Central Falls. This ain’t bean bag.

[Hannah Bell]

When Central Falls, Rhode Island fired all its teachers it should have been a lesson to every teacher union leader in the country...

The late mayor Harold Washington use to quote the Chicago journalist Finley Peter Dunne’s imaginary bar room philosopher, Mr Dooley. Dooley would say, “Politics ain’t bean bag.” Mr. Dooley knew that Chicago was a rough and tumble town and the political sharks will chew you up if you’re not tough enough...

Imagine. All that the teachers at Central Falls in Rhode Island wanted was to negotiate rules and compensation for plans to extend the school day. Rather than negotiate, the board of education fired them all. Obama’s school boss Arne Duncan praised the firing of the teachers as courageous, with mounting evidence that the idea came out of those in the USDE to begin with.

Last July at the NEA convention in San Diego, Duncan sat with NEA Prez Dennis Van Roekel and swore that he wanted to work with the unions. He swore that his agenda was to make change with teachers, not to teachers.

Tell that to the teachers at Central Falls.


http://preaprez.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/central-falls-this-aint-bean-bag/

[DontTreadOnMe]

1. Are you sure?

re: "All that the teachers at Central Falls in Rhode Island wanted was to negotiate rules and compensation for plans to extend the school day."

So you have whittled down the entire issue to a failure of negotiation? Would it not be more honest to indicate that the real story is a complete failure of the school system and the Teacher's Unon didn't come out with a plan to fix it, so they were fired.

By the way, I am pro teacher union and support higher teacher salaries... but the Teacher's Unions have been EXTREMELY WEAK in making a coherent argument for their side.

Time to step back and see how most people view the situation...

1. School has a drop out rate higher than 50% -- totally unacceptable!
2. Teacher's Union says the "fix" is more "negotiations". They already work hard and want more money.

And you wonder why they LOST with that message!~

[Hannah Bell]

2. no, it would not be more honest at all. it would be exceedingly *dishonest,* in fact.

like most of the posts on the central high matter.

because, in fact what happened is the super delivered an ultimatum & refused to negotiate further.

The walbots are here to unrec. yeah, i see you, cowardly little walbots.

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. but the ultimatum came after looking at YEARS of performance

This didn't just suddenly come up.

Again... I sympathize with those who lost their jobs. I se that our entire public school system is in trouble, and I don't think charter schools are the answer.
I am against ANY form of privatizing pubic schools.

In my opinion, the teachers were fired BECAUSE they made a VERY POOR case for ANY SOLUTION.
Negotiating for more money... was the wrong approach. And it failed.

[Hannah Bell]

4. pubic schools? i actually think those *should* be private. however, your contention

that one is justified in breaking a contract or refusing to negotiate because of an alleged history of "poor performance" is complete & utter union-busting bullshit.

In fact, performance at CF had been rising, not falling:

"Over the past two years, there have been gains, including reading scores that have risen by 21 percent."

Not that that it has anything to do with the legitimacy of violating contracts & refusing to negotiate.

It's all about the POWER. Duncan has the union-buster Gallo's back.

[DontTreadOnMe]

8. "complete & utter union-busting bullshit"

The Teacher's Union will continue to lose if it keeps arguing the strategy used in the CF Schools.

"justified in breaking a contract" -- time to step into the real world of contracts, and be prepared for what just happened.

"refusing to negotiate" -- factually incorrect

"alleged history of "poor performance" -- clearly there was a system not working, if you can't recognize this fact, then how can anyone negotiate anything with your point of view.

"complete & utter union-busting bullshit" -- using these words is a losing strategy, see "Teacher's Fired" as example.

"It's all about the POWER." -- more continuation of a losing strategy on framing the argument



Sorry, you just received an "F" on your latest post. You need to retake the course on getting your message across.
I think you are misreading my point of view, I am Pro Teacher Union. I am just pointing out the complete failure of the strategy the Union has been using in the CF case.

[Hannah Bell]

13. "refusing to negotiate" -- factually incorrect: FALSE

[FBaggins]

14. Nope - "Sessums said she recollected the negotiations differently."

“Yes, there was discussion about the 80 percent,” Sessums said. “But she could not guarantee to all our members that they would keep their jobs.”

teachers union President Jane Sessums said that while the issue of job security certainly came up in negotiations, Gallo never promised to protect every job.

How can something come up in negotiations that they now claim never existed?


"Didn't get everything I wanted" is not the same thing as "they refused to negotiate".

[Hannah Bell]

15. presenting one's demands, giving an ultimatum & ending the discussion = refusal to negotiate.

[FBaggins]

16. Maybe... but that isn't what happened.

There was more than one session and the union succeeded in moving her off of no guarantees (the original plan would have every teacher subject to dismissal based on this spring's evaluations) to 50% protected... then from 50% to 80% protected... and then (she claims but the union disputes) to 100% job protection. They also moved from pay only for the summer training to pay for some of the additional hours if grant money came through.


Once again "refusal to give in to all of my demands" is not the same things as "refusal to negotiate". To imply otherwise is dishonest on their part.

[Hannah Bell]

17. oh, but it is.

In January (announced 1/12) Gist identified Central Falls High School as a “persistently low-performing” school and placed it in the bottom 5 percent of struggling schools.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/schools_to_be_overhauled_01-12-10_GEH30KH_v41.3b3fc2a.html


Week of Feb 7-13 Gallo announce plan to fire:

http://www.projo.com/ri/centralfalls/content/central_falls_teachers_02-10-10_INHDDCD_v28.3b40f6e.html


Feb 23 trustees vote to fire.

[FBaggins]

18. You want to maybe read those links before assuming they support your position?

(ignoring the fact that listing two dates over a month apart in no way demonstrates that there were no negotiations).

The first one says that she "began meeting with teachers months ago"

The second one says the union denies that they had reached an impasse in talks with Gallo.

I've already outlined the changes from the original plan to where they were when she changed to the turnaround "model"... where did you think those changes took place if not in a negotiation?

In other reporting - "Sessums said she still hopes negotiations will resume" (how can something "resume" that never began?

[Hannah Bell]

19. "meeting with teachers & public knowing cf might be one of the schools selected"

isn't a contract negotiation.

union denying they had reached an impasse = they were still willing to negotiate: "The teachers union leaders also denied that they had reached an impasse in talks with Gallo. They said they needed more details of what they would be expected to do."


the fact that negotiations were opened doesn't negate the point: the super refused to negotiate. issuing an ultimatum to accept her terms or be fired = refusal to negotiate.

spin it as you will, there was less than 1 month between ID of the school & gallo's ultimatum.

= refusal to negotiate.

[FBaggins]

20. ???

the fact that negotiations were opened doesn't negate the point

That there were no negotiations?

Um... yeah... it really does.

the super refused to negotiate

I've documented (from the union) that she gave at least three times from her original position. Why don't you tell me what the union gave from their original position then tell me who refused to negotiate?

[Hannah Bell]

21. "she gave at least three times from her original position" i can't even parse that. link?

your position is that negotiations were opened, so negotiations took place.

mine is that if "negotiation" consisted of the super saying "accept this or i'll fire you", no negotiations took place.

[FBaggins]

22. Can you only debate straw men?

your position is that negotiations were opened, so negotiations took place

Nope. My position was that the super started out with a plan that would give every teacher a pink slip and then decide who to keep based on this Spring's 3rd party teacher assessments. The union balked at that (job security - at that time anyway - being important to them). Gallo moved to a guarantee that she would not get rid of more than half of the teachers... then she moved to job protection for 80% of the teachers. Both Gallo and the union agree that this is what happened.

Gallo says that she eventually gave in and agreed that 100% of the teachers would be protected for the coming year (even though the law explicitly gives the administration great flexibility in staff changes)... and that she gave up on the negotiations when even that wasn't good enough for the union. The union says that they don't remember it ever getting to a 100% guarantee. But we can't pretend that that isn't negotiating... just that the union didn't WIN the negotiations.

The super also started with a plan that would only pay for summer training. She later moved off of that position and agreed to pay for specific other duties IF grant money (presumably the RTTT grants) came in. Now... it's understandable that the union wouldn't be satisfied with "I'll try" when they have little reason to trust her... but such conversations obviously came up as part of a negotiation.

I suspect that the "refused to negotiate" business comes from what happened after the firings were announced. After it became public and they moved officially to the "turnaround" recommendation Gist said something to the effect that she might consider changing her mind if Gallo asked for it, but this "wasn't a negotiation". IOW "you had your chance". That's not the same things as saying that there HAD been no negotiations leading up to the point where the teachers rejected the plan.

[Hannah Bell]

23. "started out with a plan that would give every teacher a pink slip"

since this is explicitly contra published reports, let's see your

LINK?

[FBaggins]

25. Not "contrary to published reports"

in fact it has been posted here.

The transformation model grants administrators greater authority over staffing and curriculum. Gallo first said that she wanted to issue pink slips to all of the high school teachers, giving her time to decide which of the 74 teachers would be allowed to return for the coming school year. She told the union she wanted to base her decision, in part, on the evaluations that would occur this spring.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_letters_02-19-10_2DHGHET_v36.3a65dd5.html

Additionally (from this morning's reporting), 56 of the 74 teachers are on the top step... Which makes the median a certainty, and the arithmetic mean very likely.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_turmoil_02-28-10_TQHGS9N_v292.38b0e26.html

[Hannah Bell]

28. yes, contrary to published reports.

"Nope. My position was that the super started out with a plan that would give every teacher a pink slip and then decide who to keep based on this Spring's 3rd party teacher assessments."


No, that's the "turnaround model" which *mandates* firing the entire staff. She did not *start* with that, she reportedly started with the "transformation model":


"On Jan. 11, Gist became one of the first — if not the first — state education chiefs to publicly list the bottom 5 percent of failing schools, and to use the new federal requirement as justification for intervening in them....

(Central Falls super) Gallo and Central Falls Teachers’ Union President Jane Sessums, an elementary school teacher, met three times to negotiate.

Both parties initially agreed that transformation — the only model that protected teachers’ jobs — was the best approach for the high school...

Gallo laid out six conditions she said were essential to transform the high school...

Gallo said she could pay teachers for some of the additional duties...

But Gallo said she didn’t have enough money to pay teachers for the other duties...

Union officials said they were willing to make the changes but wanted to be paid for more of the extra work, and at a higher rate of $90 per hour....

Talks broke down.

http://www.projo.com/ri/centralfalls/content/central_falls_turmoil_02-28-10_TQHGS9N_v292.38b0e26.html



It was *then* that Gallo notified the state ed commissioner that she was moving to the "turnaround model," which = the firing of all teachers.


"On Feb. 12, Gallo said that since the two sides could not agree, she was recommending her second choice to the commissioner: turnaround...Turnaround meant every member of the teaching staff would be fired, with just 50 percent or fewer rehired in the fall...

On Feb. 23, just hours before the school Board of Trustees voted to approve Gallo’s recommendation, Gist endorsed Gallo’s proposal."

http://www.projo.com/ri/centralfalls/content/central_falls_turmoil_02-28-10_TQHGS9N_v292.38b0e26.html



*This* is your invention:

"The union balked at that (job security - at that time anyway - being important to them). Gallo moved to a guarantee that she would not get rid of more than half of the teachers... then she moved to job protection for 80% of the teachers...Gallo says that she eventually gave in and agreed that 100% of the teachers would be protected for the coming year (even though the law explicitly gives the administration great flexibility in staff changes)... and that she gave up on the negotiations when even that wasn't good enough for the union."


The "job security," according to Gallo, was promised when the "transformation model" was on the table. And the union disputes her claim that she made any such promise.


"Gallo said she offered the high school’s 74 teachers “100-percent job security” for the 2010-11 school year, if they’d agree to her six conditions to TRANSFORM the low-performing school.

But teachers union President Jane Sessums said that while the issue of job security certainly came up in negotiations, Gallo never promised to protect every job."

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:A96E4-Vo8gEJ:www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_letters_02-19-10_2DHGHET_v36.3a65dd5.html+gallo+central+falls+job+security&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"Gallo said that IF THE TEACHERS HAD GONE ALONG WITH HER *TRANSFORMATION* PLAN, they would have had “100-percent job security.”"

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:A96E4-Vo8gEJ:www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_letters_02-19-10_2DHGHET_v36.3a65dd5.html+gallo+central+falls+job+security&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us






"At a tense meeting of the state Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education held two days after the Central Falls firings, Regent Colleen Callahan, a director with the state Federation of Teachers, questioned why Gist had supported Gallo, when the Central Falls Teachers’ Union had said all along they would accept transformation."




The reported facts & dates are:

Dec. 18th:

US Dept of ED issues guidance on the use of Title I school-improvement grants, including procedures for identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools and definitions of the four approved models for reform of these schools: turnaround, restart, school closure, and transformation.


Jan. 11th: State ed commissioner publishes stats & orders overhaul of 5% lowest-performing schools.


Sometime between Jan 11th & Feb 12: Gallo & union rep Sessums meet three times to negotiate the "transformation model".


Feb. 12th: Gallo notifies Gist she's selected the "turnaround model," which = firing the entire staff & rehiring no more than 50% back.



Feb 23: CF Board votes to fire and in public meeting 93 school personnel are pink-slipped by name and told to stand -- as though they were criminals.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:A96E4-Vo8gEJ:www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_letters_02-19-10_2DHGHET_v36.3a65dd5.html+gallo+central+falls+job+security&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/central-falls-high-school-state-intervention-timeline

[FBaggins]

32. Flat wrong. I see only three possibilities.

A) You didn't read what you replied to
B) You're one of the people who thinks that repeating a falsehood makes it more believable
C) You suffer from a severe case of eisegesis.

So which is it? :) I suppose D) "All of the above" is possible, but psychometricians aren't fans of that so I avoid it.


No, that's the "turnaround model" which *mandates* firing the entire staff.

Nope. It was the transformation model. I know they hid it well, but you could have sussed it out with the first three words of the part I posted. "The transformation model grants administrators greater authority over staffing and curriculum. Gallo first said that she wanted to issue pink slips to all of the high school teachers"

If you read on, you would have noticed that the point of the article was to fill in the blanks from the period prior to when Gallo shifted from transformation to turnaround (when the story became bigger news). Some additional hints could have been found in the following paragraph where (as I had previously stated) it says "They didn’t like that idea, and I do understand why,” Gallo said. “So I went back to them and said what about if I guaranteed 80 percent their jobs for the fall"

She couldn't offer that with the turnaround model which (as you noted) limits it to 50%.


Particularly gutsy (read "foolhardy") to post "Gallo and Central Falls Teachers’ Union President Jane Sessums, an elementary school teacher, met three times to negotiate" and "talks broke down" on a thread where you're trying to prove that there were no negotiations.


"Gallo said that IF THE TEACHERS HAD GONE ALONG WITH HER *TRANSFORMATION* PLAN, they would have had “100-percent job security.”"

Which is what I said. That wasn't her first position OR her second position. Which I'm fairly certain even a Central High dropout could see demonstrates that negotiations took place.

Now... I will say that the union says that they don't remember the negotiation ever getting to 100%... but they agree that Gallo moved from no guarantees up to 80%. Which, again, demonstrates negotiation where the union moved management.




And no comment on the fact that over 75% of the teachers are on that top wrung, eh? I suppose I don't blame you.

[Hannah Bell]

38. Look at the dates.

The article you post is dated 2/22: Monday.

"Gallo wanted the union to sign off on six conditions...Union officials said they wanted to be paid for more of the duties and wanted to receive a higher pay rate –– $90 per hour.

But THURSDAY, another barrier between the two sides came to light: job security."



Which "Thursday" was it that this "new barrier" came up? The 18th? The 11th?

Both of those Thursdays were *after* Gallo told Gist she was adopting the turnaround (mass firing) model (2/9) & issued her ultimatum to teachers.

The dates are part of the public record. The sidebar of related article next to the one you link shows the timeline clearly:

1.12.10: R.I. education chief targets 6 schools for overhaul

2.10.10: Central Falls superintendent acts to fire city’s high school teachers

2.11.10: Six conditions Central Falls High School teachers must accept

2.11.10: Supt. sets Friday deadline for Central Falls teachers

2.12.10: Gist may support cutting teachers in Central Falls


February 11, 2010:

Central Falls superintendent acts to fire city’s high school teachers

03:11 PM EST on Thursday, February 11, 2010

“We need to be able to move this school,” Gallo said TUESDAY (2/9) afternoon...

Gallo said that the 74 teachers can re-apply, but their job descriptions would be different. Under the termination-of-teachers reform model, no more than 50 percent can be re-hired.

At the time of Gist’s announcement on JANUARY 11, Gallo said she already had a plan that she hoped to put in place this fall. She said she wanted to replace the principal, implement school-wide reforms, including the possibility of a longer school day and a more flexible school schedule, and more fully engage the community...(This is the TRANSFORMATION MODEL. Notice that mass pink slips AREN'T DISCUSSED).

Tuesday (2/9), however, Gallo said she decided to recommend termination after discussions with the teachers union broke down.

Parisi said the union balked because the district wasn’t willing to pay teachers enough for the additional time and work.

That’s when Gallo moved to the termination-of-teachers reform model.

However, at a jammed meeting of the school district’s Board of Trustees Tuesday night, the superintendent left the door open for the less-severe option. She gave the teachers until Friday to reconsider her earlier reform proposals.

The union, she said, has until Friday to embrace a plan that would lengthen the school day, require teachers to tutor outside regular school hours, and agree to meet 90 minutes a week to discuss educational matters. Teachers also would have to agree to be evaluated by a third party beginning March 1.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:OaNiXE02bhoJ:www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_teachers_02-10-10_INHDDCD_v28.3b40f6e.html+Central+Falls+superintendent+acts+to+fire+city%E2%80%99s+high+school+teachers&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


In fact, the "job security" discussion reported in your link occurred AFTER GALLO ANNOUNCED SHE WAS GOING TO FIRE EVERYONE IF THEY DIDN'T MEET HER CONDITIONS, on one of the Thursdays between 2/9 & 2/22, the date of your linked article. i.e. 2/11 OR 2/18.


Your account CONTRADICTS MULTIPLE PUBLISHED REPORTS, AND IS BASED ON YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED & YOUR OWN BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE FIRING, NOT ON THE PUBLISHED FACTS.

[FBaggins]

40. Look at the dates they're TALKING about... not when it was written.

Or you could just readthe darned thing instead of assuming it doesn't say what it clearly says.

School Supt. Frances Gallo and the city’s teachers union gave conflicting accounts Thursday of how talks to reform the struggling Central Falls High School broke down last week.

The article you post is dated 2/22: Monday

And it specifically is giving background information on where the story was BEFORE people became aware of it. It was "here's what you know... now here's the part nobody knew about until now"


But THURSDAY, another barrier between the two sides came to light: job security."

That's right. Prior to THURSDAY, nobody (outside the parties) knew that that was one of the sticking points. Which is why they ran the story.

Your account CONTRADICTS MULTIPLE PUBLISHED REPORTS,

Nope... it "contradicts" (read "corrects") your MISreading of the reports. Misreadings that are "BASED ON YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED & YOUR OWN BIAS ... NOT ON THE PUBLISHED FACTS"

Try actually reading what you reply to. "“They didn’t like that idea, and I do understand why,” Gallo said. “So I went back to them and said what about if I guaranteed 80 percent their jobs for the fall. If I could change 20 percent of the teacher population, I believed I could make a significant change in the culture of the high school.”

This could not have occured AFTER the move to turnaround - how can you continue to deny this?

[Hannah Bell]

42. it doesn't say anything like "prior to thursday, nobody (outside the parties) knew job security was

one of the sticking points."

it says: "thursday another barrier between the two sides came to light: job security."

it's your spin that it means "the parties already knew this, but only on thursday did the rest of the world learn of it."

your spin is also *self-contradictory,* since you say both "the wider world learned about the job security issue on thursday" & also "this article was published monday 2/22 (4 DAYS LATER) to inform the public of this job security issue":

"Prior to THURSDAY, nobody (outside the parties) knew that that was one of the sticking points. Which is why they ran the story."

There's also no indication whatsoever that the article you linked was published to correct the record. Again, just your spin.

The record shows:

1. The superintendent clearly did NOT begin by stating she wanted to pink-slip the entire school:

"At the time of Gist’s announcement on JANUARY 11, Gallo said she already had a plan that she hoped to put in place this fall.

She said she wanted to replace the principal, implement school-wide reforms, including the possibility of a longer school day and a more flexible school schedule, and more fully engage the community.

THIS IS THE TRANSFORMATION MODEL; THESE ARE ITS PRECISE ATTRIBUTES. IT IS THE *ONLY* MODEL WHICH *DOESN'T MANDATE* DISMISSAL OF THE ENTIRE STAFF. THIS *FACT* HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN MULTIPLE SOURCES. *NO* SOURCE HAS SAID GALLO STARTED BY SAYING SHE INTENDED TO FIRE THE ENTIRE STAFF.

YET YOU SAY DISMISSING THE ENTIRE STAFF WAS GALLO'S STARTING POSITION. FALSE.

Gallo said she chose this particular approach because “it honors our dedicated teachers and their expertise.”

Tuesday (2/9), however, Gallo said she decided to recommend termination after discussions with the teachers union broke down."

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:OaNiXE02bhoJ:www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_teachers_02-10-10_INHDDCD_v28.3b40f6e.html+Central+Falls+superintendent+acts+to+fire+city%E2%80%99s+high+school+teachers&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

YOU WILL NOTICE THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OF JOB SECURITY IN THIS ARTICLE OF 2/10&11 WHEN GALLO ANNOUNCES SHE'S ADOPTED THE "TURNAROUND" MODEL, WHICH MANDATES A MASS FIRING.

BUT THERE IS THIS:

"However, at a jammed meeting of the school district’s Board of Trustees Tuesday (2/9) night, the superintendent left the door open for the less-severe option. She gave the teachers until Friday to reconsider her earlier reform proposals.

The union, she said, has until Friday (2/12 or 2/19) to embrace a plan that would lengthen the school day, require teachers to tutor outside regular school hours, and agree to meet 90 minutes a week to discuss educational matters. Teachers also would have to agree to be evaluated by a third party beginning March 1."

AND IT'S IN *THIS* CONTEXT THAT THE ISSUE OF JOB SECURITY BECAME A 'BARRIER': IF WE AGREE TO YOUR ULTIMATUM, WILL WE HAVE JOB SECURITY?

AND IT'S ON ONE OF THESE "THURSDAYS" BETWEEN THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE ULTIMATUM (WITH THE SUPPOSED 'OPEN DOOR' TO *ACCEPT* GALLO'S TERMS) THAT THE JOB SECURITY ISSUE BECAME A "BARRIER."

And for my money, I believe the union. Gallo wouldn't guarantee *anything*.

[FBaggins]

43. Yes, actually, it DOES - right in the opening paragraph.

School Supt. Frances Gallo and the city’s teachers union gave conflicting accounts Thursday of how talks to reform the struggling Central Falls High School broke down last week.

There's also no indication whatsoever that the article you linked was published to correct the record.

Not "correct" the record...fill in the gaps.

"Disagreement surfaces over Central Falls school reform talks"

[Hannah Bell]

44. article date = mon, 2/22. "last week" = week of 2/15-2/19. Announcement of adoption

of "turnaround (mass firing) model" & decision to fire = 2/9.

What is it you don't understand?

[FBaggins]

45. What don't I understand?

Simple... how you can continue to cling to a failed argument (and more importantly... why you would).

That's what I don't understand.

Announcement of adoption of "turnaround (mass firing) model" & decision to fire = 2/9.

Which fits what I described perfectly. That IS when talks broke down. They met a few times... with the super starting at no job security (which was obviously WELL before the shift to turnaround) THEN moving up in steps to either 80% or 100% depending on which side you believe. Once again - that could not have occured AFTER the shift to turnaround

Also - some of the teachers claim that the negotiations were never about salary, but about job security... which would lend the lie to your claim that it really only came up at the end.

Don't see how your blustering helps your argument that there was no negotiation.

“In the end, I gave up and promised them 100-percent job security,” Gallo said. “That’s what we went public with when we said we officially wanted to move forward with the transformation model.”

[Hannah Bell]

47. Gosh, thought you were going to bed, but here you are, still spinning.

BAGGINS BULLSHIT:

"the super started out with a plan that would give every teacher a pink slip"

FALSE.

"At the time of Gist’s announcement on Jan. 11, Gallo said she already had a plan...to replace the principal, implement school-wide reforms, including the possibility of a longer school day and a more flexible school schedule, and more fully engage the community. Gallo said she chose this particular approach because “it honors our dedicated teachers and their expertise.”

Tuesday (2/9), however, Gallo said she decided to recommend termination after discussions with the teachers union broke down."

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:OaNiXE02bhoJ:www.p...


"Gallo and the union initially agreed that they wanted to embrace the transformation model — the only one that does not require that the teaching staff be replaced."

http://www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_letters...


Gallo and the teachers initially agreed they wanted the transformation model, which would protect the teachers’ jobs.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_trustee...


"Gallo says that firing the teachers is not her first choice but she turned to that option after talks with union leaders reached an impasse....

If the teachers sign off on the superintendent’s plan, the district would be opting for the “transformational model,” ...This model requires replacing the principal, a step Gallo has already taken, and that teachers agree to substantial changes, including a longer school day.

The other options are:

...Replacing the principal and firing all the teachers, rehiring no more than 50 percent, referred to as the “turnaround model.” This “turnaround model” is the one Gallo says she will use if the teachers don’t agree to the transformation plan."

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:6ING17TS_2wJ:www.p...



As your first premise is false, everything which rests on this initial false assumption is also false, including your assertion that "the teachers balked at this" non-existent mass firing:

BAGGINS BULLSHIT:

"The union balked at that (job security - at that time anyway - being important to them). Gallo moved to a guarantee that she would not get rid of more than half of the teachers... then she moved to job protection for 80% of the teachers. Gallo says that she eventually gave in and agreed that 100% of the teachers would be protected for the coming year"



MORE BAGGINS BULLSHIT:

"Both Gallo and the union agree that this is what happened."

AS IT NEVER HAPPENED, NEITHER OF THEM AGREED IT DID.

[Hannah Bell]

48. In fact, there is NO provision in the transformation model that starts by firing all or any of the

teachers.

There is this:

(i) Required activities. The LEA must--

(C) Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in implementing this model, have increased student achievement and high school graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional practice, have not done so;

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/applicant.html


This is the only discussion of dismissal of staff under "Transformation Model." You'll find full details in "application" january 15, 2010.


In short, bullshit on you.

[FBaggins]

9. "Duncan has the union-buster Gallo's back"

Nope. Gallo has implemented the union-buster Duncan's desires. There's a difference.

that one is justified in breaking a contract or refusing to negotiate because of an alleged history of "poor performance" is complete & utter union-busting bullshit.

Yep... but that's the problem with the federal program... not with the folks who are forced to implement it at the state/local level.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Technically its not contract busting...

It is specifically allowed under current law and a contract can not over ride it. Its not unlike HOA agreements which one of my daughters recently had a hard time with.

[FBaggins]

11. Sure but "union busting" and "contract busting" aren't the same thing.

There's little question that they are attempting to split the union... and not much more question that they are succeeding.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Many have claimed that the contract over rides the law, my point was that the reverse was true

I have serious concerns about the entire education system in the US including the factory model wage system that almost all the public teacher unions use. While this is not going to help get that changed, it is a wake up call to its staunch defenders.

[Hannah Bell]

29. nope, duncan has her back. her actions have the full support of the administration.

that's why duncan "applauded".

[FBaggins]

33. Her actions IMPLEMENT his design.

She could have done none of this without what Duncan forced down out throats.

[Hannah Bell]

35. and he has her back.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Do you understand WHY the dropout rate is more than 50%??

In my state, they count the number of 9th graders entering high school and compare that number to the number who graduate 4 years later. So if a kid moves, he gets counted as a dropout. If he moves and finishes high school in a different school, he is considered a dropout at his previous school. If he moves and returns to his native country (which happens sometimes when a parent is deported), he is counted as a dropout. So schools with high transient population rates (common in low income neighborhoods) have high dropout rates.

Our local paper did an article on this and refigured the dropout rate for one school, excluding the kids who had left and enrolled in a different school. The dropout rate went down by 30%. But the state still figures the dropout rate the same way.

Statistics. You can make them say just about anything you want to make a point :)

[Hannah Bell]

30. they don't care about such minor details. it's the fault of teachers, that's the talking point.

they don't want the public to understand anything else.

[FBaggins]

5. That's only honest if you define "negotiate" as "give me what I want"

I title the post that way because you made a big deal out of how dishonest it would be to use the word "average" if you're talking about the median.

We know that the negotiation moved compensation from $30/hr for just the summer training to "trying" to to acquire funding at that rate for other additional time. Now... there's a difference between "trying" and succeeding, but that's still negotiation.

We also know that the district position began with the ability to fire whoever they wanted (outside of any contract stipulations) because that's what the federal guidance says... then they moved to guaranteeing a certain percentage of jobs... then guaranteeing 80% of jobs... then the super claims that it got to a 100% guarantee. The union says that they got to 80% and never to 100%. We can wonder which side is telling the truth, but we can't say that there was no negotiation, since the union has agreed that they got up to 80%.

"I didn't get 100% of what I wanted" is only "they wouldn't negotiate" if you're five. :)

[Hannah Bell]

24. complete bullshit. as was your post on how "average" really means "median".

[FBaggins]

26. Neither is.

The "bs" is to continue to claim that there were no negotiations after those negotiations have been documented.

And I didn't claim that it DID mean "median" merely that it could mean that (especially since the term was far more frequently "average teacher" rather than "average salary"). Since then I've posted that 56 of the 74 teachers were at the top of the scale. Very reasonable assumptions for advanced degrees, certification, coaching etc... makes the quoted salaries very likely even if it's a arithmetic mean.

[Hannah Bell]

49. Gallo and Central Falls Teachers’ Union President Jane Sessums,

an elementary school teacher, met three times to negotiate.

Both parties initially agreed that transformation — the only model that protected teachers’ jobs — was the best approach for the high school. “It honors our dedicated teachers and their expertise,” Gallo said at the time.

Gallo laid out six conditions she said were essential to transform the high school. Teachers had to spend more time with students in and out of the classroom, and spend more time with other teachers, improving their own skills.

Gallo said she could pay teachers for some of the additional duties — but not all. Gallo said she offered to pay the teachers $30 per hour to attend two weeks of professional development in the summer, and said she would try to find grant money to cover 90 minutes of weekly “common planning time” after school. All told, Gallo said the 74 classroom teachers — 56 of whom earn the district’s top step of $72,000 a year — would likely earn $3,400 more.

But Gallo said she didn’t have enough money to pay teachers for the other duties, including adding 25 minutes to the school day, tutoring students and eating lunch with them once a week.

Union officials said they were willing to make the changes but wanted to be paid for more of the extra work, and at a higher rate of $90 per hour.

“It’s not about time and money,” said Jim Parisi, a RIFT field representative. “It’s about our right to negotiate time and money.”

Talks broke down.

On Feb. 12, Gallo said that since the two sides could not agree, she was recommending her second choice to the commissioner: turnaround. She said she was moving fast because of a state law that requires districts to notify teachers of their termination by March 1."


*********
"met three times to negotiate" =

Meeting one: gallo presents her demands.

Meeting two: the union responds with its demands.

Meeting three: gallo responds by issuing an ultimatum & breaking off talks, documented in the media as occurring on or before 2/9.

i.e. no negotiation took place.

•a discussion intended to produce an agreement; "the buyout negotiation lasted several days"; "they disagreed but kept an open dialogue"; "talks ...
•the activity or business of negotiating an agreement; coming to terms
•Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is the primary method of alternative dispute resolution.



Gallo conceded NOTHING to the union. She issued an ultimatum; take these terms or be fired.

[Catshrink]

27. I totally hated statistics but at least learned the differences

mean is what most people call the average
median is the midpoint of the values -- half are above and half are below
mode is the most commonly occurring value

[Hannah Bell]

31. "Give me what i want" was gallo's position. thus, she didn't negotiate.

accept my six conditions at the (non) salary i propose or be fired.

[FBaggins]

34. Nonsense.

Take a look at almost any other school in the news due to Duncan's design. There isn't any debate over salary or extra hours. No opportunity for the union to weigh in on what is appropriate for a transformation. They almost universally move straight to an option that fires every teacher.


The only side which we have zero evidence ever moved from their starting position... is the union.

[Hannah Bell]

36. nope. gallo didn't move an inch. your contention that she did is your own invention.

and it was *she* who broke off talks with an ultimatum, not the union.

[FBaggins]

37. You have an amazing pair of glasses.

What color are they exactly?

"Didn't move an inch" has been soundly disproven.

You are clearly in the "don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind" school of debate.

[Hannah Bell]

39. you haven't "disproven" shit. all you got is spin. the public record says otherwise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=219&topic_id=20136&mesg_id=20468

[FBaggins]

41. Nope. Not "public records" - just your imagination.

Sorry. I'm not sure why you cling to it... but one man's stubborn is another's sticktoitiveness I suppose.

Have a good evening. :)

[Hannah Bell]

46. Running away because your spin = bullshit.

BAGGINS BULLSHIT:

"the super started out with a plan that would give every teacher a pink slip"

FALSE.

"At the time of Gist’s announcement on Jan. 11, Gallo said she already had a plan...to replace the principal, implement school-wide reforms, including the possibility of a longer school day and a more flexible school schedule, and more fully engage the community. Gallo said she chose this particular approach because “it honors our dedicated teachers and their expertise.”

Tuesday (2/9), however, Gallo said she decided to recommend termination after discussions with the teachers union broke down."

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:OaNiXE02bhoJ:www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_teachers_02-10-10_INHDDCD_v28.3b40f6e.html+Central+Falls+superintendent+acts+to+fire+city%E2%80%99s+high+school+teachers&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


"Gallo and the union initially agreed that they wanted to embrace the transformation model — the only one that does not require that the teaching staff be replaced."

http://www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_letters_02-19-10_2DHGHET_v36.3a65dd5.html


Gallo and the teachers initially agreed they wanted the transformation model, which would protect the teachers’ jobs.

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


"Gallo says that firing the teachers is not her first choice but she turned to that option after talks with union leaders reached an impasse....

If the teachers sign off on the superintendent’s plan, the district would be opting for the “transformational model,” ...This model requires replacing the principal, a step Gallo has already taken, and that teachers agree to substantial changes, including a longer school day.

The other options are:

...•Replacing the principal and firing all the teachers, rehiring no more than 50 percent, referred to as the “turnaround model.”

This “turnaround model” is the one Gallo says she will use if the teachers don’t agree to the transformation plan."

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:6ING17TS_2wJ:www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_update_02-11-10_5HHDMPV_v52.398afed.html+gallo+transformation+model&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



As your first premise is false, everything which rests on this initial false assumption is also false, including your assertion that "the teachers balked at this" non-existent mass firing:

BAGGINS BULLSHIT:

"The union balked at that (job security - at that time anyway - being important to them). Gallo moved to a guarantee that she would not get rid of more than half of the teachers... then she moved to job protection for 80% of the teachers. Gallo says that she eventually gave in and agreed that 100% of the teachers would be protected for the coming year"



MORE BAGGINS BULLSHIT:

"Both Gallo and the union agree that this is what happened."

AS IT NEVER HAPPENED, NEITHER OF THEM AGREED IT DID.

[tonysam]

50. I don't know why you do it, Hannah Bell

I gave up on that poster a long, long, long time ago. That one is obviously a charter school advocate.

[ashling]

7. Reagan was called courageous for firing Air Traffic Controllers

:puke: