Central Falls teachers not all of one mind

[FBaggins]

http://www.projo.com/lifebeat/markpatinkin/Mark09_03-09-10_IGHM275_v11.2a1a5be.html


“As a C.F. High School teacher I agree with you,” the e-mail said. “The Union blew it. The only mistake you made was writing that we voted it down. This is untrue because we were never given the chance to vote. The Union leadership made the decision for us and many of us are not happy.” Why not express that unhappiness? “Many fear Union retribution,” the letter said.

...snip...

“I am a teacher at Central Falls High School and have been fired by the district because of the disagreement between the union and the administration. I love my job, take it very seriously and continue to study, learn and develop strategies for teaching every day. Nevertheless, I now am unemployed in this dismal economy.”

The teacher added: “I agree with your story for the most part how unions can, by their own stubbornness, hurt themselves.”

The e-mail concluded: “Let the truth be known. The individual teachers in Central Falls were not offered the opportunity to vote either by ballot, yays and nays, or raising hands to reject or accept the transformation model. Ever. Period. If the teachers had been allowed to vote on their fate — the outcome would have been very different.”

...snip...

And this comment: “Yes, we do feel — not exactly betrayed, but rather shocked — at how the union chose to answer for us. We as a union have taken votes to change the schedule by 7 minutes but yet were not asked or allowed to vote on our professional careers. It doesn’t make sense or sit well with many of us. No one will speak up, though. I’m afraid as we are lectured constantly from the union reps how important it is for us to stand together because we represent the cause for teachers and unions all over the country.”

[stray cat]

1. A union should not be able to speak for all members - then its just another corporation

paid for by union dues.

[FBaggins]

3. A union MUST speak for it's members.

Otherwise what's the point?

They must be empowered to negotiate.

Where it breaks down is whenyou get to a "this is the final offer - take it or leave it" point. Then they MUST hear from the members - or it is in no way representative of them.

In this case it appears that the national reps were far more interested in the national precedent than in these teachers' jobs.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. And when were they supposed to do that??

Once again you show your lack of knowledge of what actually happened. The supt walked out and then fired the teachers. There was no time to have the members vote. They were busy teaching.

[FBaggins]

33. That's simply untrue.

The super "walked out" but the union had a letter than spelled out what she was asking them to agree to three days (IIRC) before the decision had to be made.

You can pretend that I just don't know how unions work... but you and I both know that there could have been a conversation during this time. They certainly got together much faster than that after the decision was made.

A union rep has an obligation to keep the members informed re: the status of negotiations (and you have previously posted that they do this - while telling me that I didn't understand how such things work) AND has a moral obligation to understand what her members are looking for.

They were busy teaching

No doubt. And of course... while I've always understood that we don't compensate most teachers anywhere near the "fair compensation" line... I had no idea that they couldn't even afford telephones. I suppose this is the only union in the country without a phone/contact tree? :)

[bluestateguy]

41. But what if you disagree?

What if the union votes and decides to do X and you want to do Y. Then what?

[Fire1]

79. Tough. Majority rules. n/t

[elleng]

2. Good to see this (kind of.)

[FBaggins]

4. A union response.

"And this is the award-winning columnist for the Projo? A couple of anonymous e-mails and letter? Give us a break! These letters and e-mails are being generated by a small pseudo-intellectual goon squad in central Falls. We know who they are and we universally have no respect for them, because, without anonymity and the power of Gallo's night riders behind them they have no courage and no conviction. they have never even made a peep at a meeting or at a debate. Why? Because their myopia comes from severe selfishness and ignorance. they are the same people who ratted on you for having a fight (and winning) in the schoolyard, not because you were wrong but to score points with a tyrannical teacher. they are not worthy of respect, but until now, I thought Patinkin was."

Looks like some were right to fear retribution.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. So now we're quoting anonymous sources from a newspaper comment blog

Gotcha

[FBaggins]

8. Lol... wouldn't it be a better "gotcha"...

...if you didn't follow it up two minutes later with your own post demonstrating that this accurately reflects many union responses? :)

Can you tell me which part of the posted reply does not represent a typical response?

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. You aren't making any sense

I see I'm not the only one who is confused by your version of events.

Do you teach? Are you a union member? You don't appear to get it.

Of course the ass kissers will get hired. Duh.

[FBaggins]

30. And can you tell me where this "kissing" occured?

I can't seem to see it in the article.

All I see is a small number of (supposed) teachers saying that they would have prefered to take the offered deal... rather than become poster kids for a larger fight. Nowhere do they say that they like the super.

Think of the board member who IS a teacher (presumably in a union) and voted AGAINST the firing. I can't imagine that he's kissing any part of the super's body... but still felt that this wasn't the time for a union fight.

[Hannah Bell]

46. you have no way of knowing whether it "accurately" reflects "many" union responses

or not.

as the source is "unnamed sources"

[FBaggins]

53. Of course not

But the assumption that all of the teachers are willing to risk their careeers over being told to do thongs thatthey already do for free - just so they can be the poster chlidren for a larger national issue - is harder to believe.

Two things - if the story were true, you and I both know that the teachers would want to be anonymous. So a request for anonymity isn't proof either way

Also - they're unnamed TO US, the reporter knows who they are and (while I know nothing of his credibility), he's apparently regarded as a good journalist. It's reasonable to assume that he verified that they are who they say they are.

[frazzled]

5. The teachers need more voice in their union

The union grossly miscalculated for them. As I said from the beginning, this was not about blaming teachers or educational policy--it was about a labor dispute and an intransigent union that was inflexible. The good news is that these dedicated teachers will be rehired for the fall, and the ones who aren't willing to try to transform the school will find positions elsewhere.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Well you're probably right about one thing

The ones kissing the supt's ass will be rehired. That's a given.

[Starry Messenger]

9. The house servants always protect the house.

No surprises there.

[FBaggins]

10. Don't you think that the teachers should have been given

an opportunity to at least vote?

If the negotiators were really more interested in the national issue rather than the best interests of the local members... Then the local teachers should have made the sacrifice with theirs eyes open (and the union should pay them)

[Starry Messenger]

11. I think the super shouldn't have fired them all

That's what I think. I hope if any of these teachers complaining about their union (if indeed these are real emails-I agree with proud2belib that these could be cooked, or at least taken wildly out of context) get their job back by ass-kissing the supe, they won't be surprised when they get more strong arming threats to their contracts later on down the line.

[FBaggins]

12. Was that the question?

If the teachers had been given a vote and said "ok"... how many would have been fired?

I agree with proud2belib that these could be cooked,

So you think it's some anti-union person trying to make the union look bad? I suppose it's possible, but what in that post does not sound like something they might say? I mean... this isn't the teamsters of decades ago... but unions certainly have people willing to frame the debate in these kinds of terms.

get their job back by ass-kissing the supe

Did you read the same article? I don't see anything there that's positive about the supe. What I see is people angry at the actions of those who claim to represent them... but didn't. That's a legitimate gripe even if you can't stand the super. I've said from the beginning that the union representatives did a horrible job of representing these teachers. What I didn't take in to account was the fact that they weren't even trying to do so. They were representing teachers all across the country - and willing to sacrifice these few for the greater good.

[Starry Messenger]

13. I know you've said that from the beginning.

Sorry I'm not answering your posts the way you'd like. I said my piece.

[FBaggins]

14. Since the question you aren't answering is so simple

one must assume that the reason you aren't answering is that you don't think the answer is defensible.

I understand the conundrum. One way you're against the union (and just look at the kind of replies I get) and the other way you're against actual teachers who are losing their jobs because they trusted the union.

Rock and a hard place indeed. Too bad those poor teachers didn't have the option to ignore the issue as you have, eh? :)

[Starry Messenger]

15. I'm not allowed to say what I really think about you on this board.

I'll just put you on ignore now. Looks like nearly everyone else in this forum has already taken that step. Bye! :)

[FBaggins]

17. Wow.

When they say the truth hurts... who knew it was so literal?

Sorry.

This is neither anti-teacher NOR anti-union. It's PRO teacher and recognizes that THIS time the union screwed up big time. Sorry if it's a religious truism for you that this can't happen.

If the union representatives (sic) had given these teachers a vote, they would all have jobs next year... but we would have lost a poster child for opposing Duncan's ridiculous "fix" for education.

Have a good weekend.

[Hannah Bell]

62. yes, that the established talking point. already read it from the approved mouthpieces.

[Hannah Bell]

47. i see "unnamed sources say"

[FBaggins]

54. This one is REALLY "unnamed"

Because it's just talking about the anonymous reply on that board.

But nobody has pointed out something that was said that doesn't "ring" true. It's obviously someone who claims to have been in the meetings.

[Hannah Bell]

55. spin spin spin

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. The union should pay its members?

For what?

[FBaggins]

29. Yes.

When a large union has one local on strike (say... a particular auto plant or manufacturer) when the union knows they're going to be in negotiations on a larger contract (or with other auto makers)... labor can only strike for so long and management knows this. Eventually people may start to cross the line simply to feed their children.

Other union members across the country pay part of their dues into a strike fund to support the local members because the strike hurts a small group, but is intended to help them all. The union is asking a few members to sacrifice... and they show solidarity by asking everyone to sacrifice a little for those few who are risking everything.

I don't know whether such funds are common with the AFT/NEA because many teachers don't have the option of striking... but I think the current case warrants it. I think that the national representatives didn't want the local teachers to vote because it would have set a precedent... while this lets them fight (perhaps before they knew that the president was willing to throw them under the bus).

If the national union is going to ask these teachers to risk their jobs for the larger point... the rest of the union should be willing to stand with them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. These teachers aren't being sacrificed for any larger cause

They were fired by their supt who walked out of negotiations.

Once again, the union isn't the bad guy here. As long as you refuse to understand that we have nothing more to discuss.

[FBaggins]

43. Ok... let's put it another way...

...the union was WILLING to sacrifice them for the larger cause.

I'm not saying that the union is the "bad guy"... I'm saying that the union negotiator screwed up. That's not at all the same thing. I'm not anti union and I'm not saying that the union should play not role... just that they did their job poorly. I don't agree that the super just "walked out" without warning/notice, but that doesn't matter... the union negotiator should have realized FROM THE START that she had the ability to do this unilaterally (unlike virtually EVERY OTHER NEGOTIATION they had ever been involved with).

I'm also saying that I'd bet if the individual teachers were allowed to vote anonymously, 2/3 or more of them would have accepted the deal and planned to renegotiate during the transformation process and/or at the end of the contract. The union wanted to set a precedent even if it meant a fight.

Honestly P2B - I don't mean to be adversarial. I'm looking for the best end result for these kids... and I assume that involves just about every one of these teachers keeping their jobs.

I just don't think the all-or-nothing strategy is the way to go.

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. No one is being sacrificed for any union cause

Once again. The supt lost her temper and walked out of negotiations. That's it in a nutshell. For you to continually blame the union and claim they didn't negotiate fairly indicates your failure to understand how negotiations work and how unions operate. And I'm not the only one here who has told you that. Repeatedly.

[FBaggins]

74. I never said that they didn't negotiate "fairly"

Care to try again?

And there has been no evidence of "temper" on either side. The super was working on (what she thought was) a deadline and had a negotiating sledge hammer (the urging and support of every level above her). The union negotiators had little to no leverage and should have recognizes when "the best deal we can get" was on the table (particularly after they won some of the most important concessions). If the teachers wanted to vote it down that would be their decision.

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. Once again you are dreaming

How many times do we have to tell you that negotiations don't stop after only three sessions.

You are delusional about this imaginary deadline. And you are delusional in expecting the union to take every item from the table back to the membership before an agreement should be made.

[FBaggins]

77. How many times?

I don't know... until it's true?

There's no rule for number of sessions. The negotiation can be ONE session if both sides can agree or if there's no room for movement.


You are delusional about this imaginary deadline.

No I'm not. SHE may be, but I'm just reporting what she said. Apparently there's a 3/1 deadline for notifying teachers if they're going to be terminated.

And you are delusional in expecting the union to take every item from the table back to the membership before an agreement should be made.

Oh please. Is this a strawman or an intentional deception? (IOW... who are you trying to fool, me or yourself?) - OF COURSE you don't need to bring "every little thing" back to the members. But a "last and final" offer... something that is "accept it or everyone gets a pink slip" HAS to be. And YOU were the one who told me that there are always representatives IN the school letting people know what is going on. Was that true or wasn't it?

[tonysam]

16. They'll lie under oath to defend a wayward administrator.

Take it from one who knows firsthand.

Do you think anybody gives a shit some suckasses support a corrupt administrator?

[YvonneCa]

18. Perfect example of why teachers, not just unions, need to be...

...heard. I have been saying this forever. Please don't misunderstand...I support unions and union membership. But on the education issue...teacher voices have been shut out of the debate by the noise generated by reformers and unions.

When will TEACHERS be heard?

[YvonneCa]

19. A few previous posts on this topic...

...here:

I worry that much of the public and many politicians (who rightfully want to improve public schools) have no real idea of what is wrong with them. So they try 'canned solutions'...like merit pay...most of which are the wrong thing to do. JMHO. Merit pay is divisive...just like NCLB was. That doesn't mean it can't be a tool for improvement if done in the right way, but it HAS to be done fairly.

Example: NCLB has good things in it, but it became bogged down because it used AYP to pit schools and districts and teachers against each other..instead of helping us to work together toward a goal we all share: Improving education for kids. I think ANY workable solution will require input and support from teachers...not just unions...teachers. Lately, teachers have become the scapegoat for ALL that is wrong in public schools. Personally, I can no longer tolerate that.

I also believe NCLB also put great pressure on administrators to meet AYP goals. I think it's important not to paint ALL administrators with a broad brush, either, because there are MANY good administrators who do their best to work cooperatively with teachers to educate children in their districts. But there is a conflict...most administrators are 'at-will' employees, which means they would lose their job if goals were not met, which means they do what they have to to reach AYP. In some cases, as I have witnessed, they resort to harassing teachers to make this happen.

I am an educator. So are most administrators. We HAVE to work together to fix our system. THAT'S why I feel so strongly that teachers...not just unions...have to be heard. I also think GOOD administrators should be involved.


It is CRITICALLY important that we fix public education. We, as a country, have talked about it the whole time I have been a teacher...but we haven't done the right things. Politics always gets in the way.

THIS TIME, I want Obama to do it right. If all he does is 'fix teachers', he will...sadly...learn what teachers already know: WE are not the #1 problem. And we will have wasted more time and more money and we still won't be educating our kids for THEIR future. THAT is no longer acceptable...at least not to me.

I voted for President Obama. I think he is a smart man, and the person we need now to lead. I want him to make good decisions for our country. On education, I believe he can only do that with ALL the information out there...and that includes the point of view and experience of TEACHERS. I, too, have great hopes for what he may be able to accomplish. My hope comes from knowing he is intelligent enough to understand problems we face and find solutions, seeing that he has great empathy for all people (even those who don't agree with him), and observing that he is willing to learn from what has gone before (both in politics and policy) and builds a strong foundation for the things he proposes.

A second one:


After MTP today, it's clear none of us will ever get through to Duncan or Obama either. They have chosen their path and the saying goes,"When you choose the behavior you also choose the consequences." The die has been cast.

As to these words "...find me even one quote where teachers at-large have been cited by a Democrat as being "the problem" with education" my Dems find ways to not say that as it is politically a loser for them. But without saying the words they align with Republicans who have preached a different philosophy for years. That is not comforting...and I say this as a huge proponent of unity and bipartisanship.

Finally, you relentlessly cite your data to make the case that bad teachers need to go. Yes, they do. There are a small number of bad teachers and I don't know any teachers who want them protected. They need to find another line of work. Agreed.

What I question is data, because I've watched it gathered, I know much of it is invalid, and I've experienced being on the wrong end when the sledgehammer comes down. Some here have that experience,as well. That doesn't mean I am against testing. That doesn't mean I am against data and accountability. That doesn't mean I oppose fixing the broken teacher evaluation system.

It just means I think Duncan, Obama, Klein, Rhee, Gingrich, Sharpton and others in education reform are choosing to ignore this problem...because it goes counter to the goals they seek.


A third:

Duncan (and Obama) are following someone who has totally missed the point. He ..

...said: "When I was at Bertelsmann, we were constantly focused on how to incentivize the workforce, inject increasing accountability, deciding where to substitute technology for human capital. "

The workforce in schools is the STUDENTS...not the teachers. THAT's the bottom line and it's why we keep failing at trying to fix schools. Teachers are a part of middle management, as APs and principals are. We have to be on the same team to manage our students' academic growth. EVERYTHING these NYC reformers are doing misses that point and it's CRITICAL to fixing schools.

I agree with the need to fix our schools to compete globally. I understand that requires big changes....go for it.

I do not...and never... have opposed the goal. AND I want Obama to be the President that 'gets it done right.' But these guys are WRONG. They are focussing on the wrong thing, and we in education know it. THAT's why teachers keep speaking out...not because we oppose the goals.


Fourth:

I never accepted that is is okay for even ONE student to fail...

...let alone 93% of students to fail in my 24 years of teaching. I STILL don't accept that. What I also don't accept is the assumption that...to 'turn around' a school...it is right to fire all the teachers, including the good ones. Can you accept that there might be even ONE good teacher at a low-performing school?

As to vouchers, I am glad President Obama opposes them...he should. He needs to FIGHT the right wing...not enable them. And he needs to fight WITH TEACHERS...not against them.

As a teacher, am I supposed to just say... to my teacher colleagues who worked with me in the trenches for years to reform schools in our district FOR OUR KIDS... "Thank goodness we'll never have to worry about the voucher issue anymore, now that we've elected President Obama...but sorry you were fired in the process" ?


My standards for the President are higher than that. I expect him to respect and support good teachers EVERYWHERE...even in low-performing districts...AND prevent vouchers at the same time. He CAN walk and chew gum at the same time...YES, he can.

I (and my teacher colleagues) voted for our President. I (and my teacher colleagues) went door-to-door for him in far away places. I (and my teacher colleagues) support almost all his policies and think he is off to a good start in a VERY difficult Presidency at a very critical time. I still support him.

But I (and my teacher colleagues) need him to support US.

Last (Ipromise :) ):

The article seems, to me, to make the case for...

...better trained administrators. It is a 'jumping on the bandwagon' style OpEd that continues the delusion that teachers are the problem, when that isn't true.

In 2001, under the Bush Administration’s Education Secretary, Rod Paige, teachers (unions, specifically) were called terrorist organizations. For the last eight years, NCLB has done nothing but blame public school problems on ineffective teachers (probably because they prefer vouchers). There has been almost NO recognition for eight years of the job teachers do. The general public has NO IDEA what the job entails and our leaders have worked to make that WORSE for eight years. Now, it seems, the effort is to use data unfairly to document the delusion.

Rather than continuing the fantasy that 'if we better evaluate and quantify what a teacher does we'll be able to get rid of the bad ones and our schools will get better', a better start would be a HUGE and LOUD apology to the teachers of this nation who have dedicated their lives to teaching kids... most with little support, either financial or in respect.

Most teachers I know expect and have no problem with fair evaluation. If the past system needs reform, then we SHOULD make it better. But, unfortunately, it is not teachers who have the power to make evaluation fair. Right now it is politicians...most of whom know little about teaching in a classroom. They must not know that judging a teacher by a student test score is inherently unfair. There are too many variables out of a teacher's control to do that.

This is a problem in need of a solution. But it is time for politicians to stop this game and publicly apologize to teachers for scapegoating them in recent years. Should we work together to make evaluations better? Absolutely! Should we work together to get rid of the FEW bad teachers that tarnish the reputation of the majority? The sooner the better. Should we work together to finally fix public schools for the 21st century? Sign me up.

But let's be honest. Truth in Teaching? It has yet to be heard in the public discourse. It is long past time we had a discussion about what is truly wrong in our schools. The simple answer (the one that is usually wrong) is not teachers. It is very multi-faceted and will require honesty from ALL stakeholders.

ALL of them, including teachers.

[donco6]

20. In the accounts I've read, there wasn't anything to vote ON.

The negotiations were going on, the admin offered something, the union didn't agree at the table (which they never do right off - ever. And any admin would know that). The next thing they know, they're all fired at a board meeting.

The only time things come for a vote is when there's a tentative agreement that needs to be ratified. They hadn't gotten that far, but the admin threw down a gauntlet and is now in the process of picking it up again.

Of course, the fact that the POTUS has already sided with admin will probably impact negotiations a little.

[FBaggins]

21. You're right on the political impact.

The union has certainly not been getting help from anyone in the political chain of command (up to and including the potus who threw the teachers under the bus).

From recent reports, it looks as if the union went to the state congressional delegation (four democrats). All that came from the meeting was the most cursory of "we had a good talk" from both sides. No statement of support at all (though I'd be happy to be corrected on this... it's all I've seen reported).

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Thank you

Sadly we have a few here who don't understand how unions work. Or negotiations.

[donco6]

24. I've been on both sides of the table at one point or another over 20 yrs.

There's an etiquette that's followed. This was way off the mark, IMO. Totally unfair.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Exactly

Our last negotiation was over a year in length. No one walked out after 3 sessions. That's what I find to be the craziest thing in this whole story.

[donco6]

31. And even then there's a protocol.

If you reach an impasse, it's declared, then you call in fact-finding. They gather data and verify if everything's on the up-and-up (and there's always some movement both ways.) Then if it's still a stalemate, you call in mediation.

That's just Negotiations 101. This was just political grandstanding at it's worst.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. Yep you wonder what happened to mediation

I am convinced more and more that this is all because the supt lost her temper.

[donco6]

40. And/or her board.

Sometimes they can go rogue on you, too. But from her comments, I'd say it's her. I really don't see it a mark of good leadership to end up firing your entire HS staff.

[FBaggins]

44. Duncan is what happened to mediation.

(and, of course Bush and Obama) He gave districts a sledge hammer and took away the teachers' shield.

[Hannah Bell]

49. thank you for that. Media reports say there were precisely *three* meetings.

Meeting 1: gallo presents her demands
Meeting 2: union counter
Meeting 2: gallo says no & shuts down negotiation with the threat of firing.

in under three weeks

[mzteris]

25. a telling quote from a union official:

“It’s not about time and money,” said Jim Parisi, a RIFT field representative. “It’s about our right to negotiate time and money.”


I've said all along it was the individuals doing the negotiating who screwed everyone. Not the "Union", not the Teachers, not the admin. . . the few individuals who controlled the negotiations.

And yes, there were issues to vote on: the six conditions. Of course you have to read ALL the documentation you can find on this topic and not just rely on those articles you believe bolsters YOUR opinion.

The only way to truly understand an issue is to be able to look at it from all angles - from each perspective. You can't be afraid of differing POV's because then you'll never find truth. Regardless of what certain posters believe about me, this is the approach I always take. I can, will, and do change my opinion if I'm convinced with evidence and/or logic.

[donco6]

32. What's wrong with negotiating time and money?

It's the most basic of business transactions. And we're always being advised to run more like a business.

[FBaggins]

34. Not a blessed thing

And there's nothing wrong with the national unions making a federal case (literally and figurtively) about the laws/regs/policies that led to this decisions.

But there ARE times when negotiation isn't wise. Negotiations should happen when both sides have something to gain and something to give. They need to understand what the leverage is (on both sides). The union had no leverage here... yet they were still able to get concessions on THE most important item (job security). That should have been it. They should have made clear that after all this goes through they're going to want to talk about just compensation for their efforts.

[mzteris]

35. it's the way it was put -

more like a "nyah nyah" statement. He stated it wasn't ABOUT the money, but about "CONTROL". Like a "you're not the boss of me" kind of thing.

I dunno - :shrug: - it struck me as a particularly childish sort of statement. He should be concerned about the welfare of his charges, NOT posturing.

I maintain, it was those few "officials" who were SUPPOSED to be representing the teachers the f'd up. I've said that from the getgo and I maintain that. It sounds like I'm pretty much on the mark, too.

[FBaggins]

36. I don't see it that way at all.

It IS about the right to negotiate.

These are good people who are being told (straight from POTUS) that they're no good at what they do... whay most have spent their lives doing.

You negotiate with equals... you negotiate with people you respect.

They're saying that they have something to contribute and shouldn't be the fall guy.

[Hannah Bell]

51. you two make a cute tag team.

[FBaggins]

60. And your reading comprehension remains glued in your preconceptions

I've disagreed with the poster far more often than I have agreed... And was rebutting his argument here.

If you would actually read what you reply to we would get along much better...

[Hannah Bell]

63. lol. good show!

[donco6]

37. I really don't see that at all.

I've been on the admin side of negotiations for about 15 years now. If we walked in asking the teachers to provide after-school tutoring and summer school and non-duty-free lunch, I'd expect them to ask for the total additional hours required in the contract, and the individual daily rate for those hours, or at the least the negotiated extra duty pay. To think you could get that to happen without additional pay would be . . . unprecedented - anywhere I've ever heard of.

So it would only be expected that the union reps would balk at the pay rate offered and negotiations would stall out. But as was stated before, there's a protocol to follow in the contract when that happens - fact-finding, mediation, etc. (In fact, I believe that's the reason behind the supt's backpedalling on the unilateral ending of negotiations.) That didn't happen at all - it went from stall to firing. Again, unprecedented.

Was there naivete involved? Probably . . . on both sides of the table. I think the superintendent was rather foolish to throw down the gauntlet as she did without following the process. Now she has to backpedal (as Obama will, also). And the teachers were probably naive not to recognize the admin's willingness to move to desparate measures.

One last thing - all states in the RTTT funding (of which RI is one) have at their disposal BILLIONS of dollars to provide the very things Central Falls was moving toward - tutoring, extra duty, etc. There was no reason to go to firing at this stage. Unless there was an ulterior motive . . .

[FBaggins]

42. If there was an "ulterior motive" then...

... Why even START with "transformation" ???

She was under no obligation to do so and plent of school systems have closed schools or hired charters - and the teachers would have no option.

[Hannah Bell]

52. because, mr baggins, closing schools & hiring charters *still* doesn't happen by executive fiat --

(despite the desires of some) -- there must at least be the pretense of a legitimate process.

[FBaggins]

56. Wrong. It SHOULDN'T happen by executive fiat... But it does

And we both know it. You've posted plenty of good articles about the charter explosion.

Sure there's a process. There need to be community(etc) meetings and "input" - (which took place last year), but nobody else has a veto or vote...

... The new "legitimate process" involves Congress unthinkingly giving the national excutive authority to act by fiat... Which has been passed down to the local level.

[Hannah Bell]

57. uh, no, it doesn't. congress hasn't given the national executive authority to do jack shit.

the administration is doing it through changing GRANT requirements, i.e. administrative changes. not congressional legislation.

that avoids congress having to vote on anything which might cause a backlash.

districts "don't have to" apply for those funds. they're "extra".

see, "no one was forced into applying, no one was coerced" - it's all "choice".

interesting how you completely misrepresent the facts.

[FBaggins]

58. You say tomato

It's clear that this wouldn't have happened if it didn't start from the top.

The state was reportedly cheering this school's success just a year ago.

[Hannah Bell]

59. no, you specifically said congress voted to give executive authority to make these changes by fiat

-- which it DID NOT.

[FBaggins]

61. There's no "accountability" in NCLB???

They just made the whole thing up I suppose?

[Hannah Bell]

64. now you're talking about nclb? & claiming it allows districts to close & charterize schools at will?

[FBaggins]

65. You really see RTTT as standing on it's own

rather than just the current administration's remix on NCLB?

[Hannah Bell]

66. i asked you a question, which you didn't answer. does nclb allow districts

to close schools, fire teachers, or charterize AT WILL?

ANSWER: NO.

Both RTTT & the new Title 1 school improvement grants are significantly different from NCLB in that:

They MANDATE ONE OF FOUR *IMMEDIATE* REMEDIATIONS & leave no option for self-designed remediations.

[FBaggins]

67. Yes... it does.

It mandates that states must pass accountability standards within certain guidelines.

Whether that's "at will" or not depends entirely on your perspective. It certainly doesn't give the teachers any veto authority... it's entirely "executive" ratified by school boards in some cases (as happened here).

[Hannah Bell]

68. uh, no, it doesn't. "at will" = "at will". "at will" means an exec can choose which

school to shitcan & do it tomorrow.

no, baggins, there's a lengthy process before it even gets to that point, & even then, there's some wiggle room. like, there's an "other" option.

which is why obama's admin is trying to speed things up with their cute little grants containing 4 narrow mandated (& proven ineffective) "choices".

[FBaggins]

69. That's what comes from trying to accept your terminology

Let's put it this way . To the extent that THIS was by "fiat" a they have given out such power.

I understand the desire to label these actions a "fiat" - but a process was obviously followed (and a board voted on it).

Once again... TO THE EXTENT that THIS was "by fiat," the national legislature and executive have given us this situation.

[Hannah Bell]

70. i repeat: congress gave no one the power to close, charterize & fire teachers at will.

regardless of your black cloud of squid ink

[FBaggins]

71. I guess it depends on what you mean by "at will"

There can be no question that what is happening was intended... And was part of the design from the top.

Surely you're not disageeing that Bush/Duncan gave us this mess. ?

[Hannah Bell]

75. i guess it depends on whether one understands the definition of "at will" & "fiat"

[FBaggins]

78. Sure... but context matters

Since we were talking about the current situation (which would not meet a literal definition of "at will" OR "fiat")... it isn't a stretch for me to assume that you were using the terms flexibly enough to include the current events... Which ARE driven by federal guidelines begun by Bush and only made worse by the current administration.

[Hannah Bell]

50. "It sounds like I'm pretty much on the mark, too"

only in the vast echo chamber which is the world of mz tetris

[Hannah Bell]

48. "not just rely on those articles you believe bolsters YOUR opinion"

irony from the charter school pr flak

[Hannah Bell]

45. conveniently, none of the teachers quoted were identified by name.

"unnamed sources say...."


isn't it funny how the statements of the unnamed teachers echo the right-wing talking points previously spewed here at DU?

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. Exactly.

How do we even know these were teachers in Central Falls?

This is just a crock.