« Donoghue: I’ll win on leadership | Main | Time to separate fact from fiction »
May 14, 2007
CITY SAVES $1.2 M ON TEACHERS INSURANCE, HIRES
AH, IT'S LIKE MUSIC TO MY EARS. Superintendent Karla Brooks Baehr announced that with the city's new health insurance plans, HMOs and PPOs, now offered to union teachers, the Lowell School Deparatment will save about $1.2 million next year. This will allow Baehr to hire two custodians and two police resource officers, while also funding other objectives.
This is a good starand the main reason why Lowell's taxpayers should back the School Committee to the hilt on this issue. It's the only way the city can start rebuilding the public school system without depending on state aid. The city has to do all it can on its own to make savings. Unfortunately, Paul Georges, the teachers' union boss, views Lowell's chance to save money as a reason to ask for more for his members. Taxpayers should make concessions to the union, says Georges, in orderr for the teachers to have more cost-savings options on health care. Georges, who lives in Newbury, is one of 800 teachers who don't live in Lowell. That's a fact. Under his union leadership, Lowell teachers have increased their salaries by 50 percent while the number of schools listed as failing have continued to climb. There are now 22 failing schools in Lowell. That's another fact that you won't see in the teachers' union literature.
Last year, the teachers' union rejected a call for an extended school day in Lowell. This came after the state offered seed money for the pilot program. That's another fact. The teachers said they were "tired" in rejecting the plan.
Posted by JimC at May 14, 2007 9:03 AM
Comments
Again, Mr. Editor, you speak with out giving all of the facts. The teachers rejected the extended day plan not because they are "tired", but because funding for that program was only garaunteed for a year, while the program was proposed to run for 3 years. Do you want to spend 2 extra hours at work every day with out compensation for it for two years? I can't think of anyone who would. The other issue here was the kids. Why start a program on limited funding just to yank it away from them after they become accustomed to it? How fair is that to the kids?
Posted by: G.F.Y. at May 14, 2007 12:06 PM
That extended time program that was rejected last year only had grant funding for one year. Guess who would be paying for that extended time after the first year.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 14, 2007 8:12 PM
The grant funding was for planning only. Once the district was selected to participate, based on the plan that was submitted, then the funding was dependent on the Legislature, like 90% of our school funding in Lowell. If the state lawmakers did not appropriate the funds, then the district would not be obligated to go ahead with the program. Unfortunately, Lowell never even made it to that point. Ten Massachusetts schools are piloting the program with increasing success (see the April 29 story in Boston Globe Magazine) and buy-in from all involved - teachers, parents, students, police. Lowell kids could really have benefited from this opportunity.
Posted by: Anonymous parent at May 18, 2007 11:33 AM
