Pay attention, UFT
I don't like this oppositional system we have for making important decisions. I don't think there should be so many sides, all doubting each other's motives, playing politics with our paychecks, pitting us against one another. I resent the energy dissipated that could go into productive conversations that would benefit the children. I particularly resent the energy on top of energy dissipated in arguing within the union.
At the time of the contract dispute, I was on the fence. On one side of the fence, tutoring/teaching additional time without any additional prep time. And all that other stuff about letters in the file, etc. On the other side of the fence, doubt that our union would win a strike, doubt that we'd get better if we voted down the contract. At the time I didn't feel strongly enough about either side being right to take an active stand or rally others.
That said, a lot has happened in the last few months. The TWU went on strike, and won a much better offer than what they had before the strike (of course, then they turned it down, but that's their own little trip). They went on strike without the support of their parent union, without a strike fund to speak of, and it remains to be seen whether they are bankrupted and crippled by fees, but most people agree that they won.
It made me wonder why we allow negotiations to drag on for years before finally agreeing to something. Why doesn't my union put its foot down and say, Our teachers won't work until they know the conditions under which they are working? Why do we allow ourselves to be disrespected in this way? We should know from our classrooms that the tone you convey affects how people treat you. I think the correct tone for the teachers' union ought to be always-civil, but extremely firm: we don't work without a contract. Period. So what I'm telling you folks who represent us is that even some of us with pretty moderate views on the whole thing have begun to expect more, a harder-line. Anyway, if we take a stronger stance, maybe we could get the whole thing settled within a few weeks rather than letting negotiations continue in fits and starts for months and months.
For those who've asked, we did an SBO to combine the 37 1/2 minutes into two 75-minute sessions, primarily so that we could keep our after-school enrichment program more-or-less unchanged on Wednesdays and Thursdays. We also did an SBO to reduce the number of students each teacher is tutoring, because we did not have enough level 1 and 2 kids to fill each teacher's class to 10, and we wanted to focus on the highest-need kids. We sat down in December to divide up the kids into classes. I am tutoring 7th graders in math, which irritates me because (a) I'm not a math teacher and (b) I only teach some of the 7th graders but am 6th grade team leader BUT I am willing to accept because (a) I had some say in the matter and (b) the kids need the extra help in math much more than they need it in science and (c) I really don't want some of these 7th graders held over so I'll do whatever it takes to get them through those tests and on to 8th grade!
Everything seemed to be going well.
The ELA teachers found some books that take the kids through one skill at a time, providing clear directions to the teacher and a reading selection and questions, and that seemed all right, simple enough to run itself, which I always thought was one of the goals. Turns out, of course, that the books didn't get ordered when we thought they had been, so they have to make some stuff up for the first few weeks....
The Math teachers described to us, back in December, a program that they had on CD where the kids take pre-tests, are given practice worksheets based on the diagnostic, and work at their own pace from a folder of worksheets, moving from one to the next as they master each skill. The teacher helps when they get stuck or when they need a reminder of how to approach a certain type of problem. This, combined with homework help, sounded fine to me. The next time I spoke to them, it turned out these materials were only appropriate for 6th grade, but that they thought they could find something similar for the 7th and 8th grades. Okay. The next time I spoke to them (this Monday!), it turned out that, with a week left, they thought one book for 7th grade might be in the building somewhere, and that they could use some website to generate worksheets and anyway, that system was only supposed to be for maybe 20 minutes and they had all this other stuff they wanted us to do with the remaining time. So, when were they planning to tell us that?
Adding insult to injury was the fact that absolutely all the teachers on staff thought that Monday PD for the last two sessions would be spent planning this, when in fact, for some unfathomable reason, the first was spent in a fluffy workshop on giving feedback to other teachers, and the second on rubrics. There should have been plenty of time for us to prepare and to discover this miscommunication and calmly solve the problem, but there wasn't. Instead, everyone was panicking, including myself.
Finally, yesterday, in the middle of the last period of the day, which I was spending with a group of 6th graders who were ineligible for an ice cream social that we had for the others, my AP comes to me with a 5 page long packet that includes a lesson plan, for Monday.
In the lesson plan: direct instruction, guided practice, independent practice, plus a fluency drill, plus homework help.
Take a look at this, is it okay?
What's this about direct instruction? I didn't think we were doing that, I thought we were providing help as needed.
You don't have to do it as a lesson, it's just two problems to model the process.
Right, I didn't think we were doing that, or at least not as a structured, whole group activity.
You can just do it sitting next to them as a group, or on the board, or on the overhead projector.
At that point I realized I couldn't have this argument while simultaneously teaching, so I just shrugged and took the lesson plan. After school, after meeting with a parent, after meeting with my grade team, then I had an argument with one of the math teachers about the plan. And basically came off as the lazy, stupid b!tch, standing in the way of what they consider important for the kids.
It will blow over. They're probably right that this isn't really that different from what I would do anyway. I think what's really pissing me off is that for reasons that are everyone's fault and no one's fault, we have not had regular team-leader meetings for the last two months, and as a result, things that I thought were going to be done one way are being done a completely different way. And on a personal note, I really feel that the math department misled me and the other non-math teachers who are doing this, and I don't like the story changing so much at the last minute.
At the time of the contract dispute, I was on the fence. On one side of the fence, tutoring/teaching additional time without any additional prep time. And all that other stuff about letters in the file, etc. On the other side of the fence, doubt that our union would win a strike, doubt that we'd get better if we voted down the contract. At the time I didn't feel strongly enough about either side being right to take an active stand or rally others.
That said, a lot has happened in the last few months. The TWU went on strike, and won a much better offer than what they had before the strike (of course, then they turned it down, but that's their own little trip). They went on strike without the support of their parent union, without a strike fund to speak of, and it remains to be seen whether they are bankrupted and crippled by fees, but most people agree that they won.
It made me wonder why we allow negotiations to drag on for years before finally agreeing to something. Why doesn't my union put its foot down and say, Our teachers won't work until they know the conditions under which they are working? Why do we allow ourselves to be disrespected in this way? We should know from our classrooms that the tone you convey affects how people treat you. I think the correct tone for the teachers' union ought to be always-civil, but extremely firm: we don't work without a contract. Period. So what I'm telling you folks who represent us is that even some of us with pretty moderate views on the whole thing have begun to expect more, a harder-line. Anyway, if we take a stronger stance, maybe we could get the whole thing settled within a few weeks rather than letting negotiations continue in fits and starts for months and months.
For those who've asked, we did an SBO to combine the 37 1/2 minutes into two 75-minute sessions, primarily so that we could keep our after-school enrichment program more-or-less unchanged on Wednesdays and Thursdays. We also did an SBO to reduce the number of students each teacher is tutoring, because we did not have enough level 1 and 2 kids to fill each teacher's class to 10, and we wanted to focus on the highest-need kids. We sat down in December to divide up the kids into classes. I am tutoring 7th graders in math, which irritates me because (a) I'm not a math teacher and (b) I only teach some of the 7th graders but am 6th grade team leader BUT I am willing to accept because (a) I had some say in the matter and (b) the kids need the extra help in math much more than they need it in science and (c) I really don't want some of these 7th graders held over so I'll do whatever it takes to get them through those tests and on to 8th grade!
Everything seemed to be going well.
The ELA teachers found some books that take the kids through one skill at a time, providing clear directions to the teacher and a reading selection and questions, and that seemed all right, simple enough to run itself, which I always thought was one of the goals. Turns out, of course, that the books didn't get ordered when we thought they had been, so they have to make some stuff up for the first few weeks....
The Math teachers described to us, back in December, a program that they had on CD where the kids take pre-tests, are given practice worksheets based on the diagnostic, and work at their own pace from a folder of worksheets, moving from one to the next as they master each skill. The teacher helps when they get stuck or when they need a reminder of how to approach a certain type of problem. This, combined with homework help, sounded fine to me. The next time I spoke to them, it turned out these materials were only appropriate for 6th grade, but that they thought they could find something similar for the 7th and 8th grades. Okay. The next time I spoke to them (this Monday!), it turned out that, with a week left, they thought one book for 7th grade might be in the building somewhere, and that they could use some website to generate worksheets and anyway, that system was only supposed to be for maybe 20 minutes and they had all this other stuff they wanted us to do with the remaining time. So, when were they planning to tell us that?
Adding insult to injury was the fact that absolutely all the teachers on staff thought that Monday PD for the last two sessions would be spent planning this, when in fact, for some unfathomable reason, the first was spent in a fluffy workshop on giving feedback to other teachers, and the second on rubrics. There should have been plenty of time for us to prepare and to discover this miscommunication and calmly solve the problem, but there wasn't. Instead, everyone was panicking, including myself.
Finally, yesterday, in the middle of the last period of the day, which I was spending with a group of 6th graders who were ineligible for an ice cream social that we had for the others, my AP comes to me with a 5 page long packet that includes a lesson plan, for Monday.
In the lesson plan: direct instruction, guided practice, independent practice, plus a fluency drill, plus homework help.
Take a look at this, is it okay?
What's this about direct instruction? I didn't think we were doing that, I thought we were providing help as needed.
You don't have to do it as a lesson, it's just two problems to model the process.
Right, I didn't think we were doing that, or at least not as a structured, whole group activity.
You can just do it sitting next to them as a group, or on the board, or on the overhead projector.
At that point I realized I couldn't have this argument while simultaneously teaching, so I just shrugged and took the lesson plan. After school, after meeting with a parent, after meeting with my grade team, then I had an argument with one of the math teachers about the plan. And basically came off as the lazy, stupid b!tch, standing in the way of what they consider important for the kids.
It will blow over. They're probably right that this isn't really that different from what I would do anyway. I think what's really pissing me off is that for reasons that are everyone's fault and no one's fault, we have not had regular team-leader meetings for the last two months, and as a result, things that I thought were going to be done one way are being done a completely different way. And on a personal note, I really feel that the math department misled me and the other non-math teachers who are doing this, and I don't like the story changing so much at the last minute.
posted by ms. v. at 10:40 AM
22 Comments:
Ms Frizzle:
I will agree with Leo Casey on one point. Many teachers were afraid to strike and a failed strike is worse than not striking. However, the UFT did sell out the classroom teacher in the last contract and why would you want the same cast of characters protecting our rights in the next negotiations?
By the way, lesson plan, direct instruction, homework, and guided practice for the 37.5 minutes tutoring sesson? Your AP is telling you that your teaching a sixth period! Leo said that can't happen? Coming soon an observation and bell to bell instruction!!!!
You can't let your AP get away with this! Your CL & DR need to be put on notice and file a grievance.
I find it interesting that on our last 2 PD Mondays, the principal REFUSED to discuss this Monday's implementation. Instead, we had to sit through a lecture on the new ELL testing.
Then on Wednesday, we received our rosters for the Extended Day. On Friday, my principal made a 10 minute announcement on the PA (interrupting our lessons) on how the students are going to get from class to class. Students in Grades 2-5 who opted out leave 15 minutes before their day ends (missing out on 15 minutes of regular instuction). Paras and aides will dismiss them.
Then all Pre K-, K and 1 teachers must dismiss by 2:30 and pick up their assigned students at 2:40.
Mandated students receive Math and Voluntary will do Book Clubs.
I can tell you right now that many teachers will not be picking up at exactly 2:40 so I will be stuck with the extra students until they come to my room. Also, our F-status teacher as well as another staff member do not have to do extended time. Instead they will act as a sub.
As for Leo's response: All I can tell you is that many teachers in my school were willing to strike, but Randi and my DR did not rally for that when they came to my school. And I believe if a strike was called, it would have been supported even by those who were against it.
On top of that, my DR recently announced that all letters removed from the teacher's file must be sent to another file for 6 years from the date of that teacher's retirement. I didn't read about that in any of Leo's postings on Edwize or on the MOA.
In fact excessed teachers were told to put in for an SBO transfer. Guess what? My DR now says there are no more SBO transfers.
So we were misled about SBO transfers and the 3-year limit on LIF.
I am so proud to have voted NO on this contract.
BTW, let us know what the Union's statergies are for the teacher's on the front line to stand up against administrators and the mighty DOE.
I would love a job where I could tell someone over the phone how to conduct the battle without having to suffer any wounds.
The UFT spent months frightening rank and file, rather than management, with strike threats. That's unconscionable.
The UFT now talks of "no-contract, no work." Oddly enough, it spent months pushing legislation to have the Taylor Law amended to send us to PERB six months after contracts expired.
Apparently, they have not learned what sort of contract they may expect from PERB.
Leo Casey, representing Unity, promised the 37 minute instruction was not a class. You now know different.
Leo Casey's party promised letters in file would be removed after 3 years. Actually, they will simply be relocated. Leo Casey wrote an article maintaining losing the right to grieve letters was meaningless. Those facing newly imperial principals will soon learn otherwise.
Leo Casey make $107,000 a year, more than any working teacher, to tell teachers what's good for them. Actaully, few of us need such assistance. After a few months of this contract, even fewer will want it.
Randi Weingarten now hand-picks the UFT employees who used to be democratically elected by chapter leaders. Worse, the UFT's rubber-stamp assembly has changed its constitution specifically to shut out high school teachers, refusing to allow us to choose out own leadership.
That's what we get for the high crime of electing non-Unity high school VPs. Even after having bought off former nemesis Michael Schulman with a UFT job, they needed to silence us.
Leo Casey, or indeed anyone representing entrenched monopoly party Unity, has incredible audacity to speak of "democracy."
Anyone who doubts me need only check Edwize, where neither Leo Casey nor any representative of Unity has been able to answer these charges beyond asking me to shut up.
I will not. Nor should any of my union brothers and sisters. We are the educators. We are the union.
Randi Weingarten and Leo Casey think we work for them. We do not. They work for us.
Let's shut down their vile little two-pension patronage mill and find some real leadership for a change.
Leo says:
"We are listening..."
Doesn't he mean he is listening NOW that the new contract is in effect.
He didn't want to listen before when many members in schools across the city or on Edwize warned what the dangers were if we accepted this new contract.
Instead UNITY sent an "army" of reps to schools to sell them what we now see was a nothing but wooden nickles.
We were told letters WOULD be removed after 3 years. Now it's 6 years AFTER YOUR RETIRE. For some teachers that can mean a letter is on file for 20 years if they are fairly new to the system.
When we were able to grieve letters and win, letters came out of our files IMMEDIATELY. Now it's like serving a prision sentence, and we are parolled 6 years after we retire.
So Leo, go back to all the archives on Edwize and prove to us you never lied just because you omitted facts.
No one in my school wanted a strike, but if one had been called, we all would have been on the picket lines. It didn't seem like a strike would win - Bloomberg had just been re-elected, he could have sat us out for a long time until people's resolve weakened. He didn't do that to the TWU, though, so maybe a strike would have worked...
Ms Frizzle: I'm sure Chaz, Schoolgal and NYC Educator would have been on the picket line if we would have struck, because despite all their negativity they are probably good traditional unionists and would have supported the union in all actions necessary to win a good contract.
That said, let's deal with the stupidity about the 37.5 minutes in your school.
As you are probably aware, the union when confronted with that demand from the City told them that it would be a lot better to spread the time across the board so that all children would benefit from the extra instruction. That's the way it's working in the multi-session high schools and you don't hear a peep about problems with the implementation for them. But the mayor insisted,because he wanted to prove that he got a visible productivity gain. I don't think he consulted with the DOE to see what they thought. So he negotiates this and then dumps it on Klein and his minions who have no idea how to implement this new tutoring session. They don't factor in the busing schedules, and then don't factor what all this is going to cost.
So now we have the mess that they created. Parents will surely be raising an uproar soon and in some districts have already voiced their concerns. See
Saturday's NYTimes article on the story.
On "No contract, No work" if the DA approves that resolution on Wednesday, then we will be sending a message that we are willing to strike for an on-time contract. Let's see what that position produces.
Bill
Oh by the way, here's the link to Saturday's NYTimes piece. You have to register to access the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/nyregion/04school.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The internal union politicking on this board is inexcusable and has no place in a discussion of the implementation problems created by the DOE.
We will be launching an implementation hotline on Monday to get reports from schools on how things are going. The email address is (lack of imagination on my part) implemenationhotline@uft.org.
We will post the address again on EDWize (www.edwize.org) and in the action center on www.uft.org.
EdWize is down for security and backend upgrades and will be relaunched on Monday.
Bill
Ooops, that's implementation@uft.org
Sorry
Oh boy! One more time--
implementationhotline@uft.org
By George I got it!
I wish Leo would just answer questions without having to start name-calling.
That said, if a strike were to be called, it should have been BEFORE the re-election. As you recall, the DA was either going to call a strike vote or endorse Ferrer. It did neither. And in doing so, gave a silent endorsement to Bloomberg.
Second, when the DR came to my school, she heard "strike" from my school. I am sure there were teachers elsewhere who said No, but that information was never "quantified". It should have been. Now it's interesting to hear how the TWU has influenced our own union on future negotiations.
Third: I would still like an explanation from Leo on how the DOE can keep our LIF for 6 years until after we retire.
When we had the right to grieve, and won, that letter would have been removed immediately and not sent to some other location.
I have not commented on the contract or my feeling about Unity on Edwize since the TWU contract. If someone was listening, maybe the issues I brought up which were LIF and the rights of excessed teachers would have been addressed and brought back to the table. I now understand there are no longer SBO transfers, yet I recall that Edwize loyalists told me that these teachers could apply for an SBO transfer.
Leo, if you are in any way honorable, you would answer the question on LIF, and tell us why this wasn't told to us before we voted on our contract.
Yes, I have always been a Loyalist and as a former rep, it turns my stomach to see what is happening. I also get upset when my own CL sends every teacher a memo telling us how the administration expects us to behave and labels it "POLICY". When I was trained in Princeton, Policy issues were in our control, not the administrations.
I am sick to my stomach when my own CL tells me that when my administrator calls a last-minute meeting during my lunch, and if I refuse to attend, then I must meet with her after school. That's what my principal told her and that's what she told me. It didn't matter that this too is untrue.
I am sick that teachers in both my and Ms. Frizzle's school had to find out the last minute just what was happening on Extended Day.
If I could see one major change in our Union, it would be this:
If the contract is being violated, instead of putting my ass on the line by filing a grievance, the DR should have the power to go either to the LIS or RIS and get it handled. If that doesn't work, then the Union should put forth the grievance directly.
bstamatis:
I can honestly say I have put my ass on the line defending our rights...A Duty-Free Lunch... and this year paid a major price I wouldn't wish on my own enemy--even Leo who disparages my comments even on this site.
My DR (who knew of the issue) never followed through and left me and my CL to fend for ourselves.
This would never had happened with my old DR who by the way was elected by other DRs. My old DR always followed through, returned emails and phone calls.
This is why I think the Union should handle all grievances directly so no one will ever go through what I went through.
Yes, I still believe in unions, but not this one.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"The internal union politicking on this board is inexcusable and has no place in a discussion of the implementation problems created by the DOE."
Mr. Stamatis,
You're certainly correct that I believe in unions. However, I believe ours has shown a remarkable lack of foresight, and I predicted problems like this right on Edwize.
And still, your response, with all due respect, boils down to "shut up."
First, this is not your blog, and it is not your place to suggest what the discussion may consist of. It's not really your place on Edwize either, because while I am just a lowly teacher, I'm UFT.
Frankly, Mr. Stamatis, despite the blatant attempts of your party to suppress my opinions, and that of my fellow high school teachers, we still have a First Amendment in this country.
If indeed we're "politicking," we have an absolute right to do so. And labeling our activities does not constitute a response. It sounds like empty name-calling to me.
Furthermore, your inability to counter my arguments with one beyond the persistently unimaginative "shut up" suggests more than a simple lack of resourcefulness on your part.
It strongly suggests that I am right.
Leo Casey does not seem to know the meaning of "ad hominem." If you attack a person's ideas, a person's motivation, or a person's lack of truthfulness, that's not the same as attacking a person.
Furthermore, when characterizing his opponents, Mr. Casey does not hesitate to make invidious comparisons with sixth-graders or call them juvenile and immature. His standards for "personal attacks," apply only to those with whom he disagrees.
In fact, he just got through suggsting we're sickening and inappropriate. Why? Because we had the temerity to disagree with him in public.
Edwize most certainly used the spectre of a strike to threaten rank and file, writing articles comparing those who disagreed with Randi with "big bad wolves." One Edwize writer even said the non-binding PERB suggestions were binding, while writing under a different name to decieve rank and file into thinking he was a typical teacher.
And Leo Casey's chronic inability to construct a substantive response to my charges suggests what?
That I'm right.
If not, then tell us you didn't change the UFT constitution to keep high school teachers from electing James Eterno our VP. You threw us into the pool with Unity-supporting elementary teacher who hopelessly outnumber us, forever depriving us of our choice.
That's tantamount to having Oklahoma ought to help New York select its governor, and that, beyond constant entreaties to "shut up," is Unity's approach to viable opposition. It's a good thing the Bushies have yet to catch up to you.
I'd be delighted if you'd show me why I'm wrong. Pardon me if I sit while I wait, as I've given you scores of opportunities in the past.
You should be ashamed telling any of us to shut up. You work for us and that's certainly not your job.
oy vey.
Thanks Ms. Frizzle for at least allowing the debate. All Yiddish aside.
I'm not sure if your concerns were answered, I just know mine were not.
Hope all goes well this week.
If it helps, most schools got a sample of the upcoming test. If you didn't, a sample test for each grade is on the NYS Education site. At least it will give you a basis of what types of questions will be covered on both the multiple choice and extended response.
And, if I may suggest, leave all the illegalities up to your Chapter Leader. You didn't start this battle--those who negotiated the contract did. Let them handle it while the rest of us shrug our shoulders.
BTW, the so-called provision about Bulletin Boards in the new contract isn't worth the paper it was signed on. Nothing has changed.
Ms. Frizzle;
Sorry about the snipping back and forth. Obviously, this is a very sore point for the unrepresented high school teachers that love to read your blog.
The truth of the matter is, our union leaders have been turning the UFT away from democracy and towards a dictatorship. Where they were once elected, DR's are now loyalists appointed by Randi. High schools can no longer elect their own VP's. Personally, I wore an anti-Weingarten T-shirt on a non-instructional day, and the DR came in to admonish me. What ever happened to the US constitution?
Also, we have had two sellout contracts in a row. Our rights are being wiped away, and Unity thinks that it is a good thing.
Regarding the LIF issue: If Randi were a good lawyer, then why didn't she know about the state law? If she DID know, then she should be forced to resign.
Ms. Frizzle,
Double Oy-vey but very good work in getting this debate going.
I love Leo Casey's argument for how the UFT leadership is taking the "NO contract, No work" issue to the membership in the name of "democracy." More democracy inaction.
This is just another cooked-up issue by the UFT public relations department - check the LM-2 report to see just how much is spend on PR.
Here is the reality: the loss of dues checkoff in any strike and the fines could cripple the Unity patronnage machine. So I ask: No matter what the democratic wishes of the members, will a union leadership whose main purpose is to maintain itself in power EVER risk that? You know that famous snowball strugging to survive down "there?" It has a better chance than seeing the current UFT leadership leading an effective strike. (Don't discount a phony one, where a backroom deal is made to minimize the penalties in exchange for a few crumbs they can sell to the members.) There's some pretty intersting analysis at the TJC website and recent leaflet on the UFT, democracy and a strike.
I will close saying that when you interrupted my conversation with your mother at the robotics tournament by joking I was trying to get her to be anti-Unity I must say I hadn't thought of it at the time. But in retrospect, hmmmm. (She seems to be a wonderful lady and we had some good discussions about teaching without union politics entering into it. But maybe next time.)
It is certainly very funny to hear Mr. Casey suggest that the members have a right to decide about a possible strike. The members can't even elect their on DR's, as Mr.Skibbins has noted.
What we constantly seem to get from UFT leadership (that is, Unity leadership) is posturing. They act as if this is a democratic arena, when, in reality, it has evolved into a Unity-driven totalitarian state.
If Mr. Casey wants to see the "recipe" for a destroyed union, all he has to do is look at the one party platform (the platform that does its best to prevent the dissemination of material in mailboxes and schools). According to Unity, it must be democracy to put an informational blackout on those that disagree with leadership or point out Unity's failures.
And yet, somehow, it is not the flagrant abuse of power, but the hypocrisy that is so disturbing.
On the way home from that sham DA of a contract ratification, in a quiet car, one of my friends turns to us and says: Our union enters into a time of civil war.
And so we have.
It's about time the rank and file began asking the tough questions to our union"leadership". The hallmark of the Unity caucus has become dishonesty. DR's were dispatched to secure a "yes" vote for the current contract using the tools of omission and fear against their own dues paying members. The smear used against anyone who questions their decisions or policies is both shocking and outrageous! The unity machine maintains an information blackout to keep members from joining together in opposition, but now thanks to the computer we have a venue of information that cannot be removed or controlled.
FYI
Extended time was a bit confusing because the students who opted out had one dismissal time.
At 3:15, we ALL had to use the same exit and the backup was worse than the LIE during a rainstorm. Some teachers weren't able to get the students out until 3:25 because of the backup.
Of course it would have made sense to dismiss grades 2 and 3 at a different location, but my principal likes to keep things simple (for her).
Also, I saw no need to dismiss the students who opted out earlier than 2:35. First, there are not that many who opted out, and most importantly, they missed out on part of a review lesson.
Post a Comment
<< Home