I understand perfectly well that correcting mistaken policies is much more of a process.

In the meantime, you might reread my comments. I know where you stand on charters in a general way. But since your first post on Green Dot was friendly, I (and clearly some other readers) now wonder what pro Green Dot policy (not pro charter, but specifically pro Green Dot) you are about to propose.

Jonathan

I think that if you go back and read what I actually wrote, you will see that it addresses two issues: [1] what is the substance of tenure rights, and [2] whether or not the Green Dot contract has them. A great deal of speculation has been based on those comments, and like most speculation, it has been off target much more than on.

Randi and Jonathan visited the Green Dot Charter Schools to see them in action, and to explore how the UFT and Green Dot might work together. And as I stated here, they both came away with quite positive impressions.

I know that you are opposed to charter schools on principle, so we may differ on this question. This is an issue, however, that the UFT discussed thoroughly when we started our own charter schools. As the Delegate Assembly decided, our position is one of engagement and of organizing unorganized charter schools — not of seeking to eliminate charter schools.

This was the first public item on Green Dot written by a UFT leader (right?). And it’s a positive piece (apparently) in anticipation of the union taking a positive attitude

The reaction is understandable.

I agree with you that it wasn’t news, but as you can see, restating simple facts can be the grounds for quite a reaction in the educational blogosphere.

I am reluctant to talk about the Green Dot schools at great length, simply because I haven’t had a chance to visit them yet. I am old school in the regard: I need to do the real investigation, first hand, before I start talking in an authoritative way. I have done my homework in terms of reading the contract and the materials available in print and on the web, I have met Steve Barr and he seemed like a decent chap, but I would still like to see the schools themselves. That is why I restricted my comments here to correcting the clearly inaccurate claims being made.

Randi Weingarten and my colleague Jonathan Gyurko did have a chance to see the Green Dot schools — that was the point of their trip that set this all off, among other things. What I can tell you was that they were favorably impressed by, among other things, the real professional voice of Green Dot teachers in the schools’ decision making. I have great respect for both of their judgments, and they are more than enough to make me want to visit myself.

The choice of opening topic, Leo, seems to indicate support.

But perhaps I’ve read too much into this. Can you tell us a little about the problems with Green Dot?

Jonathan

But isn’t the real issue here about Randi looking into partnerships where seniority and tenure rights are forfeited to work in an environment where teachers are respected and have the right to collaborate? That’s great!

There is only one major problem. It would NOT work under this mayor. This is the same mayor who set up the Leadership Academy that follows a business model rather than a professional learning community. Edwize has dozens of posts on Tweed’s inability to do the job correctly under this administration.

We know that our present governor and mayor would like to end tenure and seniority. We cannot and should not even consider such partnerships until the system as a whole changes. We already know how contracts can be interpreted by this mayor leaving us with the short end of the stick.

We need to end mayoral control totally. Any idea of a partnership will not benefit NYC students, teachers or parents. To believe anything Bloomberg/Klein will do, or say, to get the UFT to even consider such a partnership means Randi is sailing on a ship of fools.