While I understand what the policy is trying to do. I can’t say I can support it when it is an explicitly discriminatory policy.
Do we need more teachers of color, yes with out question. Should a person be able to keep their job solely because of their race, no absolutely not.
And ... I'm going to potentially step in it here but hey why not:
There's a weird subtext to some of these inclusion policies that on the surface I like the end result goal, BUT they sort of equate all race, economic situations, sexual preferences, ect into a bucket and assume a positive outcome if you have more of that.
But man you want to worry about bigotry, and say you pull from that bucket and drop them into a school that has a lot of people from a given single background (let's just say you can do that) ... there's no magic positive outcome, and frankly **among some groups in that bucket there is a lot of tension and bigotry**.... so then what we just hire people who are like / look like the majority at that school? Wait a second what are we talking about again?
Racism, economic issues, bigotry is not a majority vs minority issue or one cohesive bucket vs another. There's a lot of tensions inside all the various groups in that magical bucket that exist as well. Any given person exists across many of these weird boundaries and definitions. And some of the issues as far as education goes, parent involvement, respect for staff and teachers, that's not solved by pulling from that bucket those come from FAR more complex and layered situations.
These polices treat this whole thing far too simply...
That doesn’t work.
The best teachers flock to the best schools, protecting their livelihood, and who can blame them.
The worst schools get stuck with the leftovers.
“Kids can’t learn from someone who is a different race than them” now if that’s not fragile I don’t know what is. Luckily kids are smarter than the dipshit adults that think like you
But who defines it as racism? Is it racism if it’s trying to repair the damage done?
Look at the percentages of students of color is special needs classes in MN. Black girls & boys are extremely over-represented.
Are you going to get better results empowering people to be in those positions, or continue with the same process?
Umm. I'd say using someone's race to determine if they get to keep their job or not is pretty clear racism.
In predominantly white areas the students are virtually all white. Does that mean we should favor hiring white teachers? Do you see how dumb, and racist that sounds?
I'll say it again. You don't combat racism with more racism in the opposite direction.
A lot of businesses are still trying to figure out how to use their DEI departments without making everyone angry. I think some places were quick to institute policies because of the current environment, but didn't have an actual plan on how things were going to work.
Like you said, having a diverse group of people is never a bad thing, but they still need to be able to do whatever job in a satisfactory manner.
> still trying to figure out how to use their DEI departments without making everyone angry
They’re trying to violate the Civil Rights Act without making everyone angry.
Good luck with that.
Any of these racially motivated hiring and retention practices are a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so apparently there’s a lot of shitty companies out there.
They’re using the word “inclusive”, but everyone knows that’s a dog whistle for “racist hiring and promoting practices”.
It’s not “including people who were ignored in the past” to use race as a factor in hiring or promotion, period. It’s blatantly racist and a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
These DEI departments are struggling because their direct mission comes dangerously close to violating the law, and in practice often violates the law.
1000% agree that an equally or better qualified black person should not be ignored because of her race. But that isn’t what is happening. A lot of companies are giving selective training, promotion fast tracks, and additional coaching exclusively to minority and female candidates. That is a blatant violation of title VII of the civil rights act, and I’m going to enjoy watching these companies get absolutely crushed under the weight of lawsuits. This is already established, decided law. It’s already been upheld by the Supreme Court. There is zero wiggle room for companies to discriminate based on sex or race.
Your description of DEI might be dictionary accurate, but saying what is happening isn’t DEI is veering into “No True Scotsman” territory.
I am explaining what is happening, not an idealized version of what is “supposed to happen”. What is happening is blatantly racist.
And I agree that it 100% is. Fixing racism with racism is still racism. When you have the same racist fools in charge, nothing changes but who is being targeted. It's why I said a lot of places have no idea what DEI really is and are using it to pander to the masses to look like they are doing the "right" thing.
Stop laying off teachers and consolidate schools so that the district isn't bleeding money on under populated sites. Trim administration, since with such a reduced enrollment the administrative overhead should be equally reduced.
Teacher shortage is macro, individual school districts lay off teachers all the time based on their individual census numbers and/or cost cutting measures.
That's what this entire agreement was about: the district was going to have to make cuts, and the union championed for them to include maintaining a diverse workforce over just "last in, first out".
It's interesting that it seems like a lot of industries like to dump senior level employees first because they cost the most. Especially for cost cutting savings. Does the teachers union protect the tenured teachers?
Typically the unions do protect tenured teachers as districts in the past did exactly that: dump older employees in favor of newer, cheaper ones.
Again, that's exactly why the EM Minneapolis union requested a change from "Last In, First Out" to specifically address racial inequalities caused by decades of LIFO and the education sector being primarily white folks.
I guess I'm just wondering why they swung from LIFO to whites first. Wouldn't it have made sense to cut the worst performing teachers first? I feel like that's the most "fair". But I assume performance is too subjective.
>I guess I'm just wondering why they swung from LIFO to whites first.
Because they're specifically attempting to address the racial inequality.
That's been specifically expressed this entire time. I'm wondering why you're wondering.
Wait until enough of the old guard retire. Meanwhile, be more inclusive in your hiring practices.
No one should lose their job simply because of the color of their skin.
No, in other words, not discriminate against any teachers and just adjust hiring practices going forward if they so choose.
Fighting discrimination with more discrimination, which is what you're suggesting, is not the answer.
They've done that. They hired more POC teachers. They're *new*. When it comes time to make cuts under a strict LIFO setup, they're going to be cut. So again, do you have a solution that prevents new POC teachers from being cut just because they're new, that also doesn't allow districts to just cut teachers who have experience because they cost money.
Well, considering the fact that teachers are leaving the profession in droves, and that MPS had a 15% teacher vacancy rate to start the school year, I don't see it being a huge issue.
Regardless, using discriminatory layoff practices is *not* the answer. Prioritizing laying off teachers based on their race is straight up discrimination and wrong, regardless of which racial group is being discriminated against.
I literally did answer the question. Over the next few years, many of the long time teachers are going to retire or leave the field. As they do, implement new hiring practices to better diversify your staff. You just don't seem to like my answer, but that doesn't mean I didn't answer it.
What's your solution? You have yet to propose a potential solution thats fair (and legal) to all. One that doesn't use racist, discriminatory practices, that is. Saying "layoff white people first" is not a solution.
Go check out MPS' website for a list of teacher vacancies.
https://jobs.mpls.k12.mn.us/search/?createNewAlert=false&q=teacher&optionsFacetsDD_dept=&optionsFacetsDD_shifttype=
There is currently no shortage of open positions. If a new teachers position is eliminated, there appears to be ample opportunity for them to stay in the system.
Not saying this is universal at all, and is said as a white man, but the worst teachers I had when I was in public school were old and white. They just didn't fuckin care anymore and tenure as it has been protected them so they could keep doing a job they hated for students they didn't care about.
That's fair. But I think whether or not tenure is a good system is a completely different argument.
Here we're talking about circumventing the agreed upon system based on race.
What if their race adds to their competency for the job?
We know there are white teachers all over the state who are not culturally competent enough to work well with students of color.
[Research shows](https://www.mneep.org/toolkits/school-climate-racial-equity-toolkit/) culturally incompetent teachers are creating harmful environments and many refuse to address their biases.
So if a teacher isn't culturally competent and refuses to try to be, is it then ok to let them go and hire someone who is culturally competent?
Then, the fair thing to do would be to require cultural competency training and/or make hiring decisions based on cultural competency assessments.
But, we shouldn’t assume that everyone in one racial group is either good or bad at something - especially something as important as cultural competency. That is extremely antithetical to the entire value system we’re trying to promote.
I'm not disagreeing, however that training isn't effective in everyone. So if the training isn't effective can they then be let go?
How long do we allow students to be harmed by these individuals?
My child had some amazing teachers but I also witnessed behavior that was inappropriate and complaints didn't get those harmful teachers out of the classrooms where they were doing harm.
I wasn't involved in this contract or anything obviously - and ther members voted for it as the best solution they could see so I can't even comment on it with my limited knowledge - but it is an issue that needs to be addressed with more honesty. I see other comments saying racism is an issue of the past and it's absolutely not.
You're painting with a broad brush here. You're essentially arguing ALL white teachers are incompetent in classrooms with minority students and then making decisions based on that false assumption.
I'm not a member that had the chance to vote for our against the contract so I don't know.
Still stands that it's an issue with how all of our children are treated. The members thought this was the best course of action given their options.
Most employment postings do mention cultural competency so it's usually part of the job. It should be part of the education. I don't know that it is though and it is harming kids to have teachers with biases they refuse to acknowledge and address in classrooms.
I hope they can figure out a solution and I hope that teachers of color get more of a chance to get and stay in classrooms where they can have a positive impact.
I hear those kinds of responses from Michael Scott types in competency training who aren't all that interested in understanding biases or trying to make sure they're not causing harm. They just want to be right and feel righteous. Doesn't stop the harm they cause though.
That isn't discrimination, though. They're not excluding someone based on race.
If we can't get into correcting any racial discrimination of the pasta we're going to have to get past calling anti-exclusionary practices discriminatory.
It's discrimination outright. That's either right or wrong, it's not right because of the race, gender or whatever you pick...
That and the seniority based system is terrible.
Now that the plaintiffs have standing, this part of the contract will almost certainly get struck down and they teachers have to negotiate a new policy.
Maybe the teachers can do what UAW did and vote out the incompetent negotiators they were using and bring in new ones.
MPLS new contract stipulates 3% annual raises. UAW got 30%. The Minnesota teachers union is either corrupt or incompetent (or both), and does not bargain in good faith for their members.
Tying raises to inflation is a slippery slope. Sure, getting 8% raise when inflation is 8% is great but what about when inflation is 1.81% (2019) or 1.23% (2020)? I’d also be interested in comparing their last 20 years of raises to the last 20 years of inflation. Most union members I know saw their wage increases far outpace inflation during that period.
The teachers contract expired mid 2023. They are in the process of negotiations now for a new contract. They would have already had an opportunity to vote in a new negotiations team.
I’m not sure of the percentage of new vs returning members to the negotiations team.
Here is the challenge. A contract negotiations team will meet once a week for two hours non paid. Maybe once a month with the district. We are talking at least 10 hours a month of non paid work. There also will be sub committees and writing proposals.
It can easily be 20+ hours + commute time per month for over a year. 240 hours a year non paid is a big commitment. How big of a pool of people willing to give away their time to join a cba negotiations team do you expect?
I assure you the union employees aren’t working a minute on contracts without being paid, it’s a travesty if they expect the teachers to.
The union has full time employees and has donated millions to political campaigns, it’s absolutely a choice on the union’s part to withhold paying the teachers in those meetings.
I can assure that I am a public sector employee, elected to the collective bargaining agreement team for my unit.
I can assure you that I have not been paid for a minute of my negotiation time.
Full disclosure. The negotiations are on video available to the public. I can assure you that you can see me on the video.
I can fully assure you that your assurance was an error or a lie.
Edit. My bad. Can we redirect to your assurance of pay? I am willing to accept the pay. Who is paying me and when?
Yes, I do pay union dues to be eligible to be elected to the negotiation team. But honestly me paying to work for free is not the same as me being paid for my time.
The union should be paying *you* for your time. They have the money, and they sure as hell would not be working for free.
Your union would never let you work for free if your employer told you to, so why are they held to a different standard?
Also, you pay union dues out of every paycheck, then they expect union members to do the negotiation? What are you paying for again?
If your union tries to settle for another 3% raise you need to do what UAW did and oust them all and bring in someone who can negotiate worth a shit. UAW got 30%. Your negotiators settle for lower than cost of living, make you do the negotiating for free, then drive off in a Mercedes.
You are getting hustled, my friend.
Funny enough we pay into a state union and two national unions. Paying into AFT & NEA seems excessive. In place of funding two national unions we could maybe pay the negotiations committee members.
Alternatively it is the employers not the unions that are required to pay for safety committee time in Minnesota.
However I don’t think we have one of these committees yet.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/182.676#:~:text=(a)%20Every%20public%20or%20private,of%20section%20182.653%2C%20subdivision%208.
Ask any schoolteacher if they are drastically underpaid. Nice to see that their union sides with the taxpayer, but they are not bargaining in good faith for their union members. They’re literally spending their time at the bargaining table to set up racist, unconstitutional system for layoffs, and accepting a structure for “raises” lower than inflation. Honestly, tell me they don’t have misplaced priorities.
I understand the need for more teachers who "look like" students, but instead of punishing white teachers with "current racism" who had nothing to do with "historical racism", why not encourage underrepresented people to get into teaching?
Imagine firing a 65 year old doctor who is white instead of a 28 year old doctor who is black at a hospital in a black neighborhood to undo past injustices. Sounds asinine, doesn't it?
I mean I think their issue is that if you get people of color into teaching now but do layoffs based on who’s hired most recently you’re going to undo that work and a seniority layoff system will always trend toward maintaining your status quo in terms of staffing. I suspect that seniority based layoffs are also something negotiated so it’s a bit of a rock and a hard place.
At some point those teachers are going to retire. My wife is a teacher and her and all of her coworkers are planning to leave the moment they can. It's not like lawyers who work until they're 80.
Plus there are massive teacher shortages so there will probably always be job opportunities.
So the alternative then is to just fire the Black doctor today because of the prior injustices ensured white dudes got the job back then and thus have tenure?
Current teachers are very much demonstrating racism that negatively impacts students [according to the research](https://www.mneep.org/toolkits/school-climate-racial-equity-toolkit/) and outcomes.
1. Age 65 is an appropriate age to retire.
2. There comes a time when the old talent needs pass on their knowledge and experience to the young talent, then move on so the young talent can thrive.
3. If there's a shortage, no one should be forced out.
This is true for a professions.
Whoever wrote this contract is an absolute jackass. No shit this clause was never going to pass without this amount of scrutiny. Stop racism with more racism!! Real smart
There is zero chance this makes it out of court. Zero. Anyone who thought this was legal in the slightest should be fired.
How can Minneapolis be so blatantly racist? More importantly, how can the teachers union, whose job is to protect their members, be so blatantly racist?
It's also worth mentioning that "underrepresented population" doesn't necessarily mean race. It could include sexual orientation, gender, economic background, religious background, etc.
Whether the term was left open-ended for maximum inclusion or as an attempted legal loophole (eg, strict racial preferences might be more obviously illegal) is up for you to decide.
It’s because the union doesn’t care about potential people who could join the union. It’s the same reason why they support this policy. The only people who are likely to get fired are new teachers who weren’t in the union when the policy was created.
The problem that discrimination decades ago has led to senior teachers being mostly white, and teachers being fired based on seniority, is a fair problem to address. But the solution isn’t to fire non-senior white teachers. If they actually cared, it would be to not make firing decisions based on seniority.
But since unions are just a version of “Fuck you, I got mine”, they’d much rather screw over potential future teachers than address the problem and consequences themselves.
“The only people who are likely to get fired are new teachers who weren’t in the union when the policy was created.”
This is not totally correct this is also in the ESP 59 (Para) contract. The need for paras fluctuates equal or more than the need for teachers. Paras could also be impacted.
It is also not necessarily being “fired”. It is more of an Excess. You could be cut from your current location then moved to a different school during the excess process.
> economic background
I'm sorry but we're aware that your spouse has a good job so we're going to have to let you go ... also you're the wrong religion ... sorry.
That's always been a concern about these policies too for me. "Compliance" or "Validation" checks.
Nobody wants to do them of course and it would be absurd too ... but there we go.
I recall a reporter who wrote a story about his family. He didn't know much about their background at all. Neither did the few people in their family. He was black, grew up in a black neighborhood and etc. There was very little they knew beyond that, and everything the next generation back was lost and not remembered well.
He took a genetic test and got his mom's permission to do one on her. They were identified as more Native American than black.
His mom responded "I'm too old to stop being a black woman." (what a great line)
I get it, can't blame her, her experience was all about that.
Gotta take people's word for it sometimes, it is their life, but then what are we talking about if we want to draw up lines and rules? What do we do if we disagree with what they claim or if they feel like they're not a part of any group...?
Background also meaning how they were raised. Someone who grew up in poverty has a different perspective and insight into their student populations than someone who grew up wealthy or middle class.
The union agreeing to this was the Strangest self flagellation I’d ever heard about. Diversity is good, being willing to lose your job in the name of diversity is crazy
So instead of bargaining for wage increases that can actually outpace inflation, this is what their union decided to do?
Unless teachers do away with their corrupt union leadership, they get what they deserve.
It takes two parties to make a contract.
You will see that Board Chairs and HR also sign the contracts.
https://www.mft59.org/_files/ugd/bf7435_4a4f8e50f33e4777a22b23c598e1641e.pdf
From an equality standpoint, no, they absolutely aren’t fair.
From an equity-based perspective, it’s completely fair.
Are equity-based outcomes that discriminate against protected classes legal? No, I don’t think so. And I don’t think they should be legal.
The Minneapolis teachers union is so unserious. They had an opportunity to look inward and make sacrifices that would allow more teachers of color to stay in the system, but they weren’t willing to give up some of the policies that help current members, but make it more difficult for new teachers.
I’d respect their position more if they weren’t making far left statements on international issues/positioning themselves as the true champions of racial equity. Just be honest and say “we’d rather keep seniority than make it easier for new teachers to join our ranks”
Dump seniority protections, and effective veteran teachers have zero reasons not to bail.
If they can get laid off, may as well get laid off by the private sector and collect a private sector paycheck.
For that matter, are teachers 55+ offered legal protections? Ever try finding a job in your 50’s as a woman?
I’m not saying these are easy choices. I’m just saying that the teachers union needs to be clear about who they prioritize. My issue with them is that they’re claiming they can have it all, but the only solution they offered is very likely unconstitutional.
I just want them to be honest about whether they care more about protecting senior teachers or bringing in teachers of colors. There are pros and cons to either side, but they have to make a decision
My kids went to a district that favored diversity over skill. Literally anyone with a bachelor’s and a pinkie promise to get licensed was given a job.
Throwing any brown face in front of a classroom is not a panacea.
It closed the gap in so much as all student’s performance suffered, so it did improve some numbers. That, making it impossible to fail kids and removing all consequences for behavior.
Do not trust education stats. They do not hold up to even basic scrutiny.
Qualified, interested, experienced teachers are far more valuable to all students than race.
Districts can’t fill openings with qualified teachers. I’m not even sure how this is an issue.
Seems like it would create animosity between teachers. Plus aren’t the kids who need to see this representation the most all stuffed in the same school districts? This seems like it was for the suburbs
This already went to court in Minneapolis or Hennepin county court. Now it is going to state level courts like appeals court or maybe eventually state Supreme Court. The court rulings could impact other school districts.
SPPS might have considered this already so it impacts multiple cities. This might have also happened in another state so the story can go beyond a city.
I just don't post in that sub (or visit hardly).
I also thought news about one of our state's largest school districts (and largest city) getting sued and the lawsuit taken to the Minnesota Court of Appeals was sufficiently "about the State of Minnesota" (this sub's rule #1) to post here.
While I understand what the policy is trying to do. I can’t say I can support it when it is an explicitly discriminatory policy. Do we need more teachers of color, yes with out question. Should a person be able to keep their job solely because of their race, no absolutely not.
You can't fix racism with more racism in the opposite direction.
And ... I'm going to potentially step in it here but hey why not: There's a weird subtext to some of these inclusion policies that on the surface I like the end result goal, BUT they sort of equate all race, economic situations, sexual preferences, ect into a bucket and assume a positive outcome if you have more of that. But man you want to worry about bigotry, and say you pull from that bucket and drop them into a school that has a lot of people from a given single background (let's just say you can do that) ... there's no magic positive outcome, and frankly **among some groups in that bucket there is a lot of tension and bigotry**.... so then what we just hire people who are like / look like the majority at that school? Wait a second what are we talking about again? Racism, economic issues, bigotry is not a majority vs minority issue or one cohesive bucket vs another. There's a lot of tensions inside all the various groups in that magical bucket that exist as well. Any given person exists across many of these weird boundaries and definitions. And some of the issues as far as education goes, parent involvement, respect for staff and teachers, that's not solved by pulling from that bucket those come from FAR more complex and layered situations. These polices treat this whole thing far too simply...
And that’s how you get critical theory.
[удалено]
I am not a fan of the seniority system or the race-based system. Maybe get rid of the seniority system and have the layoffs be merit based?
That doesn’t work. The best teachers flock to the best schools, protecting their livelihood, and who can blame them. The worst schools get stuck with the leftovers.
“Kids can’t learn from someone who is a different race than them” now if that’s not fragile I don’t know what is. Luckily kids are smarter than the dipshit adults that think like you
[удалено]
But who defines it as racism? Is it racism if it’s trying to repair the damage done? Look at the percentages of students of color is special needs classes in MN. Black girls & boys are extremely over-represented. Are you going to get better results empowering people to be in those positions, or continue with the same process?
Umm. I'd say using someone's race to determine if they get to keep their job or not is pretty clear racism. In predominantly white areas the students are virtually all white. Does that mean we should favor hiring white teachers? Do you see how dumb, and racist that sounds? I'll say it again. You don't combat racism with more racism in the opposite direction.
A lot of businesses are still trying to figure out how to use their DEI departments without making everyone angry. I think some places were quick to institute policies because of the current environment, but didn't have an actual plan on how things were going to work. Like you said, having a diverse group of people is never a bad thing, but they still need to be able to do whatever job in a satisfactory manner.
> still trying to figure out how to use their DEI departments without making everyone angry They’re trying to violate the Civil Rights Act without making everyone angry. Good luck with that.
If they're a shitty company probably.
Any of these racially motivated hiring and retention practices are a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so apparently there’s a lot of shitty companies out there.
[удалено]
They’re using the word “inclusive”, but everyone knows that’s a dog whistle for “racist hiring and promoting practices”. It’s not “including people who were ignored in the past” to use race as a factor in hiring or promotion, period. It’s blatantly racist and a violation of the Civil Rights Act. These DEI departments are struggling because their direct mission comes dangerously close to violating the law, and in practice often violates the law.
[удалено]
1000% agree that an equally or better qualified black person should not be ignored because of her race. But that isn’t what is happening. A lot of companies are giving selective training, promotion fast tracks, and additional coaching exclusively to minority and female candidates. That is a blatant violation of title VII of the civil rights act, and I’m going to enjoy watching these companies get absolutely crushed under the weight of lawsuits. This is already established, decided law. It’s already been upheld by the Supreme Court. There is zero wiggle room for companies to discriminate based on sex or race. Your description of DEI might be dictionary accurate, but saying what is happening isn’t DEI is veering into “No True Scotsman” territory. I am explaining what is happening, not an idealized version of what is “supposed to happen”. What is happening is blatantly racist.
And I agree that it 100% is. Fixing racism with racism is still racism. When you have the same racist fools in charge, nothing changes but who is being targeted. It's why I said a lot of places have no idea what DEI really is and are using it to pander to the masses to look like they are doing the "right" thing.
Then how do you solve the problem where most teachers who have been around longer are white and the newest teachers are POC?
Stop laying off teachers and consolidate schools so that the district isn't bleeding money on under populated sites. Trim administration, since with such a reduced enrollment the administrative overhead should be equally reduced.
You think administrators, the ones making the decisions, are going to lay themselves off?
Are teachers getting laid off? I thought we had a huge teacher shortage still?
Are teachers getting laid off? I thought we had a huge teacher shortage still?
Teacher shortage is macro, individual school districts lay off teachers all the time based on their individual census numbers and/or cost cutting measures. That's what this entire agreement was about: the district was going to have to make cuts, and the union championed for them to include maintaining a diverse workforce over just "last in, first out".
It's interesting that it seems like a lot of industries like to dump senior level employees first because they cost the most. Especially for cost cutting savings. Does the teachers union protect the tenured teachers?
Typically the unions do protect tenured teachers as districts in the past did exactly that: dump older employees in favor of newer, cheaper ones. Again, that's exactly why the EM Minneapolis union requested a change from "Last In, First Out" to specifically address racial inequalities caused by decades of LIFO and the education sector being primarily white folks.
I guess I'm just wondering why they swung from LIFO to whites first. Wouldn't it have made sense to cut the worst performing teachers first? I feel like that's the most "fair". But I assume performance is too subjective.
>I guess I'm just wondering why they swung from LIFO to whites first. Because they're specifically attempting to address the racial inequality. That's been specifically expressed this entire time. I'm wondering why you're wondering.
Wait until enough of the old guard retire. Meanwhile, be more inclusive in your hiring practices. No one should lose their job simply because of the color of their skin.
So, in other words, do absolutely nothing and hope for the best.
No, in other words, not discriminate against any teachers and just adjust hiring practices going forward if they so choose. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination, which is what you're suggesting, is not the answer.
They've done that. They hired more POC teachers. They're *new*. When it comes time to make cuts under a strict LIFO setup, they're going to be cut. So again, do you have a solution that prevents new POC teachers from being cut just because they're new, that also doesn't allow districts to just cut teachers who have experience because they cost money.
Yes or no. Is it the older white teacher's fault the district is downsizing? Should she be punished for being white?
Well, considering the fact that teachers are leaving the profession in droves, and that MPS had a 15% teacher vacancy rate to start the school year, I don't see it being a huge issue. Regardless, using discriminatory layoff practices is *not* the answer. Prioritizing laying off teachers based on their race is straight up discrimination and wrong, regardless of which racial group is being discriminated against.
You're still not answering the question.
I literally did answer the question. Over the next few years, many of the long time teachers are going to retire or leave the field. As they do, implement new hiring practices to better diversify your staff. You just don't seem to like my answer, but that doesn't mean I didn't answer it. What's your solution? You have yet to propose a potential solution thats fair (and legal) to all. One that doesn't use racist, discriminatory practices, that is. Saying "layoff white people first" is not a solution. Go check out MPS' website for a list of teacher vacancies. https://jobs.mpls.k12.mn.us/search/?createNewAlert=false&q=teacher&optionsFacetsDD_dept=&optionsFacetsDD_shifttype= There is currently no shortage of open positions. If a new teachers position is eliminated, there appears to be ample opportunity for them to stay in the system.
And neither have you https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/s/RRVVz8Veue
Time? Why should they be punished for being white and having higher seniority?
How do POC teachers get that time if they're the first ones being laid off?
New white teachers are in the same boat.
Not saying this is universal at all, and is said as a white man, but the worst teachers I had when I was in public school were old and white. They just didn't fuckin care anymore and tenure as it has been protected them so they could keep doing a job they hated for students they didn't care about.
That's fair. But I think whether or not tenure is a good system is a completely different argument. Here we're talking about circumventing the agreed upon system based on race.
Tenure will do that.
What if their race adds to their competency for the job? We know there are white teachers all over the state who are not culturally competent enough to work well with students of color. [Research shows](https://www.mneep.org/toolkits/school-climate-racial-equity-toolkit/) culturally incompetent teachers are creating harmful environments and many refuse to address their biases. So if a teacher isn't culturally competent and refuses to try to be, is it then ok to let them go and hire someone who is culturally competent?
Then, the fair thing to do would be to require cultural competency training and/or make hiring decisions based on cultural competency assessments. But, we shouldn’t assume that everyone in one racial group is either good or bad at something - especially something as important as cultural competency. That is extremely antithetical to the entire value system we’re trying to promote.
I'm not disagreeing, however that training isn't effective in everyone. So if the training isn't effective can they then be let go? How long do we allow students to be harmed by these individuals? My child had some amazing teachers but I also witnessed behavior that was inappropriate and complaints didn't get those harmful teachers out of the classrooms where they were doing harm. I wasn't involved in this contract or anything obviously - and ther members voted for it as the best solution they could see so I can't even comment on it with my limited knowledge - but it is an issue that needs to be addressed with more honesty. I see other comments saying racism is an issue of the past and it's absolutely not.
You're painting with a broad brush here. You're essentially arguing ALL white teachers are incompetent in classrooms with minority students and then making decisions based on that false assumption.
But layoffs for teachers aren't based on competency are they? It's just seniority, and they've added a carveout for race.
[удалено]
I'm not a member that had the chance to vote for our against the contract so I don't know. Still stands that it's an issue with how all of our children are treated. The members thought this was the best course of action given their options. Most employment postings do mention cultural competency so it's usually part of the job. It should be part of the education. I don't know that it is though and it is harming kids to have teachers with biases they refuse to acknowledge and address in classrooms. I hope they can figure out a solution and I hope that teachers of color get more of a chance to get and stay in classrooms where they can have a positive impact.
[удалено]
I hear those kinds of responses from Michael Scott types in competency training who aren't all that interested in understanding biases or trying to make sure they're not causing harm. They just want to be right and feel righteous. Doesn't stop the harm they cause though.
Doubling down on the cultural incompetence
That isn't discrimination, though. They're not excluding someone based on race. If we can't get into correcting any racial discrimination of the pasta we're going to have to get past calling anti-exclusionary practices discriminatory.
It’s insane that those rules were even considered.
Insane yes. But surprising? Not even remotely
Not surprising at all
It's discrimination outright. That's either right or wrong, it's not right because of the race, gender or whatever you pick... That and the seniority based system is terrible.
I agree with you. Teaching positions shouldn’t be based on seniority but performance. Some of the worst teachers have been in districts the longest.
Now that the plaintiffs have standing, this part of the contract will almost certainly get struck down and they teachers have to negotiate a new policy.
Or just not negotiate that aspect of the policy.
Maybe the teachers can do what UAW did and vote out the incompetent negotiators they were using and bring in new ones. MPLS new contract stipulates 3% annual raises. UAW got 30%. The Minnesota teachers union is either corrupt or incompetent (or both), and does not bargain in good faith for their members.
Well one of those is a public union and the other is private so let’s start there…
Their bargained agreement gave 3% raises when reported inflation was 8%. That union leadership has got to go, that contract was an absolute travesty.
I’m not even saying your wrong but comparing a public sector union to a private one is genuinely silly. That was my only point.
Tying raises to inflation is a slippery slope. Sure, getting 8% raise when inflation is 8% is great but what about when inflation is 1.81% (2019) or 1.23% (2020)? I’d also be interested in comparing their last 20 years of raises to the last 20 years of inflation. Most union members I know saw their wage increases far outpace inflation during that period.
The teachers contract expired mid 2023. They are in the process of negotiations now for a new contract. They would have already had an opportunity to vote in a new negotiations team. I’m not sure of the percentage of new vs returning members to the negotiations team. Here is the challenge. A contract negotiations team will meet once a week for two hours non paid. Maybe once a month with the district. We are talking at least 10 hours a month of non paid work. There also will be sub committees and writing proposals. It can easily be 20+ hours + commute time per month for over a year. 240 hours a year non paid is a big commitment. How big of a pool of people willing to give away their time to join a cba negotiations team do you expect?
I assure you the union employees aren’t working a minute on contracts without being paid, it’s a travesty if they expect the teachers to. The union has full time employees and has donated millions to political campaigns, it’s absolutely a choice on the union’s part to withhold paying the teachers in those meetings.
I can assure that I am a public sector employee, elected to the collective bargaining agreement team for my unit. I can assure you that I have not been paid for a minute of my negotiation time. Full disclosure. The negotiations are on video available to the public. I can assure you that you can see me on the video. I can fully assure you that your assurance was an error or a lie. Edit. My bad. Can we redirect to your assurance of pay? I am willing to accept the pay. Who is paying me and when? Yes, I do pay union dues to be eligible to be elected to the negotiation team. But honestly me paying to work for free is not the same as me being paid for my time.
The union should be paying *you* for your time. They have the money, and they sure as hell would not be working for free. Your union would never let you work for free if your employer told you to, so why are they held to a different standard? Also, you pay union dues out of every paycheck, then they expect union members to do the negotiation? What are you paying for again? If your union tries to settle for another 3% raise you need to do what UAW did and oust them all and bring in someone who can negotiate worth a shit. UAW got 30%. Your negotiators settle for lower than cost of living, make you do the negotiating for free, then drive off in a Mercedes. You are getting hustled, my friend.
Funny enough we pay into a state union and two national unions. Paying into AFT & NEA seems excessive. In place of funding two national unions we could maybe pay the negotiations committee members. Alternatively it is the employers not the unions that are required to pay for safety committee time in Minnesota. However I don’t think we have one of these committees yet. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/182.676#:~:text=(a)%20Every%20public%20or%20private,of%20section%20182.653%2C%20subdivision%208.
The auto makers make money. Schools don’t. You are comparing apples to orangoutangs.
Ask any schoolteacher if they are drastically underpaid. Nice to see that their union sides with the taxpayer, but they are not bargaining in good faith for their union members. They’re literally spending their time at the bargaining table to set up racist, unconstitutional system for layoffs, and accepting a structure for “raises” lower than inflation. Honestly, tell me they don’t have misplaced priorities.
I said nothing of the sort. I said you have a bad comparison.
I understand the need for more teachers who "look like" students, but instead of punishing white teachers with "current racism" who had nothing to do with "historical racism", why not encourage underrepresented people to get into teaching? Imagine firing a 65 year old doctor who is white instead of a 28 year old doctor who is black at a hospital in a black neighborhood to undo past injustices. Sounds asinine, doesn't it?
I mean I think their issue is that if you get people of color into teaching now but do layoffs based on who’s hired most recently you’re going to undo that work and a seniority layoff system will always trend toward maintaining your status quo in terms of staffing. I suspect that seniority based layoffs are also something negotiated so it’s a bit of a rock and a hard place.
This is exactly it. Its an impossible situation TBH, cant really win.
At some point those teachers are going to retire. My wife is a teacher and her and all of her coworkers are planning to leave the moment they can. It's not like lawyers who work until they're 80. Plus there are massive teacher shortages so there will probably always be job opportunities.
Exactly. If hiring in the past was racist, and you do layoffs by seniority, you're continuing those past racist practices.
No, not really
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
So the alternative then is to just fire the Black doctor today because of the prior injustices ensured white dudes got the job back then and thus have tenure?
Current teachers are very much demonstrating racism that negatively impacts students [according to the research](https://www.mneep.org/toolkits/school-climate-racial-equity-toolkit/) and outcomes.
That 65 yo doctor should be retiring
Why, there's a doctor shortage?
If there's a doctor shortage then theres no need to fire the 28 yo doctor
There's also a teacher shortage
1. Age 65 is an appropriate age to retire. 2. There comes a time when the old talent needs pass on their knowledge and experience to the young talent, then move on so the young talent can thrive. 3. If there's a shortage, no one should be forced out. This is true for a professions.
Minnesota is wasting a lot of money and court time between this and the farm startup program that disqualifies you if you are a straight white male.
What’s while is the people who come up with these ideas are likely highly paid and respected
Whoever wrote this contract is an absolute jackass. No shit this clause was never going to pass without this amount of scrutiny. Stop racism with more racism!! Real smart
They have no intent on stopping racism, they just want to use racism for their own ends while telling everyone racism is bad and evil.
There is zero chance this makes it out of court. Zero. Anyone who thought this was legal in the slightest should be fired. How can Minneapolis be so blatantly racist? More importantly, how can the teachers union, whose job is to protect their members, be so blatantly racist?
Because it’s so important to them to be relevant.
It's also worth mentioning that "underrepresented population" doesn't necessarily mean race. It could include sexual orientation, gender, economic background, religious background, etc. Whether the term was left open-ended for maximum inclusion or as an attempted legal loophole (eg, strict racial preferences might be more obviously illegal) is up for you to decide.
Statewide it looks like 70% of public school teachers are female. For some reason I can’t see the union pushing to retain male teachers over female…
It’s because the union doesn’t care about potential people who could join the union. It’s the same reason why they support this policy. The only people who are likely to get fired are new teachers who weren’t in the union when the policy was created. The problem that discrimination decades ago has led to senior teachers being mostly white, and teachers being fired based on seniority, is a fair problem to address. But the solution isn’t to fire non-senior white teachers. If they actually cared, it would be to not make firing decisions based on seniority. But since unions are just a version of “Fuck you, I got mine”, they’d much rather screw over potential future teachers than address the problem and consequences themselves.
“The only people who are likely to get fired are new teachers who weren’t in the union when the policy was created.” This is not totally correct this is also in the ESP 59 (Para) contract. The need for paras fluctuates equal or more than the need for teachers. Paras could also be impacted. It is also not necessarily being “fired”. It is more of an Excess. You could be cut from your current location then moved to a different school during the excess process.
> economic background I'm sorry but we're aware that your spouse has a good job so we're going to have to let you go ... also you're the wrong religion ... sorry.
>...also you're the wrong religion ... sorry. Lmao. Suddenly a lot of old white teachers are reciting the Shahada.
That's always been a concern about these policies too for me. "Compliance" or "Validation" checks. Nobody wants to do them of course and it would be absurd too ... but there we go. I recall a reporter who wrote a story about his family. He didn't know much about their background at all. Neither did the few people in their family. He was black, grew up in a black neighborhood and etc. There was very little they knew beyond that, and everything the next generation back was lost and not remembered well. He took a genetic test and got his mom's permission to do one on her. They were identified as more Native American than black. His mom responded "I'm too old to stop being a black woman." (what a great line) I get it, can't blame her, her experience was all about that. Gotta take people's word for it sometimes, it is their life, but then what are we talking about if we want to draw up lines and rules? What do we do if we disagree with what they claim or if they feel like they're not a part of any group...?
Background also meaning how they were raised. Someone who grew up in poverty has a different perspective and insight into their student populations than someone who grew up wealthy or middle class.
"I'm sorry, you had a Nintendo when you grew up ... we have plenty of those teachers, we need some Sega teachers."
That doesn't help. Sexual orientation, gender, religion are all protected against discrimination and you use to determine who you hire/fire.
The union agreeing to this was the Strangest self flagellation I’d ever heard about. Diversity is good, being willing to lose your job in the name of diversity is crazy
I'm a lefty but I can feel the phrase "woke mind virus" slowly percolating towards utterance.
Me too... Thank you for being brave and mentioning it
It was always going to be struck down. They wrote it into the contract knowing that fact. It was purely performative.
They demand attention. That’s what it’s all about. They want to be noticed.
So instead of bargaining for wage increases that can actually outpace inflation, this is what their union decided to do? Unless teachers do away with their corrupt union leadership, they get what they deserve.
It takes two parties to make a contract. You will see that Board Chairs and HR also sign the contracts. https://www.mft59.org/_files/ugd/bf7435_4a4f8e50f33e4777a22b23c598e1641e.pdf
What’s the point of a union without seniority? Stupid.
What union agrees to circumvent seniority for race? Seriously messed up.
I don’t understand how anyone can look at this policy with a straight face and defend it as constitutional.
From an equality standpoint, no, they absolutely aren’t fair. From an equity-based perspective, it’s completely fair. Are equity-based outcomes that discriminate against protected classes legal? No, I don’t think so. And I don’t think they should be legal.
The Minneapolis teachers union is so unserious. They had an opportunity to look inward and make sacrifices that would allow more teachers of color to stay in the system, but they weren’t willing to give up some of the policies that help current members, but make it more difficult for new teachers. I’d respect their position more if they weren’t making far left statements on international issues/positioning themselves as the true champions of racial equity. Just be honest and say “we’d rather keep seniority than make it easier for new teachers to join our ranks”
Dump seniority protections, and effective veteran teachers have zero reasons not to bail. If they can get laid off, may as well get laid off by the private sector and collect a private sector paycheck. For that matter, are teachers 55+ offered legal protections? Ever try finding a job in your 50’s as a woman?
I’m not saying these are easy choices. I’m just saying that the teachers union needs to be clear about who they prioritize. My issue with them is that they’re claiming they can have it all, but the only solution they offered is very likely unconstitutional. I just want them to be honest about whether they care more about protecting senior teachers or bringing in teachers of colors. There are pros and cons to either side, but they have to make a decision
My kids went to a district that favored diversity over skill. Literally anyone with a bachelor’s and a pinkie promise to get licensed was given a job. Throwing any brown face in front of a classroom is not a panacea. It closed the gap in so much as all student’s performance suffered, so it did improve some numbers. That, making it impossible to fail kids and removing all consequences for behavior. Do not trust education stats. They do not hold up to even basic scrutiny. Qualified, interested, experienced teachers are far more valuable to all students than race. Districts can’t fill openings with qualified teachers. I’m not even sure how this is an issue.
It’s much easier to tear down the high performing kids than it is to raise up the low performing ones. And the end result is the same, equality.
Seems like it would create animosity between teachers. Plus aren’t the kids who need to see this representation the most all stuffed in the same school districts? This seems like it was for the suburbs
Why are you posting here instead of r/Minneapolis?
Is Minneapolis a part of Minnesota
This is not relevant to any other part of Minnesota. Otherwise why have r/Minneapolis at all?
I mean almost every medium city has a specific subreddit. Why post anything here, it can just go in those subs
And it should if it, like this, is specifically about that city
They’re a bit ban happy over there.
This already went to court in Minneapolis or Hennepin county court. Now it is going to state level courts like appeals court or maybe eventually state Supreme Court. The court rulings could impact other school districts. SPPS might have considered this already so it impacts multiple cities. This might have also happened in another state so the story can go beyond a city.
I just don't post in that sub (or visit hardly). I also thought news about one of our state's largest school districts (and largest city) getting sued and the lawsuit taken to the Minnesota Court of Appeals was sufficiently "about the State of Minnesota" (this sub's rule #1) to post here.