November 30, 2009
Dear Colleagues,
The purpose of this letter is to update everyone on the proposals for restructuring New Bedford High School that are currently being discussed by the scheduling committee.
As you all know, in the contract the NBEA agreed to “re-open” the agreement in order to discuss the recommendations of the schedule committee, which would impact upon your working conditions.
We have recently learned however, that the Superintendent has directed this committee to expand its role by exploring a complete restructuring of the high school. A copy of the NBEA letter to the Administration is attached.
According to the committee’s documents, their plan is to implement these changes by September 2010. The model they are proposing is that of a “Readiness Advantage School” which has been a proposal brought forward by Governor Patrick
and DESE. No legislation however, has been approved by the legislature.
The NBEA is not opposed to changes at New Bedford High School. However, the Association must assure that your rights according to the Agreement and the collective bargaining laws are protected. For example, the Administration and
committee are proceeding without any Association consultation or representation. The intent of the “re-opener” language in the contract included a joint Association – Administration Committee to develop a new schedule for New Bedford High School.
Our concern is that many of these proposals are dramatically different from the current model we utilize to provide educational services to our students. For example, the proposal states, “Teachers will adopt the role of facilitator of individual; differentiated instruction rather than the disseminator of content – specific learning to the class as a whole. As students advance in grade, they will move from teacher directed to student directed learning . . . Students will increase content (and these skills) through the use of portfolios, assessed by a panel of peers, teachers and parents.”
In another section, under “Stakeholder Engagement”, the proposal states, “an open, collaborative partnership with the local teacher’s union will be maintained in areas of impact involving hiring, evaluation, work agreements, scheduling and budget. Teacher visits to student homes and parent invitations to participate in daily activities and events will assist in developing a caring school community.”
We urge you to obtain a copy and to read the “New Bedford High School Leadership Academy ‘Readiness School Proposal’” since the proposed changes if implemented would impact your working conditions.
The Association strongly suggests that each member of the faculty discuss these proposed changes with a member of the Restructuring Committee.
Sincerely,
Lou St. John
55 comments:
The SOS strikes again. Just imagine the damage she's going to do before she goes.
Where can you get a copy?
I have had the opportunity to read some information on the proposed changes at NBHS and I saw the list of people making up this so called committee to restructure NBHS. I am totally surprised at the number of Unit A people involved in this blatant attempt to circumvent the existing contracts by negotiating directly with the powers that be.The two Unit B people on the committee don't surprise me since they are known "yes" people and part of the "good old boys and girls". Teachers will have smaller classes (AT whose expense?), teachers will work from 7-3 (With what compensation?), teachers will have common planning time, there will be self governance and control of the budget in order to get away from the "traditional top down leadership style." What leadership??????? Only the most qualified teachers will be hired. When did any of this get negotiated? Why do we pay union dues if we are not represented?
I have talked to some teachers at the high school who have absolutely no idea of what is going on in terms of this restructuring business. How can we get the word out as to what is happening?
For those of you who are interested: Don't believe the hype. The union has the best interest of the members at heart. The restructuring group is trying to negotiate without the union.
This is beautiful. a S_ _tload of changes proposed for NBHS for next year that have not been negotiated but scheduling for the changes is planned to start soon. Do we even know who the Headmaster will be next year?
What the NBEA fails to mention, is that these changes in working conditions affect only 8 teachers who voluntarily apply for jobs in the Leadership Academy's first year - no one else.
What the last blogger doesn't realize is that ANYTHING that affects working conditions, etc., from our contract affects all 1200 members. When we negotiate, we do not think of just 1, or 10 or 50 people... if it concerns one member, it concerns all members. The things this restructuring committee is planning will affect us all. It is called precedent.
I hope the membership realizes that what affects one, does affect us all. The negitiating team(s) have worked extremely hard over the years to gain some incentives in the contract, especially in those years when money was tight and raises were small. It seems to me that members should read more than the salary schedule of thier contract to understand how "readiness" schools would impact us ALL. Do you like being able to call in sick? Do you like having an opportunity to take a personal day? Do you appreciate the fact that you can take maternity leave? Are you happy that their is a grievance process when your contract gets violated? If so, you better seriously reconsider some of the "ideas" in place for this "readiness school".
To the post person making reference to "only eight teachers being affected":Are you realy that nieve to believe that the way you people are going about things is the proper way? Have you totally missed the understanding that the representative for teachers in the NBPS system is the NBEA and the representative for the powers that be is the NBSC? Do you understand that under Massachusetts General Laws working conditions are negotiated items and the term collective bargining is in place? Do it the right way and the union will probably support you. Try to ram it down the union's throat and I can almost predict your efforts will fail. By the way, which 8 of the 1200 teachers in New bedford will be selected? It sounds like you no doubt plan on being one of them.
Good letter UnitAGrievChair.I can't believe one of our members would post such a ridiculous reply.
I'm betting this person is one of the insiders and jobs for specific people will soon pop up.
"...only 8 teachers. This grant will serve 125 freshman in the first year and 125 additional freshman in each of the following 3 years. What about the current 32 teachers who work in the currently negotiate freshman academy? Do you really believe they won't be affected? This grant calls for a 92,000 a year "academic director" also. I have checked with officials of Unit B. First, don't you think this affects the freshman academy administrators? Second, I'm told there are no 92,000 directors in the Unit B contract. Apparently the Unit B contract means nothing also. In closing, it would seem the solution to all the problems at NBHS with 3000 kids is to hire 8 teachers, pay someone 92,000 dollars, serve 125 kids, throw out the teacher's and administrators' contracts, hire selected individuals and have "autonmy from top down administrative leadership." I image we are talking about the same leadership which has not been present at the high school all week.
Thank you to the blogger for explaining a little about what is going on at the HS. It is a little clearer now. I suspected there would be jobs available for selected people.What I didnt realize was the extent certain individuals would go to be be in favorable positions. No wonder there is a lack of information and everything is being done on the hush hush. I wouldnt worry though. Based on what I have seen, there's not much chance of this thing flying for September. I'm urging the leadership of Units A and B to resist this thing just because of the underhandiness and cloak and dagger methods being used. Business as usual under this Supt. No change from the past.
It is a shame that this process was started with a top down 'know it best' approach. Don't believe it is some grand scheme, its just incompetence. What does it say for professionalism that someone has been working on this for days, weeks and months, only for it to fail from lack of proper communication and inclusion? To make lemonade out of this lemon you would need leaders who could admit their mistakes and rework this. However, that won't happen . It's all obstruction by the union will be the cry.
Is someone urging unit B to do something? Do you realize unit B has a handful of members? Perhaps we don't need a unit B. Let them negociate a contract like the principals. Why should the union carry them?
Apparently the strategy is working. Here's one anonymous already suggesting we split the NBEA. it's unfortunate that some people just don't get it. A unit B director with a doctoral degree makes 85,000 dollars next year. The academic director in this grant is budgeted for 92,000. Why stop there. If we don't have to follow the negotiated salary scale for teachers and administrators, why not budget the teachers in the grant for 90,000? The union carry Unit B? This is the first time I have heard such a ridiculous comment. This is about unionism and negotioted rights, not about division.
If teachers can be made to work from 7-3 without negotiations then I think we may have something here. Why don't we make them all work from 7-3? Why don't we pay them whatever we want to since we don't have to negotiate? Do they really need those sick days? Why don't we just take them back. Maybe I'm going in the wrong direction. You see "this only affects 8 teachers who volunteer to work in the Leadership Academy" which has not been negotiated. Well I and 7 of my colleagues have some ideas we would like to "volunteer for without negotiating."
We would like smaller classes with higher pay. We would like a shorter work day and shorter work year. We would like cooperative parents and students who want to learn. We would like a safe working environment. We would like to get rid of students who disrupt classes and do no want to learn. We would like the public to appreciate what we do every day. We would like the language we negotiated in our contract to be respected and adhered to by all involved. We would like the Superintendet and her staff to stop violating our contract and stop trying to find ways to circumvent our contract. And finally, we would like to see our own members, working with the Superintendent and her staff, stop trying to circumvent our contract for what appears to be personal gain. We don't have to negotiate these things. Let's just do them.
I just finished reading a letter from Joe Teacher. It looks like there will be an attack on the union for being obstructive in not openly supporting the non-negotiated efforts of a few to have their way. They are still talking about how this "only affects the working conditions of 8 teachers." They just don't get it.
Let me see if I understand this. We are a union of 1200 members with the Superintendent and a handful of our own members attempting to render our contract worthless, and your concern is how many members Unit B has. Would it make you feel better if only the Unit B contract was being violated because they are a small number. Did you miss the fact that it doesn't matter if we are 1200 strong they are still coming at us?
Don't get distracted. Didn't a famous man once say "Injustice anywhere is a threat to injustice everywhere?"
It would not surprise me if the people talking about division are on this committee and in line for a job. That's the way it works. Divide and conquere.
"....only the most qualified teachers will be hired." How will this be determined? The most any teacher can get on an evaluation is "satisfactory". Maybe this selected group has another way of evaluating teachers or maybe this is a done deal already. Either way it's a shame some of our members allow themselves to be used as pawns in the SOS'S game of destroy the union.
To say that this academy will only affect the 8 teachers involved is a blatant lie! The grant received from the state was for $10,500. How do they propose that they will pay that $92,000 administrator salary and the $10,000 that they plan to spend on each of the 125 students. What about the other 3,000 students? This money will be taken from them! This affects everyone. Where are they going to obtain the 1.25 million that they project necessary for their first year? Maybe they can borrow the money from China. What happened to no child left behind, because it sounds to me like they are going to “leave behind” every other student in the school? While I realize that the restructuring committee was not just convened to address scheduling issues at the HS, I was under the impression that they were supposed to address the restructuring of the entire school, not just a fraction of the population. And who decided on the admin’s salary? The person who plans on being the administrator? If so, is this not an ethics violation? This is disgusting. Are the parents in the community aware of this initiative? As a parent myself, I am extremely angry. My children are considered “at risk” but still perform incredibly well because I make sure that they do! I do my job as a parent and don’t expect teachers and schools to pick up my slack. Why don’t they make parents of poor performing students accountable? Why are the students who maintain good attendance, pass the MCAS and get good grades being punished for doing what they are already supposed to do? Better yet, where is their reward for being good students? No reward for them; they are going to be robbed! Yes, I know my children can attend the NBLA even if they don’t meet the criteria, but will they be offered high level, rigorous and challenging curriculum, like AP and pre-AP? No they won’t because that is not what the NBLA is designed for. My children will be exploited and used as mentors and tutors for those students who are underperforming. I can read between the lines. This whole proposal is a pretense. This does not help the district as a whole. If the issues of attendance and underperformance were addressed early on with the parents in a student’s life then there would be no need for this joke of an academy. As a final note: I have worked in the healthcare field for more years than I care for. I know what it is to work under a dictatorial regime with no union or contract to protect against abuse and exploitation. Any measure taken to undermine the teacher’s contract or the union should be fought against to the full extent of the law. They are abused enough as it is. We don’t need more good teachers leaving the district because they don’t know how to keep them. Maybe they should focus on the issue of teacher attrition, since all the studies link turnover to student achievement.
Good post that starts off " if teachers.......". That quote, however, is " Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
I think it is about time we identify who the members of this committee are so that we will know who they are. Why is this a secret to the readers of this blog. Are we missing something or are we contributing to the cloak and dagger BS?
Can someone tell me why the Freshmen Academy at the high school, affecting the working conditions of 32 teachers had to be negotiated and included in the contract but the Leadership Academy
does not. Did not the process used for the Freshmen academy result in collaboration from both sides?
I would like to see the Leadership Academy Proposal in its entirety? Where can I find it?
I agree with the previous post. If this is all that comes out of our so called restructuring committee, then I too will be looking to leave the high school.
I agree with the previous post. If this is all that comes out of our so called restructuring committee, then I too will be looking to leave the high school. I am most disappointed in those that have allowed this to happen.
Where did it all go wrong? This committee started out with such great aspirations: visiting schools, studying schedules, reporting back to the faculty, etc. What happened??? I'm not hearing anything about the restructuring of the school. What gives????? Have the rest of us been sold down the river? When can I bid out?
have to admit that in reading this grant it is well written and very professional. Under different circumstances I would support it. I can't, however, knowing what I know and reading what I have read on this blog. This was not supposed to be about individual jobs for selected individuals. It was supposed to be about restructuring NBHS. Unless I'm completely missing the point I don't see any restructuring. What I see is that some of our members have worked at creating a smaller learning unit to serve 125 students. Now, I'm sure that all teachers will have the opportuunity to apply for the 8 teaching jobs, however, who do you think will interview better for the jobs? Someone involved in writing the grant on the bottom floor or someone who just happens to see the posting? How is this restructuring NBHS? I am diappointed in the committee.
Hey Joe, copy the link below onto your browser and you'll see the info you want.
http://www.engineofsouls.com/file-312.pdf
I believe that the Readiness School Committee has presented only a proposal and that the union had been invited to table on several occasions but declined as the proposal had not been completed. Additionally, I believe that all faculty and staff were also invited to be part of the committee. This was not a closed group. Certainly, in this democratic society shouldn't all persons be able to make a request and it is the union’s responsibility to poll the membership to see if this is in fact a direction the membership wants to go in? I do not see where the committee is at fault for trying to make a change here? Are we doing such a fantastic job here that NO changes need to be made?
Let me ask the Union a question... If I wanted the Readiness School and so did 55% of my coworkers,. would the union fight for us?
As a retiree of the New Bedford School System, I read with interest the proposal for the New Bedford High School Leadership Academy. The proposal sounds impressive, but will be extremely detrimental to the faculty and staff of ALL New Bedford Schools including elementary. Many of the issues in this proposal will undermine your union contract and your union as a whole. This proposal directly contradicts many articles in the bargaining agreement. Issues including common planning, length of school day, salary, meeting schedules and class size have all been time-consuming and, at times, contentious issues at the bargaining table. I have been part of negotiations in the past and know how difficult they are. The union, which is made up of Unit A and B members, not just the officers and the board, work hard to protect your rights. Many of the protections you have now took many years and a great deal of time and effort You, as a to get these for you. Each of you,as part of the union and school system, should be up in arms and furious about this proposal. If any of this proposal is approved and implemented, you may as well disband the union and rip up your contrct. Your bargained rights will become null and void. Your working conditions, daily and yearly schedule, and salaries will be decided by a select few and none of you will have any protections whatsoever. Those staff members who are willing to sell their souls will be given untold advantages while the rest of you will get whatever the few decide.
PEOPLE, WAKE UP!!! This is just another ploy to break the union have school staff members become puppets whose strings are pulled by the chosen elite. Fight this proposal and the be wary of the members of the proposal commitee as they want to have the best of both worldsmake their own rules and still use the union when they so choose. All of the issues in this proposal need to be bargained and negotiated. You all know who will benefit from this academy and it will not be the students, merely the 8 people who wrote it and the current administration.
In response to the post asking if 55% of teachers wanted the Readiness School would the Union fight for it: I would think not considering that leaves 45% of members out in the cold. The union wouldn't be doing its job if it fought for something that little more than half of the membership wanted, not to mention, is NOT in the best interest of everyone that it affects. I would like to propose a question to this poster as well. When "the majority" of the country approved the invasion of Iraq, did that mean it was the right thing to do? No, it destroyed our economy and our foreign relations with countless nations. Siding with the majority is a fallacy that only ignorant people commit because they simply do not know better or they are duped by slick tongued snake oil salesmen. Good Luck finding 55% of teachers that are naive enough to believe that this is a benevolent endeavor to save our children and not another notch on someone's personal agenda.
I'm told that the "Readiness School Committee" (What a play on words!!!!)recently had the rug pulled out from under them by none other than the SOS. She told them to go back and redo many parts of their grant because even if the union buys in they will not be treated like an autonymous charter school,or a private school. They will have to abide by negotiated contracts, they will answer to the Headmaster/Headmistress of NBHS,hiring will be done in accordance with negotiated hiring practices and the SOS will maintain her right to be in charge. She charged them to explain and defend how they arrived at what offerings should be available. She directed them to spell out where this "school" will take place, how it will deal with special ed, low income, Ell students, second language learners other than Hispanics, etc.She has told them to forget about this dream of a 15 to 1 student-teacher ratio because of the affect it will have on the other teachers at NBHS. You see, even the SOS realizes that this affects more than 8 teachers. She has directed them to redo this pronto so that meetings can begin with the union. Perhaps the SOS is finally starting to get it and is sending a message to those committee members who have already submitted their resumes for the 8 teaching positions and the administrative job. Now if only "The Restructuring School Committee" would get it.
Hey Molly,
I feel confident I can get 55% of our membership to request that our pay get doubled, our work day get halved, that we can retire after 10 years, etc. I feel the union should fight for what we want. I would have a better chance of being successful than you would at finding 55% of 1200 teachers willing to vote approval of destroying the contract they have fought for and won. When did we go from "this onlu affects 8 teachers" to 55% approval?
You people don't get it. We are trying to make things better for the students at New Bedford High School. Unfortunately, we can only start with 125 students and try to expand each year. We are fighting a war against ignorance, poverty, failure, dropouts, unempolyment, and failure. Shouldn't we at least try to save 125 students? In any war they has to be sacrifices. Try to understand that NBEA.
In response to "The Insider":
That must be the reason some of the committee members, including the leader, could be seen walking around recently looking as if they had lost a loved one. Faces were two inches from the ground. Since you have brought it to light that members of this committee have already submitted resumes for teaching positions, an important fact needs to be shared. At Least two of the committee members in question are already members of the existing Freshman Academy. Putting together all that is now known it would appear they have all but sold the remaining 30 teachers in that program down the river in favor of better conditions for themselves. I must be wrong, though, since this only affects 8 teachers. The SOS is even starting to look good compared to this group.
Molly get a clue... your war analogy is ridiculous. Yes we are fighting a battle to help student learning, and many of your ideas to help students are good ones. But at what cost? Even generals will tell you they wouldn't go into a battle to save only 125- and lose 2800 as collateral damage! You need a better strategic plan and that includes looking into areas where the contract is not violated, and therefore gaining the support of the membership and full negotiating rights. Do you realize that you are a memeber too? That your rights and priviledges under the contract would be null and void as well? That even according to your own prospectus, that if the "stakeholders" didn't like you or held a grudge against you for "meddling" in their lives (and they will, because they don't want to be held accountable), that you could be fired and have no recourse to try and save your job?!
Look at the big picture if you are going to use war analogies...
Please clarify what you mean, Molly. Are the "sacrifices" you refer to the remaining 2875 students at NBHS or the remaining 1192 teachers in the NBEA. It seems tremendously large numbers have to "sacrifice" so you and a few individuals can benefit. And please don't try to use the kids as your rational. Your quest for power and autonomy was even recognized by the Super. I will continue to urge the NBEA to vote against this because of the way it was done.
Hey Insider
I saw the same thing you saw the other day at the high school. The leader and his two henchwomen looked like they were so set back. How disappointed they must have been to learn they will have a boss like the rest of us at the HS if the union approves their plans. What a shocker to be told you won't have 15 kids in a class and you will have to deal with the same subgroups the rest of us have to. I really feel that this sendback by DR. PB is another shot at Dennis. How long before she starts questioning his leadership and effectiveness?
1.There was an independent group hired from the outside going around the HS recently asking questions about the feasibility of restructuring NBHS. I guess our little self centered group can stop calling themselves the restructuring committee.
2. I'm told the good old boy network is already pushing the inside, hand picked, yes man candidate for Headmaster of the HS while the SOS may have a certain traveling companion in mind for the job. Maybe we should get the school's leadership issues in order before we start making changes a new leader will have to live with. Or is this another done deal already? Inquiring minds want to know.
Who said that the Readiness School proposal was a done deal? It's just a proposal not a finished product. It is a living document which means changes can be made, no? Why does it seem that there is so much anger over this? What is the real issue? The hours? Then make changes to the document and NEGOTIATE. Why shoot something down before getting all of the facts?
Yeah, Molly. We don't know what we are talking about. Not our union officials, not our insiders, not our contacts, not our dues paying principals, no one. We don't even know why you used a war analogy or what you teach in the freshmen academy. We don't even know what the resume you submitted looks like.We don'tr even know about the SOS's letter to you guys telling you to stop dreaming. We even believe that only 8 teachers will be affected. Your group is the brain thrust at NBHS. There will be no vote for changes when it comes before me and the other voters. My supporters and I will vote to kill it immediately.
Anonymous,
First of all, I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I don't teach in Freshman academy and never have. So please get your facts straight. Don't assume you know anything about me. Just goes to show you how informed you really are, doesn't it?
Anonymous must have Molly mixed up with someone else. Who? Another anonymous or another Molly? Get your facts straight Anonymous so you don't mix Molly up with someone else interested in circumventing our contract for personal gain. You don't really expect Molly to help identify herself as one of the inside teachers involved with this grant do you? Come on Anonymous. Just so no one else mixes you up with the self centered traitors in question, why don't you tell us a little about yourself Molly.
Evidently there are 2 Molly's on here. Let me tell you a bit about myself. I work at the High School. I am not nor have I ever been a member of "the committee". I am not looking to circumvent anything. I have had no part in the writing of this proposal. I will not pass judgement without getting all of the facts. I do not understand why the union does not take a look at the proposal and address that which "circumvents" the contract. Is it the hours, class size or pay scale? Propose a change, negotiate. Isn't that what is supposed to happen?
What I know is this, there needs to be changes made at the High School or there will be DIRE consequences. It is DANGEROUS at the high school and if you disagree with me, it is obvious you don't work at the high school. What are we waiting for? someone to die? If you think I am being dramatic, ask any teacher at the High School if they feel safe in the halls, in their classrooms, during hall duty. I am positive I am not the only one. With the closing of Westside, we have no "alternative placement" for students who can not handle the freedom of the high school. By the SOS's own statement, "Brockton High School" is successful because they send students to "three alternative schools" but she has effectively closed ours at the request of Marlene Pollock. So what are we to do? Wait for the shiv between our ribs, or wait until the bullets start flying before we consider a change. I would rather have a long and productive life over an extra grand a year. How about you?
Reading the NBLA Proposal as well as all of the posts on this blog have only proved to me that this needs to be discussed openly and by everyone. A public forum with the school committee, the sups, the union, and the school council should sit down and discuss the best way to proceed forward. Public comment should be given by teachers, parents and students of the school's community since it is them that will be most affected. We are talking about drastic changes in conditions in the high school, negotiable items of teachers' contracts, and most importantly and undeniable inequity to the rest of the students in the school. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion in the matter. Yes, I realize that this is tedious and cumbersome work but that is the price we pay for a democratic society. We as Americans naturally fear any threat to our rights, freedom and security. How can anyone blame the teachers and the union for treading carefully? We know what can happen with no contract or union. Why is it so wrong for us to be concerned about what could happen?
I'm a single parent making 40K a year with 40K in student loans and I have 2 years to obtain my MA...and we are in a recession. My concern over job security makes me guilty of not caring about the students? Of not wanting to give up my “time?” I’d be glad to give more time but first why don't you write a proposal to God telling him what a good idea it would be to make the day 12 hours longer. If that doesn't work, I can pencil you in between 11PM and 5AM. Not for nothing but I love my job. I, like many others, have a personal investment in the school. I am a product of the district, my children are NB students and I plan to remain here. This is my home. I'm so tired and insulted by the insinuations that teachers don't do their jobs and get paid too much or have too many benefits; that they don't care about the students, only their paychecks. Really? Is that why I spend at least 4 hours a night corresponding with students by email, reading papers, writing recommendation letters for former students and personally assisting every senior I know with their college essays? My research & lesson planning is time even beyond that. And to think, I could've taken that insurance company job for 55K a year to start. I could be spending my days denying claims to sick people. How rewarding.
Molly, totally agree with everything you're saying about the high school. I know alot of teachers that have voiced the very same concerns about the danger and safety of the school. Things are definitely bad and we seem to be operating on our own with no support or concern from downtown. But let me ask you this, Do you really think that this NBLA will take all those exact students that create the problems to begin with? They specifically said that this will not be a West Side. The enrollment will be voluntary. Doesn't that in itself suggest motivation and desire? Those aren't the students that are creating the problems.....
To Molly,
When all is said and done, explain how a program serving 125 out if 3000 students at the high school addresses your concerns. We pay union dues and elect union officials to protect our rights and to be concerned with the greater good of all 1200 plus teachers. Must we go through the process you describe every time a small group of teachers want something?
To Lady of the ....
Maybe your letter should be addressed to the restructuring committee. They have succeeded in doind a p***-poor job of coming up with a plan to restructure the school. No 7 period day, no rotating schedule, no shorter planing periods so teachers can be on duty in the hallways? No themes in the different houses, no "different way of doing business." I am not impressed and will look to bid out of the high school. I can't believe that with teachers quitting, students doing whatever they please, this is what the committee comes back with. What a disappointment.
I'm very disappointed that what is intended to help kids has been portrayed as something that people are using for ulterior motives and gain.
First of all, the academy will have 125 students to start, and grow by that amount every year for the first four years with each incoming freshmen class.
Secondly, the teachers at the academy will have to sign a subject-to-work agreement that will effect those teachers alone. By signing the agreement, the teachers will be agreeing to performing certain tasks that are different from what is asked of teachers in the larger high school.
It will not invalidate the current contract, it will serve as a personal, voluntary addendum to it.
Thirdly, union representation has been asked to attend these meetings but has refused and requested to wait until the proposal is done. Would it not be much easier and more productive to participate on the ground floor and work cooperatively, instead of letting people construct a prospectus (a working document which would only benefit from as many stakeholder's input as possible) and try to sabotage and deconstruct it? Isn't it time to work cooperatively and constructively for the sake of the students?
Fourthly, one way that other teachers would benefit, is that those students most likely to disrupt their classes and who "do not want" to learn will no longer be in their classes.
Fifthly, being one of the eight I'll let you know that I am not pursuing a position at the Academy at this time, because I feel I still have to work on my classroom management skills to really be effective as a teacher in this Academy. The only reason there were resumes included in the prospectus is we were asked to submit them by the Superintendent.
I am not the only teacher working on the design team that is not pursuing a position in the Academy. The hiring process is intended to be a completely open and transparent process.
I can only speak for myself, but I want to be part of a solution that will help the high school, the school system, and the city to return to the heights that they once acheived. The only way we can do this is through education for all.
If you are truly concerned, why not learn more about the academies (Leadership and Engineering(which is being designed by a union rep)) at the open meeting on the 22nd of December.
the last blogger needs to understand that as a "Union Rep" is helping to design the Engineering academy, he is on this committee as a "teacher" not serving in official union capacity. Also, that the proposals that his committee are recommending, are not going to take monies from the rest of the building, but as part of the current budget. They will also, conform with the current contract. So why don't you read your contract while you are writing proposals and then maybe you wouldn't have the membership against you for trying to hurt us all.
Post a Comment