A former principal once told me that teachers could not take care of business in school if they had to worry about business at home.
Too bad people like Bloomberg don't realize how much better we could do our jobs if we didn't have to worry about the treatment we get and the facilities we work in. My guess is they know but don't care.
"In fact, the benefits of Green Dot teachers being unionized elude me utterly."
In fact, even if they secured no rights at this stage (but in fact, they have quite a few. Just not nearly as many and as strong as ours), but even if they had none, having a union gives them the ability to act and negotiate in concert. And that alone would be huge.
You've seen the contract? The differences with our contract seem huge, right? But now compare GDNY teachers with those who work for Moskowitz. Different universe.
I feel like I keep having to point this out: The Los Angeles Times has been giving thorough coverage to the experiment in which Green Dot took over a struggling Watts high school, Locke. Teachers signed a statement calling for LAUSD to turn the school over to Green Dot. Then supposedly labor-friendly Green Dot required all the teachers to reapply for their jobs, refused to rehire most of them (I haven't seen a figure, but there's no debate that "most" were not rehired) and replaced them with eager, brand-new young beginners who are working 12-hours days.
I too question how this is considered labor-friendly. And even Green Dot enthusiasts acknowledge that the lack of experience among the teaching staff has been a disadvantage at the new Locke. There are no test scores yet for the Green Dot-ized school, and the claims of success are based on the facts that Green Dot, using large amounts of private funding, spiffed up the facility and hired a beefed-up security and grafitti-abatement staff, making everyone feel safer. Those aren't miracles; they just took more money than LAUSD had to spend. It's a bothersome side effect that the security staff occasionally tear-gasses students.
I believe Green Dot hired only 30% of the Locke teachers.
Perhaps they're better off than teachers mired in Moskowitzville, but without seniority rights, it seems awfully easy to dump a veteran teacher in favor of a perky 22-year old making a much lower salary. And I've seen charter advocates loving that possibility.
Another thing that bothers me about Green Dot is that no one, no one at all (and I've asked many, many people), can answer these two questions: Has their "just-cause" provision ever been tested, and have any teacher positions been saved as a result?
There's theory and practice, and if this has never been tested, no one can say how good it is. Also, I've just heard that NYC paraprofessionals operate under a "just cause" clause.
I have seen paras fired much more easily than teachers.
Our dependent charter school in the district I teach in has enjoyed all sorts of perks not enjoyed by the rest of the teachers. Two examples that I can name off of the top of my head are none of the teachers at the charter school were laid off because the district deemed it a necessary service. The other one is that while ALL classrooms in k-3 will increase by 8 students (20 to 2
for the upcoming school year, the charter school will stay at 20 students for all grades, K-7.
When you look at the demographics of students at the charter school, they clearly do not represent the population that exists in the District.
It's remarkable that charters are deemed a necessary service while neighborhood schools are not, and very much reflective of what's going on right now in NYC.
Commenting by HaloScan
