As for agreeing on facts and numbers, the state requires disclosure of all this public information and has it online going back over a decade. http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp

Don’t know how they could disagree on the numbers, maybe its the “interpretation” of what the numbers mean???

I think what I hear OEA saying the District has money it’s spending on other “non-essentials” that could be diverted to teachers. However, in the document they presented, they site things like loan forgiveness and state administrator salaries that seem highly unlikely to be diverted. I have no idea about “unmandated” testing, but if they are counting time spent on it I don’t understand how not doing the testing frees up actual cash that’s already going into salary anyway (unless you fire the associated employees who happen to be teachers).

And I have seen alot of abuses of the “performance evaluations” at schools, much more than in other sectors. Usually by inexperienced Principals, some of whom are retaliating. For example, Montera Middle school, where at least one teacher is suing over this and other issues. (The Principal there was successfully sued for harrassment by 3 teachers at his last placement in Lodi, resulting in a settlement paid by that district of $250k. So why did OUSD hire him knowing about the suit?)

We need principals who are not only past teachers, but good managers…..the OUSD website does not cite this as an important qualification.

Betty Olson-Jones, who delivered that portion of the labor council’s presentation, said the true number was probably “somewhere in between.” She said her (much larger) estimate included staff time, coaching and test prep, but I believe she acknowledged that the initial number presented on the slide wasn’t accurate.

Just a thought- and if I hear training- then why is so much of OUSD’s budget going to consultant and coaches?

Of course some abuse authority, but these are the same people in the “sisterhood” the day before. When I posted this same thought elsewhere here, I got some gibberish about most principals not teaching for very long before the switch. HOGWASH!!

OUSD seems to have young everything now, but in most districts and in OUSD’s history, principals were experienced teachers. What I’ve observed (in OUSD and elsewhere) is teaching is a solitary profession. When the solitary teacher becomes a principal, she now comes face to face with the high and low performers. That can be a shock and what’s worse, she’s now responsible for dealing with it. That’s tough for many who make the switch.

I agree, most employees in school districts make less than they would in the private sector. Nobody worthy of serving the students works the official hours. What’s silly is all the internal fingerpointing.

If I were to believe any conspiracy theory, it would be divide and conquer amongst the employees. They make it so easy as if the source of lack of funding was internal or under any of their direct control. Some evildoer at the state level (or probably Reagan’s economic/policy advisor) is sitting somewhere laughing at all these crabs in a barrel while bankers head to the Caymans.

while i am not anti-union, i don’t see how union representation at a school creates more time in an administrator’s day to get in classrooms.

the entire system asks too much of the people doing the daily work. teachers AND administrators work far beyond their contract hours, and still always have more to do. it is unfortunate that these demands have pushed people apart when ultimately they are all there for the same reason- students.

If this anecdotal and factually incorrect charge is being made, where then, are the swarms of unemployed tenured teachers. This is not happening anywhere in this state. It is nothing more than an overly exaggerated false charge. I would rather err to the side of kids and remove the questionable teachers, because we don’t owe them teachers a job, but we owe every child an excellent shot at an education. It’s very simple really.