It's so confusing
The Gazette ran an article on Saturday (March 10th) about the reprimand issued to the D11 administration and board. The reprimand was issued unanimously by the DAAC due to the fact that the district violated state law by changing the school district calendar without having a 30 day period for the community to comment. As I wrote before, I am not commenting one way or another about the fact that the school day is now 30 minutes longer. Whether that is good or bad is debatable. What is not debatable is the clear wording of state statute on what school districts are required to do prior to changing the district calendar.
In the Gazette article, D11 spokesperson Elaine Naleski was quoted as saying that the district did not need to worry about the 30 day notice because the calendar was not changed. This is what the Gazette reported:
"The DAAC’s resolution to the board says a 30-day window is required to make changes to the calendar. The district says it did not change the school calendar so the 30-day comment period does not apply. "
The last day of school is still May 24 as listed on the calendar, said district spokeswoman Elaine Naleski."
So Naleski claims that a change in the school day is not a change in the calendar. Apparently, every member of the DAAC disagrees. What is interesting about this claim by D11 is that even Naleski must not believe that it is true. Later in the article, the Gazette reported this:
"D-11 officials are starting to discuss what to do if there are no more cancellations because of bad weather. The district might subtract minutes from the school day at some point or eliminate a teacher workday at the end of the year, Naleski said, to make sure the district does not violate its contract with teachers."
Notice what Naleski said. First of all, she confirmed my earlier report that the schedule change was ordered by the labor union leadership without parental input. The labor union argues that even though teachers did not attend school during the snow days, and even though they were paid for these days not worked, any addition to the end of the year schedule would constitute a violation of the master agreement, which only allows teachers to work a total of 183 days (not student contact days, total work days). Here is the tricky part for Naleski - she said that if there are no more snow days, the district will have to subtract either minutes or days from the calendar so as not to violate the master agreement. Naleski just got done saying that there was no calendar change, and therefore no reason to pay attention to the 30 day notice as required by law. So, if there was no calendar change, why would the district need to subtract minutes or days so as not to violate the contract? The master agreement says this:
"The school year will be based upon the calendar with the understanding that the school calendar is subject to emergency changes, but that such changes shall not affect the total number of work days required, that is for school year 2006-2007 one hundred eighty three (183) days..."
If there was no change to the calendar, and if there are no additional snow days, what possible contract violation could exist? The contract is based on the "calendar" and it talks about changes to the "calendar."
What happened, of course, is blatantly obvious. One version of reality was offered to explain why parents and taxpayers were excluded from the discussion on this issue, and another story was offered to explain why the district had to appease the labor union masters. As one labor union activist said, parents have no right to have a say on the calendar because "they don't have a vested interest in the school calendar."
In the Gazette article, D11 spokesperson Elaine Naleski was quoted as saying that the district did not need to worry about the 30 day notice because the calendar was not changed. This is what the Gazette reported:
"The DAAC’s resolution to the board says a 30-day window is required to make changes to the calendar. The district says it did not change the school calendar so the 30-day comment period does not apply. "
The last day of school is still May 24 as listed on the calendar, said district spokeswoman Elaine Naleski."
So Naleski claims that a change in the school day is not a change in the calendar. Apparently, every member of the DAAC disagrees. What is interesting about this claim by D11 is that even Naleski must not believe that it is true. Later in the article, the Gazette reported this:
"D-11 officials are starting to discuss what to do if there are no more cancellations because of bad weather. The district might subtract minutes from the school day at some point or eliminate a teacher workday at the end of the year, Naleski said, to make sure the district does not violate its contract with teachers."
Notice what Naleski said. First of all, she confirmed my earlier report that the schedule change was ordered by the labor union leadership without parental input. The labor union argues that even though teachers did not attend school during the snow days, and even though they were paid for these days not worked, any addition to the end of the year schedule would constitute a violation of the master agreement, which only allows teachers to work a total of 183 days (not student contact days, total work days). Here is the tricky part for Naleski - she said that if there are no more snow days, the district will have to subtract either minutes or days from the calendar so as not to violate the master agreement. Naleski just got done saying that there was no calendar change, and therefore no reason to pay attention to the 30 day notice as required by law. So, if there was no calendar change, why would the district need to subtract minutes or days so as not to violate the contract? The master agreement says this:
"The school year will be based upon the calendar with the understanding that the school calendar is subject to emergency changes, but that such changes shall not affect the total number of work days required, that is for school year 2006-2007 one hundred eighty three (183) days..."
If there was no change to the calendar, and if there are no additional snow days, what possible contract violation could exist? The contract is based on the "calendar" and it talks about changes to the "calendar."
What happened, of course, is blatantly obvious. One version of reality was offered to explain why parents and taxpayers were excluded from the discussion on this issue, and another story was offered to explain why the district had to appease the labor union masters. As one labor union activist said, parents have no right to have a say on the calendar because "they don't have a vested interest in the school calendar."
posted by Craig Cox | 8:27 PM
3 Comments:
Figures... not matter what happens,if it wasn't your idea, you throw rocks at it.
"Calendar" and "hours" might mean different things, Mr.Cox, but you and your law degree know better, by definition. You think you can act like a lawyer and give legal opinions without the training? What laws seem to say on the surface, to a layman, is quite different than what the laws are interpreted to say,by the professionals. While I don't know the real answer to the legal question, I am reasonably assured that, if your answer is correct, it's more luck than skill.
For two years, we heard about how there's not enough student contact time. Now that the District has added time because of snow days, you have to bitch because it wasn't your idea just now.
Did it cross your mind that, if the administration had sat around and waited 30 days for public comment (and nothing but you and DAAC says they have to) then there'd be no chance to add the time? A 30 day delay would make the whole issue moot.
The teachers union was apparently asked for input (damn that "collaboration" concept, anyway!) but they didn't dictate this decision. Oddly enough, the administration and the teachers worked together in finding a solution that might work well for kids' education. The whole idea was to replace necessary classroom instructional time BEFORE CSAPs. Adding time after a 30 day wait would add time AFTER CSAPs, and it would accomplish little. The District made a proper call and, believe it or not, they were able to do it without your input!
You'd prefer form over substance, yet again.
Watson: "Figures... not matter what happens,if it wasn't your idea, you throw rocks at it."
Craig: Learn to read. I very clearly offered no opinion on the idea, just the non-lawful manner in which it was implemented.
Watson: ""Calendar" and "hours" might mean different things, Mr.Cox, but you and your law degree know better, by definition. You think you can act like a lawyer and give legal opinions without the training? What laws seem to say on the surface, to a layman, is quite different than what the laws are interpreted to say,by the professionals. While I don't know the real answer to the legal question, I am reasonably assured that, if your answer is correct, it's more luck than skill."
Craig: If calendar and hours mean different things, then they should mean the same different things in your contract. You can't just pick and choose meanings of clearly written words to fit your agenda, which in your personal case is more time away from the classroom. There really is no interpretation needed on the clause of law that I cited. It is rather straight forward. If you struggle with something as simple as that, I guess I understand why you are no longer an attorney.
Watson: "For two years, we heard about how there's not enough student contact time. Now that the District has added time because of snow days, you have to bitch because it wasn't your idea just now."
Craig: See my first answer above. You really need work on your reading comprehension. Yes, students need more contact time with solid content and rigor. Please stop taking so many days off and give it to them.
Watson: "The teachers union was apparently asked for input (damn that "collaboration" concept, anyway!) but they didn't dictate this decision. Oddly enough, the administration and the teachers worked together in finding a solution that might work well for kids' education."
Craig: The administration did not go to the teachers, it went to the labor union leadership. Different entity. If the admin had time to talk to the labor union, it certainly had time to talk to the DAAC. I will assume that you were trying to be funny when you mentioned that the labor union participated in something that might benefit kids. Your union does not represent kids, and the leadership is proud of that fact.
Watson: "The whole idea was to replace necessary classroom instructional time BEFORE CSAPs. Adding time after a 30 day wait would add time AFTER CSAPs, and it would accomplish little. The District made a proper call and, believe it or not, they were able to do it without your input!"
Craig: The administration might have made a proper call, but they did it without following state statute. I did not write that statute, so the administration was not obligated to check with me personally. Thank you, though. From this response, it looks to me as if you stop teaching after CSAPs. Just because CSAPs are over, does that mean that there is no value in teaching kids after that? The idea of having kids in school is for them to learn. You always gripe about having to teach to the CSAP tests, so this would be a chance for you to do some "real" teaching on things that are "important." If you were a professional, you would continue to teach even after CSAPs. For the record, the 30 minute addition to the school day each day has amounted to 3 or 4 minutes extra for each class each day. Hope that was enough per topic to boost the CSAPs. (No, I am not a licensed mathematician, but I was able to perform that fairly simple function anyway).
CSAPs are designed to be a measure of what a child has learned in school on different topics. School should be about learning from day one through day 170. You are cheating kids if you stop teaching just because CSAPs are over.
Watson: "You'd prefer form over substance, yet again."
Craig: Oh really? What substance has your board brought to the table lately? They are getting along just swell, aren't they? That is what you labor union mouthpieces kept saying was important to you. Talk a little about the substance. In fact, I keep challenging you to talk about any subtance brought forward by your labor union or your purchased board members, and you simply can't do it because there is no subtsance for you to talk about.
Let's see... The approved and published calendar provides for additional school days due to snow day cancellations. We have had several snow days (to include two days of "contact time" during parent-teacher conferences), and the make-up days are NOT those published on the calendar.
Hmmm... This is NOT a change in the calendar? What logic class did you pass, Anonymous?
Many on the DAAC have been arguing for longer school days and a longer school year, but we cannot seem to get around the great Master Agreement that the teachers' union loves to cite. Now, we parents--who were told that the extension of the school day could be accomplished without violating the Master Agreement--are now being told that some of the teachers feel that their longer days (as I understand it, the staff is not required to report to school any earlier than before, and not required to stay any longer at the end of the day than before) will violate the Master Agreement and that they must be compensated. I am truly thankful to hear that only 50% of those teachers who responded to the survey want to have two extra summer vacation days and that 50% of our teachers actually believe that the students can only benefit from the longer school days and increased contact time.
You tell me who has at heart the best interest of the students!
Post a Comment
<< Home