<p>When the company I worked for miscalculated the market in the 80s and went under a few years later, tens of thousands of us were let go, including many good people. As a company our products were out of touch with market requirements and the market put an end to the company ensuring that firms with better products survived. </p>
<p>I don’t know about this school, but speaking in general terms, public sector entities, whether they are schools or local/state/fed government, they do not have the same requirement in being useful and good to be able to survive. However bad the output of a school, it is generally not shut down, and the poor performers, especially union employees, cannot be removed easily.</p>
<p>So while this sounds draconian, it’s nothing different than in industry, and if they can use this to weed out the bad performers, overall it would be good.</p>
<p>The populace and the government are both financially broke. What is coming is salary, benefits and pension REDUCTIONS. There was a piece in our local paper recently about a teacher who just retired at age 55 and could stand to receive $1.4 million in pension payments and another $260K in health insurance benefits, all for a total career contribution of $62,000 into the retirement fund. Unsustainable madness.</p>
<p>Interesting, I have read $30 and $90 in different ways. One piece said the teachers want $90 an hour, which would be pretty hefty payola. Another made it sound like $90 a week, which would not be so much for a school day lengthend by 25 minutes a day.</p>
<p>The pay rate is hourly - this fact has been published many times and it not being disputed. The dispute is the actual hourly rate - the union wants $90 per hour and the school board says that it can only pay $30 per hour for the additional work. Frances Gallo is the Central Falls School Superintendent:</p>
<p>"Gallo said she offered to pay teachers $30 an hour for two additional weeks of training in the summer. Gallo also said she would try to find grant money to pay teachers for 90 minutes a week of after-school planning time, also at $30 an hour.</p>
<p>But she says she has no extra money to pay for other changes she is pushing for, including lengthening the instructional day by 25 minutes, so teachers work 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. instead of 7:50 a.m. to 2:25 p.m. She wants teachers to formalize a rotating tutoring schedule, so a teacher is available to help students for an hour before or after school, and she wants teachers to have lunch with students one day a week.</p>
<p>Right now, they have no duties, Gallo said. But I dont want them to see lunch as a duty. I want them to establish true relationships with not a few students, but all students.</p>
<p>The average teachers salary at the high school ranges between $72,000 and $78,000 a year, because most are at the districts top step, Gallo said.</p>
<p>Union officials have been pushing for $90 per hour and want the district to pay for more of the additional responsibilities." - Providence Journal, February 11</p>
<p>I want to see the data that supports getting rid of at least 50% of the teachers that these kids know and trust. And the solution they are proposing? Brining in Teach for America teachers. That’s right, brand new teachers who training was limited to the summer prior and 2/3 of whom will leave after their two year contract.</p>
<p>I am a supporter of Teach for America but I question the wisdom of putting inexperienced teachers in the most troubled schools.</p>
<p>This is the middle of the school year–what happens to the kids? Do they just write off the year & get further behind or will they be taught by upset & angry teachers who have all just been fired & are hunting for new jobs? Sorry, I didn’t read the entire thread, but this just seems to increase the peril of the KIDS. Doesn’t sound like their interests are being adequately protected by anyone.</p>
<p>The firing is effective at the end of the school year. Then, the teachers have the option to reapply for jobs - although most of the positions will be reclassified. The federal mandate says that less than 50% of the current teachers can be hired back.</p>
<p>Since most of the teachers at this school make $70K+, perhaps they can hire some new, less experienced teachers at lower salaries and use the savings to hire more teachers or add needed resources.</p>
<p>I like to see newly minted teachers. Often times they are highly enthusiastic which is a nice contrast to some veteran teachers who have a “been there, done that” attitude. My kids are always very happy to get a young teacher.</p>
In my experience this has (surprise!) about a 50% chance of being true. It is true that the worst teachers are often veterans–but so are the best. Young teachers may be “enthusiastic,” but they also are often in over their heads when it comes to classroom management and keeping kids focused on task, with the result that they swing wildly between trying to everybody’s buddy and yelling & screaming. Experienced teachers are usually better at keeping an even keel, responding flexibly to classroom situations without losing control of the lesson.</p>
<p>I think a mix of veteran, mid-career and young teachers is ideal, and fortunately my son’s schools have had that. But a mass firing is a bit of a blunt instrument for fine-tuning the balance of youth and experience on a teaching staff, doncha think?</p>
<p>It sounds to me as the mandates of NCLB (which I think is a highly flawed law) and a limited budget left the superintendent with no other options once the union demanded a wage that couldn’t be paid. I think it’s a great opportunity to weed out the lower tier of teachers that could never have otherwise been fired–I hope that’s what actually happens. I wonder how the union membership feels about the path its leaders have taken them down. Expecting $90/hr. for ANY kind of work in this economy is lunacy.</p>