whether a particular program or approach appears compelling,

This is an ironic comment from one who represents the DoE, with a history of mandating programs and abiding no deviation from the programs it's prescribed.

how many students in a class feels like the appropriate number,

Note how Mr. Cerf mildly ridicules and completely repudiates lower class size. Money, the most important factor in this administration, dicates leaving class sizes as high as they are now, the highest in the state. This is a strong indication that this administration plans to continue making superficial and meaningless changes, to give the appearance of progress rather than actually make any.

how many degrees or certificates our educators possess, etc.

It's always fascinating to see people who clearly don't value education running education systems. I realize there's a lot of crap taught in higher education (as in other fields), but that ought to be corrected rather than flushing college down the toilet. Perhaps Mr. Cerf prefers less costly McTeachers , who can be used a few years, and then discarded.

Personally, my MA in Applied Linguistics was very valuable. I certainly know more about language acquisition than US Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, or indeed many of those who design the tests that quite inadequately test the English ability of my students (Kids who barely speak routinely pass New York City's LAB test).

Mr. Cerf then explains that the single most important factor in student achievement is the teacher. Having taught and studied for many years, I disagree. The single most important factor is the student's background. The teacher is simply the second best bet for that kid (a strong argument for quality teachers), and it's very tough to turn around a 17-year-old with a lifetime of bad habits. Experience is our best asset for dealing with these kids. You learn to approach kids, you make mistakes, and you get better. You get far more effective.

And it's much easier to control such a kid and stop the spread of such behavior in a class of 25 or less than one of 34 or more.

And you can indeed make progress, but that may entail getting the kid to sit down, to stop interrupting constantly, to be friendly, or at least tolerant of you and the other students. It's simply idiotic to discount such progress, and it's woefully ignorant to imagine one could significantly raise test scores without achieving all of the above. Regrettably, that does not occur with a snap of the fingers. And I haven't even gotten to home contact, let alone persuading the kid to study.

It's not all about "designing data systems," Mr. Cerf. When you discount time, education and discipline in learning to teach (or learning anything whatsoever), that represents something other than wisdom.

Mayoral control is set to sunset in 2009. What does mayoral control mean for teachers?

Well, it means thousands of them are overpaid subs with virtually no chance of landing real teaching jobs. It means principals have to decide between paying 40K for a new teacher and 80K for an experienced one. Take a look at suburban schools, the many excellent ones that surround the city, and ask yourself how many of their new hires have 20 years of experience, let alone get paid for it.

It's meant an atmosphere of fear and loathing the likes of which I've not seen in over 20 years. It's meant a system in which higher test scores are loudly trumpeted in the press, and lower ones are just as prominently ignored. It's meant a system in which "accountability" is the watchword, even though it applies exclusively to working teachers (whether or not they've actually done anything negative).

It's meant a system in which the first reorganization didn't work, the second reorganization didn't work, and one in which the third reorganization, the one which encourages "McTeachers," is loudly and wrongheadedly endorsed by the United Federation of Teachers. Randi Weingarten, UFT President, takes a page from her idol, Hillary Clinton, and endorses this disaster despite overwhelming evidence it's utterly failed to help her constituents:

"There's lots and lots of my members, as well as parents, who believe the governance system has to be changed," the president of the United Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, said. Ms. Weingarten, who originally supported mayoral control, said she stands by her admiration for Mr. Bloomberg's decision to take over the schools. "Until he said let me control the schools, there was never a mayor who put his entire political capital behind the schools," she said.

I had a great English teacher who once said, "Once people use the word but, you can forget everything they said beforehand. Only after but do they tell you what they really mean. I often tell my kids, "When your girlfriend says she really loves you but---it's time to look for a new girlfriend."

Ms. Weingarten acknowledges UFT members oppose the system. But she stands by her decision to support and enable mayoral control. Ms. Weingarten's job is to represent the interests of working teachers. The majority of working teachers in New York City now have fewer than five years experience, and are unlikely to stick with it.

But they pay dues anyway. It behooves Ms. Weingarten to consider beyond that, and to also think of what's good for those of them that will stay on. Career teachers are good for our kids, and also good for our union.

Thanks to 17 More Years

Here's an article suggesting that the United States is facing a national teacher shortage. It's odd that so many people seem to think the answer is longer school days and years, but that's what they're saying. And the move to worsen working conditions seems to have legs. Will it help?

I don't think so. I live in Nassau, and not in one of the "best" towns by far. Yet my daughter has had consistently excellent teachers, and has never had a classroom with fewer than two computers. On the other hand, I've never taught in one with more than zero (unless you count the time I taught word processing in a room with 15 non-functional antique computers). Her school buildings, though often old, are always clean. Yet reformers say we need to get rid of tenure, we need to introduce more work for less pay, and that will make teachers better.

A study co-written by Murnane and published this year reports that minorities and poor children are most likely to be taught by teachers with weak academic backgrounds or little preparation. Overall, the proportion of women who pursue teaching after college, as well as the caliber of recruits, has declined significantly since the 1960s.

The number of college-educated women in the United States tripled from 1964 to 2000, according to a 2004 study by University of Maryland economists, but the share of those graduates who became teachers dropped from 50 percent to 15 percent in the same time. And although in 1964 1 in 5 young female teachers graduated in the top 10 percent of her high school class, the ratio was closer to 1 in 10 by 2000.

The study neglects to mention that poorer districts also have the lowest salaries and the worst working conditions. NYC has the highest class sizes in the state, and rather than address that, the mayor wants to dangle cash prizes and make kids (and parents) jump like trained seals.

It's great that women have more options, but very sad for our children that teaching has become so less desirable as a career. The likelihood that ten-hour days, six day weeks, less job security, and continued low pay will be a draw is small indeed. Will teachers stay on?

In the first months, she would work until late at night, then lie awake "thinking, thinking, thinking" about school, she said. For most of the year, she woke up at 5 a.m. to plan lessons and prepare handouts and then stayed at school until at least 5 p.m., grading papers or helping the pep rally dance team or the ESL homework club.

In such a demanding job, the turnover rate is high.

That's the life of a beginning teacher. Time makes things easier, of course, but by that time a good number of these teachers are already gone. The McTeacher movement actually encourages that trend. I don't think it's helpful either to teachers or students. I want my kid to have a calm, thoughtful teacher, not an overworked wage-slave who'd bound to burn out before learning the ropes.

Pressures of the job getting you down? You're not alone. It's getting to be the American Way, to borrow an old expression.

There's a movement afoot to make Americans work their butts off to support not only themselves, but big business as well. If you listen to US Senator Bernie Sanders, he'll tell you we already work longer hours than anywhere else in the free world.

How did it happen today that a two-income family has less disposal income than a one-income family did thirty years ago? How does it happen that thirty years ago, one person working forty hours a week could earn enough money to take care of the family; now, you need two, and they're still not doing it?

Closer to home, reality-based educator commented on this topic:

Notice all the rich corporate types behind the KIPP/longer school day/longer school year movement (e.e., Bloomberg, Gates.) I think they're trying to socialize Americans of all stripes to expect longer work days and longer work years as part of the wonders of globalization. If kids spend 9.5 hours in school, they won't blink later on when they have to work 10 hour days. And if kids get 4 weeks off all year, they won't blink when corporations lower vacation time to 1 week plus a few sick days.

Regular poster Xkaydet65 seems to think I'm missing this point, but perhaps I've just neglected it. I started this blog with my eye firmly on Klein and Bloomberg, and I saw where they were headed. Governor Spitzer, in calling for a longer school day and year (in lieu of smaller class size, no less), has made me acutely aware that electing democrats is by no means sufficient to protect working people.


Here in Fun City, we already have a longer school day and year, endorsed and enabled by Bloomberg and the UFT (Isn't it incredible to find union leaders on the wrong side of this issue?). Despite that, we still have the largest class sizes in the area. KIPP is a symptom, and a sign of things to come if we don't wake up.

A lot of people are all fired up about teachers and why they aren't working more hours. It's remarkable that so few think to ask why everyone else can't work less, like they do in Europe.

Find' 'em, use 'em, discard 'em, and then find new ones. And make the kids work the same hours. Forget about dance lessons, music lessons, karate, sports, and everything else that doesn't directly involve test scores. Playtime? Give me a break.

Honestly, they sound worse than the military schools parents used to threaten kids with, and if you consider the majority of their students don't even complete the program, their results are extremely unimpressive. When things look really bad, they simply take their name off the school.

KIPP's largely been presented as the magic pill that will cure all our ills, and it is simply no such thing. But KIPP, and its wannabees, help to explain the very troubling words that came from KIPP-enthusiast Jay Matthews the other day:

Some (innovators) even suggest that school systems should focus on recruiting waves of energetic young teachers, who would spend five or six years in the classroom before moving on, rather than career teachers, who might tire as they grow older.

That sounds like the whole McTeacher thing again, and I'm sorry, but thoughtful people need time to think. How much time do KIPP teachers get?

Students and teachers are in school from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, for four hours on Saturdays, and for three to four weeks during the summer.

I'm gonna go out on a limb, consider being on call for parents evenings, and say "Not much."

In spite of the long hours, average daily attendance at KIPP Schools is 96%.

If you ignore the fact that most kids stop attending altogether.

Frankly, if you're going to work yourself and your students to death, you ought not to be a role model for my child. I think, though, if you do choose this lifestyle, you ought to be lavishly compensated for it. According to KIPP:

KIPP schools offer a benefits package, which includes an annual salary, medical and dental benefits, and life insurance. Teaching salaries at KIPP schools are comparable to those of traditional public school salaries and include a stipend for the longer school days.

A stipend? How about a number? I mentioned the other day I'm told KIPP has one 100K teacher. For what they ask, 100K ought to be starting salary, and 2 and 300K should be standard for the "senior" 6-year teachers.

But whatever you pay them, don't ask me to send my kid there.

I often read Schools Matter, and often encounter very uncomplimentary remarks about KIPP schools. But the last week has brought a few reinforcing voices, including this one from Teaching in the 408:, which suggests that Education Week neglected to comment on some aspects of its own story:

...Ed Week correctly reports that fewer than half of the kids that begin the Bay Area KIPP schools as 5th graders in 2003 make it to 8th grade in 2006. In the Oakland incarnation, the attrition rate climbs to 75 percent. The article ignores the fact that these lost students are overwhelmingly African-American males. The three Bay Area KIPPs lost 77, 67, and 71 percent of its Young Black Males (YBMs) during this time period.

Hmm...what happened to all those kids? TMAO, the blog writer, knows a few:

Students at my school who have left KIPP have done so because of the debilitating effects of the shame and exclusion based discipline policy, because they were flat kicked out, or because they were told to change an aspect of their physical appearance (hair color; hair style) before being allowed to return. None of them left because their families moved.

Wow. Well, I suppose if I were able to dictate what my students should do, what color hair they could have, and kick out any and all who defied me, I could achieve outstanding results as well. In the real world, though, every kid kicked out of a charter would land in the classroom of a public school teacher (like me), who'd then be vilified by the Daily News for being unable to keep up with KIPP.

This brings me to another blogger, whom I'd almost forgotten about. Clever Newoldschoolteacher blogs at Oh, Snap (though not for some time now). Her last entry described how she loves working for KIPP. Her descriptions though, don't remotely move me to go out and sign up.

I taught for 3 weeks in July, went to the KIPP conference, worked in August on my room and curriculum, and started for real in September. I have not really slept or, for that matter, sat down, since then. I love the job, the school, and the kids though. It's an amazing experience.

It certainly sounds amazing. But I'm not amazed enough yet. Let's hear some more:

It has a REALLY long school day that's hard on the kids and hard on the teachers. I teach 3 90 minute classes, 2 45 minute homerooms, and 1 45 minute test prep/reading class. My schedule is such that I teach straight from 1 pm to 5 pm. It's killer. But it's totally worth it when I imagine the alternative work environment...public schools seem even crazier since I got to KIPP.

Still, they look pretty good to me right now. I teach 5 45-minute classes daily (and walk the halls a bit). She appears to teach 9, or at least do something for 9 (What on earth do they do in two 45 minute homerooms?). I'll bet dimes to dollars I get paid more than she does. Let's say I'm wrong, though. Does anyone really think it's worth 20% more pay (if indeed they get that much) to do almost twice as much work, have far less prep time, and then spend your evenings waiting by the phone for parents to call?

If you do, I have good news. KIPP is hiring.

There's a lot of buzz about Michelle Rhee, who's become head of the D.C. school system at the ripe old age of 37. Ms. Rhee is a product of Teach for America.

Teach for America places recruits after six or seven weeks of summer courses and practice teaching. Some crash and burn when they face real classes. But their survival rate is improving, and those who succeed often resolve to spend their lives fixing all that is wrong with urban education.

Some critics note that, on average, teachers in the program do not raise achievement levels much higher than do other young teachers. They also say that despite some successes, the innovators, who seek new ways of training teachers and running schools, have not found a way to improve learning for the vast majority of low-income urban students.

Despite this, they seem to be well-regarded among prominent voices for educational reform. The founders of KIPP hail from TFA, and Ms. Rhee's colleagues can be found administrating both charters and public schools.

The innovators tend to support smaller schools, closer contact with students' parents, and longer school days and years. They also focus on character education and how much teachers raise student achievement. They want well-trained principals to have the power to hire or fire teachers with less interference.

Some even suggest that school systems should focus on recruiting waves of energetic young teachers, who would spend five or six years in the classroom before moving on, rather than career teachers, who might tire as they grow older.

There's a lot to be said for smaller schools, in my view. However, I do not agree that partitioning one big overcrowded school into five smaller ones equals five small schools. To me, that's another big school with a lot of walls and too many administrators.

And while there are those who feel comfortable depending on the kindness of strangers, I'm not among them. After reading about Nicole Byrne Lau and other charter teachers, I value tenure a lot, as should anyone who sees teaching as a career. That's particularly important when you consider the blatant "chew 'em up and spit 'em out" philosophy espoused by those who suggest the lifespan of a teacher ought to be five or six years.

There are those who equate age with wisdom, and while it's not always true, I still want thoughtful, experienced teachers for kids who need them most. I'm afraid I fail to see the wisdom of working teachers to death, or at best resignation. I don't think I'd want to be on call with a cellphone for hours after I left my job, as KIPP teachers are. Like most people, I'm available at work, and like any responsible person I return calls quickly.

Now I'm told that KIPP does have one 100K teacher, who they trot out for conferences and such. However, Nassau County, where I live, has thousands of them. They all have tenure, they aren't on call, they don't work longer days and years, and they aren't expected to flame out after five or six years. And some of them have been very helpful to my little girl.

In fact, I've seen many great teachers as old or older than Ms. Rhee. The notion of entrusting the education of our children with anyone who can put up with the job for a few years before moving onto greener pastures is offensive, counter-productive, and more worthy of a summer camp than a serious educational institution.

Unless, of course, you've got your eye planted firmly on the bottom line. If your ultimate goal is reduction of Steve Forbes' tax bill, it all makes perfect sense.

Thanks to reality-based educator