Last year to much fanfare, the school department announced that they had applied and been selected to receive a $600,000 grant over five years that would be used for advanced placement (AP) teachers, courses and students. These teachers and students are the best and brightest in our schools. These AP students often get the short end of the stick since there are no mandates to fund their need for greater challenges.
Now comes word that the school department has had to decline the grant because they could not reach an agreement with the DEA, the teacher’s union, on the terms that would have paid a handful of AP teachers a bonus. The issues seem to be that the bonus includes a type of merit based pay and that the lower grade teachers would not be eligible for that bonus. The argument was that the lower grade teachers had laid the groundwork for these AP students to excel. The union would not agree to what was considered as a potential change in working conditions, so the grant will not be accepted. This grant would have been used for advanced training of teachers, merit pay for those AP Teachers who increased AP participation and scores, and a small stipend for students who passed the AP exam.
I feel this is an example ...
...of what is amiss in our schools. Much is said about how this is all about the kids. In this case, I find an underlying agenda that is working against our kids, our best teachers, and, I would argue, the best interests of the community. Money that is there for the taking and the best students will not benefit from it. I hope that the school administration and School Committee will consider ways to prevent this from happening in the future when negotiating a new contract this year.
Perhaps Dartmouth should begin looking at a charter school where innovative methods can be tried. We have the physical plant in place to do it with two shuttered buildings. Competition for funding from charters may be the incentive needed to get the focus on the students and the best options for their education.
I am sure that once again, I will be castigated for criticizing the schools. However I hope that parents, the School Committee and the school administration will join me in decrying the loss of this grant. I fail to see how this is good news for our students in any way. If it is truly about the kids, those kids would be enjoying the benefit of this grant.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
School declines $600,000 grant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
128 comments:
I should be shocked that this would happen; but as a member of a teachers union myself, I understand that the focus of the union is not education. The focus of the union is to preserve the benefits for the majority of the members without accountability.
Pathetic
very disappointing, like beyond disappointing.
No-No Anon 11:20. It is “all about the Children.”
Professionals have rights too, this is a large group of professionals. Larger than the town union, they aren't easy to deal with either, people want fairness.
The school administration and school committee were blind-sided by the union on this. It is going to be difficult to spin this one in favor of the union. What it comes down to is plain ol' greed. The "What is in it for me?" attitude of the unions must die!
The inclusion of merit pay is probably the problem. After the initial grant money the town is left to pay for a permanent increase in salary. Good spin Bill, but once again you are counting on your readers not having the whole story. You may still disagree with them not accepting the grant, but in the longterm it will have increased the payroll burden. If the school could have counted on supplemental funds from the town to make such salary increases permanent, they no doubt would love to provide additional training etc. The AP program is alive and well at the High School. There are seniors going on to many prestigious schools next year including Harvard.
Bill, the schools are already at mrnss, why demonize them now.
Again only part of the story. Looks like Bill will be the new pot stirrer.
The NEW pot stirrer? Before Bill stirred the pot we took pride in our school's accomplishments, now we use words like "pathetic" for the same schools. We still have excellent schools, no one should lose sight of this fact.
To 12:19: Get your facts correct. What is pathetic is that the Teacher's Union would reject this money. And why- so that they can prevent any possibility that they will be subjected to an examination of their performance. "Pathetic" is accurate.
Why do you call Bill the pot stirrer? He is only pointing out the step taken by the teacher’s union. Are we supposed to ignore this short-sighted, selfish and anti-education action? Bill put the facts out there for all of us to see. I for one and am severely disappointed.
Bill,a pot stirrer?? Once again, it's all about, kill the messenger!
The public should know what's happening in town. The school declined a $600,000 grant. Perhaps Lara Stone should rethink all her talk about grants. They are nice...but don't always work out!
This is a sad day for the children of Dartmouth.
You won't get much disagreement from me about the union making decisions based on its own self interest. However, given this town's recent history of support (or lack thereof) for any funding above MNSS; it wouldn't be prudent to accept a grant that would rely on town funding after 5 years. On the other hand, 5 years is better than zero, and things may change for the better by then.
Could Greg Jones clarify whether these merit pays would have to be funded by the town after the five years or not?
As it relates to our Dartmouth school teacher union /D.E.A. Once again, you've demonstrated your ability to do the wrong thing and screw the kids or is it save our schools. Dartmouth teacher union members are nothing less then a bunch of low lifers who prey off the good will of the taxpayers. Yes, you read this right, the Dartmouth teachers union have screwed our kids for the last time. As a town meeting member, I will not vote to accept the Dartmouth school budget. You people, and the union reps, are the scum of the earth, the blood sucking insects have more respect then you unionized teachers.
Don't, get the feeling I'm upset, I'm just getting started. Over the past years, I've worked hard to get overrides passed to save the kids S.O.Students/ Save our schools/ never again, you union people shall pay for this injustice. Too bad, we can't import teacher from China. I say shut down the teacher unions or file a law suit against the teachers/union. Why not, everyone in town is taking some type of legal action, why not the parents group. P.A.T. U. Parents Against Teachers Unions, PATU.
Did anyone talk to the SC or school admin to see why this was rejected?
Bill this type of post has no value other then to anger and upset people.
That's the whole point.
To Anon 4:02
You are obviously a teacher who would like for this to stay under the radar screen. Your position is indefensible and now you are saying that you should not have to defend their action.
Give up a $600,000 grant so that you can win a political battle against merit pay. That is really the way to ensure "quality education for all."
How sad that teachers are willing to sell the children short like this.
I am not a teacher and have school age children in Dartmouth. What is it people like to say. The most important job in our society is that of a teacher and then we like to add we pay them so little.
Do not attack the teachers union. Look at the School administration and I do not mean the SC or principles. There is no leadership or strength at the highest administrative level in the Dartmouth schools. The old saying “A fish rots from the head down” I think applies here.
This is very disappointing.
Regarding the tearcher's union
I'll tell you another thing that is very disappointing. The teacher's union is trying to negotiate to get rid of the A/B schedule at the high school. This means that our very talented musicians would only have music for 1/2 year. Right now they have music for a full year every other day. This would really have a great impact on our award winning music program. Our State/National Championship Band, our very talented world traveling Orchestra and our wonderful Chorus. Parents in other communities wish their kids had an opportunity to be a part of our music program. This is very devastating! The music educators are hard working people that are there all hours of the day, nights and weekends for our kids. This is going to have an impact on them as well. They are there for our kids and we should back them up on this! This is going on right now. Why has this been a big secret??? Are they looking for some way to make more money at the expense of our kids?
Bill I am wondering if you can please, please look into this?
Hey, do we have all the books and technology we need for the middle and high schools yet??
Those first.
What do you want Bill do to do, look into it and blog it and then do what? Bill proposes no solutions, just blogs to make everyone angry.
No I am not a teacher I am parent just like you Bill. Unfortunately unlike you Bill, my children are just starting out in the Dartmouth school system which you seem to enjoy bashing every chance you get.
What I find amazing Bill is that you never found the time to critizize the schools when your children were benefiting from their Dartmouth public school education that I and all the taxpayers out there payed for. But now that your children have grown it's amazing how critical you have become.
Ya Ya,What he said, It's all Bill's fault the teacher's union did this.
Yea Bill thanks for that Minimum Net School Spending. It wasn't good for your kids but apparently it's just fine for mine, thanks.
It looks like the teacher's union just blew the chance to have a $600k increase over MRNSS.
You people are amazing!!! Bill posts the information and you blame him! He had nothing to do with this grant or the fact that the school declined it!
To post 4/2/09 4:02pm, saying this has no value except to get people angry. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This is public information! Why go to all the work of getting grants if they won't get accepted.
leading into his "public announcement", Bill chooses to use the word "fanfare" - reveals a lot
you and yours have a great deal of work to do if you have any interest in bridging the great divide.
DG golden handshakes comment
no override signs adorned with glossy magazine cover w/bogus data on school salaries
cfrg flyers misleading voters using figures alluding to school consolidation not overcrowding our elementary schools
no one antagonizing the already strained town - school divide belongs on our SB
no one not willing to partner with SC to ascertain funds/grants to support those acquired through the school department belongs on our SB
the postings here are a disgrace
charter schools need legislative work in order to work outside of the union - it's been done in other states - the one's positioned to receive millions to supplement their school departments
it takes progressive action - we're years behind others as DG talks her fluff and gets us nowhere
public education needs radical reforms - the taxpayers burden can only be relieved through collaborative work of town and school departments,
and we need to build a team of bright, innovative minds ready to act
DG has demonstrated not to be one of them as she spews about lifetime learning and a day without learning something is a day wasted jargon- nothing but how-obvious-can-it-possibly-be sentiment getting us nowhere
I've had it with the "bunk" on these blogs from people who have nothing to offer but defense of their wounded egos
stop blasting the union, the teachers, the parents - the problem is bigger than them
and all of these hateful, useless posts are part of the problem too
we've lost a grant, and I'm certainly not going to jump to the conclusion based on Bill's post as to the reasons why
Has anyone heard any news about Mr. McDonald's recent surgery and if he is doing well?
The school committee should not have been blind-sided by this. If I remember correctly every school was assigned a school committee representative last year. The idea was to have each SC member represent the needs and issues of their assigned school to the school committee. This obviously did not happen in this case.
Very well said anonymous 11:45 enough blame and finger pointing when something doesn't work. We need to work together to find solutions to try to make things work when they fail.
I wish Mr. McDonald well.
So, my question is: Is it really about the children??
Since Mr Mcdonald has been attempting to stir up divisiveness with his attacks against one candidate and the schools now have a public relations problem with the grant, let's play the sympathy card for Shawnald.
He was NOT attempting to stir up divisiveness with his attacks against one candidate. He was CORRECTING one candidates misleading claims in a campaign ad.
Let's face reality the whole town of Dartmouth has a public relations problem.
Don't blame Bill Trimble for printing information concerning school teachers union control over higher education.
Some, of our advanced school students, are bored to death with the limited subject matter being thought. These student need to be challenged. In fairness to all students, large sums of school money is directed towards special needs and the academically challenged student, but nothing is offered to the student who excels beyond the average public school educational programs. To lose 600,000 thousand dollars, for the programs needed to encourage the academic archivers, is a sin.
Now, is the time to start making the necessary changes within the school committee.
Elect people who will fight the teachers union.
No more pay increases.
It has been mentioned, teachers with a greed for money, is the equal to larceny from the mind of a child. You, the school teachers, are a public disgrace to everything that is right about teaching.
Excellent comment, 8:36.
Bill, just out of curiosity, can you or someone on the SC or in the schools, tell us what is a "small stipend for students who passed the AP exam."?
Was this written into the grant, and why? I am having a difficult time understanding why a student has to be "rewarded," monetarily, anyway, for doing well in school. Parents may do so; mine did, off and on, I think, (a quarter for each "A," if I remember right; inflation has left this a mighty palltry amount!!) but the school feels it should be doing it as well??
Come on!
Did Mr. Cordeiro write this in as a proposal for this grant? Shame, if so. This "small stipend" money could be put toward better use, for materials, teacher training, etc.
If these kids are not challenged enough and are bored, I would think they themselves would welcome further opportunity to learn at an advanced level solely for the fact they are learning and are not sitting there twiddling their thumbs. Why should they be offered an "incentive" to learn or to pass an exam? Seems like they already have that incentive and don't need to be cajoled into learning to begin with.
Unbelievable.
And the school wonders why people are reluctant to give them overrides. I hope they think long and hard at their spending from now on. People will be monitoring their every financial move, or they should be.
Talk about needing accountability. If ever, this occasioned the time for it.
Wonder what Ms. Stone has to say about this fiasco? Now THIS is an occasion for her tears! It's an occasion for all of us who are still shaking our heads over the school/union's thievery of our children's education, as an above poster stated.
It all starts at the top ,I think it is time to start looking for a new Superintendent, lets stop passing blame to the SB, SC, SA or State it all begins with Mr. Russell, he has proven not to be a strong advocate for our children.
This fiasco was strictly the teachers union. not SC or Bush St. this program was entirly on the faculty at DHS. A few teachers got alittle merit pay most others didnt. majority ruled voted NO despite the wonderful opportunities this held. No ones fault but the teachers and their union.
Bill I will say it again this will not solve the Town's fiscal problems so why post it? Answer to divert attention from your shortcomings and Diane's shortcomings as a leader.
More finger pointing at the schools to divert attention from your inability and Diane's inability to solve the financial problems of the Town.
However, the fiasco you made with Micahel Gagne and his pending settlement will cost this town real money that we WILL have to pay him and WE DON'T HAVE IT.
Not to mention the legal costs incurred to defend the town in court, as well as the search committee costs incurred to replace Micheal and the salary of the new EA that you know propose at the same level as when Michael left.
Now that's a real issue we should be talking about! Care to enlighten us about that?
9:44, sounds like you are doing the same thing you accuse Bill of, diverting attention from an inexcusable action on the part of the teachers/union by "finger-pointing" at Diane and Bill on an entirely different topic.
Nice try. It's not working. We see right through you.
Am I mistaken, but isn't any grant money awarded any city or town for any reason, money taxpayers throughout Massachusetts have payed to the state?
Sounds like the school/union doesn't want our money! We need to remember that!!
An old fashioned or new fashioned teacher who loves teaching would do anything to help students succeed. Stipends and merit pay are dumb.
I knew it didn't look right. "PAID to the state."
9:44 is a hypocrite that thinks we are too stupid to follow more than one news story at a time. There have been plenty of blogs right here to discuss the topics that 9:44 wants posted; but since this one is obviously embarrassment to him, he wants the debate shut down. Calling attention to those that make selfish decisions that are detrimental to the town is fair game.
to 10:27 - I think this was a private grant foundation and not taxpayer money - not that it makes a difference in the big picture it's still money lost.
I was a teacher for three years and I was married to a teacher for 18 years. I enjoyed some of the benefits of unionization including a living wage for my wife; One that lets a teacher actually be paid enough to purchase a house in the district where they teach. I would like to explain why unions do not want merit pay. Remember what we called the "teacher's pet"; they were kids either smart, funny, attractive or any other reason a child would be favored over another.
Now imagine the principal or other administrator is the teacher and the teachers are the students. The person in charge of that pot of money called the merit pay can give it to whomever he wants and sure enough he/she has his/her "teachers pet".
Well, you say we can quantify one teachers value over another. One teacher may be given the worst students in the school and may be an excellent or horrible disciplinarian, his students test scores may show little improvement over a term and he may get no merit pay while doing the hardest task of all. Or the most excellent teacher may be saddled with all of the difficult students while another teacher, the principals "pet" will be given the cream of the crop.
The abuses are as varied and dastardly as you can imagine.
I was an art teacher. I got little respect from administration as do most of the specialty teachers. Art, Music, Physical Ed., etc. I taught over 600 students a week in art and was told by administration that the custodian was complaining the art room took more time to clean than any other room. I respect the custodian but do you think the administrator would maybe understand that the art room would be a little dirtier when 600 students a week pass through it.
all other rooms had 30 to 60 students a week. My reaction after repeated abuse from the custodian was to use only pencil and paper from then on. Did that enhance the art program, No. Was the custodian and principal happy, Yes.
So I would have been rewarded for not teaching art and the custodian really chose who was deserving of merit pay.
I will tell you that after being passed over for merit pay for a year, one's desire to teach will deteriorate rapidly and your art teacher will not teach art. Your academic teachers will teach to the test. Your administrators will give merit pay to those teachers who bring them the fewest hassles and a feeling of unfairness will ruin teacher comraderie.
I suggest those of you that don't like teachers unions read the mission statement of the NEA. It will open your eyes.
To James (11:37)—I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed response. I still disagree with you; but I think that you have raised some important points that merit discussion. The position you state is a typical union mentality that says the only fair way to differentiate is based on time in the position. The problem is that it mediocrity. Good managers will differentiate based on merit; but as you point out not all managers are good. The alternative of working strictly on seniority is worse. Working strictly on seniority means that when layoffs come, you sometimes lay off the best people. And promotion does not reward the best.
Thank you 11:56. I have problems with teachers unions; no group is without its problems. I would be skeptical of any group that gives a grant with conditions such as merit pay. Could I give a grant to require teachers to teach abstinance, or creationism, or Taoism? The union may be right on this one. that it is a private grant means that there is no accountability. The board may be right on this one. I really don't know.
10:41, thank you.
Things aren't always as they appear.
You should be asking the questions, "who are these grant givers?"
"Why do they require merit pay in return for their largess?"
Yes thanks 10:41, that they are private non-governmental grant givers makes ALL the difference.
"Are they anti-union?"
"Are They specialists in education?" "What is their agenda?"
Sometimes you should look a gift horse in the mouth.
These would be excellent questions to ask Manny Cordeiro, who probably applied for it.
Kind of like the stimulus package? Too much fine print with irrational stipulations attached?
This type of grant is not one that Mr. Cordeiro would apply for. It was the high school administration that applied for the grant to be used in the high school.
Anonymous 2:43 is correct to question..does merit pay stop at the end of 5 years? My question is..what teacher training do HS teachers need? Subject matter? Classroom conduct?
All of it may be moot, the grant was declined.
And that is unfortunate!!!
Rhetorical question "Why not blame grant giver for requiring unacceptable stipulations in the grant?" All of it depends on who the granters are. BT says three groups could not agree on accepting grant. I don't automatically see union as the bad guy.
The high school principal applied for this grant. As James says perhaps the problem here lies in multiple places? Should the administration checked with the union first? Did they know the conditions of the grant? What is the agenda of the grant provider? All good questions
I blame the union for receiving to take the grant. The so-called “unacceptable conditions” are the requirement that good teachers be rewarded. The union position that we want the good treated the same as the bad is the path do mediocrity.
Nothing in the grant would take money from any teacher. It would only provide additional money to some. The fact that the union members will not allow this grant to be accepted shows that they place their political agenda above the children they profess to support just as a political show of force. Well the union has proven something; but I do not think it is what it wanted to prove.
Why don’t we change our educational slogan to “mediocrity for all.”
In 2007 Massachusetts was awarded one of First-Ever National Math and Science Initiative Grants for AP and Pre-AP Courses valued at 13.2 million dollars from The National Math & Science Initiative in Dallas, TX. I think this is where we got the $600,000, but I am not positive and am following up on it. I have included an article that shows regardless whether the funds came from the NMSI other schools have experienced what we are going through now.
$13 million grant for AP teachers lost over pay dispute
Two Seattle high schools are among seven statewide that will lose a chance to add and strengthen Advanced Placement courses in math and...
May 6, 2008
By Linda Shaw
Seattle Times education reporter
Two Seattle high schools are among seven statewide that will lose a chance to add and strengthen Advanced Placement courses in math and science because a $13.2 million grant that Washington state won last year has been scrapped.
The National Math & Science Initiative (NMSI), based in Dallas, has announced it will end Washington's grant because of disagreements about how to carry it out.
NMSI declined to give specifics, but state Rep. Bill Fromhold, D-Vancouver, said the issue was how to pay teachers for the extra time they spent in training and for how well their students scored on AP exams.
NMSI wanted to pay teachers directly, he said, while Washington's collective-bargaining laws require that teacher pay be negotiated between unions and school districts.
"We worked hard to try to find middle ground," said Fromhold, who is working with the group implementing Washington's grant.
"We got caught in the middle of the grant requirements and the collective-bargaining laws in the state of Washington that have to be followed."
He didn't want to lay blame on either side, he added.
Washington was one of seven states to receive the six-year grants.
Franklin High was one of the two Seattle schools signed up to be part of the grant. West Seattle could have been the other, although it voted against accepting it, in part because of concerns about teachers receiving merit pay for student test scores, said district spokesman David Tucker. Another Seattle school likely would have been added, however, if the grant had gone forward.
The five other high schools set to receive grant funds were in the Evergreen School District in Vancouver and in the Spokane area.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided $10 million for the effort, was disappointed that Washington state couldn't find a solution, noting that some of the other states involved have teachers unions, too.
"Honestly, I can't figure out why they couldn't solve this," said Steve Seleznow, the foundation's program
The pay elements of the program were clear from the beginning, said NMSI spokeswoman Rena Pederson, and NMSI "tried to be as flexible as possible." But she said NMSI felt it needed to maintain what it felt was essential to the program's success.
But Rich Wood, spokesman for the Washington Education Association (WEA), said that outside groups can't just set up a new system for paying local teachers.
"That's not how it works in our state."
The WEA, he said, was particularly concerned about tying teacher pay directly to student test scores.
About 22 percent of the $13.2 million would have been spent on extra pay for teachers, according to NMSI.
Fromhold said he didn't learn about the pay issues until he started working with Mentoring Advanced Programs for Students (MAPS), which was administering Washington's grant. But he had been optimistic something could be worked out.
Grants in the other six states — Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Virginia — are going forw
James' comments about favoritism make a certain amount of sense but let's face it, favoritism is always a factor. I have witnessed unions play favoritism too. If someone is willing to go above and beyond what their fellow union members are willing to do, sometimes they are frowned upon. I worked in a place where management decided to harrass those people who had reached top step in pay but still had a long way to retirement. The goal was to replace higher paid employees with new lower paid ones. It didn't matter if the employees were hard working or not. If they had around ten years of service, an attempt was made to push them out. The union, when it came to defending the affected employees, played favoritism big time and those who worked extra hard were almost always hung out to dry. Remember my story about singing Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World"? Losing that job ended up being one of the best things that ever happened to me.
The question for us is: does legislature have to be changed at the state level as it does in some other states to allow for charter schools to operate outside of union regulations? Many of these foundations award funds contingent upon that scenario, which is precisely why we need corroboration between SB and SC members who will work to position us for these funds. Both Gilbert and Gracie have stated it's solely SC territory. Gracie has also stated his knowledge is only on the town side, not the school side. Gilbert having not supported the override, has had three years to assist in making the progress other municipalities have made to acquire these funds for their schools, but has been consumed with other "endeavors". Both Stone and Watson as well as Jones have demonstrated progressive thinking emphasizing the corroboration that is needed. Precisely, why Stone has mentioned the importance of grant money. This is a very important election as the taxpayer burden of funding our public schools needs relief. And, we are behind the eight ball. The bulk of our tax dollars supports education - this is the issue needing a team effort of both boards. There will be union resistance, it will be difficult, and it will take years to accomplish the reforms that are needed. Antagonizing unions and teachers in the meantime is counterproductive and will get us nowhere and only harm our school system and keep people squabbling as evidenced on these blogs. Unfortunately, as Jones has pointed out we have a generation of students in limbo who were not provided with a stabilized situation pending these changes. That is what the override attempted to do, whether one agreed with it or not. We voted to implement PAYT/Fees instead. Stone, Watson, and Jones are the only candidates voicing the commitment to take on this complex issue of relieving the taxpayer burden and corroborating to resolve the town's commitment to protect our public school system. It is critical to support these three candidates: Watson, Stone, Jones. And it deserves repeating, no candidate is supporting an override.
Perhaps, Gilbert could attempt an appointment to the Personnel Board, since that is clearly where her interests lie. She has wasted precious time.
So Doug, does this mean that you want to get the ball rolling with charter schools?
I don't believe that is what Gilbert & Gracie have said. The Select Board cannot make decisions for the schools. They can only work with them which both Gilbert & Gracie are willing to do. The Select Board's number one priority is the town side. Criticizing them for that is ridiculous.
The Select Board and School Committee should not be one entity which is what you appear to want.
Yes, Ms Gilbert has been consumed with other endeavors. She has been working to straighten out the mess left behind by others and working towards a sustainable budget. In other words, the town side which is her duty.
The School Committee's number one priority is the schools. Why aren't you criticizing School Committee members for not going after grants? Isn't it the School Committee's obligation to deal with the unions and staff? Why attack the Select Board? As I have stated the Select Board needs to work with the SC but ultimately it is the SC responsibility to deal with school issues. That is what they are there for. Your criticism for political reasons is obvious.
What we DON'T need is a Select Board that is an extension of the School Committee. Residents will lose any opportunity for a fair shake.
Electing Stone and Watson to the SB will nullify any progress Ms. Gilbert, with Mr. Trimble and Mr. Michaud, have made to restore our town to the townspeople.
Ms. Gilbert flushed out the contracts; she, with Mr. Trimble, upon his election, have steadfastly pressed for the public's right-to-know and Mr. Michaud takes it a step further by ferreting out the documentation behind this secret meeting and the contracts' protective provisions.
We have a good team going now, with Ms. Gilbert, Mr. Trimble, and Mr. Michaud, who are working for the benefit of the entire town. They have no special agenda.
Electing Mr. Gracie, who has proven his value to the town through his participation on committees, offering the town the benefit of his research, mathematical, and networking skills, will further strengthen the goal that Ms. Gilbert, Mr. Trimble, and Mr. Michaud have, and that is a responsible, accountable, transparent government worthy of our trust.
Mr. Gracie needs to be elected to the Select Board and Ms. Gilbert needs to be reelected.
Keep the good work currently being done by the above-mentioned three Board members going. We will all win in the long run.
It is crucial to vote for Jones, regardless of who you support for Select Board. Jones can influence SC decisions and policy. The SB has the ability to seek revenue, but first the school dept. needs to straighten out some issues and priorities. Jones will assist!
The school department needs to keep its headlights on. They need to look within to solve problems. The taxpayers don't feel the schools are making the best decisions.
I have followed this thread with interest, but have not added my own .02 because I do not have all the information needed to make an informed opinion about what has taken place, why and what might have been done differently to alter the outcome. I am grateful that the blogger named 'James' has added all he has to this topic and think it has given most bloggers a lot of food for thought which is good. I have contacted the school administration and left a message for the union rep to contact me-although I do not really expect to hear from the union but thought it was worth trying to get their side. I do understand why they might not want to discuss this issue with a political candidate a few days before the election so I won't make too much out of their decision to not call me.
I have heard from Dr Russell who stated that this issue and the block scheduling issue that was mentioned earlier in this thread will be discussed in executive session at Monday night's school committee meeting. I am hopeful that once that executive session meeting takes place the town will be briefed on all the particulars surrounding these two issues and then we can speak based on facts and not speculation. That's all I know at this point so can't really offer any additional insight other than what I've just written.
Greg Jones
This is another example of poor leadership in the school department. What does our superintendent have to say about his administration? Refused grants, empty schools, declining graduation rates, falling MCAS scores....
There is no leadership for Dartmouth Schools. The Bush Street administrtion is disabled.
Greg Jones will be the voice of reason on the School Committee.
I HAVE to comment. On Curt's blog, a poster stated in all caps, PADANARAM WILL PREVAIL!!! Lara Stone Will Win!!!"
Now for all of you claiming the Gilbert camp is causing all the divisiveness, can this be any more elitist and divisive?
Now we have it in black-and-white, folks.
Gilbert, Jones, and Gracie.
Is there anywhere where we could read the actual wording of the grant that was offered to the school?
As I understand it one of the issues with this grant was in fact merit pay. If a student scored a 3 or higher in a math, science, or English AP class he or she was to receive $100 and the teacher was to also receive $100. Unfortunately this did not apply to any of the other courses like Spanish or art, so this grant model appeared to have a flaw or bias towards certain subjects.
A second issue of concern was the inflexibility of the use of the money. There were many stipulations placed on the use of the money. One example was that teachers would be prohibited from pooling their money together for the purchase of materials. There were also many stipulations going forward beyond the life of the grant In some instances these stipulations were so strict they were of legitimate future funding concerns. These were similar to what the Police Department encountered when they recently had to reject a Homeland Security Grant.
So while I know it is never a pleasant thought to have to return grant money there are more issues here that need to be discussed.
What a shame that such stipulations were placed into the grant's language to make it not feasible to accept.
It certainly does sound like what Chief Pacheco went through, and like some of the stimulus packages that have been rejected for their unreasonable provisions.
Thank you, 7:25, for the information.
Anon 10:14 is obviously a leader of the teachers’ union desperately trying to spin this public relations disaster. The "unreasonable" stipulations are that the union would have to allow some teachers to be awarded based on merit. When the grant runs out, the incentive ends.
There is no similarity with the grant turned down by the police which would have committed the community to continue to fund new positions by law.
Here is information about the National Math and Science Initiative http://www.nationalmathandscience.org/index.php/programs/programs.html
Anon 10:25 I am not a leader of the teachers union. I am a parent with school age children that cares enough about our schools and town to want to find out both sides of the story.
You seem to want to portray the issue one way which is your prerogative. You still have done nothing to address the issue of bias that the grant seems to set up by only awarding merit pay for certain subjects it deems worthy.
This is a real issue as were some of the other stipulations, not all of which did I have the details of as again I am just a parent getting this information second hand.
I am sure we will here more about this in the near future. I sincerely hope that the next time Mr. Trimble decides to blog something he has more facts and information surrounding it so it isn't so inflammatory and negative but then I guess what would be the point right Mr. Trimble?
We need to know both sides of the story before we "pile on" thats not unreasonable.
To anon 203, Mr. Trimble's motivation is obviously to serve his community in Dartmouth. This is an unpaid position,and he recieves nothing from this blog. He doesn't pretend to have all the answers, but gives a place for responses exactly for the purpose that is evident here. He may not agree with you but he has given a spot to respond for precisely the reason - he may learn something or he may hear the will of the electorate. Instead of vilifying him you should respect him. not that you have to agree but at least don't pretend he puts all these hours in for personal gain. I'm sure he could spend these hours more fruitfully doing business or enjoying time with his family.
I'm anon 10:14. Nothing to do with any type of union; not a teacher.
On Feb. 4, it was reported in The Standard-Times that Ed Iacaponi had been offered the position of interim executive administrator by Select Board Chairman Joe Michaud and Select Board member Diane Gilbert. The decision to offer Mr. Iacaponi the position had never been discussed or voted upon by the entire Select Board at that time.
Besides what I feel is a clear violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law, what I found to be the most appalling is that Gilbert publicly reprimanded Michaud for making this information public by calling the Standard Times.
She conveniently forgot to mention publicly that she also participated in this meeting to offer the interim position to Mr. Iacaponi.
It is interesting that she is currently running for re-election to the Select Board on a transparent and open government platform, yet she remains publicly silent regarding what I feel is a violation. An elected official, especially one who is running on a transparent and open government platform, she cannot pick and choose when to publicly expose an issue regarding transparency.
But no one should be surprised by Gilbert’s actions. They are not unprecedented.
Back in early 2008 during the much debated issue regarding a split tax rate -- an issue vehemently opposed by Diane Gilbert -- she wrote a letter to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue without first notifying her fellow Select Board members. In her complaint, she criticized the Select Board’s behavior and the manner in which they handled the debate by allowing the public to have a voice in the decision.
Think about this for a moment, we the taxpaying citizens according to Gilbert should not have been allowed to have our opinion heard in a public forum on how we should be taxed. There is something inherently wrong with this philosophy and tactic.
What this illustrates is Gilbert’s propensity to pick and choose when transparency is appropriate. Transparency must always be appropriate whether it works for you or against you.
Gilbert has had a lot to say regarding transparency in Dartmouth politics, and it has been illustrated that she has an incredible ability to turn a blind eye to transparency when it suits her needs.
The time for this double standard must come to an end in Dartmouth. We must as a community move forward by electing the right people to the Select Board to bring back transparency and collaboration back to our community, for that is what is needed most in these trying times.
We, the voting citizens of Dartmouth, now have our chance to decide how our community will tackle the issues we face. Will it be one of transparency and collaboration or selective transparency and divisiveness? The choice is yours at the polls on April 7th.
James, please don't preach to me about respect. Mr.Trimble lost my respect when he chose to post incomplete information with a negative title.
Instead of stirring the pot of negativity that he consistently feeds our community through this blog, Mr. Trimble could have done his job as a leader and picked up the telephone and called the School Department and asked some questions.
He may have not have agreed with their answers but at least he would have heard both sides or could have been directed to someone that had participated in writing the grant.
He could have then had the opportunity to ask questions of them before posting a segment full of half truths, innuendos and just plain "bunk". This is the process I went through and I am not paid either.
But again that would have not served his purpose.
He's certainly not the first SB member to post somthing without calling the School Dept for information. Thats a trick he learned from his mentor. But yet they want to work together with the SC. very puzzling.
The stoner attack dogs continue their assault and it will prove to be their downfall. Gilbert will win not by a landslide but by a convincing margin.
This comment is complete nonsense. Ms. Gilbert has been a consistent and unwavering advocate for the public's right to know. Citing the Open Meeting law regarding the interaction of two members of the Select Board and the Budget Director is just factually incorrect. There can be no meeting of the Select Board without a quorum of three members present. There was no Select Board quorum, hence no violation is possible. After the two met with Mr. Iacaponi and reported back to the Select Board that he was amenable to taking on the task, there was a open meeting and debate on his appointment. Ms. Gilbert's contact with the DOR was an inquiry about the propriety of public statements by Select Board members in advance of a public hearing about the split tax. Her concern there was once again that all sides be heard. It was not an attempt to quell debate but to postpone it to an appropriate forum. No group has been more divisive than those who are opposing. I conclude that their agenda is to get a property tax override passed since they have little other policy difference with Ms. Gilbert. They will not come out and say so,instead citing a broader perspective on fiscal responsibilty or other vague language.
The 3 G's all the way!!
I suspect that I did not have your respect from the start. You accuse me of half truths, innuendo and bunk. Please point out where in my post you find these. I stated the fact that the grant was refused, the reason for that refusal and gave my opinion. I'll stand by what I said unless you can show me that the grant was declined for some reason other than what I said.
You may not agree with me but at least advance a cogent argument. You call names and suggest I should call the school department (you intimate that you have. What did you find out, care to share that?).
Bill, it has been suggested many times that you go to the source for info before implying that there is a lack of transparency or any backroom deals or speculation. You repeatedly choose not to follow this advice and repeatedly get called for your innuendo. You may not define it as such, but given the wild speculation that occurs in the comments, I think many people are inferring alot of untruths from your posts.
Thanks Bill, That ridiculous attack against Gilbert has got Jim Mathes' fingerprints all over it. You know, the guy that spoke against the split tax while with the chamber of commerce then flipped when his bread got buttered with grant money. He tried the exact same type of attack in another forum and got his butt whipped in that debate also.
Bill I didn't call you a name, just said I disrespected you. But you are correct about one thing and that was that I did disrespect you long before this. You continue to use this blog to spread misinformation and negativity to suit your purposes, but it is your blog so we either correct you or ignore you.
Please reread my original post at 7:25pm yesterday that speaks about the inequality of the merit pay for certain classes. In simple terms, favoritism for certain subjects over others. As that is a real issue that you have failed to address.
Again let me state that I am not happy that the Schools declined this money. I am quite sure no one is.
However, I feel a better approach would have been to ask questions first from both sides and post them so that all could be privy to the issues. That way we could have had an informed discussion, instead of the inflammatory and angry bashing of the teachers, schools and the DEA, which is what happened in several of the posts.
The goal is to learn from our mistakes made so that we don't repeat them. We gain nothing from just pointing them out and makeing everyone angry about them.
I continue to hope that you will learn how to use this blog for good Bill, but you continue to disappoint me as a leader.
What misinformation? I think the discussion on this post has been relatively good as far as airing out the reasons that the grant was refused. People have a right to their opinions.
You presume that I did not get the information from the school department. It did come from the school department but not to me directly.
You are what is known on blogs as a concern troll. You have many concerns about this or that or the other thing because you have no argument to support with facts, so you're just concerned about the way I do things. Throw in some oblique references to what you say I think or what you say my attitude is, again without substantiation, and there you have it, a concern troll trifecta.
Here is a suggestion. Stop reading here. Your concerns will instantly vanish.
Sure 1:16 it was a great dialogue if you weren't a teacher, DEA member, administration, or a student wondering why your teachers were being called pathetic, they've screwed the kids, bunch of low lifers who prey off the good will of the taxpayers, scum of the earth, blood sucking insects...and the list goes on. A list that never needed to happen if Bill had presented the discussion properly.
See where I'm headed Bill? Use your blog for healthy solution oriented dialogue instead of this name calling degrading ugliness.
No I know your misinformation came through Diane Gilbert, too bad she doesn't check her facts either that's why you need to pick up the phone yourself.
Oh I pulled the troll card too. I've seen you use that on others when you just don't have a leg to stand on. Now who's calling who a name? Ok I'll go away now as they say in a Few Good Men "You can't handle the truth" :)
I received a forwarded e-mail that originated from someone that I would consider a very reliable source of school information. I sent an e-mail to the superintendant so that I could receive the info directly from the source to confirm it. Dr. Russell, as always, responded promptly and courteously to my inquiry and added some specifics to what I had heard. I then forwarded the info to Bill. This may be the information Bill used to base his post on. Not that it matters because the information Bill posted was accurate. At least I have not heard anyone challenge the accuracy of anything specific that he posted.
The grant offered was what I call a sh*t sandwich. "Your gonna eat it and your gonna like it." is the message from the granters. If they truly wanted to reward teachers they wouldn't have offered it without the strings that have caused the vitriol here. It is politically motivated to hurt unions. The teachers who they pretend to support are the ones they are trying to control through their dollars. Typical rich guys trying to control the working guys mentality that didn't work in Washington state and was a waste of time for all involved in Mass.
Mr. Trimble's original blog was opinion that was clearly stated as such. It is a shame that the district could not accept the money everyone agrees upon that.
If the granters just trusted that all AP teachers are appointed by administration because of there excellence in education and spread the dollars equitably among all the teachers who participated none of this would have been a problem.
But they had a political agenda and that was to hurt the unions, while pretending to help the members of the unions.
The union is in the position of protecting ALL the teachers. They also assume that all teachers are competent until they are proven as incompetent. Ask your administrator if all the teachers are competent if he says "No" then he should be fired for not properly administering the school.
If he says "yes" then spread the merit pay around equitably.
I look forward to working with Roscoe and Stone to get a non-union charter school operating in one of the vacant school buildings.
Apparently you are unaware of how this works. I posted the thread and other people comment. The other people are not me. Their comments represent their thoughts and opinions. I cannot edit them and I do not prescreen them. I think if you reread my original post you will find that I reported the grant was declined, said this was an example of what I think is wrong in our schools and said I hoped that the town would form a charter school. Again what others take from that is their own, not mine. So to those who comment here with tsk-tsk concern, what have you added to the discussion besides your concern? I submit that you bring nothing. You add no information or advance no argument one way or the other. At least James and others have offered a rationale and stated a case for it.
To answer your question, I am well aware that the grant was for math and science only. I have no problem with that. Why do you or the teacher's union?
In response to James and others, I would point out that the possibility of inequity does not seem to me to be a compelling reason not to accept this grant. I don't see how the teachers union would be adversely affected if they allowed the program to go forward. Would you explain why this is bad for the union?
This program is funded by corporations and foundations to promote math and science learning. That is their agenda as stated on their site. Some Massachusetts unions seem to have a problem with it and some do not The same program is used in hundreds of districts around the country apparently with some success
Although I would not respond so; the union may think that it causes friction among teaching staff. Human nature may be rife with jealousy and no amount of rationalization will change it. An administrator may conclude the loss of comraderie caused by the merit pay is not worth the reward to a few teachers. Also it is a slippery slope to allow outside groups to reward teachers with pay for teaching a certain way even if the goal is excellence. Will a Jewish group sue to teach AP history the way they want it to be taught? Will a Christian group join in?
The administration did not reject the money for no reason. Perhaps a charter school is the only alternative.
Also I don't like the idea that the teachers would be non union.
So money works to reward excellence in the case of this grant but presumably non union teachers would be paid less and why wouldn't the less money offered also lead to less quality teachers? something is kinda non sequiter there.
I think that this blog has shown that the fair exchange of ideas can lead to some solutions or at least some understanding of opposing viewpoints. There are some who just complain about everything without any solutions. They should just be ignored as static.
In Philadelphia we call them "Boo Birds", which used to mean Eagles fans who complain about the team as if they themselves could play better NFL football. Now "Boo Birds" has entered the colloquial lexicon to mean people who complain but don't even care to offer solutions.
Pat yourselves on the back gentlemen as it only took 100 or so posts to cut through the hurling of insults to get to constructive dialog. Maybe next time Bill you will phrase the post in such a way that the fair exchange of ideas that James speaks of could start a little earlier?
Yea Yea I know I am a Troll or a Boo Bird, thanks for the bedtime story ideas for my children. Good night.
Let's face it-- the union does not want competition from within or from outside. Just pay top dollar for a days pay and do not ask that members strive to be the best. And of course rewarding those that excel is "divisive. No wonder American industry is falling apart.
Why thank you 8:37 for addressing others as gentlemen! it only took about 100 post til u saw the light and joined the civilized world.
And i bet your good little children enjoyed their daddy telling them a Scary bedtime story w boo birds and trolls.
See how respectful discourse brings out the better angels in people?
I for one am done w this issue, see you again when another issue catches my eye in the beloved Dartmouth Hitching Post.
Thanks Bill for the forum.
Sorry James but I am a Mom. I wonder why you assumed I was a man? I'll let that speak for itself.
i think the problem of the anonymous tag made me think that. i wish everyone would choose a moniker like "skippy", "Milquetoast", "krogg" or "Poppi" so we could separate one Anonymous from the next. also when you addressed the comment to "gentleman" i assumed you were part of the gentlemen group.
My bad. Thanks again for your civility. it becomes you.
Thank you dear Lord that this Blog represents only 1% of 1% of the Dartmouth population registered to vote.
Bill - interesting the vitriol of some you choose to condemn, while of others you remain silent. Obvious pattern. As of 1:17 - you resemble your own post. Perhaps you could follow your own advise.
More advice: try diplomacy rather than being condescending - a leadership trait worth developing in years left of your term. One that's necessary should you seek reelection.
Admittedly, I wasn't an early fan. But, sincerely, I had hoped to become one.
Bill Trimble is the best. Period.
It seems that many in this town suffer from "shoot the messenger" mentality.Diane Gilbert uncovers the "personal contracts;" bang!She's devisive! Bill explains the schiool declining the grant; he's a "pot stirrer."
Let's all just put the blinders back on and pretend/hope everything's hunky dory in Dartmouth, like it was (???) for the last decade!
I'm curious why Curt Brown didn't have a Sunday headline story with this one; he can be a pot stirrer from time to time!
Gilbert uncovered no such thing. I was at the SB meeting two years ago when the contracts were openly discussed, leading to reactivation of the Personnel Board and discussion to hire an outside contract negotiator to review all contracts. You've gotten far too much mileage out of this misrepresentation. Gilbert is divisive and examples have been elaborated on here. She also lacks diplomacy and integrity and has demonstrated that for all to see.
Bill's intention was to stir the pot, otherwise he would have used different language. He, too, lacks diplomacy and his integrity is on shaky ground here.
9:47, the reactivation of the Personnel Board came about BECAUSE DIANE EXPOSED THE CONTRACTS!
She was writing about them in 2006 when she exposed them in an op ed piece in the ST in October 2006. This was before they were even mentioned by the SB. I was at the same meeting you were when the Personnel Board was "rejuvenated" and when they discussed hiring an outside negotiator, as well as at the SB meeting where they interviewed Mr. Greenspan for the first time.
So, YES, she DID EXPOSE them, contrary to what you'd like us to believe.
If you don't believe me, Google the op ed piece and see. Wish I knew the exact date and I'd tell you what date to look for.
Just because Gilbert may have written an op ed about contracts does not mean they weren't being openingly discussed elsewhere - which they were! Along with the bogus town-wide salaries published in the "glossy mag" adorning the no override signs in late spring, "07. It was that controversy that prompted the reactivation of the Personnel Board and discussion of hiring an outside negotiator. I remember this because of how pathetic Gilbert's "golden handshake" comments were with respect to a dedicated deserving school employee about to retire with her entitled benefits.
The stoner assault continues. I won't vote for someone who has nothing to offer except negative attacks on her opponent.
let's edit: you'll support the opponent regardless of the extent of her negatives
11:46, are you saying that someone else was discussing the lifetime salary and job protection provisions before she wrote her piece?
Can you tell us who this "elsewhere" is and why the contracts were being discussed?
I am only assuming that this "elsewhere" was concerned about the morally unethical contract clause and automatic renewal language, as well, and that was why the contracts were being discussed? That IS what you are saying, right?
the gilbert assault continues .I wont vote for someone who lies to get votes
Thank God it will all be over tommorrow and Lara Stone will be on the Selectboard. I cannot wait for this nastiness to end.
I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. The silent majority has embraced Gilbert as their own. Changing the polling places again will probably help stone but I doubt it will be enough to tip the scales. Unlike you, I will not make predictions but I feel real good about Gilbert's chances.
Really, some of you people need a life! Elections are tomorrow. You will all get one vote. That's the way it works.
My vote for SB will be for Diane Gilbert and Mike Watson. All the candidates are good people willing to serve the town. We just have different opinions. That's democracy!
Yep the secrets out. the changed polling places to help stone. I feel real good about gilbert chances also-to have the summer off
Good letter in the S-Times today about declining this grant. It hurts the students!
Post a Comment