Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Paul Georges, the ubiquitous President of the United Teachers of Lowell and President of the Merrimack Valley Central Labor Council (AFL-CIO), has a letter in today’s Lowell Sun in response to School Committeewoman Jackie Doherty’s op-ed piece in the paper’s September 11th edition.
Lynne had already posted (The Fluff Over School Hiring is Well Fluff) on SC Doherty’s commentary which dealt with a report on the hiring and promoting practices of the Lowell School Department. As SC Doherty stated “The report supports what the Superintendent has been saying all along. ‘We are committed to selecting the candidate who best matches the requirements and needs of the position being filled…We are also committed to developing and recognizing the skills and knowledge of Lowell educators who wish to pursue administrative positions’.”
But Mr. Georges sees it differently: “The additional classification of administrators as being ‘Lowell residents’ or ‘raised in Lowell’ is not germane to the question and does more to create a smokescreen than answer the greater question of whether rank-and-file teachers, with long and dedicated service to the system and community, are getting a fair shake in consideration as applicants for positions of leadership in schools across the City.”
I know I am swimming in dangerous waters when I try to debate Mr. Georges publicly. I have to admit that he is an outstanding orator and a relentless champion for his union but the only smokescreen here is the one advanced by the Superintendent’s critics. So now that it has been proven that we do hire from within Lowell, the definition of “within Lowell” has changed.
I respect the 44 out of the 45 “teacher building representatives” who indicated to the UTL that they “felt that there was little opportunity of advancement to a key administrative position in the Lowell School System.” I know that sometimes perception is reality and that most of us do not want to work in an environment where there is no room for advancement. But at the end of the day, the people of Lowell should be asking, where is the data that indicates that a qualified, willing “rank-and-file, long-term Lowell educator” was not selected and a less capable and ineffective “outsider” was?
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.494 seconds
September 18th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Paul Georges’ careful parsing of what it means to be “from Lowell” when it comes to being promoted reminds me of the old Maine rejoinder when someone claims to come from Maine simply because they were born there: “If a cat had kittens in the oven, you wouldn’t call them biscuits, would you?”
September 18th, 2007 at 9:58 am
[…]
posted in Education, Local Politics |
I refer you to Mimi’s post on LiL as a reasonable response to the assertions made by Paul George […]
September 18th, 2007 at 11:35 am
where is the data that indicates that a qualified, willing “rank-and-file, long-term Lowell educator” was not selected and a less capable and ineffective “outsider” was?
That started right at the top, Karla Brooks Baehr over William Samaras, who should have suceeded George Tsapsaris in the first place.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Nice anecdote, but doesn’t address the question.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I have to admit that he is an outstanding orator and a relentless champion for his union But by no means a champion for the children of Lowell.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I’ve been away for a few days so have missed some topics but I’d like to add a comment about one of my big bugaboos, hiring only Lowell residents. To follow this thought through, that all municipal employees should be Lowellites, then there ought to be a by-law stating that no person qualified for such positions and residing in the city, may seek employment in another city or town because that municipal entity wouldn’t be able to hire their own residents and on and on and on! The superintendent is hiring the best qualified candidates and place of birth or previous geographical site of their employment does not enter into the formula.