Not what I expected, but good [moderate spoilers]

Certainly, you're entitled to your opinion, usa, and you bring up a couple of interesting points. Firstly, yes, you will hear people from all walks of life complain about an inadequate salary. However, let's not group civil service workers like policemen and firefighters in with disenchanted advertisement executives, actuaries, or grocery store clerks. Although everyone has the right to feel underappreciated, there are those who FEEL undervalued and those that actually ARE.

Since this topic is about teachers, let me focus on that particular career field. For illustration: I'm about to begin my 10th year of teaching, and I've been at the same private school the entire length of my career. I have a Master's Degree and I am fully certified. My currently salary is less than $37,000 a year (or about $710 a week before taxes); like many salaried employees, I am not entitled to overtime when I'm required to be at work on weekends or after hours. That said, the latter point is not really a complaint, as I feel that the amount of hours spent on weekends and after work grading tests, updating my school website, communicating with parents, creating lesson plans, and reading reports is returned to me during summer vacation. I'm entitled to only three 40 minute prep periods a week, and that's if I don't have to substitute for another absent teacher. I also have lunch duty 3-4 times a week. Sadly, I earned more money each week when I was a 19 year old college student working in a hospital cafeteria.

Now, I'm not trying to bemoan my own situation - I do love to teach - but I'm simply trying to juxtapose the salary of a teacher with the responsibilities of a teacher. How many careers that require a Master's Degree compensate an employee of 10 years (and in many instances, hundreds of hours of ongoing training) with a salary of less than $40,000 annually? In NYC, this is barely enough to live on! I'm pretty sure that you'll agree that this is NOT adequate compensation, and I assure you it has nothing to do with my colleagues and I "lacking drive" in any of the possible ways that one can lack drive.

As I've stated previously, my job is not unionized (my previous job at the hospital cafeteria was, though). This accounts for the fact that a public school employee with job experience and education level equivalent to mine makes somewhere between $15,000 - $17,000 more, annually. My point is that, without a teacher's union to protect employees and to ensure semi-adequate compensation and proper prep time, educators will eventually find themselves in a situation similar to my own. This is especially true in a large city like New York, with all the political wheelings and dealings that take place. It's absolutely deplorable that teachers put in incredibly long hours, deal with class sizes upwards of 40 students (many of whom are emotionally disturbed and/or learning disabled), endure verbal abuse from students/parents and constant criticism from the public, and earn barely enough to pay rent, keep the fridge stocked, and own a car!

Make no mistake about it, the push to dissolve and discredit a teacher's union is simply an attempt to create a work culture where inexperienced teachers who earn bottom salary drive out those who earn salaries at the top of the pay scale. The easiest way to sway public support towards the dissolution of the union is to portray teachers as lazy, underperforming, entitled, and incompetent. Offering alternatives like charter schools is the very first wave of the process. I don't blame parents for wanting to send their children to schools where they have a better chance of success, but it's nothing more than a diversionary tactic. I applaud these charter school teachers for their dedication and their ability to help students meet standards, but the real question is, why can't traditional public school teachers do the same thing? Real answers to this question are not provided, and rarely are they sought out. Instead, the charter school movement is being employed as a propaganda tool, in which public schools/public school teachers are labeled as "failing". The Lottery chooses, in part, to focus on the anti-UFT sentiment that exists because some sectors are inexplicably correlating poor performance to a teacher's union.

This raises the question as to whether or not the union innately protects bad teachers. The answer is yes, in some cases. No organization is perfect, and it's a shame that these bad teachers are offered asylum because it's an injustice to students as well as all of the good teachers that find themselves fighting a losing battle.

Naturally, I can understand the union's reasons for being opposed to parents choosing charter schools. There seems to be a similar sentiment pervading my school as well, although we are able to produce competitive statistics, and don't necessarily feel threatened by these new age educational institutions. The fact is that Harlem Success Academy is an exception to a rule. Statistics have shown that many (about 70%) of NYC charters have either a) comparable success to their traditional counterparts or b) performed even more abysmally than conventional public schools. Of course the UFT has a vested interest in opposing an institution that, through smoke and mirrors, has attempted to represent itself as a superior educational alternative; although the documentary focuses on Harlem Success, the opposition within the UFT is not necessary directed at that particular school, no matter how the documentary slants it. Furthermore, there’s no attempt within the documentary to represent traditional public schools as anything other than “failing”. Why no explanation that part of the reason that these schools are failing is because, unlike charters, traditional schools are handcuffed by the Department of Education?

The Lottery does present everything in a biased light, using Harlem Success to portray charters as a cure-all; the innocent victim in a war with the Big Bad UFT. Check out this article that sheds some light on a recent attempt by a charter school to combat the formation of a union:
http://www.uft.org/news/harlem-charter-school-fires-13-union-supporter s
Clearly, this lends some credence to my assertion that a teacher’s union is necessary in order to prevent employers from taking complete advantage of their subordinates. These charter schools have a compromised interest, too, but that is never touched upon in the film.

I don’t mean to suggest that public schools (or the union) should “monopolize” the free education market; but let the fight be fair! Would it be fair for a boxer to step into a ring with one hand tied behind his back and be required to win a boxing match against juiced-up Mike Tyson? And then subject that boxer to ridicule because he was unable to pull off a miracle, partially because he was not given access to the same resources as Tyson?

Regarding my use of the term “achievement gap”, I’ll agree that there are some divisions of the educational world that hesitate to use it for the reasons that you’ve stated, but that is more or less what the entire documentary is attempting to address. Although the terminology is never actually used in the film (from what I remember), I thought it was pretty much insinuated, which is why I used it.


He's taking the knife out of the cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?