There's a fascinating post on The Chalkboard today, involving the Eva Moskowitz Charter School. Apparently, Eva appreciates her teachers so much that's she's bought them back massages. Not only that, but "as a rule" they earn "at least $5,000 above the salary scale of the city's public schools."
She told them of their free massages after they had "completed three weeks of intense professional development this past Friday..."
Wait a minute. That's three weeks work for a massage? Or is the 5K for three weeks of extra work? Or is it for coming yet another week early, on August 21st, to start teaching? Or is it for the longer school day that Eva boasts about in every interview? Or is it for accepting charter health benefits, which don't equal ours? Could it be for having no pension?
Or could it be for being "at will" employees, with no rights whatsoever, able to be fired at any moment for any reason, or indeed for no reason whatsoever? Do you suppose Eva would pay a 20-year teacher what a 20-year teacher makes in a union school?
If charters really wanted to show appreciation, they'd allow their employees to exercise their right to choose whether or not they wanted to unionize. It's frankly disingenuous to compare Eva's work schedule and benefits to those of city teachers (let alone their suburban counterparts), and assert they're paid more. Compare their hours, their benefits, and their working conditions and I've no doubt they're paid less by any rational standard.
Keep your back rub, Mistress Eva. I wouldn't trade places with one of your teachers on a bet. Let me know when you pay 5K more than suburban schools. I still won't believe you.
Anything that sounds too good to be true, is.
Posts
