By now you will have seen that I voted with the majority on the 5-2 vote to impact bargain involuntary transfer of teachers at Claremont Academy.
Because I don't think it's fair to any teacher that he or she end up in a school undergoing radical transformation with new expectations without getting a chance to opt out, I voted for the motion to impact bargain.
I would not have done so without knowing and having great trust in the new leadership and the emphasis Mr. Hall places on collaborative leadership (he's the only principal I know of who insists on teaching as well). Claremont (as Clive McFarlane covered well yesterday) has a history of a new great idea or person coming in with energy, but that having now backup or support from anywhere else, and it then fading away. That's not fair to anyone.
Note (again) that no teacher at Claremont is losing his or her job. They are being asked to reapply to Claremont or to teach at another school in the system.
I understand that this is upsetting for teachers reapplying for jobs at Claremont or elsewhere. Every time we do reshuffling of people into positions--which happens every year--it's upsetting.
It's also upsetting to have a new administration come in with sweeping changes--summer PD, no more tracking--and be expected to simply adapt. That's not fair. If that isn't a system that teachers want to participate in, it's fair that they be given a chance to say "no thanks" and get it before the first round bid list comes out, so they can get the clearest shot of where they'd like to go. The principal gets some choice; the teachers get some choice. No August surprises.
And that's why I voted for this.
I'll also add that there are projected to be jobs lost this year. They're elementary jobs, 19 of them, and it will result in over 50 classes of 27 to 29 kids. That is something that is even more upsetting than any of the above.
Because I don't think it's fair to any teacher that he or she end up in a school undergoing radical transformation with new expectations without getting a chance to opt out, I voted for the motion to impact bargain.
I would not have done so without knowing and having great trust in the new leadership and the emphasis Mr. Hall places on collaborative leadership (he's the only principal I know of who insists on teaching as well). Claremont (as Clive McFarlane covered well yesterday) has a history of a new great idea or person coming in with energy, but that having now backup or support from anywhere else, and it then fading away. That's not fair to anyone.
Note (again) that no teacher at Claremont is losing his or her job. They are being asked to reapply to Claremont or to teach at another school in the system.
I understand that this is upsetting for teachers reapplying for jobs at Claremont or elsewhere. Every time we do reshuffling of people into positions--which happens every year--it's upsetting.
It's also upsetting to have a new administration come in with sweeping changes--summer PD, no more tracking--and be expected to simply adapt. That's not fair. If that isn't a system that teachers want to participate in, it's fair that they be given a chance to say "no thanks" and get it before the first round bid list comes out, so they can get the clearest shot of where they'd like to go. The principal gets some choice; the teachers get some choice. No August surprises.
And that's why I voted for this.
I'll also add that there are projected to be jobs lost this year. They're elementary jobs, 19 of them, and it will result in over 50 classes of 27 to 29 kids. That is something that is even more upsetting than any of the above.
No comments:
Post a Comment