[abcnews] Rhode Island District Fires All 74 of Its High School Teachers

If I had to guess - I'd say the students were lazy and unmotivated, and the teachers were lazy and unmotivated.

Only one of those two groups can be "fired" for being lazy and unmotivated. Are they accordingly to blame for the problem? No.

 

That's certainly true. I was assuming that they would take into account the quality of students coming in when looking at school performance to determined the worst-performing schools, but I guess that's not actually necessarily the case. If they aren't doing that, then the district and state are a bunch of idiots - that would be the first thing they need to fix.

 

I'm doing nothing of the sort. This is a city with a median income of $22,000. It has the highest transient population in the state (which effects graduation rates, by the way). It is the most economically disadvantaged school in the state. It has been described as the "Flint, MI of Rhode Island" with rampant poverty, boarded-up storefronts, and a growing problem with gang violence. Do you honestly think that problems with reading and math just pop-up in 9th grade? If so, you might want to take a look at these numbers from 2007 from Calcutt Middle School (which feeds into Central Falls HS):

Grade 8 - New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) (2007)

Math

School 14 %
State 48 %

Reading

School 27 %
State 59 %

Writing

School 17 %
State 42 %

These scores indicate that the problem is occurring before the students get to high school. If they're behind in 8th grade, they'll be behind in 9th grade. Because education is cumulative.

So why fire the high school teachers? Why not the middle school or elementary teachers, since this problem obviously starts long before the students reach 9th grade? Well, there's one very good reason: MONEY. Because teachers are paid on a scale based on years of service, and high school teachers cost more than any other level. If you fire all the teachers who have been teaching for 10 years or so, and hire a bunch of newbies, guess what? You just saved the district a ton of money AND made a big splash in the press that makes it look like you're trying to change things. Never mind that the overall graduation rate in the school was actually improving. Never mind that math scores were up 3% over the last year (the scores were still low, but at least they were trending upwards). Never mind the fact that the problems with low test scores are starting years before the students even set foot on the high school campus.

I'm on record agreeing with this point: the teachers union acted foolishly. However, the district didn't give them very good options: work more hours for no pay, work even more hours for an extra $1.15 per hour (yes, it was $30 per hour, not $30 additional per hour. See: http://www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_trustees_vote_02-24-10_EOHI83C_v59.3c21342.html ), or get fired. The teachers should have accepted the second proposal (the so-called "improvement" plan) and asking for $90 was absurd. So, I'm not saying this is 100% the district's fault.

But I think it's insulting and ridiculous for people to sit at their keyboards from a thousand miles away and say these teachers "suck" or that they're "lazy" etc. when you have no idea what they deal with on a daily basis. You have no idea what it's like to teach in an economically disadvantaged, heavily ESL school. You have no idea what it's like to have a district tell you "do more, give more, work more" every year, all the while largely ignoring the problems that are completely outside of your control, such as poor feeder school performance, transience, etc. This is a screwed up situation from top to bottom, and they're trying to cover it up by making a big splashy move that has little to no chance of succeeding. This is a bit like firing everyone in congress and hiring a bunch of new states reps. and senators and thinking that will make things better...wait...bad example.

Yes, I'm a teacher. No, I'm not teaching today. I'm out sick. I swear, I have a note!

 

From the poorly written article, it looks like the board had to address issues at the school in one of four federally developed ways:

The first -- the one they wanted -- kept the same teachers, somehow changed processes and required some additional hours. They (seem) to have offered $30/hour which is about what the teachers appeared to have been making. (you can quibble about the calculation based on class hours / total hours/ etc etc -- but overall --- it's in the ballpark. And this doesn't appear to be a new contract -- just compensation for the additional hours). The $90/hour is not supported. Somewhere between $25-$35 seems to be reasonable based on my complete lack of knowledge on the details involved...

The second -- the firing and rehiring -- isn't really explained. But it seems to be the boards backup based on one of four federally developed plans. I have no idea on the logic here -- but lets not distort it into some board witch hunt, or purging of higher paid teachers -- or blanket condemnation of the current teachers -- remember -- the board wanted option one.

The third and forth option aren't discussed. Let's assume they're equally goofy as the second.

I guess it's inevitable teacher and waiter discussions always devolve into "they're over/under paid" and "they're lazy/martyrs." I don't see this board making those arguments here. Just a compensation and/or working conditions fight.

FWIW -- my kids' school is 25% ESL. The high school they feed into graduated a Rhodes scholarship recipient two years ago. I don't see anything wrong with trying to improve what seem to be poor results at the school -- and I hope the board and union are approaching it in good faith. Too bad the article author did not.

 

Some of the articles I found.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/c...v28.3b40f6e.html?ocp=59#slcgm_comments_anchor

http://www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_trustees_vote_02-24-10_EOHI83C_v59.3c21342.html

Under the federal/state intervention protocol, the six schools targeted by Gist must choose one of the following options:
1) school closure
2) takeover by a charter or school-management organization;
3) "transformation" which requires a longer school day, among other changes
4) “turnaround” which requires the entire teaching staff be fired and no more

They started out with option 3) but talk broke down about pay so they moved to 4).
You don't really want 1) and 2)

 

4) “turnaround” which requires the entire teaching staff be fired and no more than 50% rehired.

 

You are right: the article is poorly written (with some factual errors). I agree: the union was foolish not to accept this plan. While it is not ideal, it was relatively reasonable.

The problem is this: the system is setup so that it's option 1 or nothing. And who gets to dictate the terms of the option? The district. This is a system designed to break unions, and seems unfair to me.

The third option was charter/magnet school management, and the fourth option was school closure. Option 3 was never going to happen in an area such as Central Falls, and option 4 would leave no high school in the area. So the teachers had a choice of A.) Take whatever the district wanted to dictate with option 1, or B.) Get fired. Not much of a choice, really.

Again, I'm not saying the unions are 100% right. They should have accepted the offer from the district. But the district had until March 12 to come up a solution. They jumped head-first into the firing option, knowing it would paint the teachers in a bad light and grab some headlines. Unfortunately for them, they got more headlines than they bargained for.

It is inevitable. I just bristle at people jumping to the "teachers are lazy" or "blame the teachers" argument. But you're right: this isn't really about teaching, it's about labor negotiation tactics. And the district's tactics, in this case, are somewhat shady.

You're right, of course: changes need to be made, and the district should be trying to improve the school. It just seems, from doing more research into this situation, the district jumped into dismissal too quickly. They should have looked more closely at the situation and realized that this is a vertical failure: elementary through middle school through high school. Firing these teachers is, at best, a band aid. It may bring a small boost in test results, but the overall problem remains at the lower grade levels. This does nothing to address that, and thus, is doomed to failure.

 

I known they woulda been goofy!

I was going to mockingly suggest the other options would include boarding up the school -- and wouldn't you know it.....that or turn it over to a charter.

So....if the board and union were at an impasse I guess the next step is the "turnaround" threat.

What an ugly situation. I'd hate to be on that board.

 

In 1 of the articles I quoted above:

 

The problem is that we *know* the students are going to be behind. But what happens once they get to high school. I don't have the Reading numbers, but they were passing 3% in Math on the high school level. So if they came in passing 14% and came out passing 3%, there's a problem specifically at the high school level.

I'm not saying there aren't problems anywhere else - but looking at this high school in isolation, these kids are performing worse coming out than going in. That's a problem.

Or, maybe it wasn't mandated by federal and/or state guidelines. This school was in the bottom 5% and was mandated by federal law to go through this process. Maybe the middle school or elementary schools have already started implementing changes while the high school has resisted, or maybe they aren't in the bottom 5% by all these measures.

Well, let me ask you this. If the performance is going from 14% with students coming in to 3% with students going out, why should we be paying teachers well above average in this situation? What specific value are these particular teachers providing to the school that other, cheaper teachers couldn't provide? Saving the money could let the school invest in other areas that might help improve performance.

For what it's worth, I haven't said the teachers are lazy/etc. I have said they are not adding any notable value to the district. Any random entry-level teachers could take a bunch of kids passing at 14% and pass them at 3%. The fundamental idea behind employment is that you bring added value to the system; if you're not doing that - whether it be your fault or not - there's no reason for an organization to pay you. That applies to businesses, schools, non-profits, etc.

 

I don't know that it's 'designed to break the union.' All public sector bargaining involves reaching agreements within certain parameters.

If they were truly at a $30 - $90 spread on wages, perhaps this union wasn't bargaining in good faith?

If they're that far apart, it likely makes sense to call the bluff now -- so they can get some reasonable bargaining done before the deadline. I think, depending on what your point of view is, the board is also being painted in a bad light -- unless 'jumping head first' and 'grabbing headlines' are good things. What I suspect is, that they were willing to do this to get the union to move on the $90, as, on the surface, it seems out of whack. Again....I'm not a party to the details, nor do I care to be.

I can't fault (or praise) the board here. On the surface, they seem to have made the more reasonable offer -- so other then the 'union breaking' or 'teacher bashing' labels, it seems to make sense to go public with their offer and the consequences of not coming to terms.

 

To me the problem sounds like administration, teachers, and past teachers and administrations as well.

These teachers may have been working hard(or not) but just not in a productive way. It takes real leadership and professional development to show the teachers how to meet the educational needs of students that come in with deficits and other challenges in their education.

When I started at the school I work at we were slightly over 50% of where the state average says we should be. It took several years, and an incredible amount of work beyond the bells and that took away free time, etc. in order to turn it around. This past year we rose to slightly above the state average.

The problem in our school wasn't that teachers weren't trying, it's that they weren't trying in the most effective ways. It took a lot of research, hard work, and refining to get the school where it is. I mean so much so that people regularly put in 10 hour days, give up lunches, recesses, and are under immense pressure and heavily stressed out. But the results are proof that it works. If it wasn't for administration and the district, and the teachers union getting the kinds of professional development needed to make the changes, it wouldn't have happened.

Everybody shares the blame or credit for successes and failures. But to fire the teachers and not replace administration seems inappropriate.

 

FB - nice post.

I've yet to meet a teacher (or other professional) who went to work with the intent of doing a crappy job. (though sometimes that's the result).

It sounds like 'option 1' was designed to do what you did at your school. Whether that's possible without the buy-in of the teachers and admin is to be seen. Option 2 seems to be just a 'shake up' to start clean with fresh troops. There's logic to that -- though I'd hope there's more to the plan then that. Your point about an admin shake up being necessary too is dead on.

Possibly that's part of the plan?

And congrats on the turnaround at your school. That's truly impressive -- especially given you haven't neglected your cf.net posting obligations while tackling that,

 

Just to clarify - from my understanding, the principal and other administrators at the school get fired too. I know 50% of the teachers can be hired back, but I don't know if the administrators can or not.

 

I don't disagree with the drastic measure of the board and the Dept of E. but if they think this alone can improve the situation, they are sadly mistaken.

On the other hand, if the parents and students think they can just show up a couple times and talk in support of the teachers, they are also mistaken.

To improve this, it will take a lot of hard work of all involved.

 

At our school, changing the way we were teaching, and using data to effect our teaching was a TON of work. Most of the teachers who were part of the problem didn't want to stick around then, and left the school. So it did get rid of teachers who weren't up to all of the hard work. There were other schools where they could go that they didn't have to put in the extra hours that it takes to get the students to start making the kind progress they need to.

 

Education is cumulative. If you're 3 years behind by eighth grade, that doesn't mean you'll still be 3 years behind by 9th grade. Because you don't have the skills to be a ninth grader, you have to go back and review seventh and eight grade skills, which means you aren't making the necessary progress to be a 10th grader. It's like running a race where they keep moving the starting line: the longer you run, the further you lag.

You can't look at the high school in isolation, because the high school is part of a larger vertical system that is failing at the lower levels. But, just to be clear about the numbers:

NECAP Results for Central Falls High School 2008-2009

Scale: % at and above proficient

Grade 11
Reading
45% (2009)
34% (2008)
The state average for Reading was 69% in 2009.

Writing
29% (2009)
19% (2008)
The state average for Writing was 42% in 2009.

Math
4% (2009)
3% (2008)
The state average for Math was 27% in 2009.

So, yes the test scores are still abhorrent, and well below state levels. But they were all trending upwards, in some cases as much as 11% in one year (a huge leap, if you know anything about standardized test scores). In short: the teachers were improving things. And they got fired for it. I'm not saying improvement wasn't needed: it was. But firing 100% of teachers, staff, admins, etc. and starting over isn't necessarily the answer. It starts at the lower levels, and I've seen nothing to show that the state/districts are trying to do anything at those levels. This is a broken system, and the teachers are being made out to be the fall guys.

Having said that, it's a shame they didn't take advantage of the offer that was made by the district, as mediocre as it was, to prevent this whole mess. In the end, I think it's fair to say there's equal blame on both sides of this issue.

 

Interesting that you seem to assume the opposite of fail to consider that this might account for the poor performance of the kids in this school. Statistics show that in general what I said about America's school kids and their treatment is correct. Not all kids come from fairly functional securely mid to upper income households, which tend to perform better.

 

Probably a better idea than blaming teachers or pretending education is widget making and simplistic bonus schemes will lead to a greater production of widgets, I mean kids passing standardized tests.

Hey, there is a free lunch. Switcing teachers salaries to pure commision and all will be fine.

Actually, I like the facebook idea. Maybe someone can make some $$ off it.