Often what the school board considers progress on their part is a mere withdrawal of onerous language they put forward, and reverting to status quo language. We need the school board to understand there are substantive problems in our schools and working conditions that need to be addressed for staff and students. Among the issues the school board has not acted on:
- We asked them to set up a process to address building safety and health concerns, and the school board members have refused.
- We asked them to set up a process and offer training to address student and staff safety concerns, and the school board members have refused.
- We asked them to add language to make sure all members have a chance to use the restroom during the work day. The school board members have refused. This lack of provision has led to serious health issues. The school board wants this to be up to each building principal's judgment (but the problem exists largely because of individual building principals).
- We have asked to be able to meet the wide diversity of working parent needs with parent/teacher conference scheduling. The school board members have refused.
- We have asked them to keep current contract language to ensure a fair process for layoffs and recalling employees back to work. The school board insists on dismissing people without a fair process.
- On Sunday, we met the school board's financial demands, and they turned their own offer down.
- Monday morning we met their financial demands again. Despite their clamoring for this condition for over a year, when we gave it to them they ended the mediation session.
- The school board continues to cry bankruptcy while at the same time proposing a 2012-13 budget that calls for millions in new staffing, equipment, programs, and administrators.
- For the last five years, the school board has not spent an average of $914,582 annually on PERS costs that it budgeted. Where does that $4.5 million go?
- For the last five years, the school board has not spent an average of $834,613 on health insurance benefits that it budgeted.
- This is a combined average of $1,749,195 per year for the last five years in overestimated expenditures. Where does that $8.746 million go?
- In the 2009-10 school year the school board increased their year-end surplus by $10,838,736 from the previous year. They did this while laying off 150 teachers.
- In 2010-11 the school board increased the budget surplus by another $2,612,614. They then laid off 70 instructional assistants who work with students.
- In the last two years, the school board has laid off 220 employees while growing its surplus to over $18 million instead of keeping local jobs and class resources.
There are signs of hope. May 2012 is the first time the school board has agreed to meet with us more than once in a calendar month during this five-month mediation process. The May 20/21 mediation session showed the school board was willing to put in substantive time instead of its typical 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. approach the last several months (often disappearing for hours in the middle).
We hope the school board is starting to understand there are complicated issues to address, and that bargaining is more than slapping a number on the table and leaving when you don't get your way.

Thanks for the clear and straightforward explanation.
ReplyDeleteI read with great interest what is happening. It appears to be so out of balance. Does the school board see the teachers as the enemy? Why does the school board want to cause so much hardship on people that have spent years and years learning their trade and wanting to teach our children. Why can't the board come to the table with a attitude of let's work together,let's give and take a little? Not as it appears now that being "our way or the high way". It is negotiation !!!
ReplyDeleteOpen letter to Reynolds School Board Members:
ReplyDeleteDear Board Members,
Yesterday I wrote to you about class size limits and teacher prep time. I have learned that some of you agree with me on these issues. Another important issue involves how teachers are evaluated. The idea of including unsigned, anonymous complaints in a teacher's evaluation is shocking. I have wonderful students who I respect and care deeply about. However, I am in a position
of authority that sometimes causes strife, and can lead to a (usually temporary) vengeful spirit on the part of a student. My teenage students do not always have the life experience or maturity to foresee the consequences of their actions. For example, when I once caught a fourteen-year-old student
cheating on a final exam, he received an F on the test and was furious at me. His anger was extreme. If he had known that he could call in an anonymous complaint against me that would go in my permanent file, the temptation to make up a story about me to "get even" would have been irresistible. This is not simply my opinion; that former student is now an eighteen-year-old who has recently admitted to me that years ago, he would have done anything to "pay me back" for the F that I "gave" him. Now he has the maturity to recognize that he is the one who earned the F, and he appreciates my stance on integrity. He recently heard about the board's new proposal in the contract and was scandalized. He explained that students at the high school know about it and are amazed at what they consider the board's "ignorance" regarding the realities of the feelings of students. Enabling students to
make unfounded, untrue and unsigned complaints to "get even
with" a teacher that will be used to evaluate the teacher and become part of his or her file is irresponsible and unwise. Please rethink some of the stances you have taken with our contract negotiations. Another important "language" issue includes allowing building administrators to choose who to lay off and who to keep without due process or any safeguard insuring that teachers have been sufficiently observed and evaluated by the administrator at all. These issues are important and will not simply "work themselves out."
Thank you, RHS teacher