Re: 100 R.I. teachers fired. LMAO
Whilst this debate has become angry I do think there are some things people need to consider:
1. Why did the teachers refuse? The implication appears to be that they are too lazy and selfish to help this struggling community. Whilst it may be possible that one or two would be lazy, it seems unlikely that 100 teachers are all so awful and selfish. Maybe they had some other reason.
Consider:
a) They were already working very hard. Whether you are on 78 grand or 22 grand, if you are flat out, you are flat out.
b) The pupils may not be the kind of people the teachers want to eat lunch with. Some kids can be hard going and the idea of eating lunch with them may have been onerous because they would spend time doing discipline rather than enjoying a meal break.
c) many teachers already give up their lunch for detentions and tutoring. A mandatory system removes that flexibility for the teacher.
d) these students may be already disinclined to learn. The students may squander the learning opportunities in the classroom and many parents may support this kind of anti-school attitude. Teachers may logically think that lunch classes are throwing human resources away. I don't know this town and it may be hard working but there is often a link between poverty and negative attitudes towards education.
2) How does the school run after this? It may seem all decisive and tough to stare down the union but what happens to those kids with 100% new staff? All the institutional knowledge is lost as one would assume that the combined experience of the teachers is eliminated in one fell swoop. Knowledge of systems, student backgrounds, curriculum, families and standards are all lost. I doubt this will improve student acheivement.
3) How does the government staff the school? One would assume that many of the current teachers would live locally so who in the area would take their place? It is unlikely that 100 unemployed teachers are sitting at home waiting for a job.
4) Whether you like unions or not, they do serve a purpose. Many on this forum can argue for themselves in writing but how many people on average could argue for their rights with a tough employer? It is not easy to negotiate for so many people I know who fear confrontation, yelling and intimidation. This is where union negotiators serve a useful purpose for those who are not so gifted in pushing their own case.
5) What does this say about anyone's right to negotiate in the workplace? union or individual contract, this super said if you don't do what I want, you're fired. Because "they rejected the six conditions" Gallo believed "were crucial to improving the school" they were fired. Maybe these trained educators had better ideas. Of course, they cannot fire him for being stubborn but he sacked them.
6) Teachers status is low in so many places. People often criticise teachers and few respect the fact that they are university educated and usually know what they are talking about (of course everyone had a few shit teachers). Imagine the mass sacking was of surgeons. Would we be so quick to celebrate and say the super was right to fire these lazy, overpaid doctors? Perhaps if the community at large respected teachers more then kids would too. Maybe students would pay attention and learn something rather than thinking teachers are not worth listening to because the media and community of paint them to be idiots.
Everything I say could be wrong and the mass sacking may really help these kids. But I think we should consider the whole picture before setting off fireworks and popping champagne corks.
