Discrimination is so obvious and in our faces at times it is amazing we glom on to the wrong information when reading articles. Had it not been for having my computer in the shop (warranty item!) and I had to cogitate more long term on some items I have read, I doubt I would have questioned the discriminatory practices of charter schools in California as I also was reading the articles for other information.
Imagine if MSFT stated they would only be hiring recent college grads or the under 25 set as it helped with wages and the cost of healthcare. Not only would the public be horrified and EEOC go bonkers, but there would be lawsuits aplenty for discrimination. If you are a teacher, apparently EEOC and FEHA DO NOT APPLY to you in relationship to charter schools as you would be doing your ‘civic duty’ to help these not for profit CORPORATIONS stay within their budget!
It is fascinating that charter schools are able to and obviously encouraged to publicize their cost saving measures. Only in America can we treat employees the very way we try to legislate against from afar- the treatment of people in third world countries where our products are made on the cheap (think Nike, clothes supplied to Walmart, etc.) and yet we think nothing of catabolizing teachers for profits and it is considered appropriate in the name of educational change.
While I doubt this is what Obama and Duncan had in mind as they desired more charter schools and most likely not all charter schools so consistently follow this policy of discrimination, it is insidious and clearly a cost saving measure.
Charter school teachers also are usually nonunion workers and are younger or less experienced than those at a typical public schools. About 60% of teachers in California public schools are tenured, which translates into higher salaries, compared to 22% of teachers in charters, a 2006 study by the American Institutes of Research found.
With so many teachers laid off from public schools, charter schools are having no trouble hiring new teachers.
“Their big advantage is that they have very junior, low-priced teachers, and very few benefits to pay to retired teachers,” said Michael Kirst, professor emeritus of education and business administration at Stanford University.
“Charter schools are typically paying teachers salaries that are on a par with local school districts, so starting salaries are about the same,” said Robin Lake, associate director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington. “Where they are saving money is by hiring newer teachers — so their total payroll is lower.”
And since teachers and aides of all ilk are not sacred cows (nor are students with special needs at most charter school) – In this case Aspire advertises budget cuts on the backs of students they wish would” just go back” to the public, non-charter school down the road, budgeting is done by what is least desireable for student success.
To offset state budget cuts, some Aspire schools have reduced support staff such as reading intervention and after-school specialists hired to help struggling students.
FEHA and EEOC can not step in to save the students who will not benefit from the charter school special budget practices, and it is saddening to see this most especially within the organizations most ‘committed’ and dedicated to student learning, however, parents can and should.
It seems that an experienced teacher who has the craft of teaching is stigmatized by charter schools due to aging out. It must be better for charter schools to have new teachers clinging to text books as bibles – the least effective form of education, but certainly the easiest to perform for new teachers.
If indeed charter schools are about equity for ‘all’ – it must be in theory as it would appear there is little if any equity for the teaching staff.