A new Ed Trust report shows that even though Ohio school districts get additional funding for low-income children, only three of the state’s 14 largest districts have higher teacher salaries in their highest-poverty schools, compared to their more affluent schools.
“Common sense and basic fairness tell us that schools educating low-income students need significantly more—and certainly not less—if we expect them to reach the same high standards and achievement levels as children who have more resources at home,” says Ed Trust’s Ross Wiener, author of the report, No Accounting for Fairness.
I sincerely mean this as a question. After thinking through the complicated proposals of the Ed Trust, and never being able to figure out what they really want, and Weighted Student Funding, both seem to make Hillary’s old health care plan seem simple by comparison.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to fully fund special ed, and have the new money follow the student to his school? On one hand, a school like mine with 35% on IEPs would finally have the money required to turn itself around. But we still couldn’t get enough licensed teachers to transfer into our building, so we’d need to use the money in the creative way that the trust supposedly wants. After all, vast amounts of NCLB funds have been wasted and this idea seems more likely to succeed.
Again, I’m asking. But I worry about proposals that are so complex and that undercut contracts and bargaining and that have so many potential unanticipated consequences.
I’m sure glad that I didn’t shoot off my mouth before my slow computer allowed me to get to the end of the Ed Trust report, as opposed tp the press release.
They say, “Current teachers should be assured that they can continue in their current schools.”
That is a big breakthrough. By explicitly repudiating the desire to undercut established agreements, the Ed Trust dramatically changes the equation. The complexity still bothers me, because the need for equity as opposed to equality is so important, and it seems like a simpler idea would be more doable (after all, I still can’t tell exactly what the Ed Trust wants). But I don’t see a major down side anymore.
I’ve always hated the conflict between the Ed Trust and unions. Maybe we can now move on. But now I have another sincere question. Would the Ed Trust now be willing to put that statement about assuring teachers that they will not be coerced into transferring into their NCBL proposals? If so, maybe hope could be breaking out all over.
I have several responses to both the report and the comments here. First–both state and federal government have responded to the pleas of urban districts for greater dollars to meet the needs of low income students by providing extra dollars through a variety of funding streams. It is not unreasonable to expect that those dollars actually go to those schools within a district that has the highest concentrations of such students.
The teacher question–while it does much to explain why the dollars don’t go where there are intended–really ends up muddying the the picture. What we know from looking at the salary differences (and the report made the point that salaries are about the only area in which there are reliable building level data–but also that salaries are by far the largest portion of any budget) is that generally the teachers in lower-poverty schools are more experienced than those in higher-poverty schools–and that further they are teaching class sizes that are roughly the same.
The report also makes clear some ways that if the dollars were allocated to buildings (as opposed to generic FTEs) there might be some equalizing effect. Even without touching the lock-step salary schedule to try to attract more effective teachers into less desireable schools, those teachers who could be hired could be supported in various ways (enhanced professional development, better curriculum, better supervision) or conditions for students improved (long school day or year). Even if you can’t get more/better teachers–social workers are usually dirt cheap (smile) and could have an impact on all those socio-economic problems that seem to baffle teachers of any level of qualification.
Actually, I winced when I got to the end part with the slow changeover (Ohio is already burdened with a long history of funding “guarantees” that keep any restructuring from ever really happening and really murky up the funding picture) and the guarantee that no teacher would ever have to change from their building. While I wouldn’t recommend wholesale re-assignments for obvious reasons, I wouldn’t be opposed to incentivizing, manipulating or coercing teachers to reconsider their commitment to a building relatively free from problem students. Human resource is terribly important in any organization. But there has to be a balance between keeping the workers happy and meeting the needs of the workplace.
Why should “higher teacher salaries” be conflated with serving low-income children? I would expect “Higher expenses for tutoring” to be the better test of whether the needs of those poor were being served.