A Central Falls teacher speaks out for his side

[FBaggins]

For George McLaughlin, the most insulting of the conditions set by the superintendent of schools in Central Falls is the one requiring teachers to have lunch with a student once a week. “Who does this woman think she is?” asks McLaughlin, a former English teacher and now a guidance counselor at Central Falls High School. “What does she think we’re doing here?”

He talks of the times he has had students to his house and visited theirs. There are the hours of their own time teachers routinely give to students. He recalls the trips with immigrant kids to the State House, and the time when Gov. Lincoln Almond came out to meet them and point out, “I’m a Central Falls boy, too.”

Ever since Central Falls was selected as the first of the underperforming schools in Rhode Island to be targeted for an overhaul, its teachers have not done a sterling job of making their case and responding to the statistics that paint their school at or near the bottom in official performance. The debate has been driven by Gallo and state Education Commissioner Deborah Gist.

So George McLaughlin decided a few words from the battered teacher ranks would be a good idea.

http://www.projo.com/news/bobkerr/kerr_column_21_02-21-10_1IHGEOS_v14.32a7a3b.html

[frazzled]

1. Having lunch with a kid once a week is demeaning?

I'm sorry. We're beyond my being able to comprehend the problem here.

[FBaggins]

2. Of course not. But that's not really the problem.

They're understandably insulted because the entire process presumes that they are the problem. It's essentially a determination from the highest levels (the white house really) that they can't teach... when such a decision couldn't possibly be made fairly from that far away.

They're grasping to hold on to their dignity and sense of self worth. You'll see it here all the time. If someone insults an anonymous teacher on the other side of the county, someone here will get their dander up because it's a personal insult against them. It isn't rational but it IS a very human reaction.

I don't think that these teachers are acting rationally (or better put, I think that a few of them are not and union solidarity is causing the others to go along for a suicidal ride).

Of course if these are almost all things that these teachers do all the time (as I've said before that I bet they are), then it doesn't make sense not to just accept the change. It means that the argument that they won't work more without being compensated was a farce (because they wouldn't be working more... just formalizing what they do).

The thing that I kept missing was that they kept insisting that all this should be negotiated. I think that they hurt themselves by putting outrageous dollar demands on that ($90/hr???). But now I think that I get it. They want to maintain the respect that says "we know what we're doing and you can't fix this school without the teachers being a powerful influence in the decision making" - "you should be listening to us" And they're right. But it doesn't matter. They think it SHOULD matter (and it should)... that there's some way to appeal, not the determination of which remediation option should be selected, but whether the school should be in this bind at all. IOW, they're in denial.

[Hannah Bell]

3. Having students over to one's home isn't the same thing as mandatory extra hours doing mandatory

activities on campus.

Mandated activities that must be performed at a mandated time in a mandated place ISN'T the same as voluntary activities, no matter how much people try to confuse the two categories.

The $90/hour was a negotiating position for a mandatory two week summer training, through which the union hoped to cover not only the additional two weeks' training (& loss of two weeks of the already-negotiated summer break), but also the 110+ hours added during the school year.

That you keep repeating the $90/hour!!!!! OMG!!! thing without acknowledging you've heard this before is irritating.

[FBaggins]

4. So?

The point is that they were insulted that they were being asked to do these things. NOT because it meant more work, but because it implied that they weren't putting in extra effort to help kids succeed... like "maybe if you worked a little harder you would be good enough."

The article says that (for this teacher), the MOST insulting part of the plan was the requirement that they have lunch with the students once a week. You may disagree, but I really don't think that he was saying he just doesn't want to do it. It's that someone would put it in as a requirement... as if the teachers wouldn't do that if it would help.

The $90/hour was a negotiating position for a mandatory two week summer training,

That's incorrect (at least from what I've seen). Their contract already covers the $30/hr for summer training. They were talking about the 90 min/week meetings etc. Regardless... "negotiating position" gets back to my original point. They needed (emotionally) for it to BE a negotiation more than they needed any particular demand met. Because you negotiate with equals... with people you respect.

That you keep repeating the $90/hour!!!!! OMG!!!

What are you talking about? Are you saying that they were asking for $90 for just those two weeks and nothing for the rest of the requirements? If so, no, I have not "heard this before" except from you. Can you back it up?

[frazzled]

5. It seems to me the problem is ....

that the teachers need to remove the chips from their shoulders and stop seeing every attempt to institute new practices as some kind of personal "insult" to them. Or as some sort of assault on their abilities. Workers everywhere are often asked to assume new duties or institute new practices or attend training sessions (and, actually do far more: like stay at the office until 10 pm for 5 nights in a row to complete a deadline project) without any extra pay.

Those of us who are standing from the outside looking in are frankly feeling a bit stupefied at some of the reactions we see from teachers and unions here every day. It feels paranoid and, at times, selfish or self-aggrandizing.

[Catshrink]

6. This teacher routinely works until 10pm 4-5 nights a week

grading papers and preparing lessons, writing special ed updates, etc. DON'T FUCKING TELL ME THAT I DON'T DO ENOUGH!

[FBaggins]

11. Do you feel that your efforts have value?

That is, are you students better off for all the effort you put in to the job?

[Catshrink]

15. Yeah, I do.

And next year I won't be able to spend this extra time so my students will get less (feedback, tweaked lessons, fewer labs). We will have another paycut next year that will require me to get a part time job to supplement my income. I live modestly, far away from my school district because I can't afford to live in the district. Mind you, this is just to keep up, not get ahead.

When I was in the corporate world, I brought home a bigger paycheck and worked far fewer hours. I didn't have the stress and exhaustion. People who don't do the job don't understand what dealing with 120+ kids every day and the lesson prep and the grading entail. Especially some asshole in DC who has never taught and has no clue.

[FBaggins]

18. I agree... And thank you for answering my next question.

Which was that I assume you think your kids would suffer
if you didn't do as much. (Thank you as well for those efforts BTW)

the next question is what specific impact do you think the difference has on their education? Would you expect a similar divergence of impact (at a lower mean) for a less capable teacher?

[frazzled]

14. See, there you go being overly sensitive

I didn't say you weren't doing enough. I wasn't even talking about "you." I said that every time I see anything posted about an educational proposal all I see are posts like "There they go attacking/blaming teachers again!" Nobody is attacking teachers. Or, as you so elegantly put it with four-letter words and all caps: NOBODY IS FUCKING ATTACKING TEACHERS!

See what I mean?

[Catshrink]

16. Yes, you are.

[radical noodle]

23. Teachers are attacked from all sides

all the time. Most of those attacking them know little or nothing about being in a classroom every day.

[tonysam]

8. Unless you are on the inside of this field or have been in it

--NOT as a parent or a student--you can't really appreciate what the job is.

It is NOT like working for a business. It is extremely labor intensive. Teachers NEED the extra time off to decompress at the end of the school year.

I worked in both school districts and in private business, and I KNOW the difference.

[FBaggins]

12. "It is NOT like working for a business"

By which statement you are saying that others DON'T have a "labor intensive job," right?

[noamnety]

21. I've worked a bunch of different jobs

enlisted, contractor, teacher. Teachers learn early on that they need the time to decompress, and they do.

The key difference, I think, is that other workers (EMT, military, cops, factory workers, waitstaff) also need the time off at the end of a year to decompress, but they just don't get it.

[tonysam]

22. Quit your crap, please. I am tired of your goddamned fucking semantic games.

It's "labor intensive" because you work your ass off with these kids and you can't delegate your job like in business.

I KNOW what in the fuck I am talking about, unlike you.

[FBaggins]

24. Oh there's that silver tongue again.

Can't tell you how pleased I am that such and angry/bitter/vulgar person isn't in a classroom.

Quite a few millions of people would love to hear how you don't think their jobs are "labor intensive"

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. "selfish or self-aggrandizing"????

:puke:

[LWolf]

7. No.

But a teacher's contract includes a duty-free lunch break; often the only student-free moments of the school day.

Also often needed, in the day where every moment is scheduled and we deal with all kinds of things that don't recognize those schedules, to take a deep breath and have a moment where no one needs us for anything.

If we CHOOSE to spend some of that time, on occasion, with a student, that's fine. It's not a mandate.

I regularly did lunch with several students up until this year. Sometimes they wanted extra help with something, sometimes they needed to make up a test, sometimes they just wanted to talk.

I did that because I had a prep period to get things done and have some moments of peace.

When they took away our prep this year, the lunches stopped.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Call me selfish but I treasure my duty free lunch

Most days it is the only truly free time I have all day. My planning time is spent trying to find a working computer to do the mountain of online tracking, planning and PD required as well as replying to way too many emails. At least once a week my planning time is spent with a student who needs help. Friday it was spent settling down a troubled child whose mom was not returning phone calls. Wednesday it was spent settling a fight between two girls.

So yes, please let me have 30 minutes every day to eat in peace. I really don't think it's the least bit unreasonable. I also find it sad that many teachers have had to negotiate a duty free lunch in their contracts.

Another point that needs to be brought out is it is not safe (or wise) to spend time outside of school with kids anymore. My district has banned us from ever putting kids in our cars and I would be very leery of meeting kids outside of school hours.

[FBaggins]

13. That's fine P2B... but I don't think it's what he's saying.

I think it's "don't tell me that I HAVE to do something that I'm already doing (and then some)"

I agree with your last point... And it sounds as if itfits this case more than most. But this teacher was willing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Yes I understand his point

which I believe is the supt is assuming teachers NEVER eat lunch with their kids. Some do.

I won't :)

But it's really insulting for the supt to assume teachers need to be directed to go above and beyond by eating lunch with kids. Also, I doubt very seriously that will impact test scores. It's just a silly tactic on the part of this supt who sounds more and more like an idiot.

[noamnety]

19. I treasure my lunch, too.

and yet, I gave it up last semester. We have a split lunch at our school and during that lunch hour I was assigned a class that was too large, in a subject where they needed a lot of individualized guidance. I split the class into an early and late lunch, so I had half the class then the merged full class, then the other half.

It reduced me to eating two 1 oz. cheese sticks for lunch in the 5 minutes between bells. But it was the best thing for the kids. Ultimately it was also the best thing for me because it ensured they succeeded. The most stressful thing for me turned out not to be skipping lunch, but watching them get frustrated because they need a 5 minute consult with me and when I had less than 80 seconds per student.

Last year, I kept my lunch but opened my room to other students, because many can't handle the lunch room noise. It's loud, everything echoes, it seems to be especially hard on some of the special ed kids. Some days every single seat in my room was filled, even though I didn't have a class then. (I've also had classes in the past that met during that hour where I had empty seats, and other kids would drift in and attend half my class during their lunch to avoid that scene.) I know there are other teachers in our school doing the same thing. This semester, I'm taking my lunch break, but my prep is during one of the lunches and my room is open to students then. I almost never have my prep isolated from students.

Potential benefits:

- more adult supervision in the cafeteria, but in a way that doesn't come across as authoritarian (like roaming lunch room "monitors")
- students who are introverted or don't have peer friends can be included into discussions easier. (inclusive behavior by teacher - hey, anyone sitting here? Why don't you come join us? Or simply seeing a student wandering with a tray and sliding over to make a welcoming spot for them.)
- a social benefit in forming relationships one on one with students.

When I was in college, all the professors were required to be on the dining hall meal plan. I don't know if they had to pay for it or it was paid for as part of their contract. But the point is, even at the college level the administration saw the value in sitting down together outside the context of a classroom and breaking bread together.

[YvonneCa]

20. The 'assumption' that I, as a 24 year teacher, don't do certain things...

...as part of my job is ridiculous! I stay late when needed. I eat with students when that has value. I talk to parents. I make home visits. I organize special events...even fundraisers for important things. On and on...

What is demeaning is ASSUMING I don't do these things unless some administrator or micro-manager monitors me. Where have they been the last 24 years when I made these choices on my own? Or didn't when it made no sense or difference or I was exhausted or upheld my professional right not to do so?

This is anti-professional and insulting to teachers.

[bluestateguy]

25. I'm quite certain that some of the parents should be fired too

Like the numerous parents who have been deadbeats for years and never taken an interest in their kids education.