Central Falls education battle ended around dining-room table

[proud2BlibKansan]

By Jennifer D. Jordan

Journal Staff Writer

For nearly two months, a dozen of the state’s education and teacher union leaders met behind closed doors at the Biltmore Hotel to try to end the battle over the firing of the entire teaching staff at Central Falls High School.

In the end, however, the dispute was settled by three of them around a dining-room table.

According to participants, federal mediator Jack Buettner and retired federal Judge Ernest C. Torres facilitated the discussions. At the Biltmore table were Central Falls School Supt. Frances Gallo; district human resources director Kathy Gaouette; district lawyer Stephen M. Robinson; and sometimes Anna Cano Morales, chairwoman of the Central Falls Board of Trustees; Deputy Education Commissioner David V. Abbott; Central Falls Teachers Union President Jane Sessums; vice president Walter Hourahan; co-vice president Audrey Kilsey; James Parisi, field representative for the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers; and Mark Bostic, northeast regional manager for the American Federation of Teachers.

After a marathon 15-hour mediation session on May 5, Gallo said she and Sessums felt comfortable enough to resume negotiations via e-mail. Then they agreed to meet at Gallo’s home in West Warwick Saturday night to talk, along with Parisi. The three of them agreed that the current staff would be able to make the changes needed to transform the high school, Gallo said.

more . . .

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. As I understand it here were substantive givebacks but the jobs were preserved

Why does that sound familiar?

[Hannah Bell]

2. what "givebacks" are you talking about? The teachers got $4800,

that's 160 hours at $30/hr.

Pays for two weeks of summer training, 90 minutes after school/week, and more.

Whereas the original offer was $1800 guaranteed for the summer training, "trying" to get some grant money to pay for the 90 minutes/week (no guarantee of pay), & nothing for the additional duties Gallo was asking for.

As I read it, the teachers won completely.

That's because, judging by the contents of the union's suit, Gallo & Gist would have lost big-time, & Duncan & Obama would have gotten some major bad PR for their education policies.

[FBaggins]

3. With respect... If that's how you read it, then you read it wrong.

I don't see a single thing that they've gained between the "drop dead" offer and what they've agreed to.

[Hannah Bell]

4. with respect, you're full of it.

original offer v current pay:

two week summer training: $1800

90 extra minutes per week for 42-44 weeks: no guaranteed pay: super "will try" to find grant funding for $30/hr

other duties, including after-school tutoring & lunches with students: nothing


total guaranteed pay: $1800


new deal:

two week summer training: $1800

90 extra minutes per week for 42-44 weeks: $30/hour guaranted = $1980

other duties, including after-school tutoring & lunches with students: $1020


total guaranteed pay: $4800

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I'd take this deal

They're getting more of a raise than I am.

[Catshrink]

8. We're getting a paycut so I'd take it too.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Their school isn't closing

I'm about ready to give up pay to work in a building that will be open next year.

[FBaggins]

11. Me too.

But I don't see how you can go from irate over the original deal but be happy with this one when the net difference is AT BEST $1000 or so.

Quite a few people at the time pointed out that they were taking pay cuts (if they had jobs at all) and that sacrificing more work for not enough extra pay wasn't ideal but they would take it.

Welcome to the club. :-)

[Hannah Bell]

21. oh, bullshit. the only guaranteed money in the original deal was $1800.

THAT'S when people pointed out they were taking pay cuts.

This deal gives them $30/hour FOR EVERY HOUR THEY'RE ASKED TO WORK.

That's what their contract says, & that what they're getting.

In terms of pay, it's a win.

The administration ran right to the bargaining table as soon as the lawsuit was filed. Because they would have lost that suit, & given Arne's Education Dept. lots of bad publicity, since Gallo & Gist COMPLETELY violated labor law.

You're spinning, & I know whose club you're in.

[FBaggins]

24. So? The rest WAS part of the offer.

She just didn't know if she could get it or not.

This deal gives them $30/hour FOR EVERY HOUR THEY'RE ASKED TO WORK.

That's not correct. From what I've seen It's a flat stipend and their work schedule is subject to ongoing changes if the principal finds it necessary. It's also not "guaranteed" in any permanent sense. If the grant goes away so does the money.

That's what their contract says, & that what they're getting.


The contract stipulates that amount for summer training... it doesn't say anything about additional duties during the school year.

The administration ran right to the bargaining table as soon as the lawsuit was filed.

That's an entirely imaginary assumption on your part. They had lots of negotiations LONG before the lawsuit was filed. But now you want to pretend that the lawsuit sparked it? Fine... but that doesn't make it reality.

Because they would have lost that suit,

There's absolutely no evidence for that at all. In fact, almost the opposite is true. If the union assumed they would win, they would NEVER have signed on to this deal. They claimed over and over when the story first broke that this wasn't really about money... yet they gave in on EVERYTHING that they objected to in the early offers... everything but the cash. Now WHY would they have done that if they were confident of winning?

On edit - as long as we're imagining what everyone really thought... if you can look at the date of the lawsuit and the agreement a couple weeks later and draw a conclusion... what conclusion would you draw from the news release that 800 teachers had already applied for those slots?

You're spinning, & I know whose club you're in.

No you don't. You imagine that you do, but we've already established how reliable that is. Remember how you "knew" that I was a big charter supporter? What's actually the case is that you assume that you're correct and that anyone who disagrees with you must be a right-wing troll. Yet the POTUS disagrees with you? I'm not happy with many of his positions lately, but a republican? Hardly.

I have consistently opposed what was done here. The difference is that I correctly put blame on the federal administration (and the prior one). I think that Gallo did about the best she could with the circumstances. Other systems in similar positions have not given the teachers a choice.

Better to have a civil debate than call names, wouldn't you think? :spank:

[FBaggins]

12. The real difference is merely that time has gone by

You keep putting "will try" in quotes to imply that she was lying... that the money would never come through.

In reality she was telling the truth and even after she fired them she was working to secure those grants.

It's like she said "if I had the money I'd give it to you... but I'll try to get it" and you thought she was lying. In reality she was telling the truth AND "trying to get it" even while you were burning her in effigy in public.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. How is not losing their jobs plus being paid more a loss?

You're going to have to explain that.

[FBaggins]

10. I'm talking about the entire process.

You're staring your calculus from last week. "No job" to "job with a little more money" most certainly IS a gain.

The change from what Gallo claimed she had offered prior to the firings to what is currently (reportedly) in the deal is a net loss.

In other words, had they signed on to that deal rather than saying "no" - they would have been better off.

Even more obviously, the change from where they were a year ago to today is a net loss, but as I've said all along, blame for that belongs well above the district level.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. No givebacks that I am aware of

The teachers won this. Their principal is gone. They get more money for additional work.

[FBaggins]

13. Then you haven't read what has been provided to you.

There were lots of concessions. Essentially everything that the super demanded from day one.

Their principal is gone.

You keep acting like that's a victory. In reality it was a given from the moment the school dropped below the line. EVERY intervention in the RTTT model involves firing the principal. His job was gone before the conversation even began.

They get more money for additional work.

They either got exactly what they had been offered or ~$1,000 more. So all that fuss here at the time was over $1,000? The difference between irate and happy is $1k?

[tonysam]

14. Just so you know, they don't "fire" principals

That's a load of bullshit. They are "reassigned" or else they retire.

It's virtually impossible to fire any administrator in public education, unlike teachers.

[FBaggins]

15. Of course they do.

Look... I "get" that you feel mistreated and naturally (if irrationally) assume that every situation across the country is exactly the same as what you went through... but that doesn't make it a reality.

I don't agree, for instance, that the teachers' unions regularly stab their teachers in the back and conspire with the principal to get rid of teachers. I have no doubt that it happens and I don't doubt that it happened to you, but I'm not going to agree when you translate that to EVERY conversation about the union protecting its members.

They've apparently had five principals in the last five years... it obviously isn't a safe position.


What I DID get wrong was the principal's gender.


And the same thing can be said for teachers. RTTT doesn't always "fire" teachers... they too get reassigned (there just weren't any other HSs in the district in this case) in some cased and some "retire" (I think a few did in this case as well)

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I believe I read that this principal is being transferred to a middle school

So yes you are correct. Not fired. Still employed.

[FBaggins]

17. Yes... the one she headed before she came to CF

n/t

[tonysam]

20. They don't "fire" them. It's too hard to fill those jobs in the first place.

That's why they tend to be of such low caliber.

Districts tend to move "problem" principals around.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Feel free to twist this any way you want

They went from unemployed to employed AND they get more money.

That's called a win.

[FBaggins]

19. Only if you take the short-term view.

They only went FROM employed to unemployed because they rejected this same deal. Can I manufacture a "win" in my life by getting fired and then rehired? Wouldn't a win mean avoiding getting fired in the first place?

They accepted everything that they originally rejected. All they gained was about $1,000.

You were boiling over that anyone would think that they should accept the offer. Who knew that you could be bought so cheaply? I note that you (correctly) rejected a proposal on another thread to vote tea party this Fall to teach the DNC a lesson. Will you change your mind if the TPs offer to buy you lunch? :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. They are gaining $4800

Check your facts please.

[FBaggins]

23. And all but $1,000 of that was part of the original offer.

Give or take a couple hundred.

The only difference was that at first the school had not secured the grant necessary to fund the increase and now they have.

According to the Boston Globe "Among teachers, however, the reaction was mostly silent and subdued as they walked slowly from the high school after the vote." - That doesn't sound like a "big win"

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. So after being in the media spotlight for 3 months they won't talk to a reporter

What a shock. LOL

[FBaggins]

26. ??? They talked to the reporter

And "subdued" is a perception based on overall demeanor, not whether or not they would talk.

A union got together to vote on a proposal... have you never seen one? When it's a "big win" you can tell afterwards.