Charter schools are not a panacea. Sure the teachers are young and energetic-but that's because they are constantly turning over. It's a resume thing. Most have no intention to stay in teaching. And the ones that do end up getting jobs in union schools at union pay. My other concern is teacher licenses. Did you know that the only teachers at a charter school who are even required to be licenced are the special education teachers? That's because the requirement comes federal civil rights law. All the other teachers are "content specialists". That means they have not taken classes at the college level relating to how to teach. The math teacher has a math degree for example. Well that's usually OK at the high school level (desirable and needed), but for the younger kids I'd feel more comfortable if the teachers had some experience taking classes in things like child psychology or differentiated instruction etc. Charter schools are a teacher-training-ground. And your kid is the experiment. Finally Scot, the added length to the day doesn't mean that the kids are necessarily drilling math problems. They may be doing a variety of other activities like music, art or study skills. Not that those things are bad but those things could be achieved with more traditional after-school programs. Call all of the schools charter schools if you want. At the end of the day, you're still dealing with the same kids, same problems.

Scott Lehigh once again urges a race to the bottom.  It doesn't matter than many Boston teachers report working an average of 60+ hours a week with many hours spent before and after the school bell rings including many weekend hours.  Or that charter school teachers turn over faster than a burning omelet.  Or that scandals such as the one now being covered up about charter advocate Diana Lam reaping loanshark profits from loaning money to the Gloucester charter school that consistently fails students.  Or the study after study that shows when a deep analysis is done charters are no better...and in some cases dismally worse than the average school.  No...data is only used when it can be manipulated to show the corporate billionaires position of unfettered market competition in all phases of life...including our public schools.  Shame on him.

Three things stood out in this piece.  First the claim that Teachers Unions will need to recon with the longer day.  Readers, remember that the teachers in the high performing districts are Union also.  Massachusetts Public schools by many measurements are the best in the nation.  Second, Charters are a bargain.  Not really when the turnover of staff is considered.  Consider the differences in salary.  A BTU teacher averages 80k a year, the Charter Teacher 60k.  While that may seem like a high salary in Massachusetts it is not, particularly considering the cost of living and the education required to become a teacher.  Finally, Urban school districts have a difficult time attracting and retaining teachers because the job of teaching these students is so difficult.  Call it what you will but it is easier to teach in Brookline HS than at English High.  As the data comes in on charter schools they are not the golden elixir theur proponents.  Bargin hunting is not how one should solve the education problem.

How easy it is to reccommend efficiencies on other people's paychecks. Maybe the Globe would be doing better if the columnists were paid less...

Typical reactionary column masquerading as ED deform. Our schools need more resources. Otherwise lehigh is promoting a race to the bottom. Our public schools should not get fewer resources because charter school teachers are being exploited. We should pay charter school teachers their due.

One more thing, Scot.....if the union had accepted the $2250 for extending the day, would you still have written the article the same way making the same points? You better believe it. You'd still be complaining.

Guys:

Look at it this way: Most everyone agrees that lots of urban kids would benefit from a longer day. It allows for more focus on core subjects and lets schools do enrichment, arts, electives &tc. We just had two years of negotiation with the BTU over exending the day. BTU teachers, who are some of very best  paid in the state, and work one of the shortest urban-district days in the state, would not agree to any extra time, even in exchange for the $2,250 stipend. So we are locked in, for another four years, to a shorter day in the traditional schools.

Meanwhile, for less money, the charters are providing us with a considerably longer day, and getting much better results. That, of course, only makes sense: Time on task is as important in education as it is in everything else. Give kids more learning time and they will learn more. So if you are a policy-maker, do you turn a blind eye to the other kids who would benefit from more charters? Or do you raise the cap?

 Some of you obviously feel that if we can't induce the BTU to go along, we should turn a blind eye to the needs of the kids. Why, when we have know we can establish or espand charters and thus expand the day for the same (actually somewhat less) per pupil cost that only gets us a shorter day in the traditional publics? Why should the BTU have a stranglehold on the system, when others are doing a better job for less? In this country, we set a wage floor (minimum wage), but beyond that, let the labor market determine what people get paid for various jobs. If the BTU wants to say, no, we won't work any extra time for a sum the city can afford, that's its  prerogative I suppose, but BTU teachers can't then expect policymakers not to explore most cost effective ways of offering students a longer day. More charters are just such a way. As I said, if BTU teachers can provide an equal or better education in a shorter day, the traditional schools will do fine. If parents and students aren't convinced they are doing that, then they will have other options.

As to the idea that it's unions that have somehow made educaton reform work, did any of you who think so follow the long ed reform debate? The unions supported the increased dollars, but balked at the higher standards and increased accountability. They are still opposed to the MCAS. To a lamentable degree, education reform happened despite them, not because of them.

As to the notion that charters have young teachers who work in the profession for a few years and then move on, there is some merit to that, but: If they are high-performers and are getting better results, why does it matter that they don't become long-tem teachers? We are benefitting greatly from the years they do spending teaching.

Well, part of the reason there is less money is that charters have to pay much of their facilities expenses out of their per pupil money. Another part is that charter teachers have less time on the job.

But your questions makes the implicit assumption that the BTU rates are somehow the correct ones. From a labor market point of view, if you have good people willing to work longer hours for a lower salary -- and that, after all, is what we have seen with the charters -- that's probably not a correct assumption.

I think in these tough times, a lot of people are working longer hours without getting more. I know in my own profession that is certainly the case ...

Boys and girls please let me school you. Firstly, the "assumption" that traditional schools do not have extra hours is an outright "I don't know the facts" statement. Many schools have an extended day, and have partnered with extended day service providers - such as Citizens Schools - which lengthen the day longer than charters. Charters are a business. They advertise their services in an infallible light. Writers. such as Lehigh, like to "assume" certain realities without any basic independent verification. Did you know that attrition and suspension rates at charters are the highest in MA, especially in Boston? Did you know that charter teacher turnover is outrageous? If a charter company only services certain kids, and many others are shunned, than is that really a public school? Did you know that the Dorchester House has about a million in the bank? Maybe they can put their money where their mouth is and pay their teachers more. Charter teachers are payed less because they are hired, purposefully, to save money on human capital. They are younger, greener, unmarried, and more easily manipulated to the bidding of their bosses, who rake in the dough. The average charter school teacher is bounced out in two years. Is this a profession or gross exploitation? In conclusion, I spent yesterday evening at the Moakley Federal Court House. My students, who hail from the TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL - THE JOSEPH LEE IN DORCHESTER - argued a case in front of a Federal Magistrate. They killed it! The mock trial was over at 7:00 PM. Go put that in your charter pipe and smoke it! I challenge Lehigh to "investigate" charter schools in Boston and across the state. Look at the suspension rates. Look at the attrition rates for both students and teachers. Look at the salaries of charter operators and management. Look at the extra money they receive from venture philanthropy that most traditional schools do not. Stop drinking the charter school "kool aid". Support public schools! Support the United States, not the incorporated states of America.

So your argument for raising the charter cap is that it is the only cost effective way to make the school day longer? Really? That is why we should raise the cap? Probably your only argument because the data shows that charters are just about as good, if not worse than traditional public schools. So we can't raise the cap on the basis that charters are better schools because we know that isn't true. Might as well do raise the cap because they can have a longer school day and not pay anybody for it.

What about all those charters that have a longer school and don't do such great job educating young people? Should they shorten their school day and become more like traditional public schools that perform better? It seems that is what your logic is suggesting.

Or instead, how about this? Let's just commit to making schools better in general. Whatever that looks like and whatever that takes at every level (as long as we don't exploit anybody in the process). Maybe a longer school day here, maybe a shorter school day there. Maybe more arts here, maybe less testing there. Maybe restorative justice here, maybe full inclusion there. In many middle schools we have children reading at a 1st or 2nd grade level, but no money to hire reading specials to put in countless hours to get those students up to grade level. So maybe more reading specialists over here. But one solution, like raising the charter cap or making the school day longer, one blanket solution, will not solve anything.  

I've got to disagree with the point that Scot made below: "As to the notion that charters have young teachers who work in the profession for a few years and then move on, there is some merit to that, but: If they are high-performers and are getting better results, why does it matter that they don't become long-tem teachers? We are benefitting greatly from the years they do spending teaching." I do not think that it is ok to encourage a system where twenty-somethings toil away in unsustainable teaching conditions, burn out and move on. My best teachers were older people with families of their own. My high school football coach, my fifth grade teacher who helped teach me to love to read, would they have stayed in education without the working conditions that allowed them to work a full day and then go home to their families? I doubt it. Also, do you build lasting, quality institutions with employees going through a revolving door? I'm a high school English teacher at a Boston school and typically work a 9-11 hour day. I'm an advisor for a club and offer tutoring and extra help whenever a student wants it. Any student at my school can already find an extended day if he or she chooses- whether it's extra help with a teacher, sports, clubs or a library that is staffed until dinnertime.

What the author might not be aware of is that 45 minutes would put many students and their teachers in rush hour traffic adding even more time to an already long day; and adding child care costs for teachers who have children that would far supersede $9 an hour after taxes! Teachers are not Catholic nuns living in a convent next to the school.

Like MOST Boston teachers, I keep kids who need extra help after school, as well as kids who need behavioral redirection. I attend student's sports games because parents are working and the team gets dispirited by empty bleachers (when was the last time you provided your cheering body at a BPS sports event?) I attend science fairs, art fairs, talent shows, and chaperone dances so BPS kids can enjoy the same experiences as their suburban peers. Teachers take kids on field trips that put us on a bus before the school day starts, and return long after the school day ends, when we transport those kids without rides home. Teachers participate on the School Site Council, the Instructional Leadership Team, and the School Accreditation Teams. All these additional activities are uncompensated!

Teachers pay for Xeroxing at Staples and buy copy paper and supplies that the BPS never seems purchase enough of, all unreimbursed. That is enough, if the BPS wants an extended day providing teaching services, they need to compensate teachers fairly.  Many of the Administrators at Court Street received 'overtime' and it is retirement worthy. In 2011, Michael Gore, BPS Deputy Superintendent received $3,308; in 2010, he was paid $3,212. Sam DePina, Assistant Chief Operating Officer made $5,843 in 2010 and $7,082 in 2011! Need more names? Check out the Boston Herald Your Tax Dollars at Work. You will find, that in the Boston Public Schools, being 'professional' means being paid for your time. It's about respect, our work needs to be compensated fairly.

Charter schools teachers are not required to be certified.  I am certified, and have the student loans to prove it. The average charter-school teacher makes about 25% less than traditional teachers but they see 2/3 less students and they see students who have more resources (read active parents).  According to the MADoe teachers at the Neighborhood House Charter School (NHCS) in Dorchester have on average 10 students per class.  Traditional BPS teachers have 30 students.

NHCS parents are forced to be engaged, "volunteering is a mandatory part of parents' commitment to sending their child to NHCS" and "Non-compliance with the Family Learning Contract may result in a meeting with the Headmaster to determine the appropriateness of your child’s placement at NHCS. Failure to comply may also impact eligibility for scholarships or other financial assistance available through NHCS."

Traditional BPS schools can only request parent participation, we can't force anything!  We take all kids who show up at the schools door and, unlike charter schools, we keep them and their parents!  

Kevin Andrews wears many hats, not only is he headmaster at Neighborhood House Charter School in Dorchester is also 1 of 5  "trustees" of the Neighborhood House Charter School Foundation whose net assets, according to their FY2011, IRS 990’s, are $10,566,943! "Donated services and use of facilities" alone netted them $10,340!  WOW! No bake or candy sales for them!  I would suggest to Kevin Andrews that NHCS Foundation should have been "rewarding" their teachers for the extended hours for the last 20 years out of that $10,566,943! 

What wasn’t mentioned here was that Kevin Andrews is the Vice-Chair of "Project for School Innovation Trust" (PSI) whose mission is "to develop and share the best practices across public schools, including charter schools, on a national scale. Specifically PSI researches, evaluates and disseminates innovative and effective practices through books, videos and conferences. PSI also facilitates training and workshops in a team-based environment for school leaders and teachers."  

PSI stands to make a nice chunk of change when Boston receives the $3.25 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation "to foster collaboration among the city’s school system, charter schools, and parochial schools!"  Will those "collaboration workshops" be held at NHCS for an additional $10,340 a pop! Will those NHCS teachers who's "innovative and effective practices" which spawned the books, videos and conferences, that PSI is selling, be compensated for this work? 

You can see why Boston Alliance of Charter Schools chairman, Kevin Andrews, is chomping at the bit to eliminate the charter school cap in Massachusetts!  It isn't about "the children's need for an extended day" it's about the windfall his bottom line is about to make!