We are posting this with permission of author:
Thank you.
Rally May 11 4:30-5:30
March 2, 2009
Dear Board of Trustees Members,
At the Feb. 23 board meeting, President Jim Cartmill stated that School Board Members would read e-mails sent to them. I am respectfully counting on you to read mine.
I am Colleen Cooke-Salas from Mar Vista Middle School. I am a Nationally Board Certified Teacher in Mathematics/Early Adolescence and I have been teaching for 20 years. As we enter contract negotiations during the pressing recession, I am alarmed at the manner in which the District is approaching negotiations. I would like to point out this manner in the latest proposal.
Regarding wages, the District has proposed a permanent 2% pay cut, stating they are, “unable to offer this proposal as a temporary, emergency or provisional contract term…” Why not? There is nothing keeping this proposal from containing language that the pay cut is temporary except the District’s manner of bargaining. They are using the “present fiscal emergency” as their reasoning, but really they are using it as a catalyst to ignite fear on which they may capitalize. According to CTA, California’s public school teachers already make 16.1% less than other college graduates and those of us with Master’s Degrees make nearly 20% less than other professionals with the same education. Why does our district want our profession to take another step back and lose even more ground on our salary schedule?
Teachers’ salaries continue to bear the largest burden of cuts to education. If there are to be cuts in the funding, then why not consider cuts to the services provided? If the legislatures decide that education is too expensive for the state, then they should not continue to enjoy its services. In order to help meet our reduced budget, the number of student days should be reduced by 2%, four days, rather than asking teachers to do the same work for less.
All of the proposed reductions are hard to stomach in light of the inflated salary and benefits our superintendent enjoys. As can be seen on any of our School Accountability Report Cards, while Dr. Gandara’s annual salary is $250,000 plus perks, the state average for superintendents in districts of our same type and size is $185,780. This, for our superintendent who stated at the December 15, 2008 SUHSD Board Meeting, “I personally don’t dialogue with teachers. I allow our staff to do that. I dialogue with superintendents.” A quarter of a million dollars is a lot of money for someone to talk to five people.
Nationally, we immediately recognize the unfairness of corporate CEOs who take bonuses from the bailout money, public money. School district money has always been public money. So why is there no understanding at this level that in times of economic lean, the fat in the bureaucracy must go? We must downsize the corporate staff. We are in the business of educating students and that happens at the schools. Everything else is just support. Currently in our district, there are a lot of positions that are designed to support the superintendent. That seems to be support flowing in the wrong direction.
I ask you to consider the advice of Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of education at Stanford University who led President-elect Obama’s education policy working group. In describing approaches to school management and change, she advocates for a professional approach. Invest in knowledgeable practitioners to make sound the decisions impacting the specific students they serve. This, rather than the bureaucratic approach of seeking solutions that can be centralized and hierarchically administered. We must keep our teachers in the schools and they can lead and teach!
The District proposes to increase class sizes from a district-wide ratio of 28:1 to 30:1. While they solace you with information that the San Diego County market average staffing ratio is 32:1 (an arguable calculation at that; the state class size average is smaller), they fail to mention that these other districts with a 32:1 ratio are not in Federal Program Improvement, as we are. According to CTA, our student/teacher ratio is already 37% above the national average. Please be aware that while a current district average may be 28:1, that does not reflect the actual class counts to be seen in the regular classroom. I have 33 – 35 students in each of my math classes.
If the primary goal of our district is student achievement, then certainly research demonstrating that class size reduction has a marked effect should be listened to. The CDE’s own study, “Class Size Reduction in California High Schools: An Analysis of Survey Results for the 2006-2007 Morgan-Hart Program”, lists the following as the benefits of smaller class sizes:
1. Most districts reported an increase in academic achievement overall in the smaller classes. In addition, they reported a marked increase in the pass rates of the CAHSEE for these selected classes.
2. The most highly rated effects reported for the program are crucial for a successful educational program: improved teacher and student morale and parental satisfaction.
3. The primary reported change in teacher behavior was increased individual student attention given by the teachers. In turn, the teachers reported that students turned in more of their work and afforded fewer discipline difficulties. They also noted that there was an increase in student participation, and class time was more productive. In addition, respondents reported that teachers were able to provide more feedback sooner on homework assignments.
If we are not in a position to reduce class size, at least let us not think of increasing it if we are intent on reducing the achievement gap. In addition, it was pointed out that more than 70 percent of voters believe reducing class sizes is an effective way to improve public schools (California Teachers Association 2006). We must see cuts at the classroom to be our absolute last resort, not our first. Like households in these tough economic times, we must look first to eliminate the extravagances. I don’t know anyone who believes we have eliminated and pared down our heavily bureaucratic district to the point where we all agree that it has, indeed, come to cuts in the classroom. We’re not seeing it. Executive assistants, assistant superintendents, consultants, lawyers, reserve funds, and even replacing math textbooks that are, for all practical purposes, a repeat of the last adoption evidence an approach that is more self-serving and less classroom-oriented.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell says economic decisions should focus on student achievement, not bureaucratic agendas. Yet that is precisely the focus of our district and superintendent in attempting to insert an article allowing the district full authority to act on its own prerogative. It’s about gaining control. Where is the need for such an article? There is none outside the superintendent’s desire to further his own bureaucratic agenda. This is not necessary and contributes to antagonism between teachers and the administration. Again, a professional approach, rather than a bureaucratic one, brings the focus into the classroom.
The proposals of the District are about pushing teachers’ progress back and adversely effecting the treatment of teachers in this district for 20 to 30 years into the future. The proposals represent a divide and conquer mentality. Even the District’s Bereavement Leave Proposal couched as an equity issue is misleading. Rather than understanding how difficult and time consuming it is to maneuver through Mexico’s death and burial requirements and procedures when dealing with the death of a loved one on the other side of our border, the District sees the extra time allowed as a windfall benefit. How shameful.
I implore you, Trustees, to require the type of budget proposals and contract negotiations that evidence integrity and a priority on student achievement.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Colleen Cooke-Salas, NBCT
Math and AVID Teacher
Mar Vista Junior High School
No comments:
Post a Comment