Gene wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:47:53 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:55:10 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?
I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.
If that's what she did, I agree. But, if she manipulated the budget to
get rid of crap teachers without tangling with the union for every one
of them, then more power to her.

Then before you said, "good on her" you should have done just a
*little* bit of homework:

Like.... one might question why she hired 900 new teachers in the
summer to fire nearly half that many a few months later... even though
many could document good APRs....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001956.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101403564.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/...sacked_in.html


A lot of schools won't replace lost workers right away,if ever. Take
Michele Obama for instance. Her $350,000 a year position wasn't filled
when she left. A key position left unfilled is a disgrace to whichever
school obama was working for.

Give this woman credit for keeping her school system fully staffed. So
what if she overestimated her needs a bit last summer.