My principal brought me a notice today that my lay off notice will be rescinded tomorrow. Finally I can breathe a sigh of relief!
I hate this roller coaster that our current state law makes districts put us on. One minute we are terrified that we may lose our jobs. The next we feel hope from retirements and vacancies.
Sadly, many of my teacher colleagues will not be so lucky as to receive rescissions of their lay off notices. They will be unemployed and left with no jobs to even apply for as districts have no vacancies.
Showing posts with label budget cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget cuts. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
How Does This Make Sense?
There are more than 70 people who are retiring at the end of this year from my district, four in social science. Instead of rescind lay off notices to fill those positions, they have decide to open the positions to inter-district transfers. The job notice very clearly states that those like me who have received preliminary lay off notices are not eligible to apply. This makes no sense at all.
I asked my principal for clarification and he told me that these positions are opened to those who have enough seniority to be guaranteed a spot next year. I asked him what would happened if people fill those positions (3 social science at my school) and then they decide to rescind our notices. He told me that I am only guaranteed a position in the district with a rescind notice and not my position. So in theory, I could be forced to move to a new site. This makes zero sense!
I understand that there are legal issues with seniority, bumping and layoffs....but why not just take the next 4 qualified people (based on seniority) who have lost their jobs and fill them in to the retirees spots? Yes, some people would have to move schools because there are no retirees at their sites, but most could retain their positions. So much time and energy is wasted the way they do the process. Any teacher who is involuntarily transferred is moved by the district - this costs money. Any teacher who volunteers, does so at their own moving expense. So limiting the involuntary transfers by NOT opening the positions and instead rescinding lay off notices not only makes logical sense, it makes monetary sense as well!
I asked my principal for clarification and he told me that these positions are opened to those who have enough seniority to be guaranteed a spot next year. I asked him what would happened if people fill those positions (3 social science at my school) and then they decide to rescind our notices. He told me that I am only guaranteed a position in the district with a rescind notice and not my position. So in theory, I could be forced to move to a new site. This makes zero sense!
I understand that there are legal issues with seniority, bumping and layoffs....but why not just take the next 4 qualified people (based on seniority) who have lost their jobs and fill them in to the retirees spots? Yes, some people would have to move schools because there are no retirees at their sites, but most could retain their positions. So much time and energy is wasted the way they do the process. Any teacher who is involuntarily transferred is moved by the district - this costs money. Any teacher who volunteers, does so at their own moving expense. So limiting the involuntary transfers by NOT opening the positions and instead rescinding lay off notices not only makes logical sense, it makes monetary sense as well!
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Speaking of Seniority
Yesterday I attended the Reduction in Force (RIF) hearing in my district. This is where an Administrative Law Judge hears from both the district personnel and a lawyer who representes all of the employees who have received RIF notices. Sometimes people bring about challenges as to why someone who is less senior did not receive a notice.
I had a chance to look at the seniority list for quite a long time yesterday. My number is 1246. There are 1393 total people on the list. In theory, this means there are about 150 people with less seniority than me. The problem is that many of them were not RIF noticed because they teach certain subjects - science, art, special education, French - and that means they have guaranteed jobs for next year, even though they may be first year teachers.
This has always been my issue with the RIF process. It is not just about when you started in the district, but what you teach. In a perfect world it would be "last hired, first fired." But this is anything but a perfect process! Districts have the right to choose which types of positions they are eliminating. That is why there are elementary teachers who have been in the district 9 years who may not have a job next year, but a first year art teacher will. I think this is completely unfair!
While I do support the idea of seniority because it means there are 6 other social science teachers who will be let go before me, I believe it the process is inherently flawed in how it is carried out. I truly believe the first year art teacher needs to be let go before the district considers laying off any 2nd year teacher. I also believe that we need to do more to protect core subject teachers (math, science, English and social studies). Those are the areas that are tested and measured by the state and the public. Art and music are necessities, but in times of economic crisis, those need to be reduced before the core subjects.
I understand there are certain positions that are more difficult to fill because there are less people who hold those credentials. But if a district needs to eliminate positions, should it not start with last hired (regardless of what position they hold)? If the bottom 10 happen to all be math teachers, then some discretion perhaps needs to be given. But eliminate fairly and equally across all subject areas.
I had a chance to look at the seniority list for quite a long time yesterday. My number is 1246. There are 1393 total people on the list. In theory, this means there are about 150 people with less seniority than me. The problem is that many of them were not RIF noticed because they teach certain subjects - science, art, special education, French - and that means they have guaranteed jobs for next year, even though they may be first year teachers.
This has always been my issue with the RIF process. It is not just about when you started in the district, but what you teach. In a perfect world it would be "last hired, first fired." But this is anything but a perfect process! Districts have the right to choose which types of positions they are eliminating. That is why there are elementary teachers who have been in the district 9 years who may not have a job next year, but a first year art teacher will. I think this is completely unfair!
While I do support the idea of seniority because it means there are 6 other social science teachers who will be let go before me, I believe it the process is inherently flawed in how it is carried out. I truly believe the first year art teacher needs to be let go before the district considers laying off any 2nd year teacher. I also believe that we need to do more to protect core subject teachers (math, science, English and social studies). Those are the areas that are tested and measured by the state and the public. Art and music are necessities, but in times of economic crisis, those need to be reduced before the core subjects.
I understand there are certain positions that are more difficult to fill because there are less people who hold those credentials. But if a district needs to eliminate positions, should it not start with last hired (regardless of what position they hold)? If the bottom 10 happen to all be math teachers, then some discretion perhaps needs to be given. But eliminate fairly and equally across all subject areas.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Money, Money, Money
I was reading some comments people had posted in response to an article about 20,000 teachers in California receiving pink slips. One person commented...."Look, California already spends more per student than any other state. What do we get for that? Pretty much at the bottom of student achievement. Texas not only scores better in 4th grade math, but they score *significantly* better."
First of all, California is 47th in the nation in terms of funding and what we spend per student! The state of New York spends over $18,000 per student each year. California spends just $8,452 per student according to a 2010 report comparing states in terms of funding. And that number is declining each year! California is the 7th most expensive place to live and our funding is more in line with states like Mississippi and Arizona, which have far lower costs of living.
And second of all, we have some of the toughest standards in the nation. Of course Texas scores better, they have a much easier test that they give! It is comparing apples with oranges. Our state standards are not the same. Our tests are not the same. So stop trying to compare us! With the addition of common core set to begin in 2014, we will be able to better gage the achievement of all students in the nation. Then we can have a real discussion about testing and student achievement.
This same individual goes on to say, "The purpose of the schools is to educate children, not to spend money." Yes, schools are non-profit organizations, but if we don't spend money, how can we educate children? This is the problem right now, the public is badly misinformed by politicians and media attempting to target unions, pensions and collective bargaining. Educators need to do a better job standing up for ourselves.
The funding cuts are real. They are not a ploy to increase your taxes to waste money. They affect real people! To all of those who insist we spend less on education and refuse to consider a tax increase, consider this: Should the young people of this state (ages 5-18) be punished for the poor financial managment of a group of legislators who we as adults elected? Or should we perhaps punish the legislators who refuse to fully fund education by VOTING them out of office?
First of all, California is 47th in the nation in terms of funding and what we spend per student! The state of New York spends over $18,000 per student each year. California spends just $8,452 per student according to a 2010 report comparing states in terms of funding. And that number is declining each year! California is the 7th most expensive place to live and our funding is more in line with states like Mississippi and Arizona, which have far lower costs of living.
And second of all, we have some of the toughest standards in the nation. Of course Texas scores better, they have a much easier test that they give! It is comparing apples with oranges. Our state standards are not the same. Our tests are not the same. So stop trying to compare us! With the addition of common core set to begin in 2014, we will be able to better gage the achievement of all students in the nation. Then we can have a real discussion about testing and student achievement.
This same individual goes on to say, "The purpose of the schools is to educate children, not to spend money." Yes, schools are non-profit organizations, but if we don't spend money, how can we educate children? This is the problem right now, the public is badly misinformed by politicians and media attempting to target unions, pensions and collective bargaining. Educators need to do a better job standing up for ourselves.
The funding cuts are real. They are not a ploy to increase your taxes to waste money. They affect real people! To all of those who insist we spend less on education and refuse to consider a tax increase, consider this: Should the young people of this state (ages 5-18) be punished for the poor financial managment of a group of legislators who we as adults elected? Or should we perhaps punish the legislators who refuse to fully fund education by VOTING them out of office?
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Face of Pink Slips
Yesterday I attended a meeting for all employees in my district who received pink slips. There were 169 people who received notices for 120 positions to be eliminated. They are elementary teachers, middle school teachers, high school teachers and counselors. Many were like me and had received their 4th pink slip in 5 years. For a few, this was their first experience.
As I looked around the room, it was sad to recognize so many who I have seen year after year. The CTA lawyer knows us by name, as do the CTA representatives who guides us in the process. We are the veterans, the ones who know the process as well as the CTA representatives and could probably run the meeting. We have riden the roller coaster of emotions, calculated how many people have less seniority than us, looked to see who could potentially bump us out of our jobs, attended hearings, fought to save our positions and worried about our futures. We are the face of pink slips.
One thing that it is important for the public to know about these faces is that they are not just the newest, most inexperienced teachers. I have taught for 12 years total and know some of those going through layoffs have taught longer than me. We are not new teachers. We are not inexperienced. We have received awards. We have served on committees. We have coached sports. And...we had the misfortunate to come to our district at the wrong time - right when the budget crisis began.
A kindergarten teacher who has been in the district since August, 2004 received a pink slip - that is 8 years of service to the district. And yet, because our budget has been decimated by cuts from the state and declining enrollment, she is on the chopping block. Both a husband and a wife received pink slips because they came to the district at the same time. Can you imagine what would happen to them and their children if they actually got laid off? Pregnant women are on the list. Single moms are on the list. Real people are affected by these cuts to education. It needs to stop.
As I looked around the room, it was sad to recognize so many who I have seen year after year. The CTA lawyer knows us by name, as do the CTA representatives who guides us in the process. We are the veterans, the ones who know the process as well as the CTA representatives and could probably run the meeting. We have riden the roller coaster of emotions, calculated how many people have less seniority than us, looked to see who could potentially bump us out of our jobs, attended hearings, fought to save our positions and worried about our futures. We are the face of pink slips.
One thing that it is important for the public to know about these faces is that they are not just the newest, most inexperienced teachers. I have taught for 12 years total and know some of those going through layoffs have taught longer than me. We are not new teachers. We are not inexperienced. We have received awards. We have served on committees. We have coached sports. And...we had the misfortunate to come to our district at the wrong time - right when the budget crisis began.
A kindergarten teacher who has been in the district since August, 2004 received a pink slip - that is 8 years of service to the district. And yet, because our budget has been decimated by cuts from the state and declining enrollment, she is on the chopping block. Both a husband and a wife received pink slips because they came to the district at the same time. Can you imagine what would happen to them and their children if they actually got laid off? Pregnant women are on the list. Single moms are on the list. Real people are affected by these cuts to education. It needs to stop.
Friday, March 9, 2012
I Hate Pink in March!
Four pink slips in five years! I had the extreme misfortune of moving to my current district five years ago when California's budget crises began. This year my district is anticipating a $23 million shortfall and has decided to eliminate 120 positions, 86 of them from K-5 (elementary)!
Because the state of California has a law that says teachers who may not have a job for the next year must be notified by March 15th, the district decided to issue pink slips to 180+ teachers. They have until May 15th to rescind the notices or make the lay off official. I personally think it is time the state of California rethink this law as it causes undue emotional turmoil on thousands of teachers and counselors every year!
The process is based on seniority and specific types of positions to be eliminated. Even though there are 8 other high school teachers in my subject with less seniority, the district over issues pink slips in case a teacher with more seniority than me holds a credential to teach my subject. In that case, they would "bump" me out of my position. Seniority is based on the hire date and a point system that includes credentials held, number of years teaching and special certifications.
It really is a stressful, crazy process and I wish they would figure out how to make it smoother and more transparent. Those who have never been in my position cannot understand the emotional turmoil of having to wait two months in limbo wondering if you make the cut to keep your job. And so the roller coaster begins for yet another year.
Because the state of California has a law that says teachers who may not have a job for the next year must be notified by March 15th, the district decided to issue pink slips to 180+ teachers. They have until May 15th to rescind the notices or make the lay off official. I personally think it is time the state of California rethink this law as it causes undue emotional turmoil on thousands of teachers and counselors every year!
The process is based on seniority and specific types of positions to be eliminated. Even though there are 8 other high school teachers in my subject with less seniority, the district over issues pink slips in case a teacher with more seniority than me holds a credential to teach my subject. In that case, they would "bump" me out of my position. Seniority is based on the hire date and a point system that includes credentials held, number of years teaching and special certifications.
It really is a stressful, crazy process and I wish they would figure out how to make it smoother and more transparent. Those who have never been in my position cannot understand the emotional turmoil of having to wait two months in limbo wondering if you make the cut to keep your job. And so the roller coaster begins for yet another year.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)