Sections:

Article

Chicago Teachers Union challenges new Board of Education 'budgeting' as a new attack on teacher professionalism -- and a way to purge veteran teachers

No sooner had the Chicago Board of Education announced its plan to move the school system to "student based budgeting" than the Chicago Teachers Union responded vigorously, charging that the plan in effect will force principals to purge their staffs' ranks of veteran teachers, based solely on the oversimplifications of the Board's newly proclaimed budget methodologies. As of Substance press time (March 12, 2013, midnight) it was not known whether the union response would include a major grievance on the planned violation of the union contract and the latest show of bad faith on the part of the seven members of the Board of Education and the latest Chief Executive Officer, Barbara Byrd Bennett.

The two main architects of the latest attack on veteran teachers and professional staffing of public school in Chicago, Alicia Winckler and Barbara Byrd Bennett, presented at the January meeting of the Chicago Board of Education above. Substance photo by George N. Schmidt.THE CTU PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS:

CPS Should Rethink Plan to Launch Student-Based Budgeting; Program Invites Discrimination, Raises Oversight Concerns

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Stephanie Gadlin, March 11, 2013 312/329-6250, StephanieGadlin@ctulocal1.com

CHICAGO - Today, the Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jesse Sharkey released the following statement about the Chicago Public School's (CPS) move to implement "student-based budgeting" throughout the school district:

"The idea seems simple enough--assign a certain amount of funding to each pupil and allow the principal of the school where the student attends to spend that money as she likes. But even former CPS CEO Jean Claude Brizard admitted that per-pupil

"If you give per-pupil funding, it is an average across the city. There is an incentive for certain people to lose older, more expensive teachers for younger, less expensive teachers." -Jean Claude Brizard, interview with Catalyst Chicago, Dec 7, 2011. http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/notebook/2011/12/07/19695/qa-jean-claude-brizard

"Whether it's called "Equitable Student Funding" (Rochester), "Dollarizing the Budget" (Jean Claude Brizard's term), or "Student Based Budgeting" (CPS), there are a number of serious flaws with the idea of per-pupil funding," said Sharkey. He added the program:

* Invites discrimination as principals will have a built-in incentive to replace highly skilled-yet-expensive veterans with cheaper novices.

* Raises oversight concerns as principals will have a much larger pool of discretionary dollars-which may be spent on any variety of unproven programs and questionable pet projects

* Lacks research and preparatory work-we don't yet know how many schools will see their budgets cut as a result of this change. Nor have we had a chance to examine the assumptions about special education funding.

* Opens the door to funding following students out the door to charters or private schools.

"We note that CPS did attempt to address the problem of a school whose actual staffing costs are above the amount allocated by the per-pupil formula. CPS has claimed that it will make a "budget adjustment" and that school will receive funds to cover the additional amount. But this stop-gap measure-a promise of extra funding for this year-in no way compensates for the destructive, long-term, and systemic consequences of this program."



Comments:

Add your own comment (all fields are necessary)

Substance readers:

You must give your first name and last name under "Name" when you post a comment at substancenews.net. We are not operating a blog and do not allow anonymous or pseudonymous comments. Our readers deserve to know who is commenting, just as they deserve to know the source of our news reports and analysis.

Please respect this, and also provide us with an accurate e-mail address.

Thank you,

The Editors of Substance

Your Name

Your Email

What's your comment about?

Your Comment

Please answer this to prove you're not a robot:

2 + 1 =