Yesterday a ruling came in on the Raymond Zack case which sustained the City request for a demurrer without leave to amend. Essentially the lawsuit has been kicked and the plaintiff’s have no legal leg to stand on. More on this tomorrow though because…
Yesterday, the teachers union (AEA) sent out via the CTA, once again, that negotiations between the union and the District has hit impasse. Again.
Despite a former teacher chastising the District at one of the last School Board meetings for taking the negotiations public and declaring that they “started it.” Apparently this time around AEA wasn’t going to wait for the first shot to be fired by the District and instead loaded up and fired away first. In actuality, there was mention of the impasse being a reality on Friday, but today an official statement from AEA via CTA hit email boxes everywhere.
Just in case you were wondering, in response the District sent out a not-so-subtle reminder that there is a bit on litigation hanging over the head of the School District around a little thing called Measure H. Passive aggressive? Maybe.
The highlights from the AEA press release:
After teachers contacted the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) for a mediator, the district notified PERB that it had a counter-offer on salary and benefits. Alameda teachers agreed to withdraw their request for impasse and return to negotiations on Feb. 8, with high hopes of seeing significant movement by the district.
But on Feb. 8, teachers were presented with a proposal from the district that offered less compensation than had been offered on Jan. 24. There have been no agreements made on any contract articles in the last 10 months. Teachers resubmitted their request for impasse to PERB on Feb. 8.
I’m going to hazard a guess that the “less compensation” might have revealed itself as a removal of the whole Professional Learning Communities (PLC) thing which would then leave the District only offering the 2% on-going raise which would be, once again 2.5% less than AEA’s proposal.
Of course, I’m speculating on what got cut out of the District’s counter proposal, but since the PLC was sort of poo-poohed, it would make sense that the District would eliminate the question of what the PLC actually is and whether it’s more work for very little compensation, etc and so forth. So if we crunch the numbers again, using the numbers from before here’s what we get in terms of contracts:
AUSD proposal 2% raise |
AEA proposal 4.5% raise over two years |
|
| Year One Raise | $796,000 |
$796,000 |
| Year Two Raise | $796,000 |
$1,791,000 |
| Total | $1,592,000 |
$2,587,000 |
So the difference between the two is a little under $1 million.
And here’s what it is if I use the rounded $1.2 million number for the two years:
AUSD proposal 2% raise |
AEA proposal 4.5% raise over two years |
|
| Year One Raise | $600,000 |
$600,000 |
| Year Two Raise | $600,000 |
$1,350,000 |
| Total | $1,200,000 |
$1,950,000 |
Again, the AUSD proposal is cheaper under these numbers which uses the rounded figure from the AUSD summary. Of course since the District will need to pay that larger year two figure in perpetuity, it does add up later years, which is probably why the District is digging their heels in over the raise. Anyway, so it looks like this is all back in the hands of an independent mediator. Because that’s the way we do it around here.
Anyway, it looks like ACLC has been offered nine “teaching spaces” at Wood Middle School and of course they’ll work out a joint use agreement for the shared spaces like the multi-purpose room. There has been some suggestion that ACLC should be offered space at Island High instead of sharing Wood Middle, which could work, I suppose, except for the fact that I believe the portables there are in pretty shabby shape. Also, at the last School Board meeting Trish Spencer suggested that the administration be moved to Wood Middle School and ACLC be offered the space in the office park. Except for the fact that there isn’t enough room at Wood Middle School for the administration, a fact that Trish Spencer conveniently keeps ignoring in one of her many pronouncements designed to whip up her “base” but offers little in real world solutions.
So we’ll see how the Wood Middle School vs finding adequate space for ACLC drama plays out at tonight’s School Board meeting. Just in case you weren’t following along, ACLC needs to be relocated from its current home at Encinal High School because next year the Junior Jets program (6-8) will be starting up at Encinal and the school needs to reclaim the space for the program.
Just so you know what the options are, ACLC is not required to accept the space offered to it by the District, they could opt to find their own facility and then they would be reimbursed some amount by the District, I can’t recall how much but it might be what the District claims the cost of the offered facilities would be in rent, and the school would be on the hook for the remainder.
Alameda’s teachers need to fire their union.
Last year the union’s pissy gamemanship kept them from a raise and poisoned community opinion. They made fools of themselves at the fact-finding hearing that finally resolved things. (In case you don’t remember, they tried to duck the meeting, probably because they knew they’d lose, and when they showed, they lost unanimously.)
Now they’re playing the impasse card several hands too soon. To this outside observer, they seem to agitating for a strike.
Teachers pay their union approx $1000/yr in dues apiece. Some goes to the local AEA chapter, a lot gets upstreamed to CTA, who may be the real culprits in this round of agitation. Regardless who gets the money, our teachers are getting ripped off. And if the unions fan the flames & push a strike, the whole community gets ripped off.
Comment by dave — February 12, 2013 @ 8:53 am
Union Reform might be in the work then ,or le3adership scrapping
kind of interesting we ar sending the gravy boat on a golden plater to the Alameda Fire Dept , yet the teachers the one which do have the most impact on the entire society , get side tracked , with the fund the Almeda School DIstrict wasted in their new location so they could all be nice and cosy , they could have afforded the union raise , but surprise one more time they had no plan b yet they knew Salaries were coming up .
It ‘s getting old having all these peoples getting stuck on the freeway because they forgot to put gas in the tank , no dfference here and they are in charge of running the AUSD
Comment by mijoka — February 12, 2013 @ 11:19 am
The District has made their proposal public. It’s worth a read. http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1316091466750
Reading between the lines, the AEA’s leadership seems more interested in striking than making a reasonable deal. They could have 2.5% now AND reopen salary negotiations in January . So they get MORE than what they wanted for this year (2%) and leave open the possibility of getting even more than that next year. It also looks like they’ve jumped the gun a second time on declaring an impasse. And their rejection of private mediation to be paid for by the District just shows that this is an issue of politics, not what’s in the best interest of the rank and file members of the AEA.
Those rank and file members of the AEA need to seriously start questioning their leaders about what is going on. The teachers could have had a raise this year and reopened salary now if they had accepted the tentative agreement last spring. So they gave up a raise and have zero to show for it. Now they’re rejected 2.5% and reopeners. In other words, they’re headed down the same path. They could be in the same place a year from now — having rejected money and gotten nothing in return.
And do the rank and file members of the AEA know that if they strike for even one day, they lose a whole year of eligibility on their pensions? Plus, there seems to be no concern that a strike will kill whatever good will is left in the community. Good luck with your compensation and job security, AEA, when the current parcel tax expires and even some of the most ardent supporters of the previous measures (myself included) have second thoughts about supporting measures in the future.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — February 12, 2013 @ 5:33 pm
Comment by frank — February 12, 2013 @ 6:22 pm
1. I’m not trying to be an apologist for AEA or teachers but I still have my sympathies. If teachers “fire their union” what would be the option for collective bargaining? I know that comment was in part rhetorical to make a point about a few things, but really, it just ain’t gonna happen. I realize you are just a frustrated parent as opposed to official rep of the district, but when it comes to pissy gamesmanship and fanning flames, just what are your comments supposed to accomplish when it comes to persuading teachers as opposed to just brow beating them?
BTW- wasn’t it the district who declared impasse last time? was that also awful? and as for AEA leadership, wasn’t it the leadership that negotiated the agreement and rank and file who rejected it? On the money, this last offer may be better than the previous contract teachers voted down, but as far as taking it along with option to reopen in January, are we supposed to just accept this divide as a perpetual state? what likely gain could teachers really have to look forward to in January?
I’ve had barely any contact with any teachers or union folks, and in recent past none with district people, but from casual contact with some district teachers I know socially, what I get is that they are generally feeling demoralized by the over all climate of the work place, and this is not just about pay by any means. Even if they should be blaming the union, generally I don’t think they do, and I’ve not gotten the impression there is great focus on the idea of striking, though maybe they should be more aware if that is really getting to down to be where things are headed.
To me PLCs were entirely too vague to get serious about, and many teachers are already doing much of that work with no extra pay but ironically would find it hard to continue that work if they had to reinvent the wheel by implementing PLC. I believe, cynically perhaps, that the district expected teachers would not take the PLC offer seriously and that they put it out there as p.r. opportunity to act like they are offering reform and to be able to show teachers supposedly rejecting it, when it’s not that simple. In fact none of it is that simple and I appreciate that Lauren is sticking to barest facts and not speculating too much about the “real culprits in this agitation” because no matter who might be most to blame at any juncture, there are always two sides to consider.
the folks who most vocally criticize the union never seem to have any criticism for the district and act as though they are completely reasonable at all times. Literally , never. When push comes to shove teachers should probably be wary that parents and public may turn hostile to them if there is a strike, but it’s also not wise to ignore the substantial animosity against the district leadership, it won’t evaporate with added heat from a strike.
Comment by MI — February 14, 2013 @ 10:01 am
Mark, you know I have a philosophical opposition to unions. If I could wave my wand I get rid of em all but of course I know they are here to stay, and must therefore be reckoned with, their incompetence and destruction notwithstanding.
Outside of pro sports I can’t think of a union that hasn’t crippled its employing institution and AEA is following in that mold, but it isn’t just the district they are crippling, it is also the teachers themselves. If there must be an AEA, the members really need to can the existing leadership, who is doing nothing good for them. That is what I meant by “fire the union.”
To be very clear, I separate the teachers from the AEA’s leadership. The former are mostly a hard working, dedicated, professional group. The latter is a bunch of hacks who add nothing positive and much that is negative.
The AEA takes the teachers’ money, more money that is at issue in the current negotiation, and gives the teachers…….what, exactly? Second lowest salary in the county and health benefits worse and more expensive than Kaiser if complaints are accurate (and I don’t know they are, but I’ve heard a lot of teachers, and you, bitch about them). The salary thing is course largely beyond their control, but they’ve done damn little to ameliorate that. They could cut the union dues to zero or a token, (AEA is a volunteer organization, what need is there for a deep six figure budget?) and make the teachers better off than they are now. In strictly dollar terms, the members aren’t getting value for their money.
Perhaps worse, away from the dollars, AEA is degrading the teachers’ position & standing in the community. Teachers are a widely expected, indeed beloved, lot in Alameda. But when they picket in front of students after promising not to, respect is lost. When their union files baseless claims and pulls moronic stunts like lumps of coal and hiding from a fact finding meeting, respect is lost. When the union contests the discipline of teachers who engage in horrendous behavior like making fun of special ed kids, racist comments and some of the other items from the grievance list (remember that?), respect is lost.
AEA is not doing anything positive for the teachers. If your sympathies blind you from that, well, maybe you need new sympathies.
To your last paragraph, yes, I am a strident critic of the union, but have also never been shy to criticize the district either. You may recall I pulled no punches during the lottery debacle, for example. I calls em like I sees em, and what I’ve seen the last couple years is a businesslike district and stupid, loud union.
Comment by dave — February 14, 2013 @ 11:48 am
dave, Oh the lottery. First come first serve is fairer? Don’t know if I would hold that out there as an example of anything if I were you because where I stand fit seems pretty elitist. Sorry to throw that term at you, but the single working parent versus stay at home parent who can camp out all night? Is that emblematic of your over all ethic? That is one lone example. How about criticism related to labor relations and I mean outside wage negotiations. But what do average parents really understand about that? not much. There are many aspects of the culture which need reform and organized labor is surly one area, but I don’t see eliminating collective bargaining as reform. Do you know any of these “hacks” personally? I can think of one CTA staff directly involved with AEA last year who I did think was a hack, but my spouse did labor side law for a dozen years and I’ve met a lot of really dedicated labor people who worked for relative peanuts based on commitment to principle.
BTW- Kaiser is one of the insurance choices on the menu for teachers at AUSD. For a single person the teacher contribution for Kaiser is less than $200 a month, last I checked, but our family was invested in having had doctor relationships over years including specialists. We went from Pacific Care to Blue Shield and in the 13 years of teaching our share of medical went from 0 to $1000 a month for family coverage. There is a lot more wrong with that picture than AEA.
To blame the union for Alameda teachers having second lowest salary is laughable, right out of Paul Ryan playbook.
My sympathies don’t blind me to the downside of AEA, I just know many of them as people and have a deeper understanding of how they have evolved into their roles. Also, even though I am vexed by what many teachers have said on a number of issues, I also really, really understand that a persons’ job is their life and identity in many ways and when you are on a treadmill it’s hard to get off or make adjustments when the damn thing is slowly speeding up. Recently had dinner with some Oakland teachers. the host a recently retired career teacher at Tech, who everybody knows is one of the best that ever lived. It’s complicated dave. When was the last time you bought a teacher a drink, let alone sat and talked about the profession for six hours?
Comment by MI — February 16, 2013 @ 10:50 am
I thought we wrere talking policy but if you must personalize it, here goes:
Lottery. You imputed that I never disagree with the administration but when I cited a very loud disagreement, you brush it aside as “elitism.” Please let me know what you’d consider a proper subject for disagreement. While you’re at it, please explain how my trying to attend our neighborhood public school on same terms as everyone else in other neighborhoods is “elitism” and why your son attending a private middle school, current tuition $21,000 per year, isn’t elitism.
Buying drinks for teachers. My closest friend, best man at my wedding, is a teacher. Two of my sisters are teachers. I still keep in touch with a couple of my teachers decades after sitting in their classrooms. We are frequent entertainers & teachers are often on the guest list. In recent months I have purchased drinks right at the bar for a few AUSD teachers. During many, though not all, of these exchanges, union & labor issues were discussed. Does this meet your terms of knowing teachers?
Hacks. Yes, unfortunately I know one, a disastrous failure of a teacher. This person’s own colleagues were embarrassed by the lack of professionalism displayed. This person is a very active AEA participant. That’s all I will say online, but will freely tell the tale over a drink. I’ll even buy.
Comment by dave — February 18, 2013 @ 10:18 am
the lottery IS on the same terms, dave, which is the whole point, you just can’t control the outcome. Glad to know you have actually had drinks with Alameda teachers and really glad you paid because you should. If you actually did talk union politics I’d have loved to be there to hear if you expressed yourself the same as you have here, but also to see how the teachers responded. no drinks were thrown?
Comment by M.I. — February 18, 2013 @ 11:14 pm
dave, does it occur to you that even though your words are not applied to a specific person, that your bashing of AEA leadership is highly personalized? don’t quite get how my questioning your street creds for criticizing teachers is somehow more personal. Curious to know what state your best friend and sisters teach in and what their experiences are. It’s not a perfect reflection of the effect of unions but it is a fact that states with strongest unions like Mass. have highest test scores and states which are totally non union are abysmal.
Comment by M.I. — February 19, 2013 @ 12:07 am
10 “…states which are totally non union are abysmal.”
State Education Rankings: Arkansas SAT Scores (93.9 non-unionized)
Critical Reading SAT Score: 572 (Ranking 13)
Math SAT Score: 572 (Ranking 12)
Writing SAT Score: 556 (Ranking 15)
Total SAT Score: 1700 (Ranking 14)
State Education Rankings: California SAT Scores (87.5 unionized)
Critical Reading SAT Score: 500 (Ranking 36)
Math SAT Score: 513 (Ranking 32)
Writing SAT Score: 498 (Ranking 32)
Total SAT Score: 1511 (Ranking 34)
Comment by catoIII — February 19, 2013 @ 12:05 pm
State Education Rankings: Florida SAT Scores (unionized 100%)
Critical Reading SAT Score: 497 (Ranking 39)
Math SAT Score: 498 (Ranking 45)
Writing SAT Score: 480 (Ranking 41)
Total SAT Score: 1475 (Ranking 44)
Comment by catoIII — February 19, 2013 @ 12:08 pm
11. 12. statistics are tricky things and can be used selectively. If one searches for enough sites like these, it may not prove out that unions mean great test scores in very case, but I think there is a trend from which one can conclude unions don’t systematically render lower scores. California with it’s size and Prop. 13 probably requires some special consideration. Massachussetts is one with really strong unions and high scores.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions
Comment by MI — February 20, 2013 @ 9:18 am
Massachusetts spends $5500 more per student per year than California. That’s about 50% more than California spends. But the high test scores are probably the result of the strong unions and not the result of additional resources. http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/NEA_Rankings_and_Estimates010711.pdf
Comment by Oh the Irony! — February 20, 2013 @ 10:54 am
I think the correlation coefficient between these two variables, teacher unions and student test scores, requires several other measures prior to determining how strongly data converges.
Comment by catoIII — February 20, 2013 @ 12:17 pm
14. Irony, I can’t wade into this right now so I’m in limbo wondering if you are being ironic or if you are speaking straight. I would have guessed that Mass. spends tons more money but the money would be far more the difference than unions, but thinking about it, if the unions succeed in getting professional salaries anything may be possible.
Comment by M.I. — February 20, 2013 @ 9:03 pm