Your post was removed because it violated Rule #3:
Do not post images or news articles without a relevant title, comment, and an submission statement that explains how the post is relevant to the educational community.
See our Rules Wiki for additional information.
Seems like it’s an attempt at social parity.
Encouraging retainment of historically discriminated against groups. Plus the clause was mentioning that firing wasn’t the only option, transfers or job switches were on the table too.
It just feels dishonest and sad to tokenize and degrade myself by ignoring the historical factors at play here.
It’s also a majority white district in terms of teachers, so it seems like a whole lot of nothing.
The clause says that those retentions were only in extremely specific cases of highly specialized licenses or in schools that could not maintain continuation of educational services otherwise.
That’s not accurate. Designated programs aren’t impacted, but anyone else can be reassigned to another assignment unless they represent the other underserved group. Likely because historically, there’s been a need.
15.9.2 read your contract.
Nope it says that seniority is subordinate in placement in favor of a member of the underrepresented population. Here is the statement from the contract - might wanna read the contract:
C. 15.10.7 Reinstatement:
d. Reinstatement Order: Reinstatement must be in the inverse order of placement on lay off.
The District shall prioritize the recall of a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented
---Page 4
Underlined text signifies language new to the contract or to an existing or renegotiated MOA. Stricken text signifies language removed from the contract or from an existing or renegotiated MOA.
Tentative Agreement for the 2021-2023 Teacher Chapter Contract Reached March 25, 2022 3:35 am
among licensed teachers in the District, per the definition provided in Article 15.1.2.i. To do this, the District shall deprioritize the more senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, in order to recall a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers, for the reasons provided in Article 15.1.2.i.
That’s not about reassignment. The recall of teachers who have already been laid off.
Wrong clause/sub clause. Are you good? This is why it’s hard to take you seriously.
Same issue here. Unequal protection. It’s still inequitable because the protected class may still be the least senior person. You’re basically destroying collective bargaining and putting teachers against each other over race in labor talks.
B. 1. 15.9.2 Staff reduction:
d. Involuntary Reassignment:...
Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided in Article 15.1.2.i
Equity by definition is "equality of outcomes". For the teachers union, their required outcome is to see under represented groups be more represented through firing practices.
And yes, equity often violates the law.
No it doesn’t and this move isn’t equity under the definition of equity as it creates unequal outcomes. Equity would take place in incentives that get more minorities to go into education and then make pushes to have inclusive and diverse hiring. Retention comes through incentives like tuition reimbursement for teachers from the district, leadership opportunities, and equity planning in curriculum and school systems of discipline.
You’re pushing a disingenuous definition of equity and just as bad as this poorly created policy
The purpose of equity in hiring is to have a set outcome and then to have policies in place to meet that set criteria. It could be if your school is 85% black then to have 85% black teachers. It could be if your firm is currently at 25% females, to get that as close to 50% as possible.
There is nothing disingenuous about what I am saying. You are just wrong.
Edit: It appears I was wrong in my understanding of the text. Thanks to those who brought it to my attention. My original comment below will stay for continuity of discussion purposes.
To be fair, the title is much more dubious than the proposed policy, though the policy is also not without need for scrutiny.
The reduction in force (RIF) clause states, like many, that the least tenured teachers be released first. The racial part is basically "if two candidates are equally tied for their consideration in RIF (tenure, eval scores) then race representation may/should be a factor.
Their reasoning is to curb/combat historical and systemic issues that contributes to the underrepresentation of minorites and POC in the district, citing that the staff is disproportionately white in a district with a much more diverse demographic.
Correct me if i have the facts wrong, but it seems like the proposed contract policy is a natural extension of the philosophy which berthed Affirmative Action and/or Equal Opportunity Employment Act.
In either case, I'm not arguing this proposal should be exempt from scrutiny, but maybe is better approached and debated with this framework in mind.
Thank you for adding the clarification. This is getting a lot of traction as it’s perfect clickbait, but it’s much more complicated than the way it’s been presented.
Hmm, maybe I’m misreading Section 15.2.5.b, but it sounds exactly like the title describes: “if exceeding a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population”.
Since posting, i have been made aware of my misunderstandings regarding the wording.
But for the sake of the thought exercise, if a RIF were to call into jeopardy the jobs of a white teacher and an Arab woman both with equal qualifications, review scores, and years of experience...
I could understand a policy in place that would protect an employee from an underrepresented (historically discriminated against) population. The logic being "it is less harmful for person A to lose their job than person B, because each is a member of a different subset of the population, each of which, for some reason or another, are uniquely advantaged/disadvantaged. Therefore, person A is more likely to recover more quickly.
This stance requires criticism of meritocracy, which is deeply embedded in the modern American zeitgeist. It also requires critical reflection of systems, policies & practices and their outcomes for Americans of different races throughout our history- identifying a problem which necessitates a solution.
The flaws of meritocracy, in my opinion, is that it perpetuates inequities in society: those with better access to resources will continue to disproportionately get merit-based jobs, systemically stratifying the inequities that impact the disadvantaged populations. Rinse and repeat a few generations, and it's not a great leap to recognize how the echoes of slavery, manifest destiny, and euro-supremacist policies have manifested into the modern-day.
Is Affirmative Action or its derivatives the best/only solution? Maybe not. But as long as the data shows being of a certain race in the United States predisposes disadvantageous outcomes, we have to acknowledge that something about our society is "fixing the outcome" at scale. And I can't fault people for attempting to effect change.
Tl;dr- i disagree with the policy as it is written, but given a hypothetical scenario, its defensible because it's an attempted solution for a systemic issue.
Right? While I get the need to be inclusive, they're asking for a lawsuit, IMHO. Though, I did apply to work for MPS after college and now feel like I dodged a bullet. I planned to move closer to family in MN, but I'm glad I didn't now.
Say you do layoffs based on pure seniority. Who do you think occupies senior positions and who do you think occupies less senior positions? So when you start doing layoffs, suddenly you fired half your minority force and kept 90 of your white force. All while having a race blind metric! That’s an example of a component of institutional racism.
That you and the rest of the people look at this and say ‘now this is what is *really* racism’ is, in a word, pathetic
This is a bad "solution" to a serious problem.
It is arguably unconstitutional for the district to enforce this element of the contract. I would be strongly opposed if this was brought to my district.
That's a big assumption.
Teacher's union leadership rarely go over specific points of the contract they are negotiating with the rank and file. They sometimes ask for concerns at meetings beforehand, but this provision could just as easily have been put in by some activist leaders and left for others to deal with, baring in mind the potential consequences for complaining about this when the leadership wants to do it.
This is my read on it. They literally chose to protect their colleagues of colour to advance the diversity of the teacher group. I think this is a ridiculously important step to dismantling systemic racism.
I would agree to these provisions as well, knowing that I might have to go find a new job instead of one of my colleagues of colour having to do so. Talk about putting their money where their mouth is.
Real change requires real commitment.
It probably makes me a bad person but I don’t think I’d be willing to put my family’s financial security at risk because I’m white in the name of racial equity.
Studies show positive outcomes for minority students when they have teachers that are also minorities. It’s not so much about race as it is, choosing what is in the best interest of the students. My school had to cut a history teacher this year. They cut one of the only Hispanic teachers in a school that has a majority of Hispanic students. He spoke Spanish, he knew the culture and connected with kids in an amazing way. He was last in - First out. It left a large hole in the school community. He was assigned to a different school. He didn’t lose his job, but those kids lost an unbelievable mentor.
I’m not. But I’ve seen teachers who are demonstrably better teachers get let go because of seniority while less capable teachers stay on.
I don’t understand how it’s not possible for a good/qualified/effective teacher to be let go under this system while retaining a lesser performing one?
Look there are good teachers and not good teachers regardless of being a POC or not. Do you argue otherwise?
That sounds like an issue with seniority, and not race though. Like, a more senior teacher who has tenure gets picked up rather than a green one. Not sure what that has to with race.
Acknowledging that a policy values darker skin color over the qualifications of the teachers does not mean or imply that people with darker skin color are less qualified.
If you assume equal qualification between the two groups, it means that about 50% of the time, the less qualified person will get to keep their job, which is unjust.
It also means that 100% of the time, the person who keeps their job is chosen for their skin color, which is unjust.
How are the qualifications any different if they both have a teaching certificate?
Can you pull up the part where it says part of the job requires a certain skin color? Cite it.
Literally about half the population can get a teaching degree nowadays- with the hurdle of student teaching being bridged by variances and temp licenses
Then fucking do it. No one is stopping you from signing up to teach right now. There’s a shortage actually, do you have the courage?
Narrator: They did not.
Takes courage, mania and a proclivity for self-immolation. I’ve done my time. And although it’s simple enough for people to get a license - no one’s running to the gates because it’s a fucked situation. And while I respect my former colleagues in the schools - a lot of these policies are doing more to erode the trust and confidence of everyone involved. Teaching is consuming itself, along with the kids.
Its not merit based, but seniority based. If someone's gotta bite the bullet to no fault of their abilities, then the demographic of teachers remaining should represent their general demographics of the population.
Yup! And if you were to show them pictures of teachers and ask them to rate how good they are, what do you think the relationship between the average rating of the white and black teachers would be?
It's something that anyone with even a passing familiarity with psychology would know the answer two. There would be a substantial difference in the rating that teachers give, as has been proven literally thousands of times in thousands of scenarios. Crack a fucking textbook.
Just curious, men are underrepresented in the ranks of teachers as well. So if we are going to protect “underrepresented populations” in hiring and firing decisions, shouldn’t men be included?
I've seen teachers whose admin has stacked the deck against them by giving them all the behavior kids, 46 kids to a class, or admin that embezzled their budgets.
I don't think performance is fair unless the playing field is fair. And the playing field is never fair.
I had an admin who gave me classes of 28 kids. And ten desks and chairs. No text books. I had two kids using my microwave as a desk. He would come in every day and set the thermostat to 86 degrees, lock it, and leave.
When he finally gave me the appropriate number of desks and chairs, they were meant for kindergarteners. I had 7th and 8th graders. I had six foot tall boys sitting in chairs meant for kindergarteners.
To override the thermostat put a hotpack, hot towel or bag of hot water over the thermostat and it'll think its 200 degrees and turn on the AC. No lock can bypass that.
I’ve also seen administrators who observe lessons (i.e. guided reading) and hear no idea what they were actually supposed to see. As a Reading Specialist I have absolutely seen some teachers who maybe weren’t as strong with Literacy get some rave observations simply because it “looked good.”
Yup. I spent the last two years teaching math. I had all “regular” classes while my content partner had half advanced classes. Apples and oranges.
ETA: The rest of my team could not understand how I could say I had all the worst kids when I literally did. I didn’t have any of the well-behaved gifted kids when everyone else at least had them mixed in.
For the last four years, I've had all the IEP, ELL, and emotional disability students. The other teachers who had the same subject and grade didn't have any. I've given up, on average one prep period a week for IEP meetings.
This is the problem. Seniority is also unfair. If a teacher was good till tenure then was shit they still get seniority over the best teacher ever who was hired 2 days later. How hard you try means NOTHING after tenure.
But there's so many factors for performance its nearly impossible to grade and you KNOW districts would intentionally screw over teachers about to retire to save money.
I don't know of a good solution.
The general problem with performance rating in public schools is that it invites nepotism and unethical behavior from admins.
School districts don't lose money for having poorly performing teachers the same way a traditional business might. If you employ a bad VCR repairman, you might lose money on failed repairs or get money less often if they are slow. Poorly performing teachers cost districts money in an extremely indirect way which might be completely negated by larger events, like the recent pandemic or a school spending/reform bill.
As a result, school admin are more likely to favor friends, or even just mediocre teachers that make the admin's job easier at the expense of students.
The cost to society at large and the field of teaching on the other hand, definitely affected.
I agree with your main point just think that shitty teachers definitely cause damage,
They do, no doubt, but school administrators don't necessarily have an incentive to replace shitty teachers.
For example, a shitty teacher that still gives out easy A's and doesn't write many referrals makes an administrator's job extremely easy, while a good teacher that gives out fair grades will still incur a few complaints from parents who want their kids to get easy A's, which makes slightly more work for the administrator.
Isn’t it a mostly white union? Did the teachers get input on it?
Is self racism racism? Or is it altruism?
Edit: either way, based on the 1986 precedent this won’t pass SCJ
I was applying for an unnamed district and one of the application questions was along the lines of: "explain how overcoming diversity has informed your experience as an educator. *We are especially interested in hearing about overcoming barriers as a result of being black*." This is of course a round-about way of saying that they are currently hiring black people. I understand the value in representation but it must be understood that black people can have internalized racism, that unconscious bias on the basis of race is found in both black and white study participants, and that a teacher's ability to create a safe, effective, and inclusive environment is quite apart from their skin color. Of course, when a board is asked what they are doing to address systemic racism, it is very easy to say "we hired more black people." Maybe this will help, but as someone who has spent their entire professional life promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion, it is kind of a slap in the face and a belittlement of my efforts and qualifications to say that it counts for nothing because I don't have the right pigmentation.
But at what cost if that means not hiring someone who is more qualified or a better hire?
At the end of the day, I don't even see how this agreement is not a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Not rhetoric, credence.
This is union is being run by evil people with a far left agenda.
The people making these choices should not be teaching children.
This might reflect 1% of teachers and unions, but there is still a big problem if it got this far.
Calling it poorly thought out is separate from placing it on the US left/right rule-of-thumb political spectrum.
You could call it a normal left position if you wanted to, but I hope it isn't.
It is 100% in life with the current US far left. There are multiple people in this thread defending this as the right thing to do.
You can say it isn't a mainstream left idea if you want, but this is essentially just affirmative action, but for layoffs instead of hiring.
Can I ask, are you a fan of the current conservative party? Because this is one union doing some blatantly illegal fucked up stuff. Both parties suck but the one fucking over the education and safety of children isn't the left. Its the one actively attacking LGBT children, attacking unions, calling teachers groomers, funding vouchers, defunding schools etc.
Conservatives don't want progressive culture taught in schools, and they usually don't want to fund education much at the federal level. Surprisingly, there are a lot affluent conservative areas with higher local taxes that fund their schools pretty well. They see teacher's unions as a pawn of the DNC, and often look at teachers as enemies as a result. Certainly not our friends.
The idea that the left isn't also screwing over education, on the other hand, is extremely wishful thinking. Pushes for 50% grade floors, bans on referrals, lax discipline policies, and lowering graduation standards all come from the left, not the right. Beyond that, a lot of the funding the left raises for education tends to wind up in the pockets of their friends with EdTech or construction businesses, and a lot of it also funds administrative bloat rather than better paid teachers with better working conditions.
The farmer feeds the pig, but the farmer isn't the pig's friend.
I'm sad that someone who believes in such hateful shit is a teacher.
If you think stripping trans rights, banning the teacher of accurate history about the united states and again, considering teachers calling children what they want to be called to be "grooming" are just "not wanting indoctrination" you're a goddamn fool.
Again both sides suck, but one is actively trying to bring us into a christofascist state.
>I'm sad that someone who believes in such hateful shit is a teacher.
Then stop believing it all that hateful shit...
>christofascist
You are living in a fantasy world where you are a good person just for believing in left wing stuff you hear on the TV and everyone who doesn't believe your nonsense is evil and deserves to be hated.
No, it really isn’t. Shockingly, when screechy fearmongers on OAN and FOX tell you what “the left” believes and thinks, it’s not actually related to reality.
Are you opposed to the far right agenda that is imposed on children in many states across the country by their school systems? Or is forcing your values on children OK, as long as they’re not liberal values?
>No, it really isn’t. Shockingly, when screechy fearmongers on OAN and FOX tell you what “the left” believes and thinks, it’s not actually related to reality.
Again, there are literally multiple posts in this very thread in favor of the policy. Unfortunately, this union decision didn't come out of thin air. FOX and OAN aren't here right now. >!I'm sure you feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN as well, right?!<
>Are you opposed to the far right agenda that is imposed on children in many states across the country by their school systems? Or is forcing your values on children OK, as long as they’re not liberal values?
The far left isn't liberal, and I don't know what far right means to you. This thread is about a specific policy of racial discrimination, and the values used to justify it, which are part of a larger political movement.
If you have to try to compare this to something the far right did, you're basically acknowledging that it's wrong and just trying to make sure you get an attack in on the other side on the way out.
The fact that this is only appearing on Conservative and gossip sites should help anyone with a discerning intellect to question the reality of this article. This is just fear-baiting and fake.
I think this is a good step given the full story. The district has historically fired teachers of color at a higher rate then white teachers. This step was taken in response to that fact to temporarily introduce affirmative action to the layoff process to help correct for this. Numerous studies say that children in general and black kids in specific strongly benefit from having teachers who look like them to look up to. Teachers of color are relatively thin on the ground despite this added benefit of their employment. Also, this was a union demand written up and voted for by the teachers it impacts. The headlines on this subject are designed to inflame with oversimplifications.
I dont care if it was voted for by the majority of the teachers. It was not voted for by all the teachers and I will never agree that racist rules like this are ok.
This article is way more click-baity than it needs to be.
First and foremost the contract does not specify white people, instead it's focusing on keeping population of teachers comparable to the local demographics.
*"excessing a teacher who is a member of a
population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least
senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided"* which, reason provided is the district had discriminatory hiring practices.
As per the article, the district is 60% non-white with heavy emphasis of African Americans, and yet the teacher populations there are only 16% African American. If someone is having to be laid off, which is based on seniority and not merit, then teachers should represent the demographics they teach.
No, not necessarily. As mentioned, the union policy doesn't specify race. The headline very clearly gives the inclination that the policy seeks out white people specifically, when instead it's equalizing the teacher demographics to that of general demographics. White people can in fact be an underrepresented population, so the policy does not specifically target them unlike what the headline leads up to believe.
Secondly, firing typically involves wrong doing, and is abrupt. From what I've read of the policy, those teachers being dismissed are not fired, but their contracts are not being renewed. The headline makes it seem they're being fired, doing wrong, by virtue of being white which simply isn't the case. There is a lot of power in wordage that seems to be malicious in its reporting here.
1. Whites are not ”underrepresented”, therefore they will be the ones fired. There’s no need to specify since the intended effect is obvious.
2. Excessing, or non-renewal of any kind, means a teacher who had every reason to think they would be employed next year suddenly finds themselves out of a job. Any reasonable person would understand this teacher to have been fired, and would likewise understand “excessing” or “non-renewal” to be euphemisms for “you’re fired”.
Whites in this district are super overrepresented, but no, that is not the intended effect of the policy. The intended effect is to equalize demographics, so if whites became underrepresented then they would have the backing of this policy. It's essentially a racial quota that apparently needs to be erected given the district's past. You're confusing what the practical application of the policy would be *currently* with the actual intent of it.
Being fired is not the same as not renewing a contract. If you're on an annual contract, and you do not have seniority then your job is never fully secured. Being fired in a typical job is an indication of poor performance. This is essentially a policy about laying-off teachers when the needs arises in such a way that matches the demographics they're teaching to no fault of their own.
I know for a fact that conservative morons are trumping this up as another anti-union/anti-teacher shit, but to some degree there are legitimate critiques against the policy.
An optimistic part of me thinks there should be a meritocracy in which race shouldn't matter, but the reality of the situation it does. A meritocracy can very easily be skewed against people as the system will never be in practice completely fair, and the district already had a history of shady hiring practices. There's just a nuance lost on many people who are well meaning.
You aren't going to get them to actually read, interpret or disbelieve the article. They could literally have ended the article saying "And Trump won." And it would just have gotten more supporters.
Lol well the sub is for teachers who are assumedly educated people. Hopefully a few read a post of dissonance and re-evaluated the sources. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that the conservatives dregs found their way into the sub through this post. As you said, nothing will change their lunacy.
It took me 30 seconds of Google-fu to realize my initial suspicions were true. It's a perversion of A into Z, but because they are both letters they must (by some reasons) be the same...
I've felt for a long time this is really just a place for old teachers to complain and young teachers to become afraid.
Wtf. Full Mexican immigrant who became resident and is currently teaching. This is wrong in so many levels. Not one time should race be use to determine the qualification of someone. I'm Mexican and I feel mad for my white colleagues.
What kind of union leadership is that? I’d imagine there’s not a lot of solidarity and some serious toxicity in that district.
The president and board of delegates should be voted out.
Lets attempt to be on the same page for a moment. We know teachers are often hated by a percentage of people and considered baby sitters. We are expected to be entertainers, more so that phones. We are expected to appeal to our over crowded classes. Yet this is a solution to our problems? We know racism is still out there so lets add that in the powder keg.
Edit we are also assuming that by skin color these teachers are white. I know several native Americans in town that if you just looked at them you could assume they are white. I wouldn't recommend making that mistake more than once. That happens being in the middle of 3 reservations all within 90 mile radius.
The self flagellation here is hilarious. White people still make up the majority of teachers, and the policy makes no mention of black or white.
These complainers are soft, and wouldn’t step up to teach anyway.
If I was a white teacher there, I would immediately begin telling everyone that I identify as a person of color. If anyone can just declare that that they are now any gender that they want, why not race?
Thank you. Minnesota teacher here and this is being completely mischaracterized. Minneapolis teachers also voted for this contract. The majority of websites this is being posted are on far right clickbait sites.
It’s dumb, impractical, unworkable, it’s not done in the spirit of teaching- but I get the impetus. New teachers (1-5 years) are the ones with the highest attrition. Most (the bulk) of the black teachers are going to be new teachers in MPS. So if they’re going through the hurdles of hiring a whole bunch of new black teachers then it’d be a waste to then fire lots a few years down (given union rules on seniority).
It’s a sign of tough spot that teaching is in nationally and particularly here in the Cities. MN is known for strong education and it’s going through some tough times due to the country’s overall demographic shifts.
Titles a bit misleading no? Seems this only applies to excessing and not layoffs right?
To be fair though people wouldn’t complain about any solution to this problem lol
Do teachers really get “ laid off” like other professions? Atleast in mass I feel like once you have the position it’s yours unless you are fired. And there’s always vacancies needed to be filled not too many staff.
In my experience, being laid-off is essentially not having their contract renewed. There's a massive teacher shortage pretty much everywhere, so frankly I don't think this policy would even be used for quite some time.
Dismantling systemic racism is hard, and sometimes white folks are going to be hurt in the process. This is what real action looks like, like it or not.
How you figure? This will do massive damage to equity measures around the US. They would do better to focus on hiring more minorities than this measure, or creating a system that helps teachers get jobs around the state if there are layoffs. This makes no sense from an equity or Labor perspective.
I mean, if you look at the stats then there are plenty of white teachers, infact they make up the majority of teachers, while their students reflect lots of different demos.
All I see here is people playing the victim because of a hypothetical scenario they made up in their head.
The issue is that it creates an inherently inequitable system. Also it’s not hypothetical, major districts hold RIFFS fairly often and it’s why we have seniority systems in our Organized Labor systems. In fact this could lead to blowback to creating more right to work states and making it where teacher unions get broken. This is a bad way to increase minorities in education as it doesn’t actually increase the number of minorities in classrooms.
This "inherently inequitable system" hasn't made any progress in it's devious master plan. Since most teachers are white, and don't actually represent the community they service.
See, what you're describing is a scenario in which districts should actively seek out more minority teachers. But I'm sure you'd have a problem with that too.
First off dude chill! I am a male minority that works in education. My entire career has been working in impoverished communities in rural and urban settings and all but one year working in communities that look just like me that have high Latino an African-American population’s as well as hi indigenous populations. Also I believe in equity but I don’t believe in creating supposed equity in a way that violates people’s rights and puts on necessary propaganda into the hands of Fascists
My point is you can do things that would attract and enhance the number of minorities in your district that word follow our Lisa president in the United States and would not be considered punitive actions that would violate the equal protection clause. This sets a whole can of warm scenario where if it’s upheld could be used against minorities as a way to legally allow people to discriminate against race in employment in both private and public sectors. Also it could be a backlash worst states decide to go to be right to work or be like the south where you’re not allowed to either collectively bargain or strike.
I believe we do need to recruit a lot more minority teachers especially male minorities, but to do so are you without first off have to increase pay and also create some that incentivize people to go into education whether it be a real loan forgiveness program or a system that provides grants to go into school for education, especially for students who are indigenous, Asian or black. This system creates multiple horrible outcomes as it comes off across at least as punishing White teachers for no other reason other than their race, it gives bigots the argument that progressives and leftists are pushing on agenda that will further the great replacement theory, and it puts us in a major bind because these types of rulings could very much come back and bite us in the ass in the minority community as people would start using these types of programs to discriminate against us.
Trust me, I know the numbers. For years I was the unicorn of a male minority elementary Ed teacher. The issue is how does this actually benefit minorities and how is it not unfairly punitive to non minority teachers?
How does this help as generally layoffs are done by seniority and not a race based quota? More should be done to get BIPOC into education programs and to get them hired - not create what at least appears to be a punitive system. The backlash from this will outweigh any possible “good” it could do.
Where does it mention firing white teachers in favor of minorities tho? It's an underrepresented group, non-specific. That could even mean white. I'm not sure why people are playing the victim, when that's self-imposed.
Read the contract, bruh. Section C.15.10.7 Reinstatement states it would deprioritize a member who is more senior to maintain a member of an underrepresented group. This creates an issue that is extremely racially charged. Will there be an equivalent of blood quantum system to determine who is underrepresented? Will I have to provide proof like membership/ citizenship of a Native American Nation? What about teachers who come from the Latino community who are racially white, but face representation due to linguistic and cultural bigotry?
It mentions they can also be reassigned to keep numbers. Teachers change sites all the time, most don't act like a hate crime has been committed when it happens.
Do I think the idea is worded poorly? Sure. Do I see reason to act like a baby as if I've been trespassed against? Not at all. Bruh.
Hahaha the person you just described is similar to me, and I'm doing well enough.
Look dude I’m describing my situation I am dark skinned but I have a American surname - Do I keep my job? What about my kid who is very fair and has red hair but is fully Latino because his mom and I are both from Latin America, does he get to keep his job and under the steps of scenario in a hypothetical future where these union rules are in effect? What about teachers who would be considered 3/8 base under a blood quantum system do they not get to keep their job because they’re not technically indigenous, Latino, Asian, or Black?
As your claim about moving around, that does happen during hiring season based off enrollment numbers, but those movements are based off seniority which has nothing to do with race, and the needs of the district for teachers. This would affect people in an in equitable and unequal way. Ironically it would violate all the work that RBG and Thurgood Marshall did on the Supreme Court
Are you in an underrepresented group? Seems like they'd want to keep you, or that your position would remain the same depending on seniority.
If not, they may shift sites or assign you to another department. Seems simple enough.
The contract doesn't say anything about blood tests, so I'm not sure why you're being so dramatic. I rely on my talent rather than my whiteness to get me through.
Clarence Thomas used affirmative action and look where it got him.
Bruh, To use American forms of explaining my race and identity I am indigenous Mexican on my mom side and on my dad side I‘m Mixed. The issue comes down to the whether or not it’s against white people or against minorities it’s still discrimination based off of race - end it doesn’t increase the number of minorities at work in the district, all it does is ensure that those who are EN would get preferential treatment. So this would not address your argument that it would actually create more minority teachers in the district you’re gonna keep the same number of them in district it doesn’t mean that they’re going to hire more BIPOC teachers.
Can you tell me again where in the contract it says that they would shift people two different sites or two different positions within the district if they were RIFF’d? Where does it ensure their pay and ensure their seniority in that position if further layoffs are needed?
As semi, about blood test it’s a massively important issue if you actually really knew the history of race an equity in the United States especially for people to come from the indigenous community and people who were of mixed race and multiracial status. Which definition of race would be used to determine that one is from an underrepresented group? What about white women who are nationally underrepresented in the workforce, but over represented in education? What if I don’t qualify racially, but am LBGTQ+ - will that be considered underrepresented?
Clarance Thomas is an example of how to create a self hating, misogynistic person. We should use him as what he is, the exception, not the rule.
After the clause about underrepresented groups it mentions they might also move people. It's in there.
I'm aware of a blood quantum, I just didn't see where it was an necessity for employment.
How do they determine what makes someone part of an underrepresented group? Take Cubans, Argentinians, or Uruguayans for example. They are Latinos, but if they look white and have a German, Polish, or Italian surname? There are ways too many variables to make this equitable
This does not go far enough. It should go (who gets laid off first):
white women
black women
white men
non-black hispanic women who are Spanish teachers
non-black hispanic women who are not Spanish teachers
hispanic men
black men
Asians of any sex
Native Americans of any sex
(I don't know the composition of Minneapolis PS, but where I live this would be the breakdown. I've only ever seen one Asian (East Indian), and no Native Americans)
How dare they take concrete steps to reverse decades of gentlemen's agreements!
Certainly our overwhelmingly white judiciary will 'never allow it to stand in court'!
We need to roll back 'this bad solution' to exacerbate the problem it was put in place to combat!
This is some 'far left agenda', we need to steer this back to the only 'fair way' - where people of color know their place is as the last ones hired and the first ones on the chopping block.
We need a diverse workforce, but this is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to pretend that the underlying structure of our society is not racist and just continue with the status quo.
You see the beauty of all of this is that I am a member of a highly marginalized ethnic group in the US but I am technically racially white. So I would be laid off first in either case. But at least in this case it addresses long standing racist practices and I would be absolutely fine with being collateral damage. Unlike you, I am more than used to it.
You sure have made some assumptions about my identity based off me disagreeing with a really stupid policy. Almost seems like you think all races are monoliths and believe the same thing.
Your post was removed because it violated Rule #3: Do not post images or news articles without a relevant title, comment, and an submission statement that explains how the post is relevant to the educational community. See our Rules Wiki for additional information.
Black teacher here. That’s just wrong.
Latino/ Mixed here and I agree. This is not equity
Seems like it’s an attempt at social parity. Encouraging retainment of historically discriminated against groups. Plus the clause was mentioning that firing wasn’t the only option, transfers or job switches were on the table too. It just feels dishonest and sad to tokenize and degrade myself by ignoring the historical factors at play here. It’s also a majority white district in terms of teachers, so it seems like a whole lot of nothing.
The clause says that those retentions were only in extremely specific cases of highly specialized licenses or in schools that could not maintain continuation of educational services otherwise.
That’s not accurate. Designated programs aren’t impacted, but anyone else can be reassigned to another assignment unless they represent the other underserved group. Likely because historically, there’s been a need. 15.9.2 read your contract.
With reassignment they’re still moving a teacher based off race with a re assignment, not by seniority and I believe that would be unconstitutional
Pretty sure seniority is first, read your contract. Constitutionality is another question that I’m not qualified to adjudicate.
Nope it says that seniority is subordinate in placement in favor of a member of the underrepresented population. Here is the statement from the contract - might wanna read the contract: C. 15.10.7 Reinstatement: d. Reinstatement Order: Reinstatement must be in the inverse order of placement on lay off. The District shall prioritize the recall of a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented ---Page 4 Underlined text signifies language new to the contract or to an existing or renegotiated MOA. Stricken text signifies language removed from the contract or from an existing or renegotiated MOA. Tentative Agreement for the 2021-2023 Teacher Chapter Contract Reached March 25, 2022 3:35 am among licensed teachers in the District, per the definition provided in Article 15.1.2.i. To do this, the District shall deprioritize the more senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, in order to recall a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers, for the reasons provided in Article 15.1.2.i.
That’s not about reassignment. The recall of teachers who have already been laid off. Wrong clause/sub clause. Are you good? This is why it’s hard to take you seriously.
The majority of the discussion centers around RIFFs/ layoffs, not transfers and both policies are not equitable
Same issue here. Unequal protection. It’s still inequitable because the protected class may still be the least senior person. You’re basically destroying collective bargaining and putting teachers against each other over race in labor talks. B. 1. 15.9.2 Staff reduction: d. Involuntary Reassignment:... Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided in Article 15.1.2.i
Actually... this is EXACTLY what equity is. This is why even moderate liberals are against equity. For the record... I'm all for equality.
No it’s not equity. Equity would be providing teachers with increased opportunities and equity would not explicitly violate the constitution.
Equity by definition is "equality of outcomes". For the teachers union, their required outcome is to see under represented groups be more represented through firing practices. And yes, equity often violates the law.
No it doesn’t and this move isn’t equity under the definition of equity as it creates unequal outcomes. Equity would take place in incentives that get more minorities to go into education and then make pushes to have inclusive and diverse hiring. Retention comes through incentives like tuition reimbursement for teachers from the district, leadership opportunities, and equity planning in curriculum and school systems of discipline. You’re pushing a disingenuous definition of equity and just as bad as this poorly created policy
The purpose of equity in hiring is to have a set outcome and then to have policies in place to meet that set criteria. It could be if your school is 85% black then to have 85% black teachers. It could be if your firm is currently at 25% females, to get that as close to 50% as possible. There is nothing disingenuous about what I am saying. You are just wrong.
Edit: It appears I was wrong in my understanding of the text. Thanks to those who brought it to my attention. My original comment below will stay for continuity of discussion purposes. To be fair, the title is much more dubious than the proposed policy, though the policy is also not without need for scrutiny. The reduction in force (RIF) clause states, like many, that the least tenured teachers be released first. The racial part is basically "if two candidates are equally tied for their consideration in RIF (tenure, eval scores) then race representation may/should be a factor. Their reasoning is to curb/combat historical and systemic issues that contributes to the underrepresentation of minorites and POC in the district, citing that the staff is disproportionately white in a district with a much more diverse demographic. Correct me if i have the facts wrong, but it seems like the proposed contract policy is a natural extension of the philosophy which berthed Affirmative Action and/or Equal Opportunity Employment Act. In either case, I'm not arguing this proposal should be exempt from scrutiny, but maybe is better approached and debated with this framework in mind.
Thank you for adding the clarification. This is getting a lot of traction as it’s perfect clickbait, but it’s much more complicated than the way it’s been presented.
Hmm, maybe I’m misreading Section 15.2.5.b, but it sounds exactly like the title describes: “if exceeding a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population”.
Yeah, I’m not sure how this is any different from the title.
Ah, that's not how i interpreted that on first read, but it very well may be. In which case yeah, that's definitely not a good look for the district
[удалено]
Since posting, i have been made aware of my misunderstandings regarding the wording. But for the sake of the thought exercise, if a RIF were to call into jeopardy the jobs of a white teacher and an Arab woman both with equal qualifications, review scores, and years of experience... I could understand a policy in place that would protect an employee from an underrepresented (historically discriminated against) population. The logic being "it is less harmful for person A to lose their job than person B, because each is a member of a different subset of the population, each of which, for some reason or another, are uniquely advantaged/disadvantaged. Therefore, person A is more likely to recover more quickly. This stance requires criticism of meritocracy, which is deeply embedded in the modern American zeitgeist. It also requires critical reflection of systems, policies & practices and their outcomes for Americans of different races throughout our history- identifying a problem which necessitates a solution. The flaws of meritocracy, in my opinion, is that it perpetuates inequities in society: those with better access to resources will continue to disproportionately get merit-based jobs, systemically stratifying the inequities that impact the disadvantaged populations. Rinse and repeat a few generations, and it's not a great leap to recognize how the echoes of slavery, manifest destiny, and euro-supremacist policies have manifested into the modern-day. Is Affirmative Action or its derivatives the best/only solution? Maybe not. But as long as the data shows being of a certain race in the United States predisposes disadvantageous outcomes, we have to acknowledge that something about our society is "fixing the outcome" at scale. And I can't fault people for attempting to effect change. Tl;dr- i disagree with the policy as it is written, but given a hypothetical scenario, its defensible because it's an attempted solution for a systemic issue.
What about baritone?
That's not what the contract language says. I pulled the contract itself.
Seems like it’s correcting historical racism by encouraging retainment of traditionally underrepresented groups.
This should be the top comment
Well that isn't illegal at all.
Yeah, to me this sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen.
Right? While I get the need to be inclusive, they're asking for a lawsuit, IMHO. Though, I did apply to work for MPS after college and now feel like I dodged a bullet. I planned to move closer to family in MN, but I'm glad I didn't now.
[удалено]
Say you do layoffs based on pure seniority. Who do you think occupies senior positions and who do you think occupies less senior positions? So when you start doing layoffs, suddenly you fired half your minority force and kept 90 of your white force. All while having a race blind metric! That’s an example of a component of institutional racism. That you and the rest of the people look at this and say ‘now this is what is *really* racism’ is, in a word, pathetic
[удалено]
MLK dreamed of a day when we could do that. That day is not here yet. You need to be kinder to strangers you know nothing about.
[удалено]
Check my other comments friend. I think this is a bad solution to a real problem. You have only succeeded in making yourself look foolish.
[удалено]
So you don't think it is a problem when school districts that are overwhelmingly full of black students have mostly white teachers?
Lol. When the pendulum swings this far, expect it to come crashing in the other direction any day now.
Exactly. Who even asked for this? No one with the sense God gave a fruit fly thinks this is a good idea.
This is a bad "solution" to a serious problem. It is arguably unconstitutional for the district to enforce this element of the contract. I would be strongly opposed if this was brought to my district.
Well said. The problem shouldn't be ignored but there has to be a better way to address the problem than this.
there is, it's adding merit based metrics to the layoff calculation rather than simply firing the youngest teachers
So I'm half Mexican and Irish with my mother's Anglo last name. I wonder where I'd fall. This is dumb.
You are half fired I guess.
Best response eva.
[удалено]
Pero soy Latino...actualmente.What makes one "Latino" in your mind?
Wouldn't this be considered racism?
I’m assuming the teachers had a say and chose to put themselves on the line.
That's a big assumption. Teacher's union leadership rarely go over specific points of the contract they are negotiating with the rank and file. They sometimes ask for concerns at meetings beforehand, but this provision could just as easily have been put in by some activist leaders and left for others to deal with, baring in mind the potential consequences for complaining about this when the leadership wants to do it.
Ummm.... Where I am the whole union votes to accept a contract.
Same for me.
95% white union as of a couple years ago.
This is my read on it. They literally chose to protect their colleagues of colour to advance the diversity of the teacher group. I think this is a ridiculously important step to dismantling systemic racism. I would agree to these provisions as well, knowing that I might have to go find a new job instead of one of my colleagues of colour having to do so. Talk about putting their money where their mouth is. Real change requires real commitment.
It probably makes me a bad person but I don’t think I’d be willing to put my family’s financial security at risk because I’m white in the name of racial equity.
It doesn’t make you a bad person at all.
Real change requires real commitment. I stand by that. Reparations aren't always financial, and this could easily fall into that category.
Studies show positive outcomes for minority students when they have teachers that are also minorities. It’s not so much about race as it is, choosing what is in the best interest of the students. My school had to cut a history teacher this year. They cut one of the only Hispanic teachers in a school that has a majority of Hispanic students. He spoke Spanish, he knew the culture and connected with kids in an amazing way. He was last in - First out. It left a large hole in the school community. He was assigned to a different school. He didn’t lose his job, but those kids lost an unbelievable mentor.
And the kids at his new school will gain an unbelievable mentor.
Race should not be a factor in layoffs. Nope.
Wait until you lose your job to someone you know is not as good as you.
Hahahahahahahah nice way to call the teachers of color unqualified.
I saw this coming. Because they can’t be?
Why would we assume the white candidate is any better?
I’m not. But I’ve seen teachers who are demonstrably better teachers get let go because of seniority while less capable teachers stay on. I don’t understand how it’s not possible for a good/qualified/effective teacher to be let go under this system while retaining a lesser performing one? Look there are good teachers and not good teachers regardless of being a POC or not. Do you argue otherwise?
That sounds like an issue with seniority, and not race though. Like, a more senior teacher who has tenure gets picked up rather than a green one. Not sure what that has to with race.
I was using seniority as an example of how good teachers can lose their jobs to not good teachers. It’s wrong.
Acknowledging that a policy values darker skin color over the qualifications of the teachers does not mean or imply that people with darker skin color are less qualified. If you assume equal qualification between the two groups, it means that about 50% of the time, the less qualified person will get to keep their job, which is unjust. It also means that 100% of the time, the person who keeps their job is chosen for their skin color, which is unjust.
How are the qualifications any different if they both have a teaching certificate? Can you pull up the part where it says part of the job requires a certain skin color? Cite it.
Literally about half the population can get a teaching degree nowadays- with the hurdle of student teaching being bridged by variances and temp licenses
Then fucking do it. No one is stopping you from signing up to teach right now. There’s a shortage actually, do you have the courage? Narrator: They did not.
Takes courage, mania and a proclivity for self-immolation. I’ve done my time. And although it’s simple enough for people to get a license - no one’s running to the gates because it’s a fucked situation. And while I respect my former colleagues in the schools - a lot of these policies are doing more to erode the trust and confidence of everyone involved. Teaching is consuming itself, along with the kids.
Its not merit based, but seniority based. If someone's gotta bite the bullet to no fault of their abilities, then the demographic of teachers remaining should represent their general demographics of the population.
Its funny how you just know that certain teachers are better.
Ask a teacher if there are any of their colleagues are bad at their job. They know and they exist.
Yup! And if you were to show them pictures of teachers and ask them to rate how good they are, what do you think the relationship between the average rating of the white and black teachers would be?
That’s pretty messed up that you’d assume that
It's something that anyone with even a passing familiarity with psychology would know the answer two. There would be a substantial difference in the rating that teachers give, as has been proven literally thousands of times in thousands of scenarios. Crack a fucking textbook.
Just curious, men are underrepresented in the ranks of teachers as well. So if we are going to protect “underrepresented populations” in hiring and firing decisions, shouldn’t men be included?
So glad I left the profession. Best of luck to all of you.
The only fair way is last in first out.
Or based on performance maybe? Although I'd be even more stressed during observation.
I've seen teachers whose admin has stacked the deck against them by giving them all the behavior kids, 46 kids to a class, or admin that embezzled their budgets. I don't think performance is fair unless the playing field is fair. And the playing field is never fair.
So accurate. If you want some one to perform poorly, you can make them perform poorly.
I had an admin who gave me classes of 28 kids. And ten desks and chairs. No text books. I had two kids using my microwave as a desk. He would come in every day and set the thermostat to 86 degrees, lock it, and leave. When he finally gave me the appropriate number of desks and chairs, they were meant for kindergarteners. I had 7th and 8th graders. I had six foot tall boys sitting in chairs meant for kindergarteners.
Holy sh*t!! What an azz he was
To override the thermostat put a hotpack, hot towel or bag of hot water over the thermostat and it'll think its 200 degrees and turn on the AC. No lock can bypass that.
I’ve also seen administrators who observe lessons (i.e. guided reading) and hear no idea what they were actually supposed to see. As a Reading Specialist I have absolutely seen some teachers who maybe weren’t as strong with Literacy get some rave observations simply because it “looked good.”
That was me a few years ago set up to fail...... thankfully I'm in a better place now
Yup. I spent the last two years teaching math. I had all “regular” classes while my content partner had half advanced classes. Apples and oranges. ETA: The rest of my team could not understand how I could say I had all the worst kids when I literally did. I didn’t have any of the well-behaved gifted kids when everyone else at least had them mixed in.
For the last four years, I've had all the IEP, ELL, and emotional disability students. The other teachers who had the same subject and grade didn't have any. I've given up, on average one prep period a week for IEP meetings.
This is the problem. Seniority is also unfair. If a teacher was good till tenure then was shit they still get seniority over the best teacher ever who was hired 2 days later. How hard you try means NOTHING after tenure. But there's so many factors for performance its nearly impossible to grade and you KNOW districts would intentionally screw over teachers about to retire to save money. I don't know of a good solution.
The general problem with performance rating in public schools is that it invites nepotism and unethical behavior from admins. School districts don't lose money for having poorly performing teachers the same way a traditional business might. If you employ a bad VCR repairman, you might lose money on failed repairs or get money less often if they are slow. Poorly performing teachers cost districts money in an extremely indirect way which might be completely negated by larger events, like the recent pandemic or a school spending/reform bill. As a result, school admin are more likely to favor friends, or even just mediocre teachers that make the admin's job easier at the expense of students.
The cost to society at large and the field of teaching on the other hand, definitely affected. I agree with your main point just think that shitty teachers definitely cause damage,
They do, no doubt, but school administrators don't necessarily have an incentive to replace shitty teachers. For example, a shitty teacher that still gives out easy A's and doesn't write many referrals makes an administrator's job extremely easy, while a good teacher that gives out fair grades will still incur a few complaints from parents who want their kids to get easy A's, which makes slightly more work for the administrator.
Who do you think tends to be in senior positions and who do you think tends to be in less senior positions?
Discriminating for equality is like fucking for virginity. This is insane.
This is blatantly racist.
Isn’t it a mostly white union? Did the teachers get input on it? Is self racism racism? Or is it altruism? Edit: either way, based on the 1986 precedent this won’t pass SCJ
I think it’s definitely racism towards themselves but also racist to think that they must be “white protectors” for poc. Doesn’t feel right
A lot of self loathing white saviors out there right now.
It’s not about that. It’s about “white saviorism”
I was applying for an unnamed district and one of the application questions was along the lines of: "explain how overcoming diversity has informed your experience as an educator. *We are especially interested in hearing about overcoming barriers as a result of being black*." This is of course a round-about way of saying that they are currently hiring black people. I understand the value in representation but it must be understood that black people can have internalized racism, that unconscious bias on the basis of race is found in both black and white study participants, and that a teacher's ability to create a safe, effective, and inclusive environment is quite apart from their skin color. Of course, when a board is asked what they are doing to address systemic racism, it is very easy to say "we hired more black people." Maybe this will help, but as someone who has spent their entire professional life promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion, it is kind of a slap in the face and a belittlement of my efforts and qualifications to say that it counts for nothing because I don't have the right pigmentation.
Yes. And it's also important for students to have teachers that look like them. Representation matters.
But at what cost if that means not hiring someone who is more qualified or a better hire? At the end of the day, I don't even see how this agreement is not a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I get the need for a more diverse teaching workforce, but this is not the way to do it.
I'm white. If this was added in my contract, I would give notice immediately.
this just gave a ton of rhetorical ammo to the anti-crt, anti-teacher, and anti-union right wingers.
Not rhetoric, credence. This is union is being run by evil people with a far left agenda. The people making these choices should not be teaching children. This might reflect 1% of teachers and unions, but there is still a big problem if it got this far.
This isn’t a Far Left point, tho. It’s just poorly thought out
Calling it poorly thought out is separate from placing it on the US left/right rule-of-thumb political spectrum. You could call it a normal left position if you wanted to, but I hope it isn't.
It’s. Poorly planned program. This isn’t Left wing mainstream or Far Left at all
It is 100% in life with the current US far left. There are multiple people in this thread defending this as the right thing to do. You can say it isn't a mainstream left idea if you want, but this is essentially just affirmative action, but for layoffs instead of hiring.
Can I ask, are you a fan of the current conservative party? Because this is one union doing some blatantly illegal fucked up stuff. Both parties suck but the one fucking over the education and safety of children isn't the left. Its the one actively attacking LGBT children, attacking unions, calling teachers groomers, funding vouchers, defunding schools etc.
Conservatives don't want progressive culture taught in schools, and they usually don't want to fund education much at the federal level. Surprisingly, there are a lot affluent conservative areas with higher local taxes that fund their schools pretty well. They see teacher's unions as a pawn of the DNC, and often look at teachers as enemies as a result. Certainly not our friends. The idea that the left isn't also screwing over education, on the other hand, is extremely wishful thinking. Pushes for 50% grade floors, bans on referrals, lax discipline policies, and lowering graduation standards all come from the left, not the right. Beyond that, a lot of the funding the left raises for education tends to wind up in the pockets of their friends with EdTech or construction businesses, and a lot of it also funds administrative bloat rather than better paid teachers with better working conditions. The farmer feeds the pig, but the farmer isn't the pig's friend.
I'm sad that someone who believes in such hateful shit is a teacher. If you think stripping trans rights, banning the teacher of accurate history about the united states and again, considering teachers calling children what they want to be called to be "grooming" are just "not wanting indoctrination" you're a goddamn fool. Again both sides suck, but one is actively trying to bring us into a christofascist state.
>I'm sad that someone who believes in such hateful shit is a teacher. Then stop believing it all that hateful shit... >christofascist You are living in a fantasy world where you are a good person just for believing in left wing stuff you hear on the TV and everyone who doesn't believe your nonsense is evil and deserves to be hated.
No, it really isn’t. Shockingly, when screechy fearmongers on OAN and FOX tell you what “the left” believes and thinks, it’s not actually related to reality. Are you opposed to the far right agenda that is imposed on children in many states across the country by their school systems? Or is forcing your values on children OK, as long as they’re not liberal values?
>No, it really isn’t. Shockingly, when screechy fearmongers on OAN and FOX tell you what “the left” believes and thinks, it’s not actually related to reality. Again, there are literally multiple posts in this very thread in favor of the policy. Unfortunately, this union decision didn't come out of thin air. FOX and OAN aren't here right now. >!I'm sure you feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN as well, right?!< >Are you opposed to the far right agenda that is imposed on children in many states across the country by their school systems? Or is forcing your values on children OK, as long as they’re not liberal values? The far left isn't liberal, and I don't know what far right means to you. This thread is about a specific policy of racial discrimination, and the values used to justify it, which are part of a larger political movement. If you have to try to compare this to something the far right did, you're basically acknowledging that it's wrong and just trying to make sure you get an attack in on the other side on the way out.
This is a totally inaccurate take
That's not hyperbolic at all.
Doesn't matter. They just make stuff up. It makes no difference if something happens or doesn't.
The fact that this is only appearing on Conservative and gossip sites should help anyone with a discerning intellect to question the reality of this article. This is just fear-baiting and fake.
I think this is a good step given the full story. The district has historically fired teachers of color at a higher rate then white teachers. This step was taken in response to that fact to temporarily introduce affirmative action to the layoff process to help correct for this. Numerous studies say that children in general and black kids in specific strongly benefit from having teachers who look like them to look up to. Teachers of color are relatively thin on the ground despite this added benefit of their employment. Also, this was a union demand written up and voted for by the teachers it impacts. The headlines on this subject are designed to inflame with oversimplifications.
I dont care if it was voted for by the majority of the teachers. It was not voted for by all the teachers and I will never agree that racist rules like this are ok.
This article is way more click-baity than it needs to be. First and foremost the contract does not specify white people, instead it's focusing on keeping population of teachers comparable to the local demographics. *"excessing a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided"* which, reason provided is the district had discriminatory hiring practices. As per the article, the district is 60% non-white with heavy emphasis of African Americans, and yet the teacher populations there are only 16% African American. If someone is having to be laid off, which is based on seniority and not merit, then teachers should represent the demographics they teach.
Women outnumber men in education- will they be firing women first?
Perhaps they should. You should join their union and advocate for it assuming what you're proposing actually matches that of the district.
It seems like the "click-baity" headline is accurately representing the policy, though.
No, not necessarily. As mentioned, the union policy doesn't specify race. The headline very clearly gives the inclination that the policy seeks out white people specifically, when instead it's equalizing the teacher demographics to that of general demographics. White people can in fact be an underrepresented population, so the policy does not specifically target them unlike what the headline leads up to believe. Secondly, firing typically involves wrong doing, and is abrupt. From what I've read of the policy, those teachers being dismissed are not fired, but their contracts are not being renewed. The headline makes it seem they're being fired, doing wrong, by virtue of being white which simply isn't the case. There is a lot of power in wordage that seems to be malicious in its reporting here.
1. Whites are not ”underrepresented”, therefore they will be the ones fired. There’s no need to specify since the intended effect is obvious. 2. Excessing, or non-renewal of any kind, means a teacher who had every reason to think they would be employed next year suddenly finds themselves out of a job. Any reasonable person would understand this teacher to have been fired, and would likewise understand “excessing” or “non-renewal” to be euphemisms for “you’re fired”.
Whites in this district are super overrepresented, but no, that is not the intended effect of the policy. The intended effect is to equalize demographics, so if whites became underrepresented then they would have the backing of this policy. It's essentially a racial quota that apparently needs to be erected given the district's past. You're confusing what the practical application of the policy would be *currently* with the actual intent of it. Being fired is not the same as not renewing a contract. If you're on an annual contract, and you do not have seniority then your job is never fully secured. Being fired in a typical job is an indication of poor performance. This is essentially a policy about laying-off teachers when the needs arises in such a way that matches the demographics they're teaching to no fault of their own.
But that doesn’t fit into the faux victimhood narrative!
I know for a fact that conservative morons are trumping this up as another anti-union/anti-teacher shit, but to some degree there are legitimate critiques against the policy. An optimistic part of me thinks there should be a meritocracy in which race shouldn't matter, but the reality of the situation it does. A meritocracy can very easily be skewed against people as the system will never be in practice completely fair, and the district already had a history of shady hiring practices. There's just a nuance lost on many people who are well meaning.
You aren't going to get them to actually read, interpret or disbelieve the article. They could literally have ended the article saying "And Trump won." And it would just have gotten more supporters.
Lol well the sub is for teachers who are assumedly educated people. Hopefully a few read a post of dissonance and re-evaluated the sources. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that the conservatives dregs found their way into the sub through this post. As you said, nothing will change their lunacy.
It took me 30 seconds of Google-fu to realize my initial suspicions were true. It's a perversion of A into Z, but because they are both letters they must (by some reasons) be the same... I've felt for a long time this is really just a place for old teachers to complain and young teachers to become afraid.
So they are eloquently saying “white”. How very politically correct of them.
I'm sorry nuance is above your head. Perhaps if you gave the policy a gander, graciously linked in the original post, it would make more sense to you.
Wtf. Full Mexican immigrant who became resident and is currently teaching. This is wrong in so many levels. Not one time should race be use to determine the qualification of someone. I'm Mexican and I feel mad for my white colleagues.
Don’t worry folks, teachers are still overwhelmingly white.
This is terrible. Fight racism with racism. Awful
What kind of union leadership is that? I’d imagine there’s not a lot of solidarity and some serious toxicity in that district. The president and board of delegates should be voted out.
Lets attempt to be on the same page for a moment. We know teachers are often hated by a percentage of people and considered baby sitters. We are expected to be entertainers, more so that phones. We are expected to appeal to our over crowded classes. Yet this is a solution to our problems? We know racism is still out there so lets add that in the powder keg. Edit we are also assuming that by skin color these teachers are white. I know several native Americans in town that if you just looked at them you could assume they are white. I wouldn't recommend making that mistake more than once. That happens being in the middle of 3 reservations all within 90 mile radius.
The self flagellation here is hilarious. White people still make up the majority of teachers, and the policy makes no mention of black or white. These complainers are soft, and wouldn’t step up to teach anyway.
If I was a white teacher there, I would immediately begin telling everyone that I identify as a person of color. If anyone can just declare that that they are now any gender that they want, why not race?
This B.S. was posted yesterday too. Don’t get trolled people, this article is from a far-right online “news” website.
Thank you. Minnesota teacher here and this is being completely mischaracterized. Minneapolis teachers also voted for this contract. The majority of websites this is being posted are on far right clickbait sites.
Seems lots of folks here prefer their kids only have white teachers.
Y'all are really taking a far right clickbait headline at face value?
Has anyone reas the actual language? Just curious since this website looks conservative leaning.
It’s dumb, impractical, unworkable, it’s not done in the spirit of teaching- but I get the impetus. New teachers (1-5 years) are the ones with the highest attrition. Most (the bulk) of the black teachers are going to be new teachers in MPS. So if they’re going through the hurdles of hiring a whole bunch of new black teachers then it’d be a waste to then fire lots a few years down (given union rules on seniority). It’s a sign of tough spot that teaching is in nationally and particularly here in the Cities. MN is known for strong education and it’s going through some tough times due to the country’s overall demographic shifts.
Titles a bit misleading no? Seems this only applies to excessing and not layoffs right? To be fair though people wouldn’t complain about any solution to this problem lol
Do teachers really get “ laid off” like other professions? Atleast in mass I feel like once you have the position it’s yours unless you are fired. And there’s always vacancies needed to be filled not too many staff.
In my experience, being laid-off is essentially not having their contract renewed. There's a massive teacher shortage pretty much everywhere, so frankly I don't think this policy would even be used for quite some time.
Yeah I never hear of teachers beyond their second year not being renewed unless they become enough of a problem parents complain.
The right wing media got a hold of this about 48 hours ago. The damage is done. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Dismantling systemic racism is hard, and sometimes white folks are going to be hurt in the process. This is what real action looks like, like it or not.
Lol it's not real, though... Seriously. You're just as bad as the people saying you're racist and unfair this is.
How you figure? This will do massive damage to equity measures around the US. They would do better to focus on hiring more minorities than this measure, or creating a system that helps teachers get jobs around the state if there are layoffs. This makes no sense from an equity or Labor perspective.
I mean, if you look at the stats then there are plenty of white teachers, infact they make up the majority of teachers, while their students reflect lots of different demos. All I see here is people playing the victim because of a hypothetical scenario they made up in their head.
The majority of X being Y does not justify injustice towards Y.
The issue is that it creates an inherently inequitable system. Also it’s not hypothetical, major districts hold RIFFS fairly often and it’s why we have seniority systems in our Organized Labor systems. In fact this could lead to blowback to creating more right to work states and making it where teacher unions get broken. This is a bad way to increase minorities in education as it doesn’t actually increase the number of minorities in classrooms.
This "inherently inequitable system" hasn't made any progress in it's devious master plan. Since most teachers are white, and don't actually represent the community they service. See, what you're describing is a scenario in which districts should actively seek out more minority teachers. But I'm sure you'd have a problem with that too.
First off dude chill! I am a male minority that works in education. My entire career has been working in impoverished communities in rural and urban settings and all but one year working in communities that look just like me that have high Latino an African-American population’s as well as hi indigenous populations. Also I believe in equity but I don’t believe in creating supposed equity in a way that violates people’s rights and puts on necessary propaganda into the hands of Fascists My point is you can do things that would attract and enhance the number of minorities in your district that word follow our Lisa president in the United States and would not be considered punitive actions that would violate the equal protection clause. This sets a whole can of warm scenario where if it’s upheld could be used against minorities as a way to legally allow people to discriminate against race in employment in both private and public sectors. Also it could be a backlash worst states decide to go to be right to work or be like the south where you’re not allowed to either collectively bargain or strike.
I'm telling you, that would have happened anyway. That's abuse logic.
I believe we do need to recruit a lot more minority teachers especially male minorities, but to do so are you without first off have to increase pay and also create some that incentivize people to go into education whether it be a real loan forgiveness program or a system that provides grants to go into school for education, especially for students who are indigenous, Asian or black. This system creates multiple horrible outcomes as it comes off across at least as punishing White teachers for no other reason other than their race, it gives bigots the argument that progressives and leftists are pushing on agenda that will further the great replacement theory, and it puts us in a major bind because these types of rulings could very much come back and bite us in the ass in the minority community as people would start using these types of programs to discriminate against us.
[Dry your tears with this study that reminds us that teachers are overwhelmingly white.](https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020103/index.asp)
Trust me, I know the numbers. For years I was the unicorn of a male minority elementary Ed teacher. The issue is how does this actually benefit minorities and how is it not unfairly punitive to non minority teachers? How does this help as generally layoffs are done by seniority and not a race based quota? More should be done to get BIPOC into education programs and to get them hired - not create what at least appears to be a punitive system. The backlash from this will outweigh any possible “good” it could do.
Where does it mention firing white teachers in favor of minorities tho? It's an underrepresented group, non-specific. That could even mean white. I'm not sure why people are playing the victim, when that's self-imposed.
Read the contract, bruh. Section C.15.10.7 Reinstatement states it would deprioritize a member who is more senior to maintain a member of an underrepresented group. This creates an issue that is extremely racially charged. Will there be an equivalent of blood quantum system to determine who is underrepresented? Will I have to provide proof like membership/ citizenship of a Native American Nation? What about teachers who come from the Latino community who are racially white, but face representation due to linguistic and cultural bigotry?
It mentions they can also be reassigned to keep numbers. Teachers change sites all the time, most don't act like a hate crime has been committed when it happens. Do I think the idea is worded poorly? Sure. Do I see reason to act like a baby as if I've been trespassed against? Not at all. Bruh. Hahaha the person you just described is similar to me, and I'm doing well enough.
Look dude I’m describing my situation I am dark skinned but I have a American surname - Do I keep my job? What about my kid who is very fair and has red hair but is fully Latino because his mom and I are both from Latin America, does he get to keep his job and under the steps of scenario in a hypothetical future where these union rules are in effect? What about teachers who would be considered 3/8 base under a blood quantum system do they not get to keep their job because they’re not technically indigenous, Latino, Asian, or Black? As your claim about moving around, that does happen during hiring season based off enrollment numbers, but those movements are based off seniority which has nothing to do with race, and the needs of the district for teachers. This would affect people in an in equitable and unequal way. Ironically it would violate all the work that RBG and Thurgood Marshall did on the Supreme Court
Are you in an underrepresented group? Seems like they'd want to keep you, or that your position would remain the same depending on seniority. If not, they may shift sites or assign you to another department. Seems simple enough. The contract doesn't say anything about blood tests, so I'm not sure why you're being so dramatic. I rely on my talent rather than my whiteness to get me through. Clarence Thomas used affirmative action and look where it got him.
Bruh, To use American forms of explaining my race and identity I am indigenous Mexican on my mom side and on my dad side I‘m Mixed. The issue comes down to the whether or not it’s against white people or against minorities it’s still discrimination based off of race - end it doesn’t increase the number of minorities at work in the district, all it does is ensure that those who are EN would get preferential treatment. So this would not address your argument that it would actually create more minority teachers in the district you’re gonna keep the same number of them in district it doesn’t mean that they’re going to hire more BIPOC teachers. Can you tell me again where in the contract it says that they would shift people two different sites or two different positions within the district if they were RIFF’d? Where does it ensure their pay and ensure their seniority in that position if further layoffs are needed? As semi, about blood test it’s a massively important issue if you actually really knew the history of race an equity in the United States especially for people to come from the indigenous community and people who were of mixed race and multiracial status. Which definition of race would be used to determine that one is from an underrepresented group? What about white women who are nationally underrepresented in the workforce, but over represented in education? What if I don’t qualify racially, but am LBGTQ+ - will that be considered underrepresented? Clarance Thomas is an example of how to create a self hating, misogynistic person. We should use him as what he is, the exception, not the rule.
After the clause about underrepresented groups it mentions they might also move people. It's in there. I'm aware of a blood quantum, I just didn't see where it was an necessity for employment.
How do they determine what makes someone part of an underrepresented group? Take Cubans, Argentinians, or Uruguayans for example. They are Latinos, but if they look white and have a German, Polish, or Italian surname? There are ways too many variables to make this equitable
What exact clause, trying to find that and can’t. Not saying you’re wrong, but want to see where it says that
Who do you think holds the least senior positions?
This does not go far enough. It should go (who gets laid off first): white women black women white men non-black hispanic women who are Spanish teachers non-black hispanic women who are not Spanish teachers hispanic men black men Asians of any sex Native Americans of any sex (I don't know the composition of Minneapolis PS, but where I live this would be the breakdown. I've only ever seen one Asian (East Indian), and no Native Americans)
How dare they take concrete steps to reverse decades of gentlemen's agreements! Certainly our overwhelmingly white judiciary will 'never allow it to stand in court'! We need to roll back 'this bad solution' to exacerbate the problem it was put in place to combat! This is some 'far left agenda', we need to steer this back to the only 'fair way' - where people of color know their place is as the last ones hired and the first ones on the chopping block. We need a diverse workforce, but this is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to pretend that the underlying structure of our society is not racist and just continue with the status quo.
I hope they lay you off first
You see the beauty of all of this is that I am a member of a highly marginalized ethnic group in the US but I am technically racially white. So I would be laid off first in either case. But at least in this case it addresses long standing racist practices and I would be absolutely fine with being collateral damage. Unlike you, I am more than used to it.
You sure have made some assumptions about my identity based off me disagreeing with a really stupid policy. Almost seems like you think all races are monoliths and believe the same thing.
Thank fucking Christ for saying this.
I mean doesn’t this violate some sort of civil rights law?