On Thursday afternoon, a Press Release from the School District hit email boxes everywhere which essentially detailed that the School District had made a contract offer to the Alameda Education Association (AEA aka teachers union) for their consideration.
Here are the pertinent parts of the Press Release from the School District:
The proposal offers to raise starting teacher salaries to the average of comparable school districts in Alameda County, increase overall teacher salaries by 2% and provide additional financial incentives for teachers participating in a voluntary two-year pilot program of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) aimed at improving student achievement. If this proposal is accepted by AEA, beginning teachers who participate in the pilot would see an estimated total increase of more than 6% in compensation for the next two years and most other teachers who participate in the pilot would see a total increase of more than 3% in compensation for the next two years.
…
In addition to increasing beginning teachers’ salaries and overall compensation, the proposal includes an annual incentive of $1,000 for each of the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years available to every teacher who participates in a PLC.
Given that at the last School Board meeting several teachers begged for the School District to make a good faith effort to negotiate, I was actually pretty hopeful that, like the calendar, the process of negotiation would be quicker and much less painful this time around given that success of AEA backed candidates in the last election.
However, I should have known that it was too good to be true. Before the digital ink was even dry, the teacher’s union, via the California Teacher’s Association returned its own Press Release which essentially said, “thanks, but no thanks” or “fuck you” however you care to read into it. Here’s the key part of the AEA press release:
There have been no agreements made on any contract articles in the last 10 months of negotiations. Educators are upset with the district’s salary proposal of 2 percent for the current school year and zero percent for the next school year. That would amount to only a 2 percent salary raise in a six-year period.
Teachers declared impasse when the district refused to respond Thursday to a reasonable AEA counter-proposal to spread a raise of 4.5 percent over two years. It would mean 2.5 percent for this school year and 2 percent next year, and reopening salary talks in 2014-15. Teachers also offered to withdraw their proposal that the district increase its contribution to the costs of their health benefits to make the 4.5 percent raise over two years even more manageable for the district.
Did you catch the part about the declaration of impasse? Yeah, this means it appears we are in for another long protracted slog which essentially can mean nothing good for the community. And, the sad thing about it, it appears to be over a 2.5% salary increase — although I’m sure there is more to this larger story.
So, what does impasse mean? It means that an impartial mediator will be assigned and the two parties will enter the fact finding stage. I’ll point out that last year when the District and AEA went through this process, the District claimed that they were unable to pay any increases in salary, the Fact Finding team indeed supported the District’s contention that they were unable to pay due to the instability of finances at the State level. Even though the Governor’s tax proposal has passed so there is a bit more clarity around that issue, there is looming over the school district the parcel tax lawsuit which complicates the whole matter.
I assume this subject will come up during the next School Board meeting, but given the nature of the discussion, we probably won’t get a whole lot more clarity around what this all means and how deep the divide actually goes. Here is a copy of what the District proposed to AEA and a summary.
So, here’s where it’s a bit confusing, the District refers to the 2% raise as being “ongoing” which really just means that the 2% raise is permanent and it’s not a one-time lump sum bonus to teachers. So once their salaries go up that 2% it stays at that new level until a new contract is negotiated and ratified. AEA wanted the raise to be 4.5% and spread it over two years. Now you may be asking, why don’t they just meet somewhere in the middle between 2% and 4.5%, isn’t that negotiation 101? Like, why can’t they do 3.25%? Good question, I don’t know why they can’t meet in the middle. This whole thing is just depressing.
Strike in the Spring? Check the timeline after impasse. Line up the babysitters. Goodbye Spring sports, activities and prom. At least the administrators will have nice new offices to luxuriate in while the public demands answers. The few left at old Alameda High can hunker down behind the million dollar fence. Why does this seem like “The District That Couldn’t Shoot Straight?”
Comment by Commonsense — January 28, 2013 @ 6:24 am
Why is this an issue every year? Didn’t we vote for several alphabet soup measures so this wouldn’t happen?
Comment by alameda — January 28, 2013 @ 6:32 am
The alphabet soup you’re forgetting is AEA, to whom facts (like MATH) don’t matter.
Comment by Cynic L. Skeptic — January 28, 2013 @ 6:37 am
1
Hey Rodriguez, you are fooling no one.
Comment by Cynic L. Skeptic — January 28, 2013 @ 6:38 am
Alameda: last year there was no contract resolution, just a decision on the provisions about class size and the calendar. It’s a bit confusing, but right now the teachers are working under an expired contract, but the issue of class size needed to be settled last year because the Memorandum of Understanding that kept class sizes at a certain level would have expired.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 28, 2013 @ 6:47 am
I always attended–and loved–public schools, including my college education at the University of Oregon. My heart wants to side with and support teachers and I have never failed to support a school funding measure at the polls.. But it seems like the AEA–or at least its leadership–has yet to learn math and how to be professional and constructive in its negotiations and public relations.
Counterproductive and unprofessional behavior has hampered the school board, too. Neither side is blameless in the reaching of this impasse, or so it seems.
1. The AUSD Board of Trustees has not worked together well–not all the members seemed to be cooperating for the public good in 2012 and before, and the district has not been as forthcoming and transparent with the community as it needs to be in discussing its fiscal affairs and decisions.
2. The actions and statements of the AUSD superintendent and the staff have appeared to be anti-union on more than one occasion.
3. The school board has proceeded with new offices and other spending decisions without providing adequate justification for costly “extras.” (Like the office building fiasco.)
3. The AEA has used emotional rhetoric and theatrical cheap-shots (Vital’s lump of coal, for instance) instead of conducting its negotiations professionally.
4. AEA does not seem to be able to read, follow, or figure out the numbers in the AUSD’s budget, as evidenced by the mediator’s siding with the district last fall.
(The AEA’s 2012 proposals seemed to ignore the district’s shaky finances and the looming liabilities from the parcel tax suit.)
Overall, I tend to side with the AUSD in this dispute. Not because I do not support teachers but because the AEA’s inflammatory tactics–like declaring an impasse
last week instead of trying to negotiate a financially sound and realistic solution for these shaky times at the bargaining table–do not seem constructive.
I keep hoping for a change in the atmosphere. Will we see any improvements? I don’t know. We’ll have to wait at least four years for one of the ones I hope for…
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 28, 2013 @ 7:43 am
#2: There has been an “alphabet soup” of measures passed over the last few years, yes, (although only one, Measure A, is in effect now). But neither Measure A nor the governor’s Prop 30 have made up for the $20 billion in cuts to public education enacted by the state since 2008. And I’ll wager a guess that no district in California understands how the governor’s super-complicated school financing scheme will affect its bottom line — if it even gets passed, of course. That uncertainty, coupled with the uncertainty about the Measure H outcome, makes the district’s finances less solid than you might think.
As for “luxurious new offices” (#1)…hmmm. I was at a meeting at the new offices several weeks ago. They do have electric lights and I did enter through a pneumatic door (which was broken). But I’d hardly call the offices “luxurious.” They are modern and functional but not nearly as “fancy” or “luxurious” as you find in the private sector or even many government agencies.
(Also, not to be picky, but as I understand it, the HAHS fence didn’t cost $1 million. It cost about $210,000. I think you’re confusing the cost of the fence with the cost of all the seismic work done there over the summer, which amounted to something $900,000.)
Comment by Susan Davis — January 28, 2013 @ 8:23 am
I love to say “I told you so”. The Vital compensation blunder set this whole thing in motion. The AUSD board and Adminstrators have been playing Marie Antoinette, which history tells us leads to civil unrest and ultimately, revolution. I fear heads will have to roll before things stablize again. If Vital had delayed the compensation changes for even a year, saying she could not in good conscience accept it at a time when so many people were struggling, this all might have been avoided. Once again, the money keeps flowing and the kids get bupkis. Well played, AUSD.
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 28, 2013 @ 8:37 am
57% of the Students in California Schools live in Poverty and qualify for free or reduced meals. The Teachers Total Compensation on Average in AUSD is 550 a day or 2200 a week………Money flow is not going to the kids…..The parents and kids get shortend …….Were worried about the Teachers…Really.
Comment by John — January 28, 2013 @ 8:48 am
So the District screwed up Prop H and are using their screw-up as an excuse to shove bogus salary negotiations up AEA’s ass, or am I missing something?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 28, 2013 @ 12:14 pm
Measure H
“no funds for administrator salaries”
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/alm/meas/H/
Full Text.
Comment by John — January 28, 2013 @ 5:28 pm
The AUSD really is putting the fun back in dysfunctional.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 28, 2013 @ 5:53 pm
Jack it’s a mess……..
New Parcel tax 3% going to Books and Class Supplies for the kids…..I was way off…….I was thinking the kids might get a nickel of every dollar.
90% going to Salaries & Benefits.
It’s all for the benefit of the Kids…….
The Residents contribute to Teachers 2-3 times the retirement benefits of average person in a funded retirement program and 4-5 times those in PERS. That’s from a pool of 10,000 companies.
Maybe we can take the Free Lunches away from the kids and give it to the teachers.
Comment by John — January 28, 2013 @ 6:43 pm
Multi-Year Projections and Assumptions
Supplies
Classroom Supplies, Textbooks, Janitorial Supplies, Office
Supplies, Technology Equipment
After throwing in Janitor supplies, Office Supplies and Technology Equipment my Guess is the Kids are 1 Percenters looking at how district likes to take care of themselves……Those Pesky Kids can have their parents buy.
Assumptions always get you up the creek.
http://ausd.alameda.k12.ca.us/images/stories/pdfs/FY_2012-13_Budget.pdf
Comment by John — January 28, 2013 @ 6:55 pm
Ease up John. Jon Spangler [#6] and I have never failed to support a funding measure at the polls. Course we’re both exempt from paying parcel taxes anyway so it’s easy to support somebody else paying the tab.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 28, 2013 @ 6:59 pm
Jack one of the few things that seperate you from # 6 Jon Spangler is that # 6 household income is derived from these political campaigns and propositions and lobbying groups…….Even tough that really isn’t where his heart is on who spends the most money.
Comment by John — January 28, 2013 @ 7:31 pm
Jack
Theres a few other things. You didn’t get to put on your SelfBackpatting Sheit that # 6 Can.
Freelance Writer, Editor and Proofreader
Edited and proofread campaign mailers and web copy for winning Alameda CityCouncil, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and AC Transit Board candidateson rush deadlines. Wrote and revised forms and web copy for small businesses.Researched and wrote articles for Alameda Municipal Power newsletter. Editedmonthly newsletter for East Bay Bicycle Coalition (2007).
Retail Hardware Sales and Service(1995-2001)Assisted customers with projects, information at Pagano’s Hardware Mart,Alameda, CA, and Orchard Supply Hardware, Mountain View, CA: tools, hardware,plumbing, paint, electrical, garden, and housewares.
Comment by John — January 28, 2013 @ 7:44 pm
I wonder if John understands that the main benefit children recieve at school is the instruction by the teachers? You can have all the books, pens and pencils you want but if you don’t have teachers to educate the children, you don’t have a school. And with any enterprise that is based on having people available to deliver the mission (teaching children), salaries and benefits are a major portion of the cost. Teachers don’t make much, considering that they are being entrusted with the development of our children, which I am sure you will agree are a very precious commodity. It is a reasonable thing that our school taxes pay for teachers and it amazes me that John considers their salaries and benefits a scandal. I am hoping that the current negotiations will result in a fair and equitable solution that allows the district to pay in accordance with its ability to do so and allows the teachers to have wages and benefits that are fair. I am also hoping that the adversarial nature of the bargaining can be lessened by people on both sides exercising understanding and good will.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — January 28, 2013 @ 10:40 pm
Kate……..I don’t consider teachers pay and benefits a scandal…….In Fact I would like to pay them a lot more than they are making now…But Here are the things that bother me Kate.
The Schools are suppose to be setup up for the Students….Not for the Administrators or the Teachers….The first thing you do is give the Students all the things they need to be successful .
But Lets first take care of all the students needs…….Be It computer handheld Notebooks,Learning Software. Classroom Supplies, Sports Equipment and Fields , Swimming Pools ,Science Labs , Music and Art Supplies , Drama Dance, Ect Ect…….
You add up that and then you have a Total….Then you Start with your Budget…If this Total is 20 Million for all the Students needs you then have 48 Million to run your District.
The Alameda Unified School District use to actually run this way…….Teachers and Administrators Salary’s and Benefits Ran about 40-45%…..Not 90%….All the CUTS to Schools have come from the Students Piece of the Pie.
The Students and Parents are put in a financial squeeze if their child wants to doing anything extra curricular because funding has been cut in these areas.
We are in California and 57% of Students are eligible for Free Meals and 43% of them come from Households of 4 or more with under 29,000 in Total Household Income. It’s not a small Percentage……its Huge…In Oakland it’s 70% and San Francisco it’s 61%.
I say Take care of the Students First and maybe the Teachers can Average 450 a day and maybe only get 1.5 Times as much contributed towards their retirement as the average person working in the private sector and maybe administrator’s can go from getting 4-5 times as much and maybe just double.
Everyone has sacrificed in this economy and would be breath of fresh air not hearing the Teachers squawk about their pay every frkn day.
Teachers are NOT Forced to Work Here……Very few could find work in the Private Sector that match their present Total compensation and if they leave a new fresh mindset will appear with thousands wanting to teach.
After watching the School Board Meeting I felt Totally embarrassed for them on how they acted
and the quality of Teachers that stood up and ranted…….Looked Like Jerry Springer Show.
Kate that is my Take……The System is Upside Down and The Administrators and Teachers are #1 and #2
and the Students and Parents finishing Third way out of the MONEY.
Comment by John — January 29, 2013 @ 4:42 am
Kate there are some very sharp people out there reinventing Education and Teaching…….Turning things upside down and all around…….It’s probably the most exciting times in Education and Learning…..Fabulous technological innovation and will turn Education in a whole new Direction. Were Dinosaurs Kate. Probably should tell your friends in the District also. We need fresh new teachers that have a clue versus the Wilma Flintstones gang running the AEA.
The value of teachers
The arrival of a powerful new tool thus does not replace the other necessary element in education reform, the raising of teacher quality. Good teaching is the single biggest variable in educating pupils, bigger than class size, family background or school funding, says Eric Hanushek, an education expert at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. And crucial to having better teachers is evaluating them properly, hiring, firing and promoting on merit.
The teachers’ unions, however, are fighting all attempts to move away from systems in which pay and tenure are linked only to seniority and credentials. In some places, such as Washington, DC, the reformers have won a few skirmishes; in others, such as Los Angeles, the unions are digging in for a long war. The core question is how, even whether, teachers can be evaluated fairly on the basis of exam results or classroom observation (given that some pupils are from educated families, others from poor areas, and so on). The unions are doing their best to ensure that evaluations have no consequences in staffing.
Technology can play a part here, because, in essence, evaluation is an information problem. Today’s standardised tests are deservedly unpopular with teachers and parents because, first, the “standards” tend to be low (and easily lowered further); second, teaching to the test is a form of dumbing down; and third, the tests take place only once or twice a year.
By contrast, spend a few minutes playing with the KhanAcademy dashboard of a class in Los Altos, and you see a vision of the future. You can follow the progress of each child—where she started, how she progressed, where she got stuck and “unstuck” (as Ms Thordarson likes to put it). You can also view the progress of the entire class. And you could aggregate the information of all the classes taught by one teacher, of an entire school or even district, with data covering a whole year.
Dennis van Roekel, the president of the National Education Association (NEA), the largest labour union in America with 3.2m members, goes ballistic at this suggestion. “Don’t demean the profession” by implying that you can rate teachers with numbers, he says. Besides, this sort of thing would introduce destructive competition into a culture that should be collaborative, he adds (without explaining why data-driven evaluations have not destroyed collaboration in other industries).
The NEA and its supporters will eventually lose this fight, says Kate Walsh, the president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a think-tank that unions love to hate. “It will be considered fair game to collect the data” and to use them to get better teachers in America’s classrooms, she says. It may or may not be KhanAcademy’s software that produces this information. Nonetheless, the academy, “by offering a different model, is forcing the issue that people have speculated about”, says Mr Hanushek at Stanford. “These technological ideas offer the possibility of breaking a logjam.”
http://www.economist.com/node/21529062
Comment by John — January 29, 2013 @ 5:45 am