Fired DC Teachers: Which Schools?

[Anonymous]

15:36 got it right:

a small percentage of teachers voted overwhelmingly for the contract, not because they approved of IMPACT or the other punitive language in that contract, but because they wanted the pay raise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIght - it was the contract that was voted for overwhelmingly - by a samll percentage of teachers.

IMPACT was not part of the contact. DCPS devised that on its own separated from the contract.

So you think the WaPo piece I read was just plain false? I suppose I can try to find it and quote the language. Is there really truly no place that teachers ever were able to comment on IMPACT?

I think you probably misunderstood something you read. I don't recall seeing such an article. the post editorials on education can be notoriously misleading, however.

DCPS had "listening sessions" with teachers about what they wanted in an evaluation, but that was BEFORE they invented IMPACT. Teachers had no vote on IMPACT and no input. It was thrust on them in a couple of days of teaching training right before classes started in 2009. The same deal with principals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a small percentage of teachers voted overwhelmingly for the contract, not because they approved of IMPACT or the other punitive language in that contract, but because they wanted the pay raise.

I can credit the "wanted a pay raise" argument. But to the extent you're minimizing the vote in favor of a contract with IMPACT by saying "only a small percentage actually voted," that doesn't cut much ice with me (YMMV, of course). It's sort of like saying: "Gee! What a bunch of idiots you were to re-elect George W Bush in 2004! I sat at home on election day to pick lint out of my belly button, and I can't believe more people didn't vote for John Kerry!" Failure to vote means you are responsible for the result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a small percentage of teachers voted overwhelmingly for the contract, not because they approved of IMPACT or the other punitive language in that contract, but because they wanted the pay raise.

I can credit the "wanted a pay raise" argument. But to the extent you're minimizing the vote in favor of a contract with IMPACT by saying "only a small percentage actually voted," that doesn't cut much ice with me (YMMV, of course). It's sort of like saying: "Gee! What a bunch of idiots you were to re-elect George W Bush in 2004! I sat at home on election day to pick lint out of my belly button, and I can't believe more people didn't vote for John Kerry!" Failure to vote means you are responsible for the result.

repeat - - IMPACT was not a known entity when teachers voted on the contract.

Personally, I think teachers were wrong to vote in favor of the contract, but I can see how some of them would -- they hadn't received a step pay increases for several years - approving the contract was the only way to get back pay - plus a raise. Teachers were demoralized by this time and many were and still are feeling hopeless about the state of education in DC.

If you think you're going to quit or get fired anyhow, why not get more money as you walk out the door?

[Anonymous]

Teacher here. I voted for the contract because of the increased pay only. It was too early to know if IMPACT was fair and helpful instrument.

It was not a vote of confidence for IMPACT.

[Anonymous]

Teachers' union suspends VP handling fired teachers
By: Lisa Gartner | Examiner Staff Writer @Lisa_Examiner | 07/26/11 8:05 PM
.The Washington Teachers' Union suspended an official who is handling the bulk of the work from the recent mass firing of D.C. Public Schools teachers.
"When you walked out of a meeting with me ... it exemplified the fact that you have no interest in performing your duties as general vice president," union President Nathan Saunders wrote in a memo suspending Candi Peterson without pay "for failure to perform the duties associated with your position." http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/07/teachers-union-suspends-vp-handling-fired-teachers





Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/07/teachers-union-suspends-vp-handling-fired-teachers#ixzz1TKV1Ox8a

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Teachers' union suspends VP handling fired teachers
By: Lisa Gartner | Examiner Staff Writer @Lisa_Examiner | 07/26/11 8:05 PM
.The Washington Teachers' Union suspended an official who is handling the bulk of the work from the recent mass firing of D.C. Public Schools teachers.
"When you walked out of a meeting with me ... it exemplified the fact that you have no interest in performing your duties as general vice president," union President Nathan Saunders wrote in a memo suspending Candi Peterson without pay "for failure to perform the duties associated with your position." http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/07/teachers-union-suspends-vp-handling-fired-teachers

Wow, that's pretty big. Candy Peterson authors the Washington Teacher blog, http://thewashingtonteacher.blogspot.com/ . I don't know much more about her than that, but she wrote a lot about the election in which she ran as Saunders' VP candidate. A lot of dirty laundry could potentially come out in her blog (something to which I would look forward).