Does Attendance Matter?
The following definition is from D11 policy JHB, "Truancy:"
A "habitual truant" shall be defined as a student of compulsory attendance age (from seven years of age to under sixteen years of age) who has four unexcused absences from school in any one month or 10 unexcused absences from school during any school year. Classification as a habitual truant shall cause judicial proceedings to be initiated to enforce compulsory attendance.
The following is from Board policy JH, "Student absences and excuses:"
One criterion of a student's success in school is regular and punctual attendance. Frequent absences may lead to poor academic work, lack of social development and possible academic failure. Regular attendance is of utmost importance for school interest, social adjustment and scholastic achievement. No single factor may interfere with a student's progress more quickly than frequent tardiness or absence.
The school district and the state take student attendance issues very seriously. If a student is not in class, he or she is not likely to succeed. It is hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with the sentiment that students who have good attendance records will do better overall than those who frequently miss school. D11 has only approximately 170 student/teacher contact days each school year, and if a student is not regularly in his or her teacher's classroom, it is hard to expect that teacher to fully educate that student. The question is, what happens if the students are not in the presence of their teacher, but it is not the fault of the student?
The Master Agreement is the contract that the local teacher's union (CSEA) works under in D11. Since the union purchases its own Board members, the contract says exactly what the union leadership wants it to say. The public has no input at all. The contract has nothing to do with educating students. The union contract contains 18 different categories that a teacher may use to be absent from the classroom. Those acronyms and their meanings are as follows:
AWP=Admin Leave With Pay
CDE=Colo Dept of Educ
CEA=CSEA Business
CON=Conference
CUR=Curriculum
DMT=District Meeting
EVL=Evaluation
INT=Interview
ITT=Inter/Intra District Meeting
JUR=Jury Duty
LOP=Leave Without Pay
MIL=Military Duty
MTR=Maternity Leave
PLV=Personal Leave
PRO=Professional Leave
SCK=Sick Leave
TLV=Teacher Leave
WKS=Workshop
As a Board member, I do not fully understand the difference between some of these categories or their exact meanings. Some of the categories listed have specific limits on days, while others do not. For example, Jury duty cannot be limited to a certain number of days due to the uncertain nature of jury duty. Military leave is limited to 15 days per school year. Paid teacher leave is limited to 11 days per school year, but any unused leave will be carried over to the following year and converted to sick leave. By contract, there is not allowed to be a limit on sick days. There is also no limit on CEA days. The only caveat is that these days are either funded by D11 and the union, or by the union in total, depending on the reason. If the reason supposedly benefits academics in some way, then D11 foots the bill in part or in total. D11 has to pay for a substitute regardless.
Each school in D11 has a teacher who is designated as the Association Representative, or AR. From these ARs are chosen union members who are a part of the executive board for the CSEA. The board from 2005-2006 for the CSEA was made of the following individuals:
Irma Valerio-Garcia
Mark Hampson
Diane Beatty
Nancy Haley
Margie Couper
David Fisk
Katie Freidel
Brian Kachel
Jeff Marshall
Scott Noller
Patsy O'Neal
Lori Watson
Tom Watson
Jeanne Williams
Keeping in mind that a student could be hauled into court for missing 10 days in one school year, let's look at the total days absent from the classroom for each of these union reps. (Valerio-Garcia does not teach while performing duties as the union president. However, the contract requires D11 to pay 25% of her salary anyway for running this private organization).
Mark Hampson: 12 days, 11 being CEA days
Diane Beatty: 14 days, 6 being CEA days
Nancy Haley: 0 listed
Margie Couper: 13 days, 1 being CEA
David Fisk: 13 days, 8 being CEA days
Katie Freidel: 6 days, all 6 being CEA days
Brian Kachel: 8 days, 2 being CEA days
Jeff Marshall: 31 days, 3 being CEA days
Scott Noller: 30 days, 6 being CEA days
Patsy O'Neal: 24 days, 9 being CEA days
Lori Watson: 16 days, 4 being CEA days
Tom Watson: 18 days, 7 being CEA days
Jeanne Williams: 14 days, 1 CEA day
Of these 13 union representatives, who are teachers as well, 10 missed more than 10 class days during the 05-06 school year. Of these 13 reps, 9 of them (excluding Haley, Couper, Kachel, and Williams), took CEA days during the November 2005 election. Not only did these teachers skip class time with their students to perform political activities, they also designated those absences as days that would require D11 to fund half of their pay. One of the union members above (with 31 days absent) missed school to film a TV commercial for the CEA where the topic was actually how much the CEA cares about kids. Amazing.
What effect do teacher absences play on student performance? How can students get any consistency when some of their teachers are absent for 20 or 30 days or more during the year? Of those absences above, very few of those days were taken as sick days.
D11 has to pay over $2.5 million per year to hire substitutes. D11 has the highest absentee rate for teachers in the area. The problem is especially noticeable on Mondays and Fridays, as the following totals from D11 illustrate for the 03-04 school year:
Total teacher absences for Fridays: 7106
Total teacher absences for Mondays: 5350
Average teachers absent per Friday: 192
Average teachers absent per Monday: 141
Percent absent Fridays: 10.7%
Percent absent Mondays: 7.84%
For 04-05, the percentages are almost identical: 10.13% absent on Fridays, and 7.07% absent on Mondays.
Almost 10% of the D11 teaching force is absent on any given Friday. Principals will say that there is nothing that they can do about this alarming absentee rate in the District. They say that the Master Agreement forbids them from keeping teachers from using any of their 18 choices listed above to be absent from the classroom.
In raw numbers, the number of individual absences per year is huge. For the 03-04 school year, there were 27,843 teacher absences for a 170 day school year. In 04-05, the number was 29,782, and in 05-06, the total number of individual teacher absences was 19,102. As a side note, the 05-06 school year was the first year for the new evaluation system to take effect. This may have had an effect on the absentee rate. We on the Board have also implemented a performance pay plan that rewards schools for good employee attendance. This may bring the rate down even further.
The absentee rate for teachers will have just as damaging an effect on students as the absentee rate for students. When students must have substitutes 20 or 30 times per 170 school year, the classroom consistency is non-existent. Students are considered truant for missing class. There are no sanctions for teachers for missing class. A student's absence affects that individual student; a teacher's absence affects an entire classroom.
The challenge to addressing this problem lies in the fact that majorities of the D11 Board have always taken their marching orders from the union since their elections were purchased by the union. The union spent over $200,000 on the campaigns of John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann, so these Board members are not likely to take an interest in the absentee problem. The union leadership has offered no solutions to this absentee problem, and they won't offer any. Only when the public begins to take notice of how their school district ignores a serious problem will anything be done.
A "habitual truant" shall be defined as a student of compulsory attendance age (from seven years of age to under sixteen years of age) who has four unexcused absences from school in any one month or 10 unexcused absences from school during any school year. Classification as a habitual truant shall cause judicial proceedings to be initiated to enforce compulsory attendance.
The following is from Board policy JH, "Student absences and excuses:"
One criterion of a student's success in school is regular and punctual attendance. Frequent absences may lead to poor academic work, lack of social development and possible academic failure. Regular attendance is of utmost importance for school interest, social adjustment and scholastic achievement. No single factor may interfere with a student's progress more quickly than frequent tardiness or absence.
The school district and the state take student attendance issues very seriously. If a student is not in class, he or she is not likely to succeed. It is hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with the sentiment that students who have good attendance records will do better overall than those who frequently miss school. D11 has only approximately 170 student/teacher contact days each school year, and if a student is not regularly in his or her teacher's classroom, it is hard to expect that teacher to fully educate that student. The question is, what happens if the students are not in the presence of their teacher, but it is not the fault of the student?
The Master Agreement is the contract that the local teacher's union (CSEA) works under in D11. Since the union purchases its own Board members, the contract says exactly what the union leadership wants it to say. The public has no input at all. The contract has nothing to do with educating students. The union contract contains 18 different categories that a teacher may use to be absent from the classroom. Those acronyms and their meanings are as follows:
AWP=Admin Leave With Pay
CDE=Colo Dept of Educ
CEA=CSEA Business
CON=Conference
CUR=Curriculum
DMT=District Meeting
EVL=Evaluation
INT=Interview
ITT=Inter/Intra District Meeting
JUR=Jury Duty
LOP=Leave Without Pay
MIL=Military Duty
MTR=Maternity Leave
PLV=Personal Leave
PRO=Professional Leave
SCK=Sick Leave
TLV=Teacher Leave
WKS=Workshop
As a Board member, I do not fully understand the difference between some of these categories or their exact meanings. Some of the categories listed have specific limits on days, while others do not. For example, Jury duty cannot be limited to a certain number of days due to the uncertain nature of jury duty. Military leave is limited to 15 days per school year. Paid teacher leave is limited to 11 days per school year, but any unused leave will be carried over to the following year and converted to sick leave. By contract, there is not allowed to be a limit on sick days. There is also no limit on CEA days. The only caveat is that these days are either funded by D11 and the union, or by the union in total, depending on the reason. If the reason supposedly benefits academics in some way, then D11 foots the bill in part or in total. D11 has to pay for a substitute regardless.
Each school in D11 has a teacher who is designated as the Association Representative, or AR. From these ARs are chosen union members who are a part of the executive board for the CSEA. The board from 2005-2006 for the CSEA was made of the following individuals:
Irma Valerio-Garcia
Mark Hampson
Diane Beatty
Nancy Haley
Margie Couper
David Fisk
Katie Freidel
Brian Kachel
Jeff Marshall
Scott Noller
Patsy O'Neal
Lori Watson
Tom Watson
Jeanne Williams
Keeping in mind that a student could be hauled into court for missing 10 days in one school year, let's look at the total days absent from the classroom for each of these union reps. (Valerio-Garcia does not teach while performing duties as the union president. However, the contract requires D11 to pay 25% of her salary anyway for running this private organization).
Mark Hampson: 12 days, 11 being CEA days
Diane Beatty: 14 days, 6 being CEA days
Nancy Haley: 0 listed
Margie Couper: 13 days, 1 being CEA
David Fisk: 13 days, 8 being CEA days
Katie Freidel: 6 days, all 6 being CEA days
Brian Kachel: 8 days, 2 being CEA days
Jeff Marshall: 31 days, 3 being CEA days
Scott Noller: 30 days, 6 being CEA days
Patsy O'Neal: 24 days, 9 being CEA days
Lori Watson: 16 days, 4 being CEA days
Tom Watson: 18 days, 7 being CEA days
Jeanne Williams: 14 days, 1 CEA day
Of these 13 union representatives, who are teachers as well, 10 missed more than 10 class days during the 05-06 school year. Of these 13 reps, 9 of them (excluding Haley, Couper, Kachel, and Williams), took CEA days during the November 2005 election. Not only did these teachers skip class time with their students to perform political activities, they also designated those absences as days that would require D11 to fund half of their pay. One of the union members above (with 31 days absent) missed school to film a TV commercial for the CEA where the topic was actually how much the CEA cares about kids. Amazing.
What effect do teacher absences play on student performance? How can students get any consistency when some of their teachers are absent for 20 or 30 days or more during the year? Of those absences above, very few of those days were taken as sick days.
D11 has to pay over $2.5 million per year to hire substitutes. D11 has the highest absentee rate for teachers in the area. The problem is especially noticeable on Mondays and Fridays, as the following totals from D11 illustrate for the 03-04 school year:
Total teacher absences for Fridays: 7106
Total teacher absences for Mondays: 5350
Average teachers absent per Friday: 192
Average teachers absent per Monday: 141
Percent absent Fridays: 10.7%
Percent absent Mondays: 7.84%
For 04-05, the percentages are almost identical: 10.13% absent on Fridays, and 7.07% absent on Mondays.
Almost 10% of the D11 teaching force is absent on any given Friday. Principals will say that there is nothing that they can do about this alarming absentee rate in the District. They say that the Master Agreement forbids them from keeping teachers from using any of their 18 choices listed above to be absent from the classroom.
In raw numbers, the number of individual absences per year is huge. For the 03-04 school year, there were 27,843 teacher absences for a 170 day school year. In 04-05, the number was 29,782, and in 05-06, the total number of individual teacher absences was 19,102. As a side note, the 05-06 school year was the first year for the new evaluation system to take effect. This may have had an effect on the absentee rate. We on the Board have also implemented a performance pay plan that rewards schools for good employee attendance. This may bring the rate down even further.
The absentee rate for teachers will have just as damaging an effect on students as the absentee rate for students. When students must have substitutes 20 or 30 times per 170 school year, the classroom consistency is non-existent. Students are considered truant for missing class. There are no sanctions for teachers for missing class. A student's absence affects that individual student; a teacher's absence affects an entire classroom.
The challenge to addressing this problem lies in the fact that majorities of the D11 Board have always taken their marching orders from the union since their elections were purchased by the union. The union spent over $200,000 on the campaigns of John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann, so these Board members are not likely to take an interest in the absentee problem. The union leadership has offered no solutions to this absentee problem, and they won't offer any. Only when the public begins to take notice of how their school district ignores a serious problem will anything be done.
posted by Craig Cox | 2:22 PM
15 Comments:
This community needs to "bust into" the master agreement process and get rid of these protections that cost our kids so much.
How can any teacher look a parent in the eye and tell them they are doing everything they can to educate their child knowing full well that they are more than likely thinking about that Friday they don't plan to be in front of the classroom?
With the numbers posted here, you would think that those teachers who DO come to work, to teach, most of the time, would be totally outraged over the teachers who DON'T!
Why the hush hush? Why isn't our new superintendent doing something about this? I understand why the old one didn't, she was "absent" quite a bit herself, wasn't she? Like in every Tuesday prior to Wednesday board meetings? "Preparing" for the meeting my eye!
Get this abuse under control Mr. Board Member! And do it NOW!
The teachers who do show up every day for work ARE disgusted by their counterparts who miss on a regular basis. We need to keep in mind that it is the Master Agreement that allows for this number of days to be missed. These teachers are doing what their contract gives them the right to do. Does that make it right? I don't think so. Unless a teacher has an illness of unless they have recently had a new baby, they need to be in the classrooms with their students.
As to your point about "busting into the contract," during the 8 November Board meeting, Willie Breazell suggested that the Board should create a citizen oversite committee to be involved with the union contract negotiations. The union representative at the meeting was outraged. He and his handlers at the national level DO NOT want the public to be involved. The union contract deals with pay, which is approximatley 2/3 of the D11 budget. Although the taxpayers foot this expense, the union does not think that the taxpayers should have a say over any portion of this contract. Board members John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann, whose seats were purchased with $200,000 of union money, also believe that the union contract ought to be dealt with in the dark. We can't fix some of these problems without Board members who are willing to represent the interests of the public for whom they serve.
As a teacher in this district, I resent the implication that we look forward to being gone from class. Even in the most needy of schools (lowest test scores) the majority of our time out of the classroom is being used for in-house trainings of Rti (3-7 days), PBS(Positive Behavioral Systems- 3-6 days), CQI (3 days) and other trainings like Data evaluations (3days). Last year cirriculum content meetings we also held during the work day. Many teachers use their sick days sparingly. It's not something that was forced on the district (as you have let people believe), it's something that was decided collaboratively by admin. and the association. Nothing has been hush, hush about this either. It's a known part of our working agreement in this district. If you want teachers to use these days less then give them the salary they deserve in the firt place. The days of absence are part of our "benefits" and it is not out of line with other districts of our size.
There are plenty of issues to be found with the master agreement. So use the process in place to discuss and change them! Bringing in outside business people who have nothing to do with the salary structure or the governace of our teachers makes no sense at all. It will make the negotiations more burdensome and lengthy, again keeping teachers out of the classrrom for even longer. Or are you suggesting that you and the businesses do it and we stay in our classrooms like good, obeying subservient employees. If you wish to treat the teachers as hired hands instead of professionals then make it a per hour job and hire the unqualified, like charter schools do.
People like you, Mr.Cox,are exactly why a Master Agreement is such a necessity.
The name of the game is cooperation, Mr. Cox. Cooperating with your teachers makes a lot more sense than constantly antagonizing them, especially when you try to antagonize them for no earthly reason.
I did not imply that teachers enjoy being out of the classroom, but are you suggesting that 10, 20, or 30 days out of the classroom are OK? I did not see you address that point. I did mention the issue that you write about - that the district requires you to miss a lot of days for training. The data that I have does not reflect that this is the main problem. If what you say is true, then why are your union representatives not complaining to the BOE about this?
What type of collaboration takes place during negotiations with your union when the administration's lead "negotiator," Dave Schenkel, defines success as how quickly the negotiation process can be completed. Not a word about what is accomplished. Your union buys board members, then those board members appoint a "negotiating team." If the union is negotiaiting with the union for all practical purposes, how "collaborative" is that? Although your benefit package may be in line with other districts, the average number of teacher absences in D11 is higher than the national average based on union statistics.
You say that there are other problems with the contract. Please define some of those problems.
As I stated, good teachers are as offended by their absentee counterparts as are parents. What is your union's solution to 20 and 30 day absences?
Please answer the base question - does attendance matter or not? Are you suggesting that it is "antagonistic" of me to publish teacher absences? Should parents not be concerned when their child's teacher misses 20-30 days per school year?
If your concern is collaboration, please inform me of all the collaborative efforts your private organization, the CSEA, has made towards me and my 2003 Board colleagues since we were elected to be the representatives of the public.
Continue to attack me as you have done for 3 years, but please answer the question - does attendance matter?
I don't know if attendance matters. If it did, wouldn't you expect that Sandy Shakes would attend more than half of the board meetings this year? Nine meetings, five absences.
And as for collaboration between CSEA and the board, haven't they attempted to meet with you on a regular basis? And don't you and Christen take sophomoric glee at making appointments to meet teachers, and then standing up the teacher by skipping the meeting without even the courtesy of a comment?
Thank God we'll be done with Christen and Shakes in a month, and you in another year. You've brought nothing to the plate except a whole lot of hot air.
Of course attendance matters. This isn't an association issue, it's a district issue. There are multiple solutions without accusing the association of "not caring about kids." The association has created an agreement with the collaboration of the district. As Dave Shenkle told you at the last meeting, it is a contract respected by other districts and used as a model. If you don't like it, feel free to sit in on negotiations and debate the changes you desire. But to sit and whine about it after it's been approved is sort of like whining about the election results.
75% of your teachers in this district are vountary members of the association. It's a choice and they have made it. Instead of respecting their "choice" you choose to attack it. How the dues are spent is really none of your concern, Mr. Cox. You are not a member. The members of the unit have a say in how their money is spent and if they were upset about NEA and CEA's use of it we'd know about it. It's the elected officials like you and Eric, who were not elected on a "let's ditch the union" platform, that are the vocal opponents. Neither of you make the effort to find the middle ground. Eric can't even sit in the chair when our leaders address the board and he's yet to meet with our board members (and many have tried) to talk about issues. His goal is to rid the district of the "back-room, dark of the night-union" and you know it. well, sorry to report it to you both, but it doesn't exist in this district.
Absences are legitimate for the majority of our teachers. I don't know where your data is to prove the assertion that good atttendance teachers are "digusted" by their counterparts. It's another assumption I'm guessing. You point out the association board member's absences, and then neglect the majority of teachers who save up those days and try to get paid for them when they retire. It might be smart to concentrate your efforts on reducing the district's policy of taking teachers out of the classrooms for trainings of the latest trendy staff development. Concentrating on busting the "big bad union" is a waste of your valuable talents.
these union hacks who monitor these sights need a remedial course in argument and logic. When question is posed, answer the question. Of course there is no answer to these insane "agreements" we have made with the union, therefore it is understandable why they do not even attempt to try it.
This is in response to the 11:12 PM anonymous post.
We both agree that attendance matters. That's a good thing. I have publicly expressed concerns about district requirements that force teachers from their classrooms. As we move towards site based management, your individual schools should be able to have a greater role in not only scheduling training so that it does not take you away from your classroom, but also in determining what training you need for your job.
Schenkel's praise for the negotiations process was based only on time, not on substance. Tami Hasling asked him if one or two board members could sit in on negotiations - he said "No." Your union leadership does not want real negotiations, not does it want to have light shined on the process or the substance. You can't deny that.
"Whining about election results." Are you talking about the fact that your leadership has still not accepted the results of the 2003 elections?
If 75% of the teachers are voluntary members of CSEA, then allow all teachers to opt-in to membership rather than having to opt-out of membership. Sounds as if you are just a little insecure about your membership issues. You are correct in that I was not elected on a "ditch the union platform." I am not attempting to ditch the union. As an elected official, it is my role to do what is best for the D11 taxpayers, not your private political organization called the CSEA. Your board looks out for your union; why should I not look out for my constituents?
You ask where my data is that shows that good teachers are disgusted by absences. In your first post, you accused me of implying that teachers were happy about absences. Let me know which argument you want to support and we can continue from there. By the way, I am not neglecting to point out that a majority of teachers do not miss more than 10 days per school year. In fact, the facts that I posted support that, except at the middle school level.
I agree that this is a district-wide problem, but would suggest that it is even a nationwide problem. Rather than defend the problem, I am still waiting for the union leadership to bring forth some solutions. If I offer a solution, you will accuse me of forcing my will on the teachers.
I think Anonymous forgets that you have children in several of our schools, Mr. Cox, and that many of those teachers (who may or may not be association members) speak to you about their concerns.
I too have kids in our schools, and there are as many different opinions as there are teachers, as it should be, based on human nature.
The gist of your revealing the absences is well taken by this parent. My children have watched full length videos at school for several years now, on a regular basis. I find this to be a huge waste of teaching opportunity, but speaks to where I believe the breakdown is.
Teachers have every right to be absent as needed. They DON'T have the right to instruct a substitute to "just plug in the video" and call it good.
Where is the principal of these buildings when this practice is exercised, not as an exception, but as an acceptable practice? I would not consider pushing "play" teaching.
If working 170 days is too much, I suggest these folks who need to be off work for 20, 30 or more days per school year consider some other line of work, but seriously, what career field would allow them to work even less?
I anticipate Anonymous is going to jump all over me and tell me how long a teacher's day really is and how many of their summer vacation days are spent taking classes and preparing their classroom for the upcoming year. Spare me. I've been around way too long to believe that line ever again.
Yes, there are teachers who don't abuse the absence system currently in place. The sadness is we don't have an appropriate mechanism for separating them from the absence abusers.
I appreciate the agreement on a few points. I don't appreciate the twisting of words on others; but hey, we can't have it all.
If you wish the association to address the problem (and I do agree it is one) of teacher absences please be kind enough to bring it to their attention instead of posting it on a blog. The numbers you posted are new to me and I've been at many board meetings (lately I watch at home because I can voice my frustration without having security called). If we want to improve absenteeism in the district with our students then we need to model that for the students as well. I believe our association would tackle that issue if they weren't made to feel that they had to be defensive against your attacks on teachers. Whenever you attack teachers the association will bristle, because it's their job to make sure that teachers are treated fairly. You can twist that into "protecting bad teachers" if you like, but there are a lot of good teachers that are being accused of falsehoods and the association has been there to help them through it. It's one of the things that our association does best: uphold that innocent until PROVEN guilty belief.
I believe that students that get regular, uninterupted teaching from the teacher that they have built a relationship with will learn the best. I think the majority of our teachers believe the same. I have no problem with you posting the problem, as long as you take it to the board and try to find solutions. Otherwise it's just a blog entry, and we all know the worth of a blog...zero.
My association does not buy board members. We support candidates that align with our views. So do millions of other individuals and corporations. We walk the streets and talk to people about our needs, and that is what was the deciding factor in the last election (and I can't believe we're STILL talking about it). We educate the public on what we believe in and that is our right as citizens.
You have the right to replace Shenkle and bring in whomever you please to lead your negotiations. Don't complain to me about what he had to say at the last meeting, he's YOUR man. I can deny your quote of what he said about what the union doesn't want. Please watch the video because I believe you have misquoted him. He said several times that they (the negotiators) are there to do whatever you want. I'll be happy to rewatch the video (and scream some more) and quote him directly if you need it.
This issue was brought to the community's attention during a board meeting 2-1/2 years ago while Dr. Ridder was the superintendent. He regularly expressed concerns over attendance matters and he always encouraged us to request the attendance records so that we could see the magnitude of what schools had to deal with. I guess it bothers me that you, as a union leader, do not recognize the fact that it is more important to have you in a classroom with your students than it is to have you performing union political duties on election day. That is not something that you should have to be told.
As far as being made to feel "defensive" and as far as being accused of "falsehoods," please forward or post copies of all emails that your leadership has sent around to teachers since we were sworn-in in 2003. What you and your union "do best" is spread lies, day after day after day. Tell me how that makes you a "professional organization." I am giving you a chance to prove me wrong here. Your private organization sends your emails over the publicly funded D11 email system, so we the public have a right to know what you are saying, correct?
I like how you always attempt to prevent discussion of educational issues by resorting to the "You are attacking teachers" mode. As you hear people discussing the war in Iraq, notice how they are quick to say, "I support our troops but I don't support this war." The war in Iraq is a legitimate issue for public discussion and criticism, correct? "We the People" ought to be heard when it comes to the use of our military. Why are "we the people" not allowed to discuss the education crisis without being told that we are attacking teachers? Can we not support our teachers while criticizing the state of education in this country? Teachers are being hurt by the union's desperate attempt to cling to the status quo. Teachers will come out ahead if we improve.
When I talk about the absentee issue, I am saying loud and clear that WE NEED YOU IN THE CLASSROOMS! That is a compliment! My kids and every other parent's kids need their teachers in the classroom with them. How is that attacking teachers?
Please be honest here about something: Any idea that I or Eric or Willie (and now Sandy) propose is to be adamantly opposed by you and your union, correct? Since we were elected without your permission, you have been instructed to scream and hollar and agitate against everything we propose, whether you personally agree with that proposal or not. As Christen says, you want us out of your sandbox.
By the way, please do transcribe the minutes of the last board meeting. I want to see the part again where our attorney told us about the memo from NEA where you are to intimidate citizens and picket at their homes if they become part of the Board's negotiating team. Please feel free to post that memo on this site. After all - we all know the worth of a blog...
There go those assumptions again! I am not a leader or even notable in my association. I am a teacher, plain and simple. I gues because I have and opinion and I make it known I must be a leader of some sort? And I never left my building during an election. Maybe you have me confused with someone else?
There have been quite a few things that you, Eric, Sandy, and Willie have proposed that I am in agreement with. Many of the suggestions that Eric makes become hard to stomach because of his presentation. He really could use some people skill courses and a dose of humility and then people might actually have the ability to hear his ideas with an open mind. You both seem to have a fixation with making our association into the "tow-the-union-line" but I've had no such experience and I don't know many teachers that have. No one tells us how to think and the memo that you mention was a surprise to me ,as I've been to bargaining training and never was that mentioned. As I said, however, Shenkle is your mouthpiece as is Nogle. I'm not going to flog them for their interpretations of things.
We have asked you to point directly to things in the master agreement that are not in the best interests of children and all you can point to is the lack of a opt-in, the number of days (and minutes) we teach, and our personal days? We changed the need to continually re-drop year-after-year because of your discontent. Guess that wasn't enough. The number of days we are contracted for is 183 and it's YOUR administration that uses 11 of those days for staff development and teacher work days. Ask any teacher whether they'd prefer student contact days to staff development and see the reaction you get. You have the ability to add days at no cost and you don't do it.
I've already spoken to the personal days and I think collaboratively we could find a solution to this issue. Put it on the table again.
Attacking teachers is pulling out attendance reports in blogs. It's attacking people (when you don't even know who they are) and throwing labels like "union boss or leader" at them. It's accusing teachers of doing things during elections when you haven't even spoken to them individually to verify the facts.
I have no issue with you talking about the issue, because I have said that I AGREE. Try finding a solution, instead of assuming that it's the associations fault because of our master agreement. Your fear mongering is ridiculous and it won't get you anywhere with the 75% of your association teachers. I think that they have a right to a say in their working conditions and they have done that through the reatification of the agreement year after year. Too bad you can't give them the respect that they deserve.
Sorry for the false assumption. When you are only identified as "Anonymous" and you use the term "we" when discussing the union, I am only left with assumptions. By the way, calling someone a "leader" is not a bad thing in my book. I did find it interesting that you think you are being attacked by being called a union leader.
I am glad that you agree with some of our ideas. It really bothers me, however, when people allow their dislike of someone else's personality to prevent them from doing what is right. That seems to indicate a lack of principle.
No, Schenkel is not "my representative" and this is not "my administration," per se. I know that this is a confusing point for people to understand after they have had to watch past boards simply rubber stamp everything that came along. We on the board are supposed to be the representatives of the public to give them a voice in the district for which they pay. That often places us at odds with the administration and the union. When we perform our advocacy role for our constituents, your side accuses us of attacking teachers. When your union leadership advocates for its membership, you applaud them. Your side accuses us (me) of trying to destroy the union. Seems to me that this is one of those assumptions that you dislike.
Irma Valerio told Willie Breazell that the absence issue is basically not that big of a deal. If it is not a big deal, then how can it be considered "attacking" someone to post their absences on a blog? While we are discussing "attacks," I still look forward to seeing any emails that you can forward from the union leadership that deals with the board over the past 3 years. You don't have a problem with that do you? There are no accusations against me or others that have been made without your leadership first talking to me, are there?
On the issue of the 183 contract days, we are in total agreement on that issue. I have already had conversations with other Board members about that very issue. Some like the idea and some don't. Remember, I can't magically make it happen. We require majority votes to move issues forward. I think it is a great idea but would be interested in your opinion as to how that might effect teacher training.
I agree that teachers have a right to their union. I have never said otherwise. It is your union, however, and not me, which has engaged in fear mongering continually since 2003. The leadership's false propaganda harms the morale of teachers and the community. Undermining board members simply because the union did not authorize the election of those board members is not productive.
Post a Comment
<< Home