Left In Lowell

The Fluff Over School Hiring Is, Well…Fluff

9 Responses to “The Fluff Over School Hiring Is, Well…Fluff”

1. Fran McDougall Says:
   September 11th, 2007 at 2:07 pm

   Go get ‘em Carla!

2. Right in Lowell Says:
   September 11th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

   A couple of things:

   1)Those stats are totally meaningless unless you compare them to what went on before. 2/3 of new hires come from within? What was the percentage before?

   2)33% of new hires live in Lowell? How many of them moved here from somewhere else once they got the job? Either way, that’s way too low of a percentage.

   3)38% were raised here? Again, a figure way too low.

3. Mr. Lynne Says:
   September 11th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

   Only valid when you compare with what happened before? That only makes sense if you are looking for a number that takes you ‘from’ somewhere ‘to’ somewhere you want to be. If the goal is to get from one number to another, then great,… but if the goal is to strike a balance between internal promotion and seeking outside talent, then you don’t need to know any past numbers. You have all the data you need to measure against that goal.

   On 2) and 3)… are there enough people who majored in education in (or raised in) the city to sustain a city school system at higher percentages? You’d have to know the available population of teachers to be able to judge if there has been adequate penetration in the current set of teachers.

4. Lynne Says:
   September 11th, 2007 at 4:23 pm

   Oh my god, are you people freaking Lowellcentric. 33% living in the city is HUGE! When I think of how many of my teachers lived out of town when I went to school - quite a lot - 1/3 living in the direct vicinity is quite large. 38% grown up here is even huger.

   And Mr. L is right…how many people who live here go into teaching in any given year??? It can’t be that many, I suspect (at least, not enough to want to stay here…keep in mind that those at UML probably are going back home to teach in their own communities).

5. Dan MacNeil Says:
   September 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

   Could somebody explain to me why it is important to hire people from Lowell for school administration jobs?

   So somebody is a dumb-ass and comes from Lowell, the latter is more important than the former?

   Shouldn’t people be hired for the these jobs based on their ability?

   Am I missing something?

   What’s more important patronage or education?

6. The Prince of Darkness Says:
   September 11th, 2007 at 6:41 pm

   Education is waaaay too important to be left in the hands of politicians.

7. Right in Lowell Says:
   September 12th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

   Qualifications should ALWAYS be most important in hiring and promoting. And when all things are equal, THEN the nod should go to someone already employed here or living in the city.

   That said Mr. Lynne, any statistical argument is meaningless unless compared to something. So before Jackie D. brings numbers into a discussion, she’d better be prepared to back them up and see if they hold muster against previous administrations or comparable school systems. The goal should be 100% internal/hometown promotions provided the candidates are qualified. But when the person judging qualifications has an axe to grind, it makes you wonder what agenda she has.

   Do you really believe Carla is making her decisions based on merit? If so, why is she so adamant on ousting Samaras, the one person whose school is excelling while so many others are struggling? It’s exactly for reasons like this that people are up in arms about her practices. If she’s doing it in this case, you can bet your statistical evidence it’s going on elsewhere in the system.

8. Jason Says:
   September 13th, 2007 at 10:53 am

   While I choose to live in Lowell and work for the city, I don’t care where everyone else who works here lives as long as they are good at their jobs and show up on time. I’d like to think that people can see all the great things the city has to offer, have a shorter commute and pay more reasonable taxes for more services than you get in the towns, but hey that’s their loss if they don’t. (Send us your tired, huddled masses and keep the local aid coming though folks!)

   What does annoy me is the two different strandards. Some city employees can live out of state and/or at any travel distance while by law other can’t (depending on your interpretation of the city solicitor’s opinion). For public safety because of residence preference you can’t even get hired at entry level if you had not established residency for one year before taking the test (civil service rule not the city). So we have two completely different standards for people working for the same city.

   That tells me there is a supply/demand issue at work here. We have so many qualified applicants for some jobs we can choose (i.e. people paying to take a take a test for just a chance to get a job), but not for others. The fact you need a bachelor’s and a teaching certificate to start and eventually need to have a master’s degree to teach makes the process a bit more selective, as there are fewer of those people running around.

   I’ve always been a life, liberty and pursuit of happiness kind of guy. You want to live somewhere else you should have that right, wherever it is as long as you show up when you are supposed to and do your job. The only places that care whether their employees live in the community are the ones with some type of problems and poorer neighborhoods. That’s why Boston had residency requirements, to keep middle class civil servants in proping up the city. You think Wellesley and Weston care where their teachers, cops and firefighters live? Me neither.

   I assume I will now hear the I pay your salary comments, feel free to see my other post comments (#22) on that.

   www.leftinlowell.com/2007/09/11/did-counselor-rita-mercier-get-a-law-degree/#comments

9. Mr. Lynne Says:
   September 14th, 2007 at 2:48 pm

   Right… “any statistical argument is meaningless unless compared to something.” I agree. You were arguing a comparison of current figures to past figures. I was arguing for a comparison of current figures to desired current figures.

Leave a Reply