Monday, January 20, 2014

For Those Who Think Unions Are The Answer To Their Prayers

The AFT is very strong in New York.  How was it that this principal was allowed to stay in her job for so many years without so much as an investigation?
Former teachers gave The Post 10 letters sent since 2005 to Condon, Klein, Lloyd-Bey, FariƱa and former Queens Superintendent Kathleen Cashin — now a member of the state Board of Regents. Most of the letters are anonymous, because the teachers feared retaliation by Sills. Some kept a “harassment log.”

The teachers also showed more than two dozen letters and e-mails to reps at the United Federation of Teachers, including then-President Randi Weingarten, now a national union president, but said even she could not help.
If a union cannot even deal with pay, benefits, and working conditions, why do people want to pay them?

Go to the link and read about all the crazy things this principal did.  Then tell me you still believe in a government monopoly over education.


Mike Thiac said...


I read the article and was drawn to this:

Sills, 48, was a graduate of the DOE’s “Leadership Academy,” which trains principals, and had little teaching experience. Insiders said she lacked literacy skills, noting her invitation to a Nov. 23, 2005, holiday buffet “in honor of my gradutitude” to employees, including “security personel” and “custodially staff members.”

Sills ruled by threats and intimidation, ex-staffers complained. She “yells at a volume that resounds throughout the building, slams doors and uses foul language,” a 2006 letter to Condon claims.

That letter also accuses Sills of racism: “She has hired only black teachers and has targeted white teachers and a secretary.” Many left or were forced out.

Gee, we really need a federal DOE. She had little experience in a class, but she's in charge of a school. A few generations ago, like before Jimmy Carter paid off the unions with a federal DOE a principle would come from the ground up. And although they may not have doctorate degrees, they would know about education.

maxutils said...

Teachers unions and a government monopoly (although it isn't, really) on education are entirely different things. I fully support the first, and encourage a change in the latter.

Darren said...

Max, as usual you distort or misinterpret my meaning. Go read *again*, this time for understanding.

Anonymous said...

People like that have powerful friends, and get their position as a backroom-deal favor. Dismissing her would have embarrassed someone politically powerful, thus, no action was taken.

maxutils said...

Just to check, I re-read. I may have misinterpreted your meaning, but I didn't misunderstand. Administrators and teachers have different unions. Complaints from teachers, which seem justified, would be given the same weight as complaints against teachers by parents. The teachers' union is completely incapable of having an effect on the removal of the principal ... except for complaints, which the district, not the teachers' union were responsible to follow up on. Then, after citing an example of how the union was ineffective (which of course they were) you linked that to being a problem with a government monopoly on education ... which is not true, because last I checked there existed private schools and options for home schooling, and which is a position I actually favor ... they just don't go together.

Darren said...

You still misunderstand. I don't link them, at least not in the causal way you suggest. They're two separate problems, both of which are at play in this situation. My conclusion is the last two sentences, neither of which contains any reference to unions.

maxutils said...

I didn't link them, either. I specifically said they were different. I didn't imply causation... i actually found it bizarre that you went from a post about unions in schools (which could just as easily appear in a privatized system) to the government monopoly thing ... two entirely separate issues ... which is what I mentioned first. Perhaps you should toss in a segue. My first line was 'Teachers' unions and government monopolies are entirely different things' which is pretty much what you said ... although, if you're concluding that an incompetent principal , belonging to one union, being allowed to continue her job despite protests from a different union is somehow related to a government monopoly (which I disagree with) ... you did lose me. If you have unions, the way we do ... and should, in my opinion, it would not matter whether this was a government monopoly or not.