I know we left this topic alone a while ago but I found myself thinking about it the other day while reading the New York Times. On May 4th the Times ran an article about an old factory in Philadelphia that is being converted to housing, some of which is specifically set aside for teachers. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/education/philadelphia-renovating-apartments-to-lure-teachers.html?ref=education&_r=0
When I read the headline, I immediately thought about Miller's Court and Union Mill, two buildings that serve a similar role in Baltimore. Sure enough, the article references the two buildings in Baltimore and the same company that oversaw the work here in Bmore is involved in Philadelphia as well. The article highlighted some of the benefits of the housing complex, it offers a discounted rate for teachers, it offers a community that people can be a part of, and it offers safe, comfortable, secure housing for people who may be moving to the city for the first time. Teach For America was mentioned in the article because of the partnership that was formed here in Baltimore, and the new complex in Philadelphia sounds almost identical to the two here.
The reason I brought this up was that the article said that the goal of the buildings was to increase teacher retention in Philadlephia. My obvious question was whether or not the housing does anything for teacher retention. I know the two buildings in Baltimore are wildly popular amongst the teaching crowd but I also know that some people who live their begin to feel like they can never get away from the teaching conversations that go on in the building. I am curious as to whether or not Teach For America in Baltimore has looked at any data on retention for people who choose to live in the subsidized housing units. In the end, do they help hold teachers in the classroom or are they just a nice idea that allows teachers to live in comfortable, affordable apartments?
Matt Gould, Teach For America's vice president for administration said that he had no data on the retention of teachers who live in the Baltimore options. If this is the case, why don't they gather some? It seems that TFA has data on everything else...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think your insights pose some interesting questions - and made me think more critically about a number of teacher retention initiatives. Baltimore city has a number of financial incentives for teachers when it comes to purchasing a home in the city or committing to teach for additional years. Teachers also enjoy a number of consistent discounts and perks that aren't found in private industries or other government jobs.
While these are nice, and may encourage some teachers to continue teaching a few more years I doubt they make a lasting impact on retention. When making long term career decisions people seem more likely to think long-term; all the incentives offered are primarily short term financial perks.
At the end of the day, if a individual is leaving teaching based on job satisfaction I doubt a discounted rent rate is going to get them to stick around for any meaningful amount of time.
I agree with Claire that reduced rent is not a meaningful enough incentive when teachers are faced with much more compelling reasons to leave the classroom, especially in Baltimore, where rent is fairly cheap. Actually, I think the rent at Union Mill is higher than what I pay to live in upper Fells point.
What really stuck out to me about Claire’s comment that “Teachers also enjoy a number of consistent discounts and perks that aren't found in private industries or other government jobs.” I suppose this is true. We actually get a lot of vacation time. We get discounts at many stores, and enjoy the perks of “teacher appreciation day.” (Thanks, Chipotle!) However, although teachers do get some “perks,” our workplaces also lack the basic supplies that are a given at any other job requiring a college degree. The fact that most teachers have to buy their own copy paper – while we are expected to give tests, worksheet, and homework every week – is unbelievable to me. In those “private industries” and other government jobs that Claire mentions, there is an unspoken assumption that copy machines will be stocked and available and the basic supplies require to do the job will be provided. The perks and discounts of being a teacher – including housing developments such as the “mills” -- are cheapened by our lack of access to the supplies we need to do our jobs. Perhaps government money would be better spent satisfying those basic needs, and at least eliminating one aspect of stress from our lives.
Post a Comment