School Committee Fires Entire RI School

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,245
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Duncan applauds vote to fire entire RI school

February 24, 2010

CENTRAL FALLS, R.I. --The U.S. Secretary of Education is applauding the vote to fire all the teachers at the high school in Central Falls because it is one of the worst performing schools in the state.

"This is hard work and these are tough decisions, but students only have one chance for an education," Duncan said in Wednesday's edition of The Providence Journal, "and when schools continue to struggle we have a collective obligation to take action."

The Central Falls School Committee on Tuesday evening voted 5-2 to fire every educator at the school, from teachers to guidance counselors to the principal, at the end of the school year. The vote came the same day that State Education Commissioner Deborah Gist approved the firing plan, which was recommended by Superintendent Frances Gallo, and gave the district 120 days to come up with a detailed plan.

Central Falls Teachers Union President Jane Sessums says she is reviewing several legal options.

Central Falls High School, the only school in this tiny and impoverished city of one square mile just north of Providence, is persistently one of the worst-performing schools in the state. Only about half its students graduate, and only 7 percent of its 11th graders were proficient in math in 2009.

The plan was developed because of a federal effort to makeover failing schools. Those schools can select one of four options to fix themselves, which include requiring a longer school day, turning management over to a charter school, firing the entire teaching staff and rehiring no more than half, or closing the school.

In Rhode Island, Gist identified the state's six worst performing schools and asked the superintendents to develop plans to fix them. The other five schools are in Providence, and their plans are due to Gist by March 17.

Gallo and the teachers had been negotiating for a longer school day and other provisions, but talks broke down over money. She said earlier this month that she had no choice but to fire all the teachers, and rehire no more than half.

Hundreds of people attended a rally at a city park before the school committee meeting, many of them union members.

"This is immoral, illegal, unjust, irresponsible, disgraceful and disrespectful," George Nee, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, told the crowd.

Mark Bostic, a representative from the American Federation of Teachers, said it would stand behind the teachers "as long as it takes to get justice."

------

Information from: The Providence Journal, Rhode Island, Providence, news, sports, entertainment, ads | projo.com | The Providence Journal
 
"The plan was developed because of a federal effort to makeover failing schools."

~MrsSpringteen


It's called No Child Left Behind and it was one of President George Bushes
first action as president. Ted Kennedy was a co-sponsor.

It is the most invasive program ever passed by the federal government.

Signed in by a Republican :doh:

I teach 7th grade in a public middle school. NCLB has put the screws on teachers and has only caused more stress and more stupid red tape for teachers to dance through.

It's been a mess.

President Obama has hinted at changing the requirements for schools that NCLB demands.

I hope something is done.
 
Tough decision here is 100% right.

Usually under performing inner city schools are in places that have larger populations and therefore, more schools than Central Falls. So closing schools is usually an option, one that Duncan employed many times at the helm of the Chicago School system with much success.

I don't think that this should be replicated everywhere, and I think the Obama/Duncan guidelines in awarding Race To The Top grants make clear it is the least desirable option and one that is ideally used as a last resort.

NCLB, as iron horse points out, was largely an invasive unfunded mandate. The unfunded part of that equation rendered it meaningless, beyond its testing requirements, etc, most of which were already in place in some form in every state. The concepts of NCLB are not new, we have done standardized testing and accountability based funding since 1964.

Obama's efforts at changing it have so far have focused on how to actually spur real education reform and get results as opposed to keeping it as a sweeping, unfunded mandate that is invasive in nature and short on substance.

The race to the top grants to states are coming with strings attached- most prominently with respect to charter schools and improving under performing schools. The MA legislature was forced kicking and screaming into lifting the charter school cap at the end of 2009 in order to be eligible for the money.

The major problem I have with teachers' unions is they will play the victim card to no end(as they are doing now) but will often fight tooth and nail any reform that would have avoided whatever situation they term as the next grave injustice. They resist charter schools reflexively, though they are successful, resist proven reforms, in Central Falls, they resisted a longer school day, etc.

I have no problem with teachers' unions existing, and I think that overall, we pay teachers way too little for the emphasis all of our politicians regardless of party place on the importance of education. When we have the money to spend, it should be domestic priority #1 after taking care of our veterans. I have never supported private school vouchers(if the state is giving you a Cadillac and you want a Bentley, make up the difference yourself) and I think merit pay should NEVER BE tied to standardized test scores. We need to look at the overall credentials and effectiveness of the teacher if we are giving merit pay.

However, these organizations have become entrenched interest groups in and of themselves, and many times will use most of their clout not to advocate for better wages or smaller class sizes, etc, but to actively resist effective reforms. Worst case scenario(which unfortunately happens alot in MA), they will defend tooth and nail groups of teachers who have been proven time and time again to be ineffective at their jobs.

My uncle is a Boston public school teacher who is in charge of summer remedial courses for poorly performing teachers and often they will treat the entire class as a joke, literally act like little children, etc because the union continues to require the jaws of life to deliver a pink slip. He has also been in the negotiation room with the Union and The City during this recession. They were going to lay off hundreds of teachers, and they could have avoided it by having everyone pay 15% of their health care premiums instead of 10. Not one teacher would have been laid off. The teachers' union negotiator, making $250,000, the grand savior of the working class and defender of the downtrodden that he is, decided to fight this tooth and nail and the city sent out the pink slips the next week.

In my experience, teachers unions are notorious for having the budget opened right out in front of them, shown that the city or whoever has no money, can not make their demands this year without going even more broke, reminded by the Mayor that they are and have been his 1st priority when times are good, and still refusing to understand the situation. If the people you work for are legit broke and can not afford to pay you now without jeopardizing the entire future, then it is not right to go out and make them into satan with your radio ads, especially if the officials in question have strong pro labor, pro education credentials. Last I checked, Mayor Menino did not trade in derivatives or hand out no documentation loans or not pay for 2 wars. Sadly, they do this all the time in MA.

Pro teacher, pro education is absolutely necessary. Teachers are the dedicated professionals who make most of it happen, no disputing that anywhere. Still, we should never lose site of the fact that setting up a massive education system and pumping federal money into it in hopes of preparing our kids for leadership in the global economy is serious business and must come with a laser beam focus on results. Nothing should be more important than providing the best quality education to our kids.

Sometimes it results in an unfortunate situation like Central Falls. I just feel bad for what is undoubtedly a good amount of truly dedicated professionals who will lose their jobs because of years of neglect(RI is impoverished, has been hit hard by the recession and is EXTREMELY CORRUPT) and the intransigence of the union in Central Falls.

Not to turn everything into politics, but education reform is an area that Obama has been more effective at in a year than anyone else has been their entire presidency. This is rarely if ever mentioned, and is NEVER mentioned in the context of it being done despite major opposition from interest groups and the left wing of his OWN PARTY. So the media will keep airing the tea party claims of a far left agenda, while they will ignore real policy implementations that show Obama standing up to interest groups in his own party, just as he promised throughout the campaign. Goddamn liberal media.
 
Tough decision here is 100% right.

Are you willing to work a longer work day for the same pay?

Oh and Race to the Top is taking away the $232,000 grant we were awarded this year because we will not close our school, fire all the teachers, turn into a charter school. etc. (The grant would have potentially lasted 3 years @ $232,000 each year) I have never been a fan of Obama's education plans.
 
When Phil worked for the worst public school in the district, it was an eye-opening experience for us (both of us had private ed as kids, me because the public schools in the district where we lived were failing and downright dangerous). It seemed to me that their problems were bureaucratic. The principal was making well over six figures yet was only working at the school part time and the time he was there was basically useless since kids and teachers alike did not respect him. The teachers were forced to use curriculum that made learning either very boring or very complicated. For example, Phil's kids basically only did reading and math, reading and math, reading and math....I was trying to give him ideas for fun science projects and he said they only do science like once a week, and once again are required to adhere to a strict curriculum based on tests and standards. No wonder the kids have no focus and act out! My memories of grade school were fun. That's not to say I didn't struggle with some things, but we did fun projects and I learned to enjoy reading and for the most part worshiped my teachers. When I was in first grade, my mom read with me almost every night. In his school, there was no support at home. Many of the kids were being raised by their siblings who were also still in grade school, or by elderly, immobile grandparents. The parents either worked too many hours to be in their lives, or were high or stoned or partying. Many had "working" mothers if you know what I mean. And yet the teachers get blamed for "poor test scores" that are obviously a reflection of zero parental involvement (many times the *only* parental involvement was jumping on the administration's back and defending a kid when the kid was beating up on other kids, threatening teachers, bringing weapons to school, etc) and a ridiculous curriculum. Sometimes I think it's really the administration and the politicians who should be fired and the teachers should run the schools.
 
Are you willing to work a longer work day for the same pay?

I don't necessarily think anyone should have to work more for the same pay, but the reality is that teachers are not at all unique. In fact, many salaried employees do this all the time - nobody compensates me more when I am here from 8 am until 3 am as opposed to being here from 9 am to 7 pm. Now an argument can be made that this is a matter of bonus compensation (which it is to some extent), but for many other people, they don't even get that.
 
I think that description fits in some ways how the effects of No Child Left Behind are being portrayed in The Wire, and also remind me of what many students told me here in Germany who had to do standardized tests that were handed out at all schools in one land (state). The teachers pretty much had to get done what was required from the tests so the students would perform well and the school would look good. No matter if it really was relevant, or if the students had fun while learning something or anything. Only thing that matters is that the students will know the content of the tests so they do well.
 
I don't necessarily think anyone should have to work more for the same pay, but the reality is that teachers are not at all unique. In fact, many salaried employees do this all the time - nobody compensates me more when I am here from 8 am until 3 am as opposed to being here from 9 am to 7 pm. Now an argument can be made that this is a matter of bonus compensation (which it is to some extent), but for many other people, they don't even get that.

The difference is that a change in working conditions must be negotiate per the teacher's contract. :shrug:

Moreover, no one compensates me when I work with students, grade papers, or lesson plan until 6:30 pm when my contract states that my work day last from 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
 
The difference is that a change in working conditions must be negotiate per the teacher's contract. :shrug:

Moreover, no one compensates me when I work with students, grade papers, or lesson plan until 6:30 pm when my contract states that my work day last from 7:30 am-3:30 pm.

Then I agree with you as a matter of contract law.

I have just never seen a teaching contract that actually specifies such hours - that seems like piss poor drafting. However I also wonder how "work day" is defined for the purposes of the contract.
 
Phil's does but he is paid by an agency, not the school or the district. It's a rip off because he's getting paid less than half of the teacher on maternity leave, and he's the type that is always there plenty early and often gets home later than I do even though school is out around 3pm. Plus he spends the evenings and weekends setting up activities. But he is paid Mon-Fri 8am-3pm (or whatever the exact times are). This is how the schools can cut costs - say they have 40 kids in one class, they are required to have two "teachers" because of the student:teacher ratio, but instead of hiring a "teacher" as defined by the salary and benefits, they hire an "aide" or a "long term sub" and pay them shit-per-hour who happens to be equally if not more qualified than the actual teacher getting the salary and the benefits (same degree, same certificate, same endorsements).
 
Are you willing to work a longer work day for the same pay?

Oh and Race to the Top is taking away the $232,000 grant we were awarded this year because we will not close our school, fire all the teachers, turn into a charter school. etc. (The grant would have potentially lasted 3 years @ $232,000 each year) I have never been a fan of Obama's education plans.

Many, many, many people do this everywhere.

It has been happening now for the better part of the last 30 years.

The teacher's day does not end at the closing bell, but then again, it doesn't end at 5PM for people in other industries either. My mom has to bring home her blackberry, keep up with e mails, work on reports, etc. My dad did real estate, he got to the office at 9 AM and would come home around 9PM and still be doing work at home/answering calls, etc. My best friend's dad was the Police Chief in my town, he was at their beckon call 24/7. In none of the cases I mentioned did the person's pay go up.

I understand what you are saying about the contracts, but like antitram said, it's bad contract drafting. Plus, can't the contract be renegotiated like contracts are all the time?

I just find it hard to understand why some teachers' unions resist proven reforms such as longer school days, public charter schools, etc.

Race to the top in general and Duncan in the Central Falls debate specifically makes clear that firing all the teachers is the most undesirable option.

Obama's education policies are well fine by me. Nothing could be more important than solving problems and getting results. Unlike Bush, who could have cared less about teachers or professionalism at the Dept of Education, Obama has hired a true expert(Duncan) whose philosophy is to work with teachers in good faith, not work against them.

It is my opinion that some unions need to recognize this and meet him half way.

I don't care that some unions will oppose this, an interest group's job is to advocate for their side at all costs to the exclusion of everything else. A policymakers job is to make optimal policy. The job descriptions are extremely different, and just like I don't want a President beholden to big oil and big pharma, I don't want a President beholden to teachers' unions.

In the end, they are simply special interest organizations with an agenda and well paid leadership and lobbyists. Their seat at the table should never be revoked, but they should not get veto power over anything, or be looked at as the moral voice of education.
 
When Phil worked for the worst public school in the district, it was an eye-opening experience for us (both of us had private ed as kids, me because the public schools in the district where we lived were failing and downright dangerous). It seemed to me that their problems were bureaucratic. The principal was making well over six figures yet was only working at the school part time and the time he was there was basically useless since kids and teachers alike did not respect him. The teachers were forced to use curriculum that made learning either very boring or very complicated. For example, Phil's kids basically only did reading and math, reading and math, reading and math....I was trying to give him ideas for fun science projects and he said they only do science like once a week, and once again are required to adhere to a strict curriculum based on tests and standards. No wonder the kids have no focus and act out! My memories of grade school were fun. That's not to say I didn't struggle with some things, but we did fun projects and I learned to enjoy reading and for the most part worshiped my teachers. When I was in first grade, my mom read with me almost every night. In his school, there was no support at home. Many of the kids were being raised by their siblings who were also still in grade school, or by elderly, immobile grandparents. The parents either worked too many hours to be in their lives, or were high or stoned or partying. Many had "working" mothers if you know what I mean. And yet the teachers get blamed for "poor test scores" that are obviously a reflection of zero parental involvement (many times the *only* parental involvement was jumping on the administration's back and defending a kid when the kid was beating up on other kids, threatening teachers, bringing weapons to school, etc) and a ridiculous curriculum. Sometimes I think it's really the administration and the politicians who should be fired and the teachers should run the schools.

I do agree that testing should not be the end all and the be all. We are moving away from that with more science and technology emphasis, pilot programs, innovative teaching methods, etc. There needs to be some standards and way of measuring them, but testing should be 1 of many ways to judge progress.

I could not agree more with the points you make about parental involvement. Joe Biden would always say in the primary debates that most of the achievement gap is in place before anyone even sets foot in a classroom due to disparities in home life. Parental involvement is key, and my town is now exactly like you described: the parents do not read to the kids, do not take the time to be responsible and know what is going on with them, and the only time you have involvement on a grand scale is when some aspiring gangster has(shock of shocks, God forbid) been punished for being a verbal and physical disruption.

In 2008, we were facing a state takeover if we did not get our act together fast. This is Randolph, MA I am talking about, a school system that won NATIONAL ACCLAIM numerous times in the 1980s and no one could figure out just how we made it work. We are a 33K town, sandwiched between the worst neighborhoods of Boston and the worst neighborhoods of Brockton, lower middle class/middle class town(not wealthy) and we were constantly beating the towns that all of the lawyers, doctors and fidelity executives lived in. We were sending 10 or 15 kids from the public high school to Harvard, MIT and Yale every year. Then the 90s happened, then the 00s and long story short, there we were in 2008. Amidst such a shocking decline, the biggest outrage we heard from 2 dimwits on the school committee was that the Police were in the Middle School arresting a kid who had stabbed someone!!! It made the schools look "unsafe." So it is safer to let little thug with the knife stay in the classroom? Not to mention towns with much less crime than us have the cops in the schools every day!

If my mom did not read to me, did not go in and see my teachers, did not ask questions of the school administration, if my dad was not intimately involved in town politics, etc then I do not know where I would be. The schools and the teachers, who have the kids 6 hours out of 24, can not be held responsible for everything the kids do.

I respect teachers, and I know full well the bind they are put in when teaching in districts like Central Falls. The teachers in Newport RI or Orange County California or Sudbury, MA are no better or more qualified just because these are wealthier areas with more stable home lives and more resources. Parents and politicians alike are wrong to blame society's problems(dysfunction with parents and lack of prioritization of education with politicians) on teachers. No teacher should be judged in effective just based on the test scores in the district where he or she teaches. Many sociological factors obviously go into these results.

However, proven and effective reforms that could, coupled with parental involvement and more resources, make a strong positive difference should not be reflexively opposed by teachers' unions.
 
Then I agree with you as a matter of contract law.

I have just never seen a teaching contract that actually specifies such hours - that seems like piss poor drafting. However I also wonder how "work day" is defined for the purposes of the contract.

I can only speak for a high school work day in my district. Now, our last contract left out the 7:30-3:30 because we did make our school day longer to incorporate a homeroom before or after lunch so that students could recieve extra help, finish tests, make up work, etc. Our school day is currently 7:45-3:05.

What is written in our contract is an 8 hour work day consisting of: 5 classes, 1 professional period to be used for professional development, administrative meetings etc, 1 planning period, 1 25 minute homeroom (for which we are paid $5.40 a day. Ha!) and 25 minutes for lunch.

Many, many, many people do this everywhere.

It has been happening now for the better part of the last 30 years.

The teacher's day does not end at the closing bell, but then again, it doesn't end at 5PM for people in other industries either. My mom has to bring home her blackberry, keep up with e mails, work on reports, etc. My dad did real estate, he got to the office at 9 AM and would come home around 9PM and still be doing work at home/answering calls, etc. My best friend's dad was the Police Chief in my town, he was at their beckon call 24/7. In none of the cases I mentioned did the person's pay go up.

Yes, I understand all this. Just like me, all these people took jobs that require extra work. I assume they knew this when they accepted their position. It just so happens that I have a job that requires contract renegotiations to extend the work day officially.

I understand what you are saying about the contracts, but like antitram said, it's bad contract drafting. Plus, can't the contract be renegotiated like contracts are all the time?

Actually, specifying an 8 hour work day is pretty standard for high schools. I don't know why that makes it bad contact drafting.

I just find it hard to understand why some teachers' unions resist proven reforms such as longer school days, public charter schools, etc.

The public has a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about charter schools. They are selective. They do not admit every student that wishes to attend. Attending a charter school is a privilege, not a right. Charter schools also have more latitude to remove students than a regular public school.

As for a longer school day, I don't see teachers as being opposed. As I stated above a renegotiation must take place to implement this reform however.

Race to the top in general and Duncan in the Central Falls debate specifically makes clear that firing all the teachers is the most undesirable option.

Obama's education policies are well fine by me. Nothing could be more important than solving problems and getting results. Unlike Bush, who could have cared less about teachers or professionalism at the Dept of Education, Obama has hired a true expert(Duncan) whose philosophy is to work with teachers in good faith, not work against them.

It is my opinion that some unions need to recognize this and meet him half way.

Obama has left NCLB in place. Race to the Top is simply a way for schools to try to reach the unrealistic benchmarks NCLB has set. As for Duncan, I like and respect him but his record with Chicago Public Schools is neutral at best. Obama has also said on the record that he would like to see merit based pay for teachers which is problematic for any number of reasons.

In the end, they are simply special interest organizations with an agenda and well paid leadership and lobbyists. Their seat at the table should never be revoked, but they should not get veto power over anything, or be looked at as the moral voice of education.

I must have missed the part about teaching wanting to be the moral voice of education.
 
Actually, specifying an 8 hour work day is pretty standard for high schools. I don't know why that makes it bad contact drafting.

Specifying the hours is poor drafting; the 8 hours thing is a completely different way to define that term, which is why I asked about it. I'm sure you can see why.
 
Yes, I understand all this. Just like me, all these people took jobs that require extra work. I assume they knew this when they accepted their position. It just so happens that I have a job that requires contract renegotiations to extend the work day officially.

Did not dispute that, I simply said contracts can be renegotiated.

What you did originally was ask if I would be willing to work more hours for the same pay. I'll answer that: been there, done that, know plenty of others who have done the same. Not saying it is right, just that it is.

The public has a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about charter schools. They are selective. They do not admit every student that wishes to attend. Attending a charter school is a privilege, not a right. Charter schools also have more latitude to remove students than a regular public school.

This sounds like it is coming right out of a union ad! Obviously there are many more misconceptions about charter schools.

With all due respect, it is the other way around. Anyone can apply to a charter school, the only issue they really have is having to do lotteries because of over abundance of interest. Every measurable standard of achievement has shown a marked improvement in charter schools. In Massachusetts, for example, charter schools enroll a disproportionate share of low income and minority students. They are not exclusive, elitist bastions of the privileged by any means. Parental involvement greatly increases in charter schools, even where it had been woefully lacking before.

This is true from any reading of the widely available data, and it is reinforced for me when those opposed to charter schools hit people with long discredited myths and say we all have misconceptions.

I don't know what you are getting at with regards to more latitude for removing people. Almost all charter schools that deal with "at risk" demographics have programs aimed at reduction of teen pregnancy, programs to intervene with kids who have emerging behavioral issues, etc.

Having been a "good kid" who endured 12 years of going to public school with aspiring gang members, I fail to see how it is a bad thing for charter schools to boot someone out after say 2 chances as opposed to 20. Get the chronic problem kids in separate schools in and of themselves, and my opinion is we should make it just as easy to get them the hell out of public schools as it is charter schools. I am not saying don't educate them, but if you can not act in a socially acceptable way, you have no right to compromise everyone else's 1 shot at a quality education.

Charter schools have helped so many kids in Boston, black and white, across the income spectrum, and have helped give options and improve what was a school system still decimated by busing until the mid 1990s. They are extremely popular, and they work. Otherwise, Obama would not make them such a big part of his agenda-he is, unlike the faith based Bush, fact based.

As for a longer school day, I don't see teachers as being opposed. As I stated above a renegotiation must take place to implement this reform however.

It has been renegotiated in many places, and very successfully. Numerous schools in Boston have been models for national pilot experiments on longer school days.

Maybe this could have been an option in Central Falls?


Obama has left NCLB in place. Race to the Top is simply a way for schools to try to reach the unrealistic benchmarks NCLB has set. As for Duncan, I like and respect him but his record with Chicago Public Schools is neutral at best. Obama has also said on the record that he would like to see merit based pay for teachers which is problematic for any number of reasons.

Yes, he has left it in place, but standards are obviously not new and he will not be leaving the money behind. NCLB was hardly novel, it was just poorly crafted and implemented. Therefore, Obama is taking a mend it don't end it approach and turning around what was in many ways a race to the bottom as districts just reduced their standards to be in compliance. Even amidst 2 wars and a severe recession, Obama has drastically improved No Child Left Behind in just 1 year.

Race to the Top has spurred real reform, and Duncan has stated many times that it is unacceptable to focus just on test scores. Charter schools, closing schools that are not getting results, increased emphasis on science and technology, this is a much more comprehensive and better approach than Bush's "standards only, you're on your own with the money" approach. Bush never did any education reform, Obama has used incentives to bring numerous states into line.

Race To The Top has explicitly sought to improve standards to reflect actual ability. This is all just in a year- it clearly shows Obama is acknowledging exactly what you mention about unrealistic standards and is serious about working with all involved to improve them.

As for merit pay, Obama/Duncan have no intention of doing the conservative Republican merit pay, which just pays for test scores. That's what I call "the teach in a rich district bonus." It has nothing to do with actual merit. Duncan looks at a variety of factors-credentials, professional development, improvement in teaching effectiveness and many measures of student achievement over time, etc.

Merit pay is done in some form everywhere else, why should it be different in education?

Duncan improved on every measure in Chicago- graduation rates, test scores, teacher retention, % of students going on to college, etc. Chicago is certainly not to the level of Boston or DC or NYC in terms of improvements, but it started at a much worse place and reform started later than in the other cities mentioned. I'll judge that a modest success unless we see he was manipulating statistics like Bush's guy Paige was in Houston.

The positive changes in inner city education in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: the leadership has shown a commitment to reform.


I must have missed the part about teaching wanting to be the moral voice of education.

I thought I made pretty clear that is was some teachers' Unions that act like they speak for all teachers and that they represent everything that is good and just in education. These are the people who, to me, can seem like they are asking to be seen as the moral compass or conscience or whatever of education.

This and demagoguery are what I find in abundance in MA teachers' union ads. Seriously, they constantly attack the other side as anti teacher anti education, use scare tactics and lie over and over again about actual results produced by common sense reforms. It reminds me of how Bush and friends operated with the Iraq debate.
 
Different school district, and this time the immediate problem is budgetary, but otherwise déjà vu...

NPR, Feb. 25
In Rhode Island, the Providence school board has sent termination notices to every teacher in the financially troubled city, sparking outrage in the teachers' union. The city's mayor says the firing of more than 1900 teachers, which takes effect at the end of the year, is meant to give budget officials "maximum flexibility" in addressing its deficit.

...Providence school officials say that sending the termination notices now will allow them to recall teachers by position, not by seniority. But the officials say they're unsure how many termination notices would be rescinded.
The same day, the president of the American Federation of Teachers proposed a plan for overhauling the tenure system in public schools:

New York Times, Feb. 24
Responding to criticism that tenure gives even poor teachers a job for life, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, announced a plan Thursday to overhaul how teachers are evaluated and dismissed. It would give tenured teachers who are rated unsatisfactory by their principals a maximum of one school year to improve. If they did not, they could be fired within 100 days.

Teacher evaluations, long an obscure detail in an educator’s career, have moved front and center as school systems try to identify which teachers are best at improving student achievement, and to remove ineffective ones. The issue has erupted recently, with many districts anticipating layoffs because of slashed budgets. Mayors including Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and Cory A. Booker of Newark have attacked seniority laws, which require that teacher dismissals be based on length of experience rather than on competency. Ms. Weingarten has sought to play a major role in changing evaluations and tenure, lest the issue be used against unions to strip their influence over work life in schools—just as Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin and Ohio are trying to do this week.

Critics say that removing teachers is nearly impossible because of the obstructions that unions have put up. Administrators also bear some blame. Most evaluations are perfunctory—a drive-by classroom observation by a vice principal—and hearings to prove incompetence can be long and costly.

In Ms. Weingarten’s proposal, which she presented at a meeting of union leaders and researchers in Washington on Thursday night, teachers would be evaluated using multiple yardsticks, including classroom visits, appraisal of lesson plans and student improvement on tests. Teachers rated unsatisfactory would be given a detailed “improvement plan” jointly devised by school administrators and experienced master teachers. Some improvement plans—like maintaining better classroom order—could last a month. Others would take a full school year. The results would be considered separately by administrators and the peer experts, whose judgments would be sent to a neutral arbitrator. The arbitrator would be required to decide within 100 days whether to keep or fire the teacher.

...Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, which seeks to narrow the achievement gap for poor students in part by raising teacher quality, said, “The overall proposal is a big step forward.” But, she added, only school administrators should create improvement plans for a poorly rated teacher; otherwise, unions might use the process to obstruct their removal.

Michael J. Petrilli, vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative-leaning education policy group, agreed. “In any other field,” he said, “this would be considered completely nuts that a manager would not have rights and responsibilities to evaluate their employees and take action.” He added that the proposal did not address the most pressing issue: how to lay off thousands of teachers because of budget cutbacks without losing promising newer teachers. “Her strategy of making sure all teachers who get a negative review will get a year and 100 days, it strikes me as a delaying tactic,” he said.

Ms. Weingarten responded that if a rational evaluation process were in place, ineffective teachers would be weeded out naturally. “All these folks now really concerned about layoffs of newer teachers never spent a minute talking about how to keep good teachers in our profession,” she said.
 
^ Haven't seen it, though now that it's on DVD I might check it out. It'd be hard to imagine a documentary on school reform that wasn't rather depressing, as the challenges are so enormous.

A more rigorous teacher evaluation and development process certainly sounds like a promising idea, and I suppose in principle could provide the grounding for an alternative to strictly seniority-based policy in situations like this. Any venture, business- or social welfare-oriented or whatever, that doesn't have a strong commitment to continuously developing its own will only undermine itself in the long run. I believe it's the case (in the US) that 50% of those who enter the teaching profession leave it within five years.

In general, I think we tend towards unrealistic expectations of teachers and schools (ironic, given that we have perhaps less respect for teachers than any other culture in the world). Valuing learning highly and having the discipline and determination to succeed at it are qualities that come first and foremost from parents and the surrounding culture.
 
Last edited:
^ Haven't seen it, though now that it's on DVD I might check it out. It'd be hard to imagine a documentary on school reform that wasn't rather depressing, as the challenges are so enormous.

Indeed. I want to see this, too, at some point, I'll check it out.

In general, I think we tend towards unrealistic expectations of teachers and schools (ironic, given that we have perhaps less respect for teachers than any other culture in the world). Valuing learning highly and having the discipline and determination to succeed at it are qualities that come first and foremost from parents and the surrounding culture.

I was just about to say this very thing. Yes. Schools are doing pretty much every single thing with kids nowadays, so there's very little time left over to actually have the teachers be just that and that alone: teachers. Fix that problem and I think you'd start seeing a definite improvement.

Angela
 
Back
Top Bottom