Would you say the teachers were successful at educating the children at the high school? If yes, what's your basis for this assertion? If no, what should have been done instead of mass firings?

Should the teachers accepted the $30/hr rate proposed by the administrators to work extra hours? Even if, as you claim, the admins weren't interested in negotiation do you think that the teachers should have accepted this proposal?

And what about other underperforming schools who fall under the Educ. Secretary's mandate to do one of four options, what do you think the teachers should do in those schools to save their jobs...err...I mean, better educate the children in order to avoid this same scenario?

Pat is misunderstanding (I'm being very kind here).

What Gist said is consistent. The meetings between the teachers and the superintendent prior to a final decision being reached were NOT formal contract negotiations (I hope the union will not dispute that, or they will have no credibility left). The meetings were part of the model selection process, and what the teachers had to say did play a role in that. The final decision was always in the hands of the superintendent, nothing new there. Her willingness to involve the teachers in that process was an effort to collaborate, not a deception. In other words, the superintendent gave the teachers more of a voice than she was required to give them in reaching her decision.

Therefore Pat's statement:
"They [sic] teachers had no choice and no chance to work collaboratively on finding a solution" is apparently not correct. Their chance was in those meetings, when they failed to convince the superintendent that they were ready and able to make the transformation model work for the school. This is why the turnaround model was selected as a last resort.

When Gist said that the teachers' wishes did not factor in, she was obviously talking about her own approval of the superintendent's decision. This is also true, and it would be nonsensical for her to have overridden the decision of the superintendent to layoff teachers simply because the teachers disapproved of that decision. As she correctly stated, it was not a formal negotiation.

If this letter from the Superintendant surfaces which is supposed to prove that the union rejected her proposal of no firings in exchange for spending more time with kids and a work day extension of 30min among other things, will you still stand by your statement?

As an outside observer, it seems to me the union didn't do the teachers any favors. As with all things time will tell.

You're really going to argue that I'm playing "gotcha" games when your post regarding Gist could have been retitled to: Gotcha! Gist video shows teachers never had a chance to avoid firings.

Come on.

I'll give you some credit for at least addressing my questions. You write that Central Falls has been able to meet whatever criteria set forth by the state. That seems patently false given that they've just been fired. If they were doing a good job, it doesn't make sense to fire them. But, I think you're getting at something along these lines. School A is failing miserably. State says, show "some" improvement. School A moves from the failing miserably zone to the failing horribly zone. If that's how you equate success, we have different yard sticks.

Your point about none being on a corrective action plan is taken. If a school is only passing 48% of its students and none of the teachers on are on a corrective action plan there is something seriously wrong there. But it's not the teachers' fault none were on any plans. The bigger question is: Who's accountable for the students' success? Teachers? Admins? Parents? General Assembly members? In this case, the teachers are taking the fall and I'm not so sure it's not a bad thing. Feel free to disagree.

Lastly, I do believe in collective bargaining, keyword: bargaining. That means give and take. Sometimes you win a concession sometimes you lose it. Many Labor unions in this state seem to never want to concede a point and always play the "victim" card. Sometimes you have to compromise and I think contrary to watch your purporting here that if the teachers were willing to bend a bit, they would still have their jobs. Again, feel free to disagree.

I'd respectfully suggest that students are responsible for their own success/failure.

Every class I've ever been in from grammar school through graduate school had a spectrum of achievement with some getting A's, some B's, others C's, and some D/F's. And at URI some even got NW ("no work submitted", essentially like never even registering for the class with no impact on GPA).

Same teacher for every kid in the class, same general assignments, same lessons and lectures. And yet some failed while others succeeded. If it were the fault of the teacher (or teachers in the case of CF) I would think we wouldn't see such a diverse array of achievement levels.

It seems highly unfair to me for anyone to blame teachers for the failures of some students without also crediting those teachers with the achievements of others. Why is it that when a kid flunks math it's the fault of the teacher, but when the kid aces math it's his/her accomplishment and the beginning of a great life story? Makes no sense to me.

I am shocked, SHOCKED that Pat would shoot his mouth off with pro-union conspiracy theories before having all of the evidence.

Here is the letter from Dr. Gallo to the Central Falls Union President, proving that the union was involved in the process from the start and that the Transformation model was the decided upon model before the union began its strong-arm compensation antics:

http://images.radcity.net/6651/4197617.doc

Brian, perhaps you could start considering the "Four Reform Models" with respect to some of your "lowest performing" contributors who sap this blog of the credibility you and others work so hard to bring to it.

On behalf of the many educators who implement the NECAP tests, you must know that the Math test scores are so low due to curricular issues rather than teaching and learning issues. The curriculum in many districts does not expose the students to the level of math tested on the NECAP. No wonder the students fail; they have never seen the material before the day of the test. Many districts, like my own, are changing that by collaboratively revising the curriculum to expose more students to the level of mathematics tested on the NECAP. For example, we have implemented Algebra for All in the 9th grade to give students exposure and practice with the formulas necessary to achieve on the NECAP. I must remind everyone that across the state and across New England, the math test score are not much higher than Central Falls, even in the more affluent towns of our state. I mean, is 19% proficient much better? Why should Central Falls teachers be the scapegoat? Moreover, please remember that the curriculum is not solely a teacher-designed tool. Administrators lead the charge in this area and schedule courses for students around the approved curriculum. We, including Central Falls, are working hard to update the curriculum to address these learning gaps. This is no easy charge. Gov. Carcieri said himself that it will be a few years before we see improvements in this area. The sad part is that we are in essence forced to teach to the test, for fear that we will lose our jobs. I thought this state refused to be a high-stakes testing state. Isn't that why we have the PBGR system in the first place?

Dues Ex,

If the link you have is accurate, then Pat is either uninformed or deliberately putting forth false information. If the letter is accurate, the union knew well in advance what was needed to save the teacher's jobs. That runs completely counter to what Pat wrote above.

Pat do you have a response to this?

Points well taken. I'd actually like to have a conversation about whose responsibility it is for students' success. I have my own biases that I'm not entirely comfortable with but I feel that the system we have in RI lends itself to zero accountability. Having said that, you make very valid points.

Thanks Renee for giving that insight. I wish such points were put in every headline:

Teachers Fail Kids, But Don't Write Their Curriculum!
Loser Kids Can't Pass Tests They Haven't Studied For!
Parents Unite And Demand Schools Teach To The Test!

Its such an amazing concept, I'm surprised Aristotle didn't come up with it.

Frankly, I don't care what he has to say in response, Don. I would, on the other hand, be interested to hear what Brian has to say about it.

Brian, I know this puts you in an awkward position, but don't you think this has gone on long enough already? All the valuable work you put into this blog is undermined by the constant stream of crap coming from one extremely controversial and questionable contributor. Despite our political differences, I would actively recommend this blog to people if that were to change (no joke), but I'm not going to turn people on to a union propaganda forum.

Unless my union is now hiring Tea Party leaders, I assume you mean Colleen Callahan of the RIFTHP, not Colleen Conley.

Of course I read the letter. That's why I made the comments I did. How do you think the letter confirms Pat's point that "the teachers, no matter what they may have been told, and no matter what may be being said about them, didn’t have a shot at changing what appears to have been a pre-determined outcome by Central Falls School Superintendent Gallo."?

That's a direct quote from Pat's post. Here's a direct quote from the letter which seems to contradict it...
". As part of this aggressive public outreach, I have also convened all major local stakeholders, including your union, in a series of i3 Think Tank sessions. Throughout all of these meetings, there has been an underlying consensus to pursue the Transformational Model to reform our high school. I need to re-emphasize that the Transformation Model is the only model in which it is possible for the majority of teachers and administrators at the school to retain their jobs.

Unfortunately, to date we have been unable to reach agreement with you regarding the implementation of key elements of the Transformation Model"

This seems to me that the union was at the bargaining table but could not agree to specific elements proposed by the administration. That happens. But Pat insinuates that the teachers never had a chance when according to this letter, they certainly did. If Pat wants to argue that the teachers should not have accepted the terms set forth by the administration such as:
Increase the length of the high school day so that the student day is 8AM – 3 PM
Formalize the high school teacher commitment of weekly tutoring for one hour outside of school time
Each teacher will partake of a communal lunch with students one day each week
Agree to continue paid professional development for two weeks outside of the typical school calendar
Agree to meet for 90 minutes each week in order to look at student work, assess data, plan units of study and seek continuous improvement in professional practice
Acknowledge that third party evaluators will begin evaluation of all high school teachers on March 1, 2010.

...that seems perfectly reasonable. But to say that the teachers (and their union) didn't have a chance to negotiate with the administration, seems false.

This confirms what I already suspected, that Ali LaPoint is not capable of reading a document and accurately answering basic questions about its content. His conclusion that the letter is consistent with Pat's statement is objectively wrong, no matter what your political leanings, and it would be marked as such on any standardized test. I will give him a break because English seems to be his second language (I hope).

Pat is the only one playing word games here. The teachers never had a right to collectively bargain for their jobs. If this were the case, no public employee could ever be laid off for any reason since nobody would ever agree to be fired. Nobody ever claimed that this was a collective bargaining process. "Involved" means just what it sounds like, that they were part of the discussion and their ideas and attitudes carried weight. The letter incontrovertibly confirms this. The letter also confirms that the transformation model was the starting point, not the turnaround model, as Pat incorrectly claims. There are two possibilities, that the letter was a preemptive and deliberately planted component of a massive conspiracy to fire all of the teachers and misdirect the public, or that Pat's conclusions about what transpired are simply wrong. It is one or the other, as the two are in direct conflict. I myself tend to find physical and temporally relevant evidence more compelling than pure speculation from a biased party, as would any judge.

Brian, the point to which this union misinformation campaign has gotten is simply disgraceful. Your blog does NOT need this crap to win over union readers, and all of your other readers would find your blog more credible without it. I, and I'm sure many other readers, would be very interested in your input on this.

Further refutation of Pat's pro-union propaganda campaign surrounding the CF affair:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJG2rPoqgFQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHvdEJJFems

Whether you are progressive, liberal, moderate, libertarian, whatever you the readers may be, you should be ashamed of yourselves for letting this kind of misinformation campaign fly on this blog without concern, apology or redaction.

I still want to hear what Brian has to say about this. What is Pat's favorite phrase again? Ah yes, "the silence is deafening."

Sadly I think the lack of outrage over this "hand caught in the cookie jar" moment is because Pat's reckless (possibly to the point of libel) propaganda campaign has gone unchecked for so long that people have come to expect it.

RIFuture is capable of much, much better.