Lots of concern has been expressed in these blogospheric parts for hard-working teachers in high-performing charter schools, who are said to be driven out of the classroom by fatigue at precisely the time when they could be blossoming into expert professionals. As The Chalkboard has noted in previous posts, common sense would seem to indicate that issues like burnout for staff seem worthy of a good look and thoughtful consideration on the part of school leaders. I've personally never seen teacher retention rates for schools like KIPP (I hate to keep using KIPP as an example, but it seems to get much of the attention when this debate pops up) but I do know (purely anecdotal, no #s in front of me) that many of their best people see to be there for more than just one year. (In fact, those types of charter schools actually seem to be perfecting the concept of the "career ladder" that NYC's teachers describe -- correctly, I think -- as an important component in rewarding expertise and keeping good teachers in positions where they can have the most impact on student learning.)

Just worth noting for future debates on this issue (and you know there will be some) the stats that the UFT uses to describe the high levels of turnover and burnout in traditional NYC public schools: 40% of city teachers leave after three years, and 48% leave after five years. (See this Gotham Gazette article on teacher retention - a crucial issue for ALL public schools, traditional and charter alike. Although increasingly, the discussion seems to be shifting to retaining the best teachers for the long haul, not just keeping warm bodies in the front of the classroom year after year - and which schools are best poised to recognize and reward quality and performance.)

Please send all complaints about TheChalkboard's demeaning use of the phrase "warm bodies" to TheChalkboard@nycsa.org.