Toward Equity in Portland Public Schools
by Steve, November 28th, 2007Let’s forget about the Portland Public Schools’ radical transfer policy for a moment. I know I’m sick of talking about it, and we know the school board has delegated their policy-making responsibility to their brand-new superintendent to ponder for a few months. (In other words, nothing’s happening on that any time soon.)
Let’s forget about race, too, since prominent members of Portland’s black community don’t have a problem with a certain level of racial isolation in our schools. It’s never been about race for me anyway (but race is an indicator of economics, the real issue).
I’m also really bored with the charter schools debate. This is about policy, not personal choices.
So let’s talk about equity. If certain elements of Portland insist on a little piece of privilege at the expense of not only the working poor, but also an increasing segment of the middle class, let’s just take that economic issue head-on.
Portland Public Schools are grossly inequitable.
At the macro level, we have nine neighborhood high schools, spaced relatively evenly across the district. Of these, five are traditional, comprehensive high schools. The other four are split into small academies with extremely limited educational opportunities.
All of the comprehensive high schools are located in the wealthiest parts of Portland. All of the limited high schools are located in the poorest parts of Portland.
At the micro level, neighborhood elementary schools have dramatic differences in program offerings, sometimes within the same ZIP code. One school may have all the “extras” — PE, music, counseling, library, technology specialists — while the next school over has none of these, and more kids in the kindergarten room, too.
Of course school choice is supposed to address this problem, giving parents the “right” to attend a school across town if their neighborhood school doesn’t have the programs every child needs. We know that choice has instead exacerbated the problem, but I promised I wasn’t going to talk about that.
Any policy maker without a tin ear to equity would insist on a policy that seeks to reduce inequity in Portland Public Schools. If we are going to keep a radical transfer policy that causes inequity, we are going to have to invest in remediation in the form of much higher spending per student in the clusters with high out-transfers.
We’ve got to insist on an equitable school in every neighborhood. That means all nine clusters have a traditional, comprehensive high school, and equivalent enrichment programs at all neighborhood elementary schools. If anybody thinks they can do this without seriously reforming the transfer policy, I would give them my full support in trying.
Ultimately, we have to acknowledge that neighborhood-to-neighborhood transfers need to be seriously curtailed, if not banned entirely, to sustain equitable schools in every neighborhood. But evidently that’s too farsighted for some to grasp.
So I’m up for putting some pressure on Carole Smith to propose a plan to remedy the gross inequities the transfer policy causes as a part of her report to the board in January. (I will be writing a letter to Smith soon, and posting it here.)
November 29th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I agree. Both of my children were bused from Mt. Tabor neighborhood into the NE ‘hood when Boise Eliot was a Early Childhood Center with a Pre-K and all day Kindergarten. Middle class parents were attracted to the programs and bonded with the school and many stayed through 5th grade. This had the effect of strengthening parent involvement and increasing positive school climate and test scores. It is clear that when programs kids and parents are seeking are located in schools that need help schools improve –Cleveland is an excellent example of this. Why has Portland historically chosen highly advantaged schools to locate marquee programs? Did Ainsworth need Spanish immersion? Did Lincoln need the IB program? Wouldn’t these programs have helped a Benson or a Sabin? The choices of where resources have been spent are clearly made on the squeaky wheel policy and need to start going where need is…would SW parents let their kids cross the river for the IB?
Equity and diversity could be accomplished if policies were based on attracting the best students to schools that need them most.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Has anyone tried to ask the district for a simple listing of what each elementary school offers? I have. Again. And again. And again. Each time I am either told that so and so has it and that I just need to wait until so and so gets it to me or that no such document exists. Ironic that a district that prides itself on “school choice” has absolutely zero mechanism for making any kind of choice at all, much less a reasonably informed one. Not even the enrollment and transfer folks have this. But it’s no wonder that no such document is publicly available: it would make the inequities in PPS that much more glaringly obvious.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:33 am
BTW – I’m not talking about the so-called “school facts” page for each school. These pieces of data are little more than marketing copy. What I’m talking about is a simple spreadsheet that lists all the PPS elementary schools in rows on the left and then, across the top in columns, categories like “PE,” “Art,” “Music,” etc. I’d also like to know the number of minutes each school offers for recess. Why not make this information public? These are, after all, public schools.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
It doesn’t help that these school facts pages are also frequently out-of-date. If I thought I could trust their data, I’d collate it all myself, like I did with the transfer numbers from all the individual enrollment fact sheets.
I have half a mind to go to the “Celebrate” meat market and walk around with a spread sheet to fill in.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
boo hoo, you had to send your kids to boise-elliot. That is in the Grant neighborhood. It’s not like you were sending them to Vernon with the expectation of sending them to Jeff for high school. That would be something to brag about. I don’t agree with the transfer policy, but I see why the school board is hesitant. if they make all the kids in Concordia and Overlook send their kids to Jefferson there is a REALLY good chance that they are just going to pull them out and send them to Central Catholic. Also the reason that Ainsworth got the spanish imersion program all the way back in the 80’s (yes that longa go my mom was one of the first teachers) is because they were actually having a hard time getting kids into that school because there were so few kids in the neighborhood. I don’t know about Lincoln, but it is possible that back then they were having the same problem.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
NoPo, I have had trouble getting certain info from PPS. Ridiculous how you need to go through the lawyer to make requests for information. Unbelievable really. But it seems the info you want is under the curriculum section in the school facts section. It may be somewhat out of date, but the comparisons could be made. A good project for someone by the way. Laurelhurst says they have PE and music and several specialists for special ed, ESL and the like for instance.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
When Rose City was merging with Gregory Heights, parents begged to have a name and a list of curriculum offerings prior to the “Celebrate” meat market so they could promote the school. Phillips failed to provide either of these and only said to promote “great school you already have.” How on earth can schools undergoing such drastic reconfiguration changes and those with minimal “special” offerings compete in an open transfer market when the distribution of wealth is so uneven?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
When I called the district office to inquire about course offerings at Lauerlhurst vs Vernon Elementaries I was told I needed to “watch what you are saying”. The woman I spoke to went into a 2 minute diatribe explaining there is no such thing as “course offersings” because all elementary schools are required to teach the same subjects. I clarified that I specifically wanted to know why Laurelhurst has music, counselors and other options not available (at Vernon). She asked how I got this information and I told her from calling Laurelhurst and their website and that my son (was) attending Vernon (no longer!). Her exlpanation….it’s the parents. Yep we are to blame. We need to raise money, have our PTA’s apply/write grants and then Vernon could have what Laurelhurst has that she wouldn’t even admit did not exist at Vernon.
BTW-Don’t trust the facts sheets. They are very outdated. If you are lucky enough to call a school and get a knowledable staff or Volunteer this would be the most reliable info (Buckman had a volunteer answer the phone who kept me on for 20 minutes while she talked about everything they offer, the wonderful extras, any question I asked and even those I didn’t…I have NEVER had anyone even answer the phone at Vernon..just voicemail).
November 29th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Steve – the school fact pages don’t lay out what each school has as far as PE, music, foreign languages, art, etc. All the “add-ons.” And, as Gabrielle said, the facts are very dated. Further, even if they were all there and updated, there’s no way to do a comparison of one school to another. Again, what we need is a simple freaking spreadsheet that lists all the elementary schools on the left and all the “add-ons” at the top. It would simply be a matter of putting a check under all the add-ons that applied to that particular school. So, in one document — literally at a glance — you could see all the differences between all the schools.
Can someone please tell me why this document does not exist? Oh, right. Because it would make the district look very, very, very bad. But if the problems of inequity exist, people, we need to see them for ourselves. And if they won’t give them to us, then we have to demand that they do.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:55 am
“We’ve got to insist on an equitable school in every neighborhood. That means all nine clusters have a traditional, comprehensive high school, and equivalent enrichment programs at all neighborhood elementary schools.”
Steve: I understand your reasoning above. If funds were unlimited in PPS it would be simple to accomplish. In view of the grants that are now partially funding separate low-population academies at Jeff, Marshall and Roosevelt and knowing that resources are already committed there, I believe “cluster equity” is unlikely anytime soon. Also, given low student populations at Jeff, Marshall and Roosevelt there will be a need to boost student populations, or a reshuffle to two clusters from the current three, to justify greatly enhanced course offerings in those three high schools.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Howard,
Why isn’t equity possible? Fair’s fair.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Howard’s making the point that we can’t have equity with the existing transfer policy. I agree.
But we’re not talking about that in this post. I just want to focus on equity for now.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Steve,
How do you talk about one without the other? Equity is rooted in funding, which is based on enrollment, which takes us right back to the E & T policy. Or did I miss something?
November 30th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I’m tired of people saying I’m “against school choice.” This is what happens when you jump right to the solution without first getting people’s minds wrapped around the problem.
So I want to focus on the problem for a while.
People who believe in market economics might believe that if you invest extra in the under-populated schools, you might be able to get enrollment up without limiting “freedom.”
I’m saying, OK, if you think you can do that, let’s give it a try. Or, in other words, I don’t care how we do it, let’s just focus on getting equitable schools in every neighborhood.
Of course I know this can’t be sustained without ultimately curtailing neighborhood-to-neighborhood transfers — or a massive infusion of funding.
Political leaders have a very difficult time coming out against “choice.” Why not give them the opportunity to come out for equity instead (with full knowledge of what it will ultimately take to get there).
November 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Not to be overly cynical or Machiavellian here, but politicians can’t be for equity without coming up with a way to make it happen. In this case, equity can really only happen with more funding. In other words, bringing great music and art and other enhancements to all schools will cost lots of bucks. The politicians and administrators shrug their shoulders at this point, say a healthy dose of “Whatchagonnado?”s, and then drop it.
OK, but here’s where I might sound a bit naive and overly-optimistic. The answer to “Whatchagonnado?” is to rally all constituents in PPS — from left-wing wackos to right-wing nut jobs — around the issue of funding. While there is vast disagreement amongst constituents on just about everything, the one thing that most people can agree on is that PPS needs more funding. Lots more. So imagine the board, the Schools Foundation, the mayor, the city council — EVERYONE — putting aside their differences for a moment and working together to lobby the powers that be in Salem to adjust the school funding formula. What would drive such activity would be the vision of EVERY school in PPS being a choice school, a school that kids are happy to go to and parents are proud to be a part of. The community as a whole would no longer have to hide under the shame of the racist and classist barriers that define who gets a good school and who doesn’t. It would be something that might motivate people to achieve a truly admirable goal and actually earn some of the praise that Portland gets for being “progressive.” You want a progressive city? OK, let’s make this a progressive city. Let’s start by dealing with our schools.
Anyone sold, or is this too wacky?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Portland has more than 500,000 residents, and fewer than 10% of them (46,000) use the public schools. Anybody who pays attention knows our schools are underfunded, but very few people without kids in school pay attention.
The common refrain from the libertarian right is that throwing more money at the problem won’t make it go away. I agree to an extent. We could certainly do better with what we’ve got equity-wise, even though we’re underfunded overall.
So this needs to go on two tracks. At the local level, our school board needs to make equity a priority. At the state level, the Democratic party (in control of all branches of government) needs to make school funding and our broken, unreliable revenue stream top priorities.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Agreed on the two tracks.
As for the “throwing more money at the problem won’t make it go away” canard, I think there are lots of ways to counter this:
laying out what each enrichment program costs shows that more money would definitively solve one of the key problems, i.e., inequitable offerings
although I personally hate using this argument, Marian Wright Edelman and others use the argument that funding schools is a lot cheaper than funding prisoners; an extraordinarily high percentage of prison inmates dropped out of school
property values are inextricably linked to the perceived quality of schools in the area (just look at the Oregonian’s school data page and notice that there’s a “Find houses in this area” link)
schools that serve a high percentage of low-income students that also receive more money per pupil are still not funded sufficiently to offset the socioeconomic advantages that middle and upper-middle-class parents bring to their kids
the role of public schools in preparing students for the 21st century economy and the need to make large-scale public investments in their development
all the arguments concerning fairness, equity, and democracy that should serve as a moral compass for how we allocate funds (but fall on deaf ears when it comes to conservatives)
November 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
In the last legislature my brother was involved in a wonderful approach to school funding which set a floor that funding for schools couldn’t go under and had a good deal more money for schools than we now have. It also included increased funding for colleges and community colleges. I touted it when I ran for school board — though I don’t remember all the particulars today. The OEA pretty much killed it. Yes, I said the OEA. You want to know why? Ask them I guess. It may have been because it wasn’t their idea or maybe because a lot of money went to colleges and community colleges. Who knows? But it would have meant huge amounts of more money for education “guaranteed”.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
We recently passed a local property tax increase to restore music in our schools. Guess what… a bunch of it went to Vicki Phillips’ new curriculum purchase (which, it turns out, cost quite a bit more than promised), and we still have many schools without music.
In other words, if you want to sell tax hikes to libertarians, you’ve got a tough row to hoe, no matter what the money is promised to fund.
My fight right now is equity in Portland Public Schools.
Statewide funding for schools is a noble cause, and I encourage you to take up the fight. Our Democratic governor and the Dems in the state house and senate have some serious explainin’ to do if they don’t do something about it in the upcoming off-year legislative session.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Steve,
You have brought up a major issue concerning local taxes. Not once since I have lived here has a local option been spent on what it was promised to be spent on. (BTW, you left out the vice principals that the last levy also paid for!) I am sorry, but I am at the end of my rope when it comes to passing local taxes, and now you know why.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“Phillips’ new curriculum purchase” which most people did not want and would rather not use. What a waste of taxpayers’ money.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:10 am
In other words, selling tax hikes to people who believe in education funding is hard enough. Selling them to libertarians without kids in school is a non-starter.
I’m in favor of getting our PPS house in order before we go back to the well.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:59 am
Core curriculum, one on one instruction, and advising/mentoring would go a long way. An academic counseling center with professional level tutors would, I believe, bring many kids who are struggling to a level in which they have options longterm.
Oh, and what about using work study funds to get some education grad students from Concordia,
U of P, and PSU into the at risk schools.
The extra funds these schools are given has a much better chance of yielding results than what I have seen thus far. $3000. a year (Jeff vs. Lincoln student) could pay for a lot of one on one help. Of course, this does not account for disparity due to foundation funding but if offered a core curriculum with support, I know students at Jeff and Roosevelt could do well.
Also, every study done supports that physical activity improves school performance. At all levels it helps students be able to focus and heightens their skills. It also gives them a better chance for a healthy adulthood. It seems to me that PE is a relatively inexpensive way to improve students lives at every level.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Steve R. – I understand your goal, and want the same thing, too. But I’m not sure how to accomplish equity without additional funding to do so. Can you spell out how you think this might be accomplished?
December 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
This post is a rhetorical device, designed to get people thinking about the problem (inequity) and lead them to the two obvious solutions: more funding and changing the transfer policy.
As most readers know, I have been pretty vociferous about the transfer policy, to the point that I’ve been pegged as “anti-school choice.”
So this post says, okay, forget the transfer policy. Let’s talk equity. And if a reasonable person thinks it through, they’ll come to the same conclusions about funding and transfer policy that I have. At the end of that logical road, they have to make a choice: either they don’t think equity is worth their concern, or they’ll advocate more funding (a statewide issue) or modification to the transfer policy (a local issue).
I favor both.
I’m just trying to lead folks down the path that evidently isn’t as obvious as it seems to me.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Core curriculum will do nothing towards establishing equity. Listen, public education is, and has always been, a crap shoot. Real equity would be solid passionate teachers for everyone. You are all hung up on offerings at respective schools, but if you have a sloth teaching an AP English class at Lincoln, better to have the excellent teacher at Madison who inspires students. You don’t get the real problems. Principals must do a better job of getting rid of the bad teachers. Offerings do NOT inspire students. Quality teachers do. And you have as good a chance to find one at Jeff as you do of finding one at Grant.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
And you have as good a chance to find one at Jeff as you do of finding one at Grant.
Statistically false. For example, I believe there are three or four teachers at the Jefferson young men’s academy. How many at Grant? If, say 1 in 5 teachers is outstanding, and 1 in 5 is horrible, what are your odds at Jefferson vs. Grant?
The issue of crappy teachers is orthogonal to programming equity. It’s also typically overblown by opponents of teachers’ unions.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
But per student, there are as many good teachers at each given your equation. And believe me, the issue of quality teachers is not overblown. It is the central issue. And the problem is not the union, its is the fact that quality principals smart enough and confidant enough to do their jobs, creating the necessary paper trails, are far and few between.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Inside The Game – you raise a good point, i.e., the issue of good teaching vs. a wide variety of course offerings. I would also prefer the latter over the former. But let’s imagine this is something other than an either/or proposition. Let’s shoot big. Let’s have amazing offerings at all the schools. Let’s also have amazing teachers teaching these amazing offerings. The two go hand-in-hand. If you think about it, schools with amazing offerings will attract amazing teachers. It may be that there will be a few crappy ones here and there, but there are also crappy doctors, crappy lawyers, crappy research scientists, etc., etc. In other words, we can’t focus on a perfect solution right off the bat. But as far as which comes first, I think it’s axiomatic that good programs will attract parents as well as good teachers. Over time, the school culture shifts, and the crappy teachers either retire or are caught up in the transformation. Remember: no one ever went into teaching to be a crappy teacher. I have a lot of compassion and incredible admiration for anyone who can teach in public schools, esp. these days. The question to ask is, what happened? Why are these teachers crappy? Why are they no longer inspired? If you look at the data on teacher attrition, you’ll see that the majority of teachers leave because they are totally unsupported and, therefore, utterly overwhelmed. Lots of folks go into teaching because they want to make a difference, but soon learn that making a difference is too hard. So they leave.
So, from a policy perspective, what can be done to increase the likelihood of teachers staying in the profession and — to put it bluntly — not becoming crappy?
Increased pay? Sure. Collective bargaining? Yes. But most teachers I know want smaller classes, more freedom to exercise their professional judgment, and an opportunity to collaborate with their colleagues through ongoing professional development and communities of practice.
Two links I highly recommend:
Linda Darling-Hammond’s call for a Marshall Plan for education
change strategy in Chattanooga – “bad” inner-city teachers moved out of the inner-city and re-assigned to the suburbs, where they were “absorbed”; inner-city schools rely on just-in-time peer coaching and mentoring; each building is assigned an “expert” teacher to provide continuous professional development
December 1st, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Here I sit, reading all this. It is real for me and my
thirteen year old son; he’s going to highschool
next year. Will he go to Grant – the only comprehensive high school on the NE side of town,
or will he be assigned to a “small school” with a limited curriculum. LOTTERY!
And I was trying to teach him the evils of gambling.
I thank you for refocusing- on equity first. Then, and
only then, can we get rid of the transfer system.
And, once my kid gets in to highschool, I will be happy to give some insight as to the Problem the
SCHOOL CHOICE thing solves…
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Wow, go to Eugene for one day and there are so many new ideas on this blog that I would need to write a book to respond. Here is a shortened version.
Step one is to get a definition of education. Without it, as we are presently in PPS, we have no idea of what equity means, let alone are able to analyze how we are doing.
Step two is to make the curriculum offerings and the activities which engage kids in school much more equitable according to the definition. The reason this is important, Inside the Game, is because education is about opportunity. And my kid should have the same opportunities as your kid.
We can measure this and fairly easily address it.
Step three is to begin to refine these opportunites so they are directed at individual kids’ needs as best we can. A kid who can barely read in the 7th grade doesn’t need the same historical enrichment as a kid who is reading at high school or college level.
Getting more inspired and inspiring teaching is much
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
(continued — darn submit button)
more complicated. One kid or parent or staff member thinks a teacher is great, another kid or parent or staff member thinks the same teacher is horrible. I estimate about 1% or 2% of teachers transcend this — most everybody thinks they are great or horrible (I make this estimate with 40+ years of teaching experience). Portland has a teacher transfer policy which encourages the movement of “sought after” teachers from their lower economic schools to their upper economic schools. Incidentally, Stand for Children is busy developing a policy which makes this worse yet.
I have long advocated a plan which negates this teacher transfer shift somewhat by hiring differently. But no one seems interested.
There are many things we need to do to address the inspiration issue: racheting back testing, classroom disruptions and school discipline which go meaningfully unaddressed, restrictions on teachers, failure to address the real educational problems, administrators who are worried more about test scores and themselves than kids and what goes on in the classroom (PPS rewards these attitudes, instead of discouraging them by the way), not having a meaningful way in many schools for teachers to be a part of decision making which is based around kids not what is good for the teacher only, a huge increase in showing genuine respect for a teacher’s knowledge and skills, and clearing up administrators to support the teacher and his or her classroom.
It is not so easy. All we can do is really work toward these things. Now, we aren’t working toward any of them as a district. It is no wonder then many teachers neither feel inspired nor inspire.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“Stand for Children is busy developing a policy which makes this worse yet.”
Stand For Children has also presented a policy for teacher hiring that is from the dark ages. They are participating in union busting activities by asking to meet with teachers, even during staff meeting time, to sell their plan. One example is, NEVER let first year teachers go…i.e. even if there is a FTE cut, the the senior person would have to go to keep that first year teacher…And THEN…if that senior teacher wasn’t placed…too bad..they could SUB! HAHA…see any problems with this plan…AND THEN…… if they weren’t placed the next year…that senior teacher could just be fired…WTF? Who are these people?
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 am
Wow, Marcia and Steve B., thanks for the tip on Stand for Children’s nefarious scheming. What the hell is up with them? Sounds like another reason to oppose Nigel Jaquiss’ absurd suggestion that Jonah Edelman would make a good mayoral candidate.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 am
“What the hell is up with them?” is that they use their money to control who gets on the school board, so naturally they believe their influence should extend to policy decisions et al.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
I think it is important to note that PPS gave SFC $20,000 to “research” the teacher hire-and-transfer issue. I believe that is almost enough to pay for a half-time teacher who could have actually been helping some children!
December 18th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Hi Everyone –
I’ve been a part of the team at Stand looking at this issue since February (as a citizen and Stand member, not staff) – so I wanted to clear up a couple of misconceptions.
– PPS has not given any money to Stand for this project. PPS paid The New Teacher Project $20,000 to do the data analysis – Stand came into the picture after this analysis was already complete
– I think it’s worth noting that the data that TNTP came up with almost exactly mirrored what was reported on originally in 2003 by a community group led by then Mayor Katz; then was confirmed again in 2005 by the PPS Independent Auditor. As you all know, this is not new information.
– All of the conversations with teachers are completely in the open and none occur during school time or during staff meetings.
I would urge you all to read more about the issues and keep having these conversations. To me, as a parent, the data clearly shows that our current system is not good for our teachers or our kids. I don’t think many would argue that this system is broken and needs to be fixed. What is heartening to me are the many, many conversations that are taking place about this – with teachers, parents, principals, and community members. What is important is that we keep talking – this is an issue that affects all of us. The decisions will be made by PPS and PAT at the bargaining table, and not unlike advocating for issues that the School Board decides, we all should educate ourselves on the facts and advocate for what we think is best for our schools and kids.
Stand has information on their website at: http://www.stand.org/NETCOMMUN.....038;chid=5 I would encourage you to start there for information. As someone who has talked with many, many teachers and parents about this subject, I will tell you that these changes are supported by teachers once they understand how the current policies and procedures are bad for them and bad for our kids. They, as am I, are especially excited at the recommendation that we formalize school-based hiring teams that are majority teachers. Another point for me personally is that the current practices are especially harmful to kids in schools that have a lower socioeconomic population, and kids of color. These changes would truly help ALL of our kids.
Thanks for keeping the conversation going.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
All of the conversations with teachers are completely in the open and none occur during school time or during staff meetings.
Still disrespectful of our contract and our union.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
And the devil is in the details. Can you really see a teacher agreeing to being a sub if they aren’t placed? Come on now…Give me a break.