Towson U Takes Over...

A recent article in the Baltimore Sun ("Towson U gets state's OK to run three schools" April 26, 2007) describes the takeover of failing Cherry Hill area elementary and middle schools by Towson University. I could not find information on the logistics of a university takeover of public schools, but there was some interesting information on the process of restructuring the schools. Apparently, a number of veteran teachers were transferred from one of the Cherry Hill schools in the interest of restructing the school in a way that would help it begin to meet AYP. The Baltimore City Teachers Union came to the defense of these teachers, arguing that experienced teachers who had been members of a specific school community for over ten years should have the ability to remain in the school despite the fact that the school had not been meeting AYP. Responding to the union and the displaced teachers, a TU representative explained that the teachers were not removed because they weren't good teachers, but because they weren't on board with the mission of the school, specifically the idea that "failure is no option for kids."

I find the TU representative's justification for removing teachers from their positions especially interesting for a couple of reasons. I have a really hard time imagining an effective teacher who believes that students should have an option (and should choose that option?) to fail. With this in mind, the TU rep's comments could be seen as a roundabout way of saying that, in fact, these teachers were not effective educators, and as such were contributing to the failure of the school. If this was the implication, I would tend to agree with TU's dismissal of these teachers, as a teacher who feels comfortable allowing (or thinking about allowing) students to fail would seem to have an inherently flawed approach to teaching (especially in elementary school, which preps for middle school, which preps for high school...AHH!).

The other possibility is that these teachers were dismissed for other reasons, and the justification given to the press was the old "not on board with the mission" excuse. However, there were teachers who were retained at each of the schools, and one would hope that the reason they were retained has to do with their attitude towards student ability and the potential for student achievement. A comment about the BTU's resistance to the kind of change that is in the best interest of students (par for the course) was also included in the article, which ties back to our discussion of unions, and their tendency to protect everyone, even teachers who possibly shouldn't be protected. My final question is, if these teachers couldn't get on board with "failure is no option for kids," and are simply being transferred to other schools, are they goign to take that attitude to the schools that they move to? And are the schools that they will be working in ALSO not on board with "failure is no option for kids?" Or are their new schools simply being forced to take them on because they are tenured teachers? Maybe the Cherry Hill schools will benefit from the dismissal of these teachers, but some other students, somewhere else in the city, may end up suffering. There should be a way for students in one area of the city to benefit without somehow taking from students in another area of the city.

If you would like to read the article, you can find it here:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.ci.board26apr26,0,2376730.story?coll=bal-education-top