Not surprisingly, Philip Thornton’s reorganization plan for Warwick schools, which he released without of fanfare (no press conference, no press release, no photo op on the steps of Aldrich or …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
Not surprisingly, Philip Thornton’s reorganization plan for Warwick schools, which he released without of fanfare (no press conference, no press release, no photo op on the steps of Aldrich or Gorton that will close this year) was coolly received by the Warwick Teachers Union Tuesday. Union officers hadn’t seen the presentation even though it was posted on the school website and student parents had been notified the night before of its existence though the district’s Connect-Ed system.
The union was not involved in drafting the plan, which evidently is a bone of contention, and was not aware it was in the works although Thornton and his staff have hardly kept it a secret.
We are hopeful that initial reaction will change because meeting the challenges of a declining school enrollment and enhancing the performance of Warwick schools is a major undertaking and is going to take the buy-in from teachers.
So, why not involve the teachers from the start?
Thornton wasn’t asked that question for today’s story on the reorganization plan. It didn’t need to be asked because what the superintendent is doing is diametrically opposed to how prior administrators approached change. For years administrators let the teacher contract dictate what they could and couldn’t do even between contracts as they are now.
Actions and plans were defined by the terms of the contract. The result is a document of more than 60 pages that outlines what teachers can do and has stymied innovation. New ideas rarely got off the drawing boards.
Thornton has turned that thinking upside down. In his words, his responsibility is “to create a more cost efficient, educationally effective, student-focused school system.” Rather than thinking first of the constraints imposed by a contract, albeit one that has expired, he’s thought what is the best way to address school consolidation while, at the same time, improving the system.
This is not easy. A smaller system means fewer jobs and changes in responsibilities. The union has reason to be concerned for its members.
But what Thornton has done is to put where we need to be first, instead of reasoning we can never get there.
He has taken into consideration class sizes, universal all-day kindergarten and the requirements of special needs students, all issues raised by teachers during this consolidation discussion. He would also augment social/emotional and nursing support for students, areas he sees as lacking.
How teacher contract negotiations play out – and that may be a long hard fought process – may, in the end, determine the fate of this plan.
But refreshingly we’re getting a picture of how consolidation could play out, rather than being told it can’t be done and it’s going to ruin schools.
10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
davebarry109
Yes, refreshing that someone does not wait until the union tells us how to spend our tax dollars. Refreshing to find someone who looks for the best solution for students instead of teachers, the reason for the system to exist.
By the way, universal kindergarten, sold to us as necessary for child development, is another boondoggle. It is two things: a teaching job maker and therefore a union grower, and a babysitting service because women are in the workforce and don't want to pay for childcare.
Friday, January 22, 2016 Report this
Justanidiot
Damn straight, dave. Women need to be home barefoot and pregnant and have the master's pipe and slippers ready for him when he comes into his castle.
Friday, January 22, 2016 Report this
Doglover4
Content aside, does the Beacon no longer employ editors?
Friday, January 22, 2016 Report this
Warwickresident12
When people wants to improve they listen to people who already sucessful results. I'm having a hard time finding Mr. Thor tons sucessful results. Can anyone help me understand why I'm handing my money over to support some plan that some new bozo came up with? If my tax dollars are being used to make these changes, I want to follow the plans that already worked for other schools. I'm not seeing that in any of these reports. It's aLl fluff.
Saturday, January 23, 2016 Report this
howdydoody
Sounds Like John Howell is Part of Dr. Thorntons P.R. firm.
I know He likes the Mayor too. Only prints nice things about Scott.
Saturday, January 23, 2016 Report this
Warwickresident12
And where is the extra savings from these plans going to go? Probably in the mayors pocket, just like the last time. I didn't get any discount savings on my tax bills, my property value hasn't gone up and the paper keeps reporting the kids aren't getting any smarter since the last time the school department closed schools around here. What makes this time any different????? I am sick of these clowns in suits taking my money and lies.
Saturday, January 23, 2016 Report this
danfire
Warwickresident12 He did say he was asking the mayor in a previous article which schools should be closing. The Mayor has 17 more fire stations to build.Along with a Couple of big Box stores that pay 10 bucks an hour and sends it profits to Kansas. It's all about the savings not whats good for kids.
Saturday, January 23, 2016 Report this
Warwickresident12
Kiss my property value goodbye then.
Saturday, January 23, 2016 Report this
DO2015
Savings from Admin cuts=200k
Rest from laying off teachers.
School building improvement spending=0
Technology=you can be taught by a teacher via computer but no technology in schools.
Is this a joke??? Everyone that has children in this school system should wake up!
Monday, January 25, 2016 Report this
JohnStark
Actually, davebarry is correct. Universal kindergarten, like virtually all preschool programs (e.g. Head Start), sounds good and feels good when you say it fast. However, research has demonstrated time and again that any positive outcomes from universal K wash out by third grade, and the child who attended universal K is indistinguishable from the child who did not, when children are matched for intelligence. If taxpayers wish to implement universal K or other forms of preschool as an alternative to a public baby sitting service, so be it. Universal K should not, however, be camouflaged as a program with positive long-term educational outcomes.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016 Report this