School Board Settles New Teacher Contract !!

[lisa shaffer-gill]

[quote="Bill Call"]The settled contract was in Oregon, Ohio:

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=12623243

Rumor has it that the majority of the Lakewood school board is set to offer substantial raises. It wouldn’t surprise me if the rumor turns to fact. It also wouldn’t surprise me if this duplicitous board keeps it all a secret.
Similar concessions in Lakewood would save 20 teaching jobs and $2 million per year. Of course , more concessions are necessary but when the LTA comes right out and says “Give us what we want or we destroy your schools” it limits our options. At least with this duplicitous bunch.

Bill,
What I read in the article you posted was about how teachers and administrators worked together on a contract that was agreeable to both parties. That sounds like a good thing to me, not just for the teachers and administrators, but for the students and community too. Lakewood teachers, I am one, have a very good working relationship with the administration. This spring, a contract renewal was agreed upon very quickly. Though I suppose if you view both parties and duplicitous that doesn't mean much to you. I see this as evidence that we respect our roles in the community and certainly do not feel entitled or unaware of the larger economic picture.

I take exception with the way you twisted that article and insist at every turn to paint teachers and administators with broad, evil strokes. Your feelings about greedy, entitled teachers are no secret, Bill. Did you make this up, “Give us what we want or we destroy your schools?” Can you attach a name to this comment? If it was really said, I am embarrassed for that person and fully regret the sentiment that it projects. That is not the LTA that I know. Indeed, these are tough economic times and schools across the state and country are struggling for a myriad of reasons that have been, and I'm sure will continue to be, discussed in detail. Even your article closes with, "Still, cooperation won't fix all of the future budget problems. The district also plans to ask voters to make sacrifices for the sake of education." The issues are far from resolved.

On the lighter side, I'm particulary interested in your source for the rumor about substantial raises! I'd like to follow up on that too. I'm thinking that this is good news on the heels of Don Farris's suggestion, in another thread, that teachers would want to live in Lakewood with new lakefront property. With my substantial raise, maybe my family and I can actually live there, not just know it exists!

[Bryan Schwegler]

Unless you are willing to vote no you are endorsing their behavior.

The whole phase 3 committee was all dog and pony show. A lot of hard working and well meaning people studying an issue that had already been decided.

And hence why I will be voting no for the Phase 3 levy....first levy I will vote no on in all my time as a voter. This school board needs a nice swift backhand and I'm hoping Lakewood gives it to them.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, "all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

[Bill Call]

Bill. Did you make this up, “Give us what we want or we destroy your schools?” Can you attach a name to this comment?

“When school children start paying union dues, that 's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.”
Albert Shanker quote

That is the attitude of the LTA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Shanker

The underlying threat during every negotaion with a teachers union is the willingness of the union to go out on strike. The board is terrified about the affects a strike would have on the district.

That fear results in unaffordable contracts that drain communities of needed resources.

That fear results in the board agreeing to contracts that allow the LTA to run the schools.

That fear results in contracts that prohibit teacher contact with students more than 5 hours per day.

It is time for the board to get a back bone.

In the interest of getting along perhaps we can agree on one equitable change in the contract:

The eight hour work day, property supervised and supported.

And hence why I will be voting no for the Phase 3 levy....first levy I will vote no on in all my time as a voter. This school board needs a nice swift backhand and I'm hoping Lakewood gives it to them.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, "all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

I won't be voting for phase 3 unless we have a guarantee that the State will keep its promise to fund a large part of the the project. We know that the State has an $8 billion dollar budget deficit and does not have the money to fund school construction. When will we receive the official notice? After the phase 3 levy passes?

[Kristine Pagsuyoin]

I won't be voting for phase 3 unless we have a guarantee that the State will keep its promise to fund a large part of the the project. We know that the State has an $8 billion dollar budget deficit and does not have the money to fund school construction. When will we receive the official notice? After the phase 3 levy passes?

I will not be voting for the Bond & Permanent Improvement Levy (Lakewood citizens have to pass both before the State will give us our money) unless the Phase 3 plan is modified. There are two conditions that need to be met for me: right-sized school buildings, and built where we need them. That means an elementary school in the center, and if we do keep 7 schools, then Lincoln would need to be smaller to reflect the need in that area of town.

Here are some facts, The new elementary schools on Clifton were over built. Those 2 schools already can serve all of the kids that live there. However, I don't think it is good idea for our city to close a school (not appealing to families we want to attract & property values will drop at least by 10%) and so the right-sized school building, with ample space for parking and a playground, would work to serve about 350 kids. A mammoth building on a site that is too small, without the ability to expand, is not the answer for us for the next 50 years.

Another fact, our BOE wants to knock down and rebuild Lincoln. The cost would be $16 million dollars. Compare that to the the site where Grant currently sits. More than big enough to meet the State requirements, in the center where the need is the most, and to renovate (keep in mind we can renovate Grant to look like our other new buildings) Grant the cost would be just under $5 million dollars. When we get our pot of money from the State we need to make sure it is used wisely. Why would we pay $11-12 million dollars for a school that isn't the right size or in the right place to serve the most children in our district?
The costs and information are directly taken from the OSFC assessment of our schools.

Fact, our BOE decided to have the east half of Lakewood High School included in Phase 3 along with the last 3 remaining elementary schools to help ensure the passage of the bond & permanent improvement levy. They figured voters would never stand for only a half finished high school and so they would be able to get the elementary schools built the way they wanted (included a predetermined plan to close Grant) and it would be "our fault" if the high school didn't get finished. I am not going to be guilt-ed into finishing a high school. I will vote no unless the Phase 3 Plan is modified. The BOE just got a levy passed with a promise that they will be accountable. They promised to be careful and spend our money wisely. Unless the Phase 3 is modified, I don't see how that are keeping these promises and it would be difficult for me to vote for another operating levy (due again in 3 years or less).

We are waiting for our number to come up with the State. OSFC will need to re-evaluate our buildings and will do more enrollment projections. However, they will not re-visit the Grant site unless our BOE asks them to. In other words, if our BOE tells OSFC to look at only Lincoln or Roosevelt then that is all they will do. We need to put pressure on our BOE to rethink their decision to close a school, or at the very least, to not waste our money by building a school where we don't need one. The next school board meeting in tomorrow night, 6/21. Schools are usually closed for 2 reasons; when enrollment is down or when it under performs. Neither of those things are happening at Grant. This last school year the building was filled to capacity (we had to turn kids away), and it is a Blue Ribbon Excellent rated school. There is no need to close another school is our district.

It is also a fact, that our number may never come up if the State doesn't have the money.

[Stan Austin]

Kristine---

Your post at the very least demonstrates a very complete and exhaustive examination of the issues coming before the Board in the next few years.
I appreciate your sharing your expertise and efforts in this area.
What I find as most valuable, however, is insight into your logic and decision making process.
This will be ever more important as we go forward.

Stan Austin

[Gary Rice]

Point of order, by the way, so that we are clear on the facts:

Bill has provided the late Mr. Shanker's alleged quote several times on this 'Deck. Mr. Shanker was affiliated with, and President of, two teachers' associations- neither of which were affiliated, to the best of my knowledge, either directly or indirectly, with the Lakewood Teacher's Association, or the National Education Association.

There were numerous efforts over the years to unite the AFT with the NEA but it never happened, as there were significant differences between the two groups.

As well, the Lakewood School Board, and ONLY the School Board, runs the schools. The LTA represents teachers' rights before the Board and negotiates with the Board, but does not, would not, and could not "run" the schools.

Having written the above for clarification purposes, the other consideration here would be that the alleged quote, however it may have originally been phrased, MIGHT also be considered as being essentially accurate... IF IT WERE considered in the proper context. Teachers' associations are supposed to represent teachers. Period. They may, and often do, (as the LTA has frequently demonstrated) work closely with school boards and other groups for the benefit of the students, but bottom line, their primary purpose is strictly teacher representation.

Back to the banjo...

[Bill Call]

As well, the Lakewood School Board, and ONLY the School Board, runs the schools. The LTA represents teachers' rights before the Board and negotiates with the Board, but does not, would not, and could not "run" the schools.

The LTA runs the Lakewood school system.

At contract time the LTA presents its list of demands. The Board considers those demands for 6 months or so, pretends to negotiate and then gives the LTA what it wants.

Have you even read the contract? What kind of board signs a contract that limits student contact to 5 hours? What kind of board signs a contract that agrees to 7 hour work days?

Here is an idea: An 8 hour work day properly supervised and properly supported. To accomodate the needs of the students and their families ( you know, the customer, the people who pay the bills, the reason we have teachers and teacher contracts) I propose this list of teacher schedules/shifts:

7AM to 4PM with an hour for lunch

8AM to 5PM with an hour for lunch

9AM to 6PM with an hour for lunch

When not in class teachers would be required to perform whatever teaching and administrative duties required by management. End of contract.


Of course that is an old fashioned solution. Here is a new fangled solution to improve education:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/busin ... wanted=all

You can't make this stuff up because if you did make it up no one would believe it.

[Gary Rice]

Bill,

I think that you might be surprised at how closely the system works virtually the way you think it should already.

(except for your assertion about the LTA running the schools)

When teachers are not actually teaching classes, they are indeed involved with relevant teaching duties for at least the time specified, and oftentimes, for several unpaid hours at home afterwards, as well.

(I honestly have never heard of a teacher that did not have to take work home, virtually all the time. School work simply cannot get all done in the course of a day. It is surprising to me that teachers have historically not tried to get compensation for those hours, but they just seem to have done it because it has to be done.)

Teacher contracts generally amount to teachers having to teach either five or six periods out of an 8 or 9 period day, depending upon the district. Of the (on average) 3 periods not actually spent in the classroom, one of those, of course would be a lunch period, and the other 2 involve prep time, conferences, tutorial work, grading papers, or a myriad of other things that crop up in a teacher's day.

It takes time to research and prepare a daily lesson, and then write it out into a coherent plan that is always subject to administrative review. It takes time to effectively grade 150 papers or more daily. (30 students per class X 5 classes) Often too, a teacher will teach multiple subjects, requiring multiple plans. It takes time to contact parents, and schedule and hold conferences as appropriate. It takes time to help the 5-10 students daily after class time to see that they understand the day's lesson. It takes time to deal with the daily intangible human crisis situations that can erupt at any time in academic settings.

In the case of Special Education, although teachers may have fewer papers to grade, they frequently need to deal with preparing individual lesson plans and individualized education plans. There may be intense academic structuring required or creative modifications developed, in order to insure classroom success.

Teachers' associations certainly have fought for better working conditions, but effectively, I believe that has also resulted in better conditions for students as well.