The Newton TAB has obtained letters written by teachers union president Michael Zilles that express concerns about the David Fleishman plagiarism incidents.
The letter expresses “incredulity” with the allegations of plagiarism, but also scolds Fleishman for what Zilles–writing after meeting with members of the union’s leadership team– saw as an inadequate response to allegations that first surfaced in one of Newton’s South’s two student newspapers, The Lion’s Roar.
The TAB article also provides a brief hint that the School Committee may not share just one view on the matter.
In an email response, School Committee member Ruth Goldman praised Zilles for speaking up.”Your perspective mirrors my own and that of the many parents I have spoken to over the past week,” Goldman wrote.
It’s good to see the TAB staying on this. It would be even better if they were to eventually publish the Ziles letters in their entirety (UPDATE: The letters are here), plus the any reactions from Goldman and other SC members.
And of course, School Committee members are always welcome to joint the conversation here as well.
I think it’s important to note that it also says:
In an email to the TAB, Zilles said that the superintendent’s second letter mollified some of the teachers concerns and that he believed the teachers wanted Fleishman to continue in his position.
“I have not heard anyone calling for David to resign or for the School Committee to fire him,” Zilles wrote to the TAB. “From what I have heard, faculty value the leadership he has offered, and want him to continue.”
@Greg, the TAB article has a link to the NTA letter.
Awesome thanks Ted. I see it’s the Australian version.
Wow – Ruth Goldman was quoted via email – I thought the SC was in hiding.
Ruth happens to be my SC rep so I contacted her about her quote, especially since she had previously stated a position to me that was completely opposite and in line with the SC position. FWIW, she responded by saying that she was badly misquoted and that she strongly supports the superintendent and the response of the SC to the situation (paraphrasing).
I don’t know if she reads this blog or would ever post a comment here, so I am taking the liberty of relaying her response.
#KickingaManwhenHesDown
The Teacher’s Union can’t help themselves, they HAVE to say something. I don’t see the union’s place in this and I don’t buy the argument that teachers will be dealing with kids who plagerize, arguing that it’s okay for the Super so it’s okay with them.
Kid- “What’s the big deal? The Super does it!”.
Teacher- “Yes and if he were in my class he’d also get an F.”
End of that story.
But I do believe that Superintendent Fleishman is not done with his story.The second letter, with a clearer mea culpa was the right thing (too bad it wasn’t the first out of the box), but for his own sake, and the sake of everyone involved, he needs to own this sucker in an agressive way. As I’ve said before, it would go a long way towards being able to move on (for him and the schools) if he addressed it face to face: Forums at the High School (maybe English classes,maybe school wide?) where he could discuss all the factors: public speaking, proper citation, how we deal with an embarrassing crisis, What he has learned, etc.
Superintendent Fleishman has had good grades from everyone in Newton. This red mark on his career won’t go away, but he can make it a positive part of his story if he gets out in front and owns it. It also can become a meaningful teaching moment for those that matter here- the students.
There’s a sharp difference between a student’s requirement to show evidence of learning, and a Superintendent of School requirement to show evidence of caring. Very different
Emily Costello – Was Ruth Goldman Misquoted??
My story should have made clear — and I will revise it to try to make it clearer — that the documents I am quoting came to the TAB as the result of a FOIA request for the school committee’s emails.
Ruth’s quote came from an email she sent to Mike Zilles in response to his letter. She was not misquoted. That said, it’s possible that her thinking evolved on this issue and the TAB will give her every opportunity to express her current opinion.
I will also attempt to post the American version of the NTA letter.
Thanks Emily. It would be best, of course, if Ruth Goldman clarified directly, rather than having others speak for her.
Surely Greg is right, that Ruth Goldman should clarify directly. It seems obvious that she wasn’t “misquoted” — was she perhaps “taken out of context” instead? She is a rookie officeholder who was elected unopposed and is perhaps unsophisticated in political nuance. I have never met her or spoken with her but based on what I’ve been told about her I cannot believe that she would flat out lie to a constituent.
The bottom line to me is that this little incident should not take away from the larger issue at hand. One of the consequences of the SC violating the Open Meeting Law is that we have no clue as to where each individual member stood regarding how to address the superintendent’s plagiarism. Until those responsible for that violation of state law do what the superintendent ultimately did — stand up and accept responsibility and acknowledge that many mistakes were made in the overall handling of this fiasco and APOLOGIZE — then it will remain hugely difficult for this SC to move forward, and its responses to all other issues that it faces will be open to question.
The TAB posted Ruth Goldman’s entire email exchange with Mike Zilles. There wasn’t a lot of room to take her out of context. I don’t see it.
Ruth asked me to attach her entire email to my story, and I have done that.
I would like to clarify my intention when I emailed NTA President Mike Zilles. My email referred to Mike’s total message which included support for David Fleishman’s superintendency and a belief that David should continue in that role, along with the desire for a more thorough explanation and apology to the community. The blog post and article made it appear that I was supporting only the aspect of the letter that was critical.
@Ruth thanks for clarifying your intentions. I take you at your word that you were not meaning to support negative statements in the letter. Your email was a general, positive response to Mr Zilles’ letter.
Having said that, I think it’s reasonable to say that a reader could come away with the a different interpretation. I say that because Zilles’ letter is very negative over all. The message can be summed: “You need to make this right because you and the school committee have a) messed this thing up in a serious way and b) put us in a position where we cannot support you, c) however we would like to support you, so please do the right thing.”
In that light, your email, in agreeing with the letter in its entirety, essentially gives the reader the impression that you think things have been mishandled, that the punishment was inappropriate, and that something more needs to be done to set things on a better course if Dr Fleishman is to remain in his job.
It seems that on Ruth Goldmans emails – the email of July 29th is missing from the link.
Was the intent of the FOIA request to discover evidence cover-up? I don’t see what these union and SC-friend of union communications are important to that objective. Did the SC head mislead Newton?
The Superintendent’s still has not admitted to his plagiarism and apologized. What he has served the public is that he had a very busy week “personally” and “professionally” and then added that he wasn’t offering an excuse. That is the height of duplicity. His reaction thus far to being “caught” plagiarizing a speech is consistent with the mindset of an individual who has falsified something.
Residents, School Committee members and posters to this website can give him a pass if they want but that won’t change the circumstances and he and others have failed to put any spin on what he did.
$273, 000 , a car and travel expenses and this is what we get. He may be great on curriculum, but he falls short on ethics. If that’s is what the city settles for then we should embrace him, but we have to call it what it is
I think Newton should fire David Fleischman as Superintendent and replace him with Hingham’s Dorothy Galo. She only makes ~$170,000 annually (versus $273,000 for Fleishman) yet Hingham gets better test scores than Newton. Then again, Hingham spends 45% less per student than Newton yet Hingham gets better test scores because Newton has a much more lavish compensation package for its unions, its educrats and even its school committee than Hingham.
Has Mayor Warren made any public comment on this episode beyond one quote in a Boston Globe article?
I agree with Robert that its problematic that Fleishman still hasn’t called his actions plagiarism. Its less than a full apology. Has anyone from the School Committee used the p-word publicly?
If so many people are upset with the response by the SC, why no petition, emails or public comments? Is this grumbling by a few or representative of the wider community?