Ms Remis, the MOUs are what make things flexible based on school need. I cannot speak to whether teachers like the LC or not. I can say that your original post intimated that the contract was the impediment to change. Now in your response to Mark and me, you acknowledge that it has been the catalyst of MOUs. All of which are public documents. FOIL them if you like!
What concessions do you advocate for? Can you please name them? How would those concessions make partners more willing to step up? Please create a logical trail for readers to follow instead of generalizations. We need ideas, what are yours?
What other reasons can one imagine for partners not stepping up?
I also wonder how the RTA contract has been “notorious for it's (sic) power to obstruct change.” It seems to me that you apply the fallacy of logic that correlation implies causation. In fact, the RTA contract has not even been constant over the past decades. It is a "living contract" with built-in flexibility for schools to fit certain components to that building's needs or programs.
More importantly to me are the questions of why we do not replicate those components of successful programs or schools that have a track record. I can outline three such components that were implemented at All City High (ACH) that could be replicated at East, but have not been (why I do not know).
Flexible schedule: from 7 am to 7pm allow students to construct a schedule that works for them. More of them will attend.
Employ at least 10 Social Workers and 10 School Counselors to problem solve the root causes of student difficulties in and with schools by engaging with families.
Family of 5 mentoring: Each member of the East High Community could “adopt” 5 students and be a caring stable adult for those kids in their family. Note that at ACH we often had “families of 6, 7 or 8.”
None of these initiatives are outside of the contract or couldn’t be worked out in a memorandum of agreement (MOU) as was done in the case of ACH.
Website powered by Foundation.