Teacher Absenteeism in Charter and Traditional Public Schools, authored by David Griffith and published by the Fordham Institute, compares average rates of frequent teacher absence for teachers with and without union or union-like contracts in public schools and charter schools.
Patricia Hinchey, Professor Emerita of Education at Penn State University, reviewed the report
and found that it lacks support for its major claims, ignores known
discrepancies in data, uses cited resources in highly selective ways,
ignores large bodies of contradictory research, and draws unwarranted
conclusions.
The study focuses on teachers
who are absent for more than 10 days in a school year, contending that
these higher levels of teacher absence substantively harm students and
cost taxpayers billions of dollars. It finds that teachers contractually
allowed more absences are absent at the “frequent” level more often
than teachers allowed fewer absences. Based on these averages, the
report assumes a causal relationship between the contracts and the
absences, and it concludes that the higher average number of absences is
uncalled-for—based on illegitimate reasons. The report recommends that
contracts be made less generous.
Concerns about teacher
absences, and more broadly concerns about classrooms without a
full-time, certified and experienced teacher, can—if thoughtfully
presented—be grounded in high-quality research evidence. But Professor
Hinchey cautions that this report’s idiosyncratic use of the term
“chronic absenteeism” misrepresents the data and, along with its use of
graphics, appears intended to create a national alarmist picture about
“chronic absenteeism” unwarranted either by the data or by other
research. Accordingly, the report appears to be an effort to generate
numbers and charts useful in discrediting teachers as irresponsible
shirkers.
Find the review, by Patricia H. Hinchey, at:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-absenteeism
http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-absenteeism
No comments:
Post a Comment