The Observation Deck

The contractual, and sometimes perplexing definition of "student classroom contact hours" came about over many years of understanding what works, and what does not, in a traditional school situation. While there are other models than the traditional school system, (very good ones too, as others have pointed out) at the same time, the public has been very reluctant to change the 19th century desks-and-rows fundamental design of public education.

(But that's a whole 'nother discussion, is it not?)

What exactly, is the nature of a teaching job? Essentially, it falls into 3 primary components: Those are often defined as being 1) an instructional time, 2) a tutoring, supervisory, or remedial time with students, 3) a parent conference and preparatory contact time, and/or a time to grade and evaluate work.

Over the years, teachers and boards of education needed to come to terms agreeing on how much time would be made available during the school day in order for all of this to occur in a reasonable manner. Added to this, of course, would be the obvious need for a lunch period. Complicating all of this would be that not all teaching jobs work out quite the same way. Music and vocational needs are not the same as academic needs. There also needed to be a between-building travel time allowance for the specialists, and oftentimes, an agreement of some sort for some set-aside evening parent conference times, now that so many parents are unable to meet during the day.

(There was often an implicit understanding that much school work might not get done during a school day, but the concept of after-school financial compensation for paper-grading, phone calls, etc..usually has not entered into discussions...yet. Maybe this topic SHOULD be discussed, if people want to call for a hard line on a strict, work-to-the contract model.)

The elephant in this chat room, however, seems to me to be not so much a discussion of what comprises a negotiated teacher's work day, but a teacher's fundamental right to have a part in the negotiation of that day at all.

You want to change the teacher work day? Work with them. If however, you want to introduce turn-back-the-clock, top-down, draconian dictates to them, you're just not going to get very far.

We might have a 19th century model for schools, but that does not mean it has to be a 19th century sweatshop; whether for students, or for school employees.

All just my opinions here, but believe me, I know a few others who just might agree...

Back to the banjo...

I think the real elephant in the room is reflected in administrations that are unable or unwilling to negotiate the types of contracts that the public would like to see.

It's interesting when you look at the opinion polls. The public is very supportive of bargaining rights, but very unhappy with the terms of the current teacher's contract related to increases, health care percentage, etc.

So ultimately Gary, I think that most people don't want to take the rights away, they just want a more fair contract to the taxpayer in light of current economic realities.

In the end it comes down to weak administrations or lack of administrative bargaining power. The GOP in this state is attempting to solve what they understand is public frustration, they're just going after the fly with a sledge hammer.

Ultimately though Gary, you're acting as if we the public have the ability to negotiate with the teachers. That's just not how it works without giving us a direct vote on the contract. Instead, we have to rely on administrators who are elected and accountable to both us and the people they're negotiating with, the teachers. In that sense, there's a huge conflict of interest.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I think that most people don't want to take the rights away, they just want a more fair contract to the taxpayer in light of current economic realities.

In the end it comes down to weak administrations or lack of administrative bargaining power. The GOP in this state is attempting to solve what they understand is public frustration, they're just going after the fly with a sledge hammer.

I think you're right in the sense taxpayers want fairness. However, I think republicans are doing this because politicians have negotiated in their own self interest rather than in the interest of the taxpayers.

http://fxn.ws/ef6pUT

Lani Lutar, president and chief executive of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, said politicians who negotiate public employee contracts have intentionally -- and “cynically” -- approved “unsustainable lavish” perks for public employees in lieu of large salary increases knowing that the perks would attract less scrutiny from the media and the public.

“When the economy was strong there was an assumption that (stock) market gains would continue to pay for these benefits. And politicians saw that there would be increased attention on salaries so they hid away these perks in benefits,” she said.

What’s more, Lutar noted that many of the perks granted by politicians were structured so they would be paid out in the future, long after the politicians who granted them had left office.

“Unfortunately, in many instances labor union leaders and elected officials worked in concert on this. There was an acknowledgement among both parties that this would be less likely to result in public dissent,” she said.

While I think year round school has a lot of merit there are a lot of complex issues around making it happen. Unions would be totally correct to question gigantic changes. If admin wants to make changes it's the unions job to make them think it through and have a real plan before agreeing to changes. The schools have been playing ping pong on a lot of issues for years. No one wants to agree on a coherent philosophy of successful learning.

If schools are in session all year you kill whole industries around vacations to summer care and camps as well as the joy and fun and LEARNING of unstructured time. Teachers wouldn't get that time to reflect on the past year to make the next one more successful. Kids are super stressed as it is. Would year round school become more relaxed and fun or would it be the same old grind all year?

Always follow the money. Who has a stake in year round school and who has something to loose? The teachers might be least of the bloodletting on this issue. I believe Disney actually does lobby to keep schools from being year round.

And fundamentally do we really want our kids to succeed? If we did as a society I think things would look different than we do now.

And conversely, are the kids really failing miserably? We can hyperbole that meme to death but honestly kids haven't changed much in the past century. They want to learn, have fun, be loved, understand the world, have a future, be respected, shown wisdom over being told what to do and what hoop to jump through.

Ellen Cormier wrote:If schools are in session all year you kill whole industries around vacations to summer care and camps as well as the joy and fun and LEARNING of unstructured time. Teachers wouldn't get that time to reflect on the past year to make the next one more successful. Kids are super stressed as it is. Would year round school become more relaxed and fun or would it be the same old grind all year?

This isn't really an accurate description of "year-round school". It's not the existing school year with no summer break.

Here's a great example comparison found at:
http://www.nayre.org/calendar_comparison.htm




There are still roughly only the same number of days as the existing school year, and there is still a summer break, it's just shorter.

I'll agree that unstructured time is important to learning, and the balanced schedule (or year-round) does a better job of providing that in realistic chunks than the existing schedule. Numerous studies have proven that shorter summer breaks is actually better for learning and that 2 1/2 months of break between classes actually causes regression in learning for most students.

I also am pretty sure the vacation industry would be able to adapt pretty easily to this change.

If admin wants to make changes it's the unions job to make them think it through and have a real plan before agreeing to changes.

I think that's accurate but that assumes two things. First, the administration and union are on equal footing when it comes to negotiating power and I don't believe they are. Second, that the union is actual interested in examining fundamental change rather than just being a road block, and I don't believe that to be true either.

Teachers may be interested in the change, but I don't believe the power structure of their union feels the same way.

Teachers ARE the union leadership of their profession.

Teacher leaders come from the ranks and return to the ranks.

We have to be careful that we do not paint with a broad brush here.

One of the more interesting, and yet at times perplexing things about American education is its insistence on the autonomy of the local school districts. Despite the push to state and national standards, there is still much local pride in the individual school district.

Some of those districts work relatively well with their teachers' associations and some, less well.

To a certain degree, there will always be adverse interests between any groups of human beings, but because we are human, some of us play well together and some, not so well.

Those that do, generally find the road to be a much easier one to travel.

It's always a good idea to try to listen to other points of view. The relatively low number of serious teacher and public employee labor disputes in Ohio in recent history is a tribute to people learning to listen to all sides and learn to work together for common ground. Contrary to what others have felt, and particularly in the last decade or so, unions have not always gained, and in fact, have often needed to make serious sacrifices, as realities in America have indeed changed.

Calm discussions between interested (even if adversarial) parties often produce great win-win results.

On the other hand, if you hit a hornet's nest with a ball bat, it's a little hard to get them to calm down.

As for year 'round school? Don't forget that you were once a child. While in theory, it might indeed work better for some children, would YOU have wanted it for yourself?

This all is, after all, supposed to be about the best interests of the children.

All just my opinion here, but sometimes, I just amaze myself....

Back to the banjo...

I would just like to throw in some personal experience with year round schooling. I am a product of year round schools. I was still able to enjoy summer vacation but I had the added benefit of having several breaks through out the year. I had a very positive experience with year round schools.

As a parent I wouldn't object to year round schooling for my children either. In year round schools less time is spent on review which is a good thing. Too much time is spent relearning information and that is a waste for both our students and our teachers.

While change is always difficult, it is time that we look at what would be in the best interest of the children and how best to educate them.

We are very lucky here in Lakewood, we do have good schools, we have wonderful students, we have amazing teachers. While I don't personally feel SB 5 is the right way to go about fixing the budget if nothing else it has opened the door to conversations such as this and that is a good thing. Now if only we can continue to have these conversations and make some headway on positive changes that will truly impact our children for the best.

Gary Rice wrote:Teachers ARE the union leadership of their profession.

Teacher leaders come from the ranks and return to the ranks.

We have to be careful that we do not paint with a broad brush here.

Let's be honest, there is clearly always a group that is more "in" as leadership than others. That's true whether it's the union or politics in general.

The relatively low number of serious teacher and public employee labor disputes in Ohio in recent history is a tribute to people learning to listen to all sides and learn to work together for common ground.

Or could it be a symptom of the weak bargaining positions of administrations that refuse to push for necessary change or move on any of the hard issues?

Contrary to what others have felt, and particularly in the last decade or so, unions have not always gained, and in fact, have often needed to make serious sacrifices, as realities in America have indeed changed.

Opinion polls show the majority of Ohioans don't seem to agree with you that enough sacrifices have been made. So it's either a case that the union has done a terrible job of sharing what these heroic sacrifices in their contract were, or it really didn't happen to the level that satisfies the taxpayers.

As for year 'round school? Don't forget that you were once a child. While in theory, it might indeed work better for some children, would YOU have wanted it for yourself?

Actually I woudn't have minded it. I'd give up the extra long summer where honestly, most kids are bored to death by the end of it, for more frequent, longer breaks throughout the year.

This all is, after all, supposed to be about the best interests of the children.

Ah my favorite trump line whenever the union wants to avoid change. As if the union has a monopoly on deciding what's "best for the children" and people who disagree with it don't.

One of the things that I really enjoy about debating with you Bryan, (and we've had a few of those over the years, have we not? ) is that we can do it respectfully.

Well, let's see about my response to your thoughts...

Regarding union leadership (or leadership in general, as you allude) my own experience would be to offer partial agreement with you that there are those in life who just seem to relish leading. The big reality, however, is that oftentimes, people may find themselves in leadership roles by default, as so many people just don't want to get involved...

Being the fly on the wall is a quiet life, but it beats being the hornet in a swatted nest.

I cannot agree with your premise that administrations are weaker, or may simply not have wanted to take the "hard line" over the years. In the first place, both unions and employers are obliged to bargain in good faith. Were either side to cozy up to the other too much, Federal labor rules would come into play. There are VERY strict procedures that MUST be followed with these sorts of things.

Sometimes, impasses indeed happen. The problem with "hard lines" and "hard liners", is the expense involved for all sides. When a negotiations process meets an impasse, it can really go down to the wire. If there is a labor stoppage? Between attorney fees, outside security being brought in, and the community uproar that usually results, the costs can be dramatic; both to a union and to a district.

As for what is gained or lost in negotiations? That information is always made public after both sides have an agreement. Particulars of negotiations are never revealed during negotiations due again, to the rules of negotiations. I'm certain in my own mind that there have been many union give-backs in many districts, particular with having to pay increasing medical costs.

Neither unions, nor Boards of Education, would tend to crow (brag) or complain about contract outcomes. That's just not the way it works, but the information is always out there for the interested public.

As for what's in the best interest of the children?

As a nation, we used to be a great deal more unified with that goal than we are today, to be sure. We disagree about texts, or even whether to teach certain topics. At the same time, teachers always MUST consider the best interests of the children, with the humble knowledge that all of us are fallible human beings.

All just my opinion. Maybe I'm right once in awhile...

As for that year-round school? I still say "Yuk!"!!!

Back to the banjo...

Gary Rice wrote:One of the things that I really enjoy about debating with you Bryan, (and we've had a few of those over the years, have we not? ) is that we can do it respectfully.

That's exactly why I love this place.

The big reality, however, is that oftentimes, people may find themselves in leadership roles by default, as so many people just don't want to get involved...

Definitely agree no this one!

I cannot agree with your premise that administrations are weaker, or may simply not have wanted to take the "hard line" over the years. In the first place, both unions and employers are obliged to bargain in good faith. Were either side to cozy up to the other too much, Federal labor rules would come into play. There are VERY strict procedures that MUST be followed with these sorts of things.

We'll just have to disagree on this one.

As for what is gained or lost in negotiations? That information is always made public after both sides have an agreement. Particulars of negotiations are never revealed during negotiations due again, to the rules of negotiations. I'm certain in my own mind that there have been many union give-backs in many districts, particular with having to pay increasing medical costs.

Neither unions, nor Boards of Education, would tend to crow (brag) or complain about contract outcomes. That's just not the way it works, but the information is always out there for the interested public.

But that doesn't solve the PR problem that the union has right now with regard to public perception of benefit and pay terms. The general taxpayer is unhappy with what they perceive as an overly generous package, the union needs to step up its efforts to prove to them that they have sacrificed, otherwise, they're going to lose the war in a big way.

That's what SB5 is all about. The ball is in the union's court to reach the public on this issue. Recent opinion polling clearly shows Ohioans believe that the contracts are too cushy. If you're waiting for the public to go read the contract on their own in order to change their minds, that's not going to happen.

At the same time, teachers always MUST consider the best interests of the children

Sure, they should do that, but let's be honest, that's not always what actually happens. There is not a monopoly out there on which person or group always has the best interests of the children in mind.

I haven't seen too many "Public Employees are Cool" billboards, tell you the truth, so yeah, the PR thing with the public could be a problem. At the same time, that's not really a union's function either. Their job is member representation. They don't have advertising departments and huge budgets for models and that kind of thing.

Gee, instead, they'd probably have to use someone like...ME...on that billboard.

I can see it now.

I think THAT'S probably why you don't see too many Teachers' Union billboards.

As far as the best interests of children are concerned? Through the outstanding academic test scores of our District, the outstanding sports and music programs, and the high motivations of both staff and students, I can assure you, with every fiber of my being, that Lakewood Schools staff, administration and students work very hard every single day to keep that interest in mind. They not only prove it, they continue to DEMONSTRATE that interest!

I have to wonder though, which "court" the debating and PR ball is really in? (as this huge national cultural education war proceeds) I've been watching the struggle around the country, and relatively speaking, thus far at least, Ohio is faring better than some states, at least with respect to the civility of the debating process. Some of these states will probably be in court for years, and legal fees and court costs will probably be flowing like water. How simple it would have been to attempt to bring all parties together first, rather than first crying "Havoc" and letting slip the dogs of war, as Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar. (1601)

I was going to post Anthony's speech having that quote here, as it really seems to relate to this debate today, but even though it's over 400 years old, it's a bit too graphic, even for this place, I do believe.


Still. It seems almost eerie... Look it up, if you want to.

I guess some things never change in life, do they?

All just my opinion, and sooner or later, I may be right!

Back to the banjo....

I think it would be a gross mistake to characterize sb5 as popular with the general public. Kasich's approval ratings are in the toilet and he's barely been governor 2 months. I think that is unheard of in quiet polite Ohio where we always seem to give the benefit of the doubt. No one seems to like boat-rocking in this state and boat rocking has been forced upon us.

now the public employees may have an image problem too but I think that speaks to poor journalism and we have had some pretty poor journalism on this issue. The general public sees clearly that this is a rights issue, not a budget issue and the newspapers should be reporting on it correctly. And obviously it is tricky to get all the fact together statewide when each district does its own negotiations.

Teachers and the unions can cry to the high heavens on what they have given up (as clearly they have been doing) but if it is not validated by independent investigation what good is the press then anyway?? And if they are reporting by not reporting or reporting selectively what is their motivation?

Gary you are really an amazing person! Your points are just really spot on and speak to so many of the delicacies of the issues. You've given people a lot to think about and in such a fine manner.

To the nay sayers, what are reasonable salary and. Benefits for a lifetime of service in teaching? Please start there. Why should professionals have to give up rights they've worked hard to preserve because the private sector has let big business run them over and take away pay increases and benefits? Is it really true that public employees getting a better deal than private? Id argue it has become true for a lot of people but there are still a lot of over paid robber barons. Let's take some time out and do some screaming about wallstreet fat cats and their bonuses for ripping the country out from under us. Or are teachers just an easier target to find?

If you look at charter school

I am as usual trying to post from an iPhone so I have some trouble editing. I have something to say about charter schools but not right now.

Slightly more food for thought, all the underpaid less benefit receiving families in the private sector or nonunion sector, when your wages get below a certain point the government ends up supplementing a lot of things you need. So again, due to private sector greed in not paying living wages, the tax payer is supplementing that as well.

I have brought this up before and it is a serious dilemma this country is facing right now. I know the Feds in congress want to zero out a lot of supplemental programs and businesses do not want to pay living wages. We will eventually have rioting in the streets. We will have massive amounts of bankrupt families living in homeless shelters.

I don't think the "tea partiers" quite know what they are asking for when they want to tear all this stuff down. If this keeps up we are headed for some seriously bad bargains.

Maybe this seems hyperbolic but if you just do the math quality of life is taking a dive for everyone but the superwealthy.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Here's a great example comparison found at:
http://www.nayre.org/calendar_comparison.htm




There are still roughly only the same number of days as the existing school year, and there is still a summer break, it's just shorter.

Excellent. I would increase the number of teaching days, extend the teacher work year to 46 weeks to allow some flexibility for students.

Aren't there any entrepreneurs out there? Will no one take me up on my offer?

$1.7 million dollars
5 teachers making $100,000 per year.
135 students
free rent
how would you spend the other $1.1 million?

Here is the most recent LTA agreement that I have:



There is a lot in there about 7 hour work days and a lot in there about limiting contact with students but nothing about performance or accountablity. How much sense does that make?