Is It Ethical for Teachers to Refuse to Teach in High-Poverty Schools?

Publication Type:

Web Article

Authors:

TLN

Year of Publication:

2005

URL:

http://www.teacherleaders.org/old_site/Conversations/HTS/ethical_HTS.htm...

Abstract:

The Florida-based Learning Cooperative began as a partnership among the Pinellas County FL school system and the county teacher and school employee unions about 15 years ago. The Cooperative is a joint district-union initiative to work in partnership on school improvement, using the Quality-Continuous Improvement model as a framework. The work has spread to a number of other districts around the US. This article from the LC's February 2005 newsletter addresses an emerging issue in a number of states and school districts -- teaching quality in high-poverty, hard-to-staff schools. As a device to explore the question, "Is It Ethical for Teachers to Refuse to Teach in High-Poverty Schools?", it offers an imaginary debate between a local union president and a superintendent. Whether you teach in a district with, or without, a union contract, you'll likely be intrigued by the issues raised here.

Teacher Leaders Network (2005). TLN conversations: Is it ethical for teachers to refuse to teach in high-poverty schools? Retrieved from the Teacher Leaders Network 16 Apr 2008. Link: http://www.teacherleaders.org/old_site/Conversations/HTS/ethical_HTS.htm...

Full Text:

Is It Ethical for Teachers to Refuse
to Teach in High-Poverty Schools?

In February 2005, a small article appeared in a relatively obscure newsletter published by the Learning Cooperative in Pinellas County, Florida. The content of the article proved to be controversial - even incendiary - among many teachers. Word of the online article — a fictional conversation between a school superintendent as a local teacher union president — soon spread around the Internet, as bloggers and websites featured transcripts or links to the piece.

The article's authors, two former union leaders in Pinellas County, chose a provocative title: "Is It Ethical for Teachers to Refuse to Teach in High-Poverty Schools?" Their brief fable was obviously constructed to evoke strong emotional responses in readers with many points of view, and they succeeded. (For example, when we posted the article on the TLN website, we received several angry letters from teachers who already work in hard-to-staff, high poverty schools and who felt devalued by the contention that quality teachers are in short supply in such settings.)

For context, it's worth knowing that the Learning Cooperative began 15 years ago as a partnership among the Pinellas County FL school system and the county teacher and school employee unions. Since then, this district-union initiative has emphasized school improvement, using the Quality-Continuous Improvement model as a framework. The work has spread to a number of other districts around the US.

When the article appeared, TLN moderator John Norton shared it with members of TLN's daily discussion group and asked for their comments.

Here is the article followed by a selection of responses from our Network members.

LEARNING COOPERATIVE NEWSLETTER

February 2005

Rob McMahon and Doug Tuthill, Editors

Is It Ethical for Teachers to Refuse to Teach in High-Poverty Schools?

There's an ethical debate coming your way. It's based on the following facts: (1) Better teaching causes more learning; (2) Experienced teachers are usually better than inexperienced teachers; (3) The gap in student achievement explained by race and class is large; (4) Leaders across the political spectrum, including teacher union leaders, agree that this gap is unacceptable and must be reduced; (5) Districts have had limited success using incentives to convince their best teachers to teach in high-poverty schools; (6) seniority provisions in union contracts generally forbid districts from assigning experienced teachers to high-poverty schools; and (7) Some districts now want to require their best teachers to teach in high-poverty schools.

Over the last month we've reviewed these facts with some key union and district leaders, and then asked this question: Is it ethical for teachers to refuse to teach in high-poverty schools? We've integrated their responses into a fictional exchange between a local union president and a district superintendent. We hope you'll find this exchange thought provoking.

* * * * *

Local Union President – Teachers are professionals and they deserve the right to choose where they teach. If they don't feel comfortable teaching in high-poverty schools they shouldn't be required to.

Superintendent – Teachers are public servants, just like firefighters, police officers, and public hospital doctors. Do we allow firefighters to pick which fires they fight, or police officers to choose which neighborhoods they patrol, or public hospital doctors to only treat affluent patients? Of course not, and teachers are no different. We should be able to assign teachers in ways that best serve the public good.

L.U.P. – These comparisons don't work because of the unique relationship that exists between teachers and students. Teachers and students are together five days a week, often for ten months. If a teacher doesn't feel comfortable with these students, or doesn't think she can relate, then their relationship won't work. We need to trust teachers to make the professional judgment about which students they are most capable of teaching.

Supt – The reality is that we do assign teachers to work in high-poverty schools, but in most cases these are inexperienced teachers who are the least well prepared to teach these children. So what you're saying is that it's OK to assign inexperienced teachers, but not experienced teachers. Seems like your primary consideration is not what's best for the students but what's most politically expedient inside your union.

L.U.P. – That's not true, but we are tired of teachers being blamed for society's failures. The real problem is the lack of resources in these schools. Without adequate funding and community support teachers can't succeed in these schools. This lack of funding is what's unethical. Why should we cooperate with a system that refuses to properly fund these schools?

Supt – I agree that these schools are under funded and need more community support, but I don't understand how assigning our least experienced teachers will help. A child is only nine-years old once, why shouldn't we do all we can to help that child while we are working on these larger resource issues. You're making your political stand on the back of our most needy children.

L.U.P. – The bottom line is that we are not going to abandon our seniority provisions. Veteran teachers have earned the right to choose where they teach. They have personal issues to consider, such as childcare, transportation, and often second jobs. If veteran teachers were making more money they might have more flexibility, but they don't and frankly many will just leave if we force them to choose between work and family.

Supt – So the least powerful children, living in the least powerful communities, get assigned the least powerful teachers. This is wrong. It may be good internal union politics, but it's wrong. These practices are not serving the public good.

L.U.P – We are not the ones underfunding public education. We aren't the ones starving these schools, and yet we get blamed for not fixing this achievement gap. That's not fair and we resent it.

Supt – No one is asking teachers or teacher unions to fix all these problems, but you do have an obligation to do all you can, and you're not doing that. By forcing districts to place inexperienced teachers in the most challenging schools you are undermining the public good. Police officers and firefighters are also underpaid but they don't refuse to fight crime or fires in high-poverty neighborhoods.

L.U.P. – As I said, that's not a fair comparison.

Supt – Is it ethical for teachers to refuse to teach in high-poverty schools? The answer is clearly no. The seniority provisions in your contract may be good union politics, but they're wrong and the public knows it.

L.U.P. – You're wrong, and the public agrees with us.

Supt – We'll see.

Excerpts from the TLN Discussion

Bill, a National Board Certified Teacher who teaches in a suburban middle school, wrote:

I'm fired up about this "Is It Ethical" article!

The issue of whether or not accomplished teachers have the right to refuse to work in high poverty schools has weighed heavily on my mind lately, and I think to simply "assign" accomplished teachers to hard-to-staff schools shows a basic misunderstanding of school reform and student achievement.

In fact, I think that state legislatures and policymakers are most interested in this approach to school reform simply because it is "easy." They are not forced to address any of the real issues that cause schools and communities to struggle.

I do not believe that merely assigning our best teachers to our most difficult schools will make significant differences in student achievement. Having one or two...or ten...accomplished teachers in a building will not, in and of itself, create the critical mass of professionalism that is necessary to reform a school. What's more, teachers seldom have the power in a building to make the changes necessary that will truly improve a school. The power for these decisions rests in the hands of school administrators, district level supervisors and state legislatures.

Along with accomplished teachers, our hardest-to-staff schools are in need of:

1. Social services for parents and children: Richard Rothstein's research has shown that there are a myriad of social issues that affect student achievement every day. Children of poverty are more likely to come to school behind, miss out on summer enrichment experiences that children of wealth take for granted, miss school due to poor health, and miss school due to transience. All of these issues contribute in some way to student achievement, and must be addressed as ardently as teaching quality in hard to staff schools.

2. Accomplished leadership: As we have said many, many times in our discussions, one of the single greatest factors in school success is principal leadership. Effective administrators are magnets for accomplished teachers. Instead of "assigning" accomplished teachers to buildings that may have leadership issues, perhaps accomplished administrators should be assigned. When that happens, excellent teachers will be drawn naturally to the school, giving them the investment that it takes to stay for the long term.

3. Adequate resources and facilities: It is amazing to me that attention is being paid to teaching quality in hard-to-staff schools when little is done to address the sometimes appalling conditions that teachers are forced to work and that students are forced to learn in. What message do we send to parents, students and teachers alike when we, as a community, refuse to provide safe, clean facilities with current resources? Can you really tell me that you are interested in children of poverty when you are asking them to work in buildings that you would not want to spend your day in and providing outdated resources for learning?

4. Flexibility, freedom and time: As an accomplished teacher, my greatest fear is being assigned to a hard-to-staff school and not being given the time and the flexibility to make the changes that I believe are necessary to bring about student achievement. I constantly hear about the pre-packaged curriculums that are in place in many hard-to-staff schools and I cringe.

I am a professional who is capable of bringing change if I have the time and flexibility to meet with other accomplished teachers to talk about my students and instruction and solve problems together. Without providing this time and flexibility, what difference does it make if I am assigned to a hard to staff school? I'll be just another body reading from a script or working in isolation without the important benefits of collaboration. Value my professionalism and give me control.

I really believe that without making all four of these changes in concert, assigning accomplished teachers to hard to staff schools will make little difference on student achievement. And what I fear is that when this "failure" comes about, it will provide still more "evidence" for our critics that expert teachers are not capable of success or deserving of decisionmaking powers over their classrooms and schools.

We ARE capable. We just cannot overcome the nearly insurmountable challenges without help in many, many areas that we have no control over.

Many policymakers and citizens may argue that these changes would be too expensive to be realistic. Consider this quote from Richard Rothstein:

But to say that this spending is not politically realistic is not the same as to say that it is unaffordable. An average annual spending increase of $156 billion [which would be necessary to begin to affect change for children of poverty] is only about two-thirds of the average annual cost of federal tax cuts enacted since 2001. So if Americans truly wanted to significantly narrow the social class differences that produce an educational achievement gap, we could do so.

Why haven't we taken this action? What does it say about our true commitment to children of poverty versus our commitment to our own pocketbooks?

Deanna wrote:

I was struck by this part of the fictional conversation:

Are we professionals or public servants? Is there a difference? Should there be a difference?

As public servants do we have no say-so in where we teach, who we teach, where we are assigned?

Can the idea of public servant and professional coexist? Is it a mismatch?

When we think of professionals, do we think of attorneys and accountants and executives? Do we think of teachers? Is public perception always leaning toward the idea of teachers as public servants?

Would you rather be called a professional or a public servant? What are your perceptions of the differences in being called one over the other?

Pamela, who works in a high-needs school, wrote:

We are both. The Superintendent's statement has oversimplified just a tad. Firefighters, police officers and public hospital doctors do choose the areas they serve — for example, most towns have more than one fire station. Doctors in public hospitals chose to work there. Also, as a public hospital doctor, should you be required to do neurosurgery if you're certified as a cardiologist? If firefighters, police officers or doctors are uncomfortable serving a particular area, they can transfer to another. When difficult situations come up, firefighters, police officers and doctors can call for help — they work in/with teams. Teachers, while able to "team," are basically alone in the classroom.

If the "powers that be" are concerned with the public good, then they should be addressing the problems that come with high poverty students/schools. That's the way to attract (and keep) highly qualified teachers. Teachers want to teach to the best of their ability and therefore seek a situation which allows them to do that. Not every teacher is comfortable in every teaching situation. To act as though they are is ridiculous.

Cossondra, who teaches in a rural school system in the Midwest, had a different outlook:

My take on this controversy: Teachers should be teaching to make a difference in the lives of their students, whoever those students are. It should not matter if those children are in high-poverty schools, wealthy districts, or private schools. The bottom line is the same wherever we teach — student achievement and how can we as classroom teachers improve this.

A school district should be able to retain the right to place teachers in whatever position they feel a teacher can make the most impact on student learning. We are, when we teach in public schools, public servants. We are hired to teach within that district — my contract simply says 'teaching position,' not 7th grade math teacher. While I would be greatly disappointed if I were sent to kindergarten, or to high school, I realize that this option remains one the administration could choose to invoke at any time.

I teach in a district with a high percentage of poverty students, many of whom come from very unstable home lives. They are mixed in with the "cream of the crop" of our district because we are so small. I do not have any choice about which students I teach. Every 7th grader in our district gets me for a math teacher. I cannot imagine telling the poor ones, the lost ones, the ones who need me the very most, that I prefer to teach the wealthy ones, the ones who smell good, the ones with designer clothes. And that is what teachers who refuse to teach in high-poverty districts are in essence doing — shunning THOSE children because fate has not looked kindly on them and their lives so far.

Do we teach to make a difference, or do we teach for a paycheck? I teach to make a difference. I teach them all, without regard to their socio-economic status.

Liz, a high school teacher and NBCT, has taught in high- and low-poverty settings, in the same building.

This is a tricky one. I taught at my school from year one to year eleven while it had a high free/reduced lunch ratio (over 55%). After that, it became a magnet school to limit forced busing in Raleigh, NC. Because many wealthier families in "Old Raleigh" were in danger of being bused to my school, the support for additional funding to implement the magnet program was very evident. At that point I was very burned out from the many, many demands of working with so many high need students. So I have seen both sides of the coin.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached where a teacher exchange could occur — pairing a veteran and a novice teacher for a period of five years. For two or three years, the novice would take the experienced teachers' classes while the experienced teacher would teach at the low achieving school. Both would work together on teaming the classes at times and even switching places on some days to see the other picture.

The process would be a long term one to share expertise and perspective, continuing even when the newer teacher took over the position at the high poverty school. Teaching is sometimes such an isolating experience, especially from other adults. This idea places experience where needed — at low achieving schools and with novice teachers. I would love to take on such a partnership!

Ellen teaches in an inner-city school. She wrote:

I've been thinking about the hidden beliefs/indications of a plan to force-place teachers identified as superior into high poverty schools. To begin with, it would create friction among existing staff and create a hostile working environment for those "super teachers." How effective can one be if there is a perceived hierarchy — this staff member is better than you?

But beyond that, what bothers me most is the idea that children and school populations are interchangeable. I teach in a high-poverty school with great results, but I would be a failure or at the most mediocre in a private school with a wealthy population. It's not a good fit for ME. Likewise, there are teachers who excel and are perfect fits in upper middle class settings — they are getting great results because the environment fits their personality, style and preferences.

That's not to say that transplanted teachers couldn't/wouldn't adapt, but adaptation takes time and the will to stick it out as YOU change. I have colleagues who seriously failed as educators in our setting, but they moved to other districts and are really soaring. The conditions were right for them in a new placement.

Kids in high-poverty areas aren't just victims of bad teachers; there's a lot more to it than that. Heck, there's a ton of research on the subject, but that's not simplistic enough (or safe enough) for politicians to use for sound bites. It MUST be bad teaching, so if we get rid of all of those horrible teachers ruining those kids, everything will be okay. I DO think quality teachers have a role to play, but our kids will continue to be behind their more affluent peers if the root problems of poverty are never addressed.

My urban district has a landmark desegregation program that proves my point. Recent reports demonstrate that the kids from the city who are shipped out to highly rated districts have equal or LOWER test scores than their city-schooled counterparts. Now that the state has said the districts may opt out of desegregation, there's a lot of noise out in the 'burbs about dropping the busing program because of reduced funding.

That may be part of the reason, but I suspect that, now that NCLB examines the performance of different subgroups of kids, including poor and black kids, in determining whether schools meet the Adequate Yearly Progress standard, these districts would be happy to relieve themselves of the most challenging kids to teach. It's convenient that the state is giving less money for the desegregation program, because it would not be politically correct for these "high flying" districts to come out and admit they can't do what they pretend they can do.

A National Board Certified teacher in a southern state wrote:

Ellen speaks with authority when she talks about matching teacher's needs and personalities with schools where they work.

Last year I left a school that has a student population that could probably use me more than the one where I am now teaching. But I don't feel I was terribly successful with the high-needs students that I was working with. I didn't understand their backgrounds or the challenges that they face on a daily basis, and I wasn't particularly adept at addressing their needs.

If I had to guess, it would probably take me 3-5 years to "get good" at working with this population of kids, during which I'd probably lose most of the joy that I have for teaching. So would assigning me to such a school be a productive move? Probably not.

I read somewhere that some of the most successful teachers in high risk schools come from the community where the school is found. The author made the contention that "home-grown" teachers have a better understanding of the student population. Maybe that would be a better place to start, instead of assigning "expert" teachers to schools without considering the many factors that figure into effective teaching in different school environments.