The fact that it's taking place on the 'Left Cost' is kind of suprising

Unfortunately, even the left coast is not as left as Massachusetts has become. Melrose schools would be a lot better if we could get rid of tthe bottom 1/3 of teachers.

My husband and I have both been teachers for decades and have FORBIDDEN our children to go into education. It used to be fun, creative and joyful but not anymore. With all the baby boomers retiring and the way educators are vilified, good luck having enough teachers in our schools.

Get rid of the unions, pay teachers based on ability, commitment and performance, and provide bonuses for exceptional performances, going above and beyond what is expected. Wow....sounds like the private sector! We need to get rid of the last vestiges of socialism. If we cannot rid ourselves of unions soon enough, greatly expand charter schools until it is done! Nothing talks like money.

I forgot to add one more important item in my comment above. We need to get rid of federal mandates, even if they provide initial monies upfront to start new programs. The bureaucrats in Washington DC have no idea as to what is right for the educational systems in Melrose or Massachusetts. Once size that fits all programs like "Common Core" only makes all school districts sink to a "lowest common denominator". Education should be run locally rather than from Washington.

Given the dismal record of personnel management demonstrated by the current administration, and given the blatant proclivity of the current super to play favorites without regard for ability, if you were a teacher, would you be comfortable relying on her judgement alone as the deciding factor in your job retention future? That would simply be one more reason why qualified candidates would refuse to work in Melrose. Your cure would be worse than the disease.

I do agree with you about mandates, which should only be in place as long as they are fully funded by the mandating authority, be it state or federal. I also agree that even then, they're still not a good idea.

So, in your view school systems are incapable of using the well established "pay for performance" review process that is successfully utilized in the Private Sector?

The Melrose school district has already demonstrated its inability to implement the review process successfully. The lack of professionalism by those doing the reviewing is blatant. They play favorites in the most gross and obvious ways. They wouldn't recognize real quality if it were hitting them on the head with a hammer. They also don't care about incompetence as long as those who are incompetent are favorites (just look around at the favored principals, teachers and other administrators to see the proof of this statement--it's flagrant!). Sadly too many of the parents are just as blind to quality or incompetence, basing their judgments more on whether they themselves have become favorites of the administrators or teachers that play these sick and dangerous games.

The grossly toxic atmosphere is what results when ignorant, unethical administrators (with huge egos and inordinantly large self-esteem) barge around the district "reviewing" the staff, cozying up to their band of sycophants, pushing their weight around writing "evaluations" that victimize too many good teachers and praise too many of the incompetents. The bad ones can get away with basically anything as long as they are sucking up--gross language on the job, unacceptable conduct, grossly inadequate performance, lack of actual qualifications, you name it, anything goes for the favorites. Good teaching isn't even recognized (can you imagine any of these administrators actually in front of a classroom?).

The unions in general are not to blame for the stupidity of Melrose to allow such stupid hiring and conduct of administrators. That's on the voters and committee, especially the self-proclaimed "education expert." The Melrose union is absolutely to blame for many years of horrendous mismanagement and disgraceful conduct by its own leadership. That is not the fault of the organization as a whole, though. This anti-union mentality is very dangerous. That doesn't mean, though, that the Melrose teacher's union has a shred of anything of which to feel proud. It should feel quite ashamed of itself, if only there were enough who cared about the kids that they actually stepped up to take ownership of their large share of responsibility for allowing such egregious misconduct by their own and in not standing up for what's right generally. They're worse than useless and have become a huge part of the problem.

Thanks for that unbiased opinion. It says a lot about your true character.

"You Wait a Second" is just one of the juveniles who is incapable of understanding anything more sophisticated than tit-for-tat immature responses. Sounds like the "expert" himself!

Also, a lack of accountability is a major issue in our school system. Now with 2 assistant superintendents as well as our current superintendent, all former friends and professional acquaintances,there is a constant process of "sweeping negative items "under the rug" going on. And of course with the school committee having selected the superintendent, they cooperate in these activities to save face!

Yes, agree completely!

They are only concerned with getting reelected and convincing themselves of how great their decisions are. They (with one exception) demonstrate zero humility or willingness to face hard issues. They haven't demonstrated the simple wisdom that admitting a problem doesn't render you smaller, but in fact just the opposite. One can only wonder what kind of parents they are with that kind of attitude!

This one sure as hell isn't capable of it. Res ipsa loquitur.

I just love when this board goes crazy over some stupid issue. Now listen up you DIMWITTS, there is “NO TENURE” for teachers in Massachusetts.

hehehehe....

Ok wiseguy. It's now called "professional teacher" status.

Spell much? MHS grad? Only the first poster mentioned tenure, and he was talking about something that happened in California.

For a second I was going to jump on you for spelling, then I got the joke. Very clever. [:-D]

Teaching needs a different approach than the private sector because it is not a private sector profession. Public Schools are directed to teach every student who arrive, ability, demeanor, intellect, income level, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, family level of education is all accepted at a public school.

Public schools are not allowed to drop cost-ineffective programs to keep the bottom line up. They are not allowed to downsize, move to a more beneficial location, or re-image themselves. They are not allowed to take out a loan for an influx in capital, and then later declare bankruptcy. Public schools are under different regulations, mandates, financial procedures, and historical contexts than most private sector industries.

So, if one wants to run schools with the financial prudence a private sector company did:

a) move the school system to a state that offers a tax break
b) move to a new location that will build up infrastructure around the new construction being built with loans taken from banks
c) drop the special education program, as it raises the per pupil expenditure
d) turn away all non-English speaking students, as they raise the PPE
e) drop all music, drama, art, and education clubs as they cost money without breaking even
f) perform an independent audit into the sports programs, which, most likely, also do not break even
g) create policies that benefit the school over the student, leaving teachers no authority to modify assignments - teach them to say, "I'm sorry there's nothing I can do. This is the lesson plan. It is our policy to teach the lesson plan given to us by corporate"
h) close schools from December 20 th - February 20 th because of the associated costs of heating
i) stop any bussing programs, or institute a cost/distance fee - preferably something pre-pay
j) move into a smaller square footage facility and have teachers and students telecommute
k) raise class sizes
l) fire all teachers after five years of employment since a younger, cheaper teacher can do the same job as a more experienced one
m) pay the highest boss $1.5M a year with performance bonuses
n) lessen the length of day, or length of year, as costs rise - "same price - small size"
o) require students to bring their own paper, pencils, and purchase their own copies of necessary books
p) make all staff 19.5 hours to reduce health costs
q) stop state testing
r) sell advertising on popular students
s) sell them school system to Microsoft for a nice profit


Schools are not like private sector companies. It's a very different place. Trying to fit it into a private sector mold is missing the point of a public school - a place to educate all students.

Can schools do better? Yes. But becoming corporate isnt the way.

To Bill K.....I guess you woke on the wrong side of the bed prior to posting your comments! Most of your comments to adopt a private-sector approach to schools are basically ludicrous and you probably know it!Please don't take a serious issue and denigrate it.

All you need to do to improve schools is to give back running the schools to local school districts instead of Washington imposing federally unfunded mandates and for god's sake, get rid of the Dept. of Education which is just a bunch of lawyers and bureaucrats looking for something to do and ruin. Also, get rid of teacher unions since they have out-lived their usefulness.