Anne Arundel - NO special ed teachers will return

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These teachers' choice is truly horrible. Fire them all and find some teachers who actually care about their students.

Yes, because it's so easy to find special ed teachers at the drop of a hat.

Apparently they were able to find contractors to do the job if you read the article. They also had teaching assistants volunteer. This is truly shameful. Honestly, they need to be fired. They aren't fit for the job.

Are they still getting paid? If so they should be fired. They are wasting taxpayers monies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a massive struggle to find special ed teachers in a good year. Firing the ones you have instead of working with them to make it a safe environment is a ridiculous suggestion.

If you read the article, they met their requests. The reality is, no level of meeting the demands is ever going to be good enough. Honestly, contract the labor out. It might end up being more expensive on the margins, but at least you won't have to put up with this kind of bullshit. Call them on their bluff. This is literally what happened in the article. They are finding contractors to help the kids. Problem solved.

Plenty of special ed teachers come out of college each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sheeesh, teachers make way more money and work way less hours (9 months a year and many holidays off) than service workers who have been working since March:

grocery workers, walmart workers, drug store workers, CNA's,
amazon drivers, amazon workers, fast food workers

All of the above workers come across way more people in the course of a day than a teacher.

+1. And none of the workers above were given a choice as to whether or not they could "return" to their job in person. But magically, they all found childcare (that doesn't currently exist, according to the teachers) so they could return to their jobs.

The teachers are a total joke. If their jobs were at risk, I am sure we would see different behavior. I hope AA Co starts laying them off soon - the enrollment at our ES school is down by 30%, which translates to at least six teaching positions that will be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So those of you saying fire them, where are you getting new sped teachers from right now? There aren't 100s of unemployed, ready to work people with sped credentials. They can't even find enough subs on a daily basis when we aren't in a pandemic, and that has basically no qualifications. I get the frustration, but unless you want someone with no classroom education or experience teaching the neediest kids, there isn't a better option, is there?

I don't really see the downside. The teachers have worked hard to ensure schools won't open anytime soon regardless if what is done. It's true that firing/furloughing the teachers might not allow reopening, but that's already the situation that we're in.

The best way to deal with this problem long-term is to nip this in the bud now.

So you'd rather have no school than virtual school? Am I understanding that correctly? And then when school reopens eventually have no teachers to come in? That seems incredibly short sighted, but maybe I'm missing something.

Yes. Virtual school is the same as no school for SPED kids. I know this because I'm living through it right now (in MCPS).

I might be more worried about losing teachers if I wasn't so convinced that a substantial percentage would do their jobs if the alternative was losing their jobs without unemployment benefits.

That's a game of chicken, and you might not win it. That's fine, but better clearly articulate the back-up plan in case you lose the bluff.

It's less of a bluff and more of a calculated risk.

And the back-up plan is basically the status quo... As bad as that is, there's not much to lose when there's no end in sight.

So ... if those SPED teachers retire or find other jobs, and kids return to school, you're just going to be ok with the status quo continuing? A lot of SPED positions were unfilled before the pandemic -- and before you pretty much told trained professionals "my way or the highway." They aren't going to be easier to fill now.

The school districts would figure it out. Perhaps not immediately, but fairly soon. Why? Because they're legally required to provide it. If they had to, they'd hire contractors with nurses and therapist to meet the legal requirements. And longer-term, they'd be forced to renegotiate the contract with the unions to pay SPED teachers more.

Right. They may be legally required to do so, but physically unable to do so (e.g., there are not specialized teachers to do it). In that case, the only option is to modify the law.

Laws change sometimes. In this hypothetical case, they would have to -- e.g., decreasing the skills or accreditation level of providers so the positions can be filled.

You may be satisfied with that, but I am not.

The far more likely scenario is that they'd be forced to hire much more expensive contractors to provide the service, or paying for specialized private schools, since the alternative would be getting a *federal* law changed.

Ah. So, we're okay with much higher property taxes. Fair enough.

It wouldn't be noticeable, nor would it be long-term. And honestly, in the long term, SPED teachers should get paid substantially more. I'd have no problem if this all resulted in SPED teachers getting 50% raises. The only way the teachers union would let that happen is if there's an otherwise intractable problem to address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sheeesh, teachers make way more money and work way less hours (9 months a year and many holidays off) than service workers who have been working since March:

grocery workers, walmart workers, drug store workers, CNA's,
amazon drivers, amazon workers, fast food workers

All of the above workers come across way more people in the course of a day than a teacher.

I'm one of the posters advocating for furloughing the teachers and replacing them with contractors, but I have to stay this post is entirely unfair.

SPED teachers might interact with fewer people than other professions, but they have significantly more dangerous contact with the students they caring for and teaching. It's unquestionably more dangerous than, say, an Amazon driver. Roughly on par with a CNA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a massive struggle to find special ed teachers in a good year. Firing the ones you have instead of working with them to make it a safe environment is a ridiculous suggestion.

If you read the article, they met their requests. The reality is, no level of meeting the demands is ever going to be good enough. Honestly, contract the labor out. It might end up being more expensive on the margins, but at least you won't have to put up with this kind of bullshit. Call them on their bluff. This is literally what happened in the article. They are finding contractors to help the kids. Problem solved.

Plenty of special ed teachers come out of college each year.

Ahhh ... well, they used to. Not enough to keep up with the demand, true, but I'm sure the recent discussions are going to bring those applicants pouring in, so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So those of you saying fire them, where are you getting new sped teachers from right now? There aren't 100s of unemployed, ready to work people with sped credentials. They can't even find enough subs on a daily basis when we aren't in a pandemic, and that has basically no qualifications. I get the frustration, but unless you want someone with no classroom education or experience teaching the neediest kids, there isn't a better option, is there?

I don't really see the downside. The teachers have worked hard to ensure schools won't open anytime soon regardless if what is done. It's true that firing/furloughing the teachers might not allow reopening, but that's already the situation that we're in.

The best way to deal with this problem long-term is to nip this in the bud now.

So you'd rather have no school than virtual school? Am I understanding that correctly? And then when school reopens eventually have no teachers to come in? That seems incredibly short sighted, but maybe I'm missing something.

Yes. Virtual school is the same as no school for SPED kids. I know this because I'm living through it right now (in MCPS).

I might be more worried about losing teachers if I wasn't so convinced that a substantial percentage would do their jobs if the alternative was losing their jobs without unemployment benefits.

That's a game of chicken, and you might not win it. That's fine, but better clearly articulate the back-up plan in case you lose the bluff.

It's less of a bluff and more of a calculated risk.

And the back-up plan is basically the status quo... As bad as that is, there's not much to lose when there's no end in sight.

So ... if those SPED teachers retire or find other jobs, and kids return to school, you're just going to be ok with the status quo continuing? A lot of SPED positions were unfilled before the pandemic -- and before you pretty much told trained professionals "my way or the highway." They aren't going to be easier to fill now.

The school districts would figure it out. Perhaps not immediately, but fairly soon. Why? Because they're legally required to provide it. If they had to, they'd hire contractors with nurses and therapist to meet the legal requirements. And longer-term, they'd be forced to renegotiate the contract with the unions to pay SPED teachers more.

Right. They may be legally required to do so, but physically unable to do so (e.g., there are not specialized teachers to do it). In that case, the only option is to modify the law.

Laws change sometimes. In this hypothetical case, they would have to -- e.g., decreasing the skills or accreditation level of providers so the positions can be filled.

You may be satisfied with that, but I am not.

The far more likely scenario is that they'd be forced to hire much more expensive contractors to provide the service, or paying for specialized private schools, since the alternative would be getting a *federal* law changed.

Ah. So, we're okay with much higher property taxes. Fair enough.

It wouldn't be noticeable, nor would it be long-term. And honestly, in the long term, SPED teachers should get paid substantially more. I'd have no problem if this all resulted in SPED teachers getting 50% raises. The only way the teachers union would let that happen is if there's an otherwise intractable problem to address.

All I can say is -- and without a shred of irony or sarcasm -- I hope that works out the way you planned. I don't want the kids to pay the price of not getting back to reasonable in-person care, any more than I want the SPED teachers to take on too much risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These teachers' choice is truly horrible. Fire them all and find some teachers who actually care about their students.

Yes, because it's so easy to find special ed teachers at the drop of a hat.

It will be difficult, yes. But it will show the other teachers that they need to do their jobs. Many sped aren’t learning squat w DL anyway so what the point of keeping them on the payroll if the kids aren’t learning anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These teachers' choice is truly horrible. Fire them all and find some teachers who actually care about their students.

Yes, because it's so easy to find special ed teachers at the drop of a hat.

It will be difficult, yes. But it will show the other teachers that they need to do their jobs. Many sped aren’t learning squat w DL anyway so what the point of keeping them on the payroll if the kids aren’t learning anyway?

If that's the goal, you could also try serial beatings or some kind of Zoomed waterboarding. Really get 'em in line. Insist that they do the windows, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So those of you saying fire them, where are you getting new sped teachers from right now? There aren't 100s of unemployed, ready to work people with sped credentials. They can't even find enough subs on a daily basis when we aren't in a pandemic, and that has basically no qualifications. I get the frustration, but unless you want someone with no classroom education or experience teaching the neediest kids, there isn't a better option, is there?

I don't really see the downside. The teachers have worked hard to ensure schools won't open anytime soon regardless if what is done. It's true that firing/furloughing the teachers might not allow reopening, but that's already the situation that we're in.

The best way to deal with this problem long-term is to nip this in the bud now.

So you'd rather have no school than virtual school? Am I understanding that correctly? And then when school reopens eventually have no teachers to come in? That seems incredibly short sighted, but maybe I'm missing something.

Yes. Virtual school is the same as no school for SPED kids. I know this because I'm living through it right now (in MCPS).

I might be more worried about losing teachers if I wasn't so convinced that a substantial percentage would do their jobs if the alternative was losing their jobs without unemployment benefits.

That's a game of chicken, and you might not win it. That's fine, but better clearly articulate the back-up plan in case you lose the bluff.

It's less of a bluff and more of a calculated risk.

And the back-up plan is basically the status quo... As bad as that is, there's not much to lose when there's no end in sight.

So ... if those SPED teachers retire or find other jobs, and kids return to school, you're just going to be ok with the status quo continuing? A lot of SPED positions were unfilled before the pandemic -- and before you pretty much told trained professionals "my way or the highway." They aren't going to be easier to fill now.

The school districts would figure it out. Perhaps not immediately, but fairly soon. Why? Because they're legally required to provide it. If they had to, they'd hire contractors with nurses and therapist to meet the legal requirements. And longer-term, they'd be forced to renegotiate the contract with the unions to pay SPED teachers more.

Right. They may be legally required to do so, but physically unable to do so (e.g., there are not specialized teachers to do it). In that case, the only option is to modify the law.

Laws change sometimes. In this hypothetical case, they would have to -- e.g., decreasing the skills or accreditation level of providers so the positions can be filled.

You may be satisfied with that, but I am not.

The far more likely scenario is that they'd be forced to hire much more expensive contractors to provide the service, or paying for specialized private schools, since the alternative would be getting a *federal* law changed.

Ah. So, we're okay with much higher property taxes. Fair enough.

It wouldn't be noticeable, nor would it be long-term. And honestly, in the long term, SPED teachers should get paid substantially more. I'd have no problem if this all resulted in SPED teachers getting 50% raises. The only way the teachers union would let that happen is if there's an otherwise intractable problem to address.

All I can say is -- and without a shred of irony or sarcasm -- I hope that works out the way you planned. I don't want the kids to pay the price of not getting back to reasonable in-person care, any more than I want the SPED teachers to take on too much risk.

I’m realistic. I know it won’t happen- the teachers union has an incredible amount of influence over local politics, particularly as they relate to schools. It’s easy for me to say these things knowing they could never happen. But I do think I mean them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So those of you saying fire them, where are you getting new sped teachers from right now? There aren't 100s of unemployed, ready to work people with sped credentials. They can't even find enough subs on a daily basis when we aren't in a pandemic, and that has basically no qualifications. I get the frustration, but unless you want someone with no classroom education or experience teaching the neediest kids, there isn't a better option, is there?

I don't really see the downside. The teachers have worked hard to ensure schools won't open anytime soon regardless if what is done. It's true that firing/furloughing the teachers might not allow reopening, but that's already the situation that we're in.

The best way to deal with this problem long-term is to nip this in the bud now.

So you'd rather have no school than virtual school? Am I understanding that correctly? And then when school reopens eventually have no teachers to come in? That seems incredibly short sighted, but maybe I'm missing something.

Yes. Virtual school is the same as no school for SPED kids. I know this because I'm living through it right now (in MCPS).

I might be more worried about losing teachers if I wasn't so convinced that a substantial percentage would do their jobs if the alternative was losing their jobs without unemployment benefits.

That's a game of chicken, and you might not win it. That's fine, but better clearly articulate the back-up plan in case you lose the bluff.

It's less of a bluff and more of a calculated risk.

And the back-up plan is basically the status quo... As bad as that is, there's not much to lose when there's no end in sight.

So ... if those SPED teachers retire or find other jobs, and kids return to school, you're just going to be ok with the status quo continuing? A lot of SPED positions were unfilled before the pandemic -- and before you pretty much told trained professionals "my way or the highway." They aren't going to be easier to fill now.

The school districts would figure it out. Perhaps not immediately, but fairly soon. Why? Because they're legally required to provide it. If they had to, they'd hire contractors with nurses and therapist to meet the legal requirements. And longer-term, they'd be forced to renegotiate the contract with the unions to pay SPED teachers more.

Right. They may be legally required to do so, but physically unable to do so (e.g., there are not specialized teachers to do it). In that case, the only option is to modify the law.

Laws change sometimes. In this hypothetical case, they would have to -- e.g., decreasing the skills or accreditation level of providers so the positions can be filled.

You may be satisfied with that, but I am not.

The far more likely scenario is that they'd be forced to hire much more expensive contractors to provide the service, or paying for specialized private schools, since the alternative would be getting a *federal* law changed.

Ah. So, we're okay with much higher property taxes. Fair enough.

It wouldn't be noticeable, nor would it be long-term. And honestly, in the long term, SPED teachers should get paid substantially more. I'd have no problem if this all resulted in SPED teachers getting 50% raises. The only way the teachers union would let that happen is if there's an otherwise intractable problem to address.

All I can say is -- and without a shred of irony or sarcasm -- I hope that works out the way you planned. I don't want the kids to pay the price of not getting back to reasonable in-person care, any more than I want the SPED teachers to take on too much risk.

I’m realistic. I know it won’t happen- the teachers union has an incredible amount of influence over local politics, particularly as they relate to schools. It’s easy for me to say these things knowing they could never happen. But I do think I mean them.

I think you do, and I really do respect that you care about what happens to kids in SPED.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Same reason that's opposed by other groups (e.g., federal employees): the majority wouldn't get those increases. It would probably make sense to pay SPED and STEM teachers better, but why would the large number of elementary and social science teachers agree to that? It would only serve to weaken their negotiating position for their own jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

I would like to see that practice return. That is a measure that could actually combat the achievement gap. All things being equal, why wouldn't most teachers want to be in a less stressful, less challenging environment?