San Francisco has returned education to its roots, by attempting to provide “affordable” housing to its educators. Like the 1800s, when teachers of the plains and western states were required to live in or near the one room school houses, the city is converting an old school into barracks-like apartments for teachers-only to rent. Of course, the people behind this plan think it is a meaningful, maybe even a humane solution. At what point will they realize that by providing housing, in the same way they provide housing to low-income families in many other cities, they are literally and conceptually ghetto-izing the job of being an educator?
The Golden Gate City is one of the most interesting, attractive cities in our country, with a rich history and cultural landscape; intriguing foods, distinct villages or boroughs, tantalizing vistas all add to define it as an original. And for years the variety of dwellings has also allowed its citizens to remain inside its boundaries with generations of people who have called themselves San Franciscans.
But then the tech companies landed. With the money that many of its workers earn, land and buildings have disappeared into their pockets, which then has allowed a competitive market to open up where property costs have sky rocketed. A place where the average worker-nurses, electricians, teachers-could still live is harder and harder to find inside the city.
Add that teachers are notoriously underpaid for their degrees and expertise, especially new teachers, and the city now has a problem on its hands. Where do you find people to teach your children, when they can’t live within the community?
So make the teachers commute. Big deal. (Except this is not true in any other major city to this degree. Even teachers in Manhattan can live in Manhattan.) Commuting takes away precious after- and before-school time that teachers use to tutor and connect with their students. It takes away moments of comradery between faculty and administration which is essential to build a strong school family, an hallmark of a “good school”. It also removes the teacher from the community, which in my experience, is a wonderful part of teaching. Kids who run into Ms. Sneed or Coach Bowen at the grocery store or the local burger joint feel a stronger sense of pride, respect, and even identity than those who think teachers fold-up into drawers at the end of the night. Toss in the stress of the extra hours on the road, fighting traffic, and even the cost of gas and wear and tear on the car, and commuting is forcing some teachers to vacate not just the city, but the profession.
Now realize that all educators are paid with money from property taxes, and you’d think the solution was built into the cause of the problem to begin with. Land values go up, salaries do too. Right? Well, not quite. They have both risen since the techies arrived, but not in comparable rates. The value of property has risen by 40%, but teacher salaries have risen by 15%. So Ms. Sneed, young teacher, now makes $4000 more a year, hardly enough to keep up with the newer rents, where the average rent is $4200 a month. (Because, guess what, the cost of everything inside the city limits has risen, too; food, gas, health activities all range between 25% to even 70% more than the rest of the country. )
Enter the politicians. Recognizing that they were struggling to find educators willing or able to make those commutes, and were limited to a smaller pool of the most-qualified applicants, they made a decision: “Let’s revamp that old building in town into lofts for teachers. . .” Yay!
But what they are doing is keeping the educators segregated from the community, physically underscoring that teachers don’t fit in with the very children they teach. Politicians are also labeling them as people who need to live in “the projects.”
NO matter how cute the floors are or how attractive the landscaping is outside, everyone nearby knows. . .”Those folks living there. . .they are the teachers who couldn’t afford to live anywhere else here.” And if the residents have kids, their kids will most likely be grouped with other educator’s kids only, much the way kids in the project hang with kids from the project. Teachers living there also seem to hand their independence and privacy over to the city-Managers can come in and monitor, even define, the lifestyles inside the building. . .just as they did over 100 years ago with the young, unmarried women of the 1800s, who lived in the back of the school, and followed a strict code of behavior.
Can you imagine the uproar if they did the same to any other “degreed” profession?
The worst part about this is that it signifies what the U.S. has been guilty of doing to teachers throughout public schooling-treating us like servants (civil servants, of course) rather than private citizens. We are nearly a class of soldiers, with separate rules of living and now the housing to go with it.