It is still the job of the administrator and district to get rid of the teacher and for the union to provide representation. That is what the union does, and if you ever needed representation, you would be grateful. These teachers did not become bad teachers over night. Administrators often do not do their job–to observe, evaluate, and offer remediation to teachers who aren’t living up to the expectations of their job. I’ve seen it at my own site and know it’s true at so many other sites.

Also, other teachers can apply pressure on teachers who are not doing what they are supposed to be doing in a non-evaluative way. But still, if an administrator sat in that teachers room every day, there would be a change. If an administrator demanded lesson plans be turned in, showed up unexpectedly at different times, there would probably be change. And if the administrator required that departments develop PLCs that are meaningful, then there easily could be change.

For Tim: you say, “We should have zero tolerance for those who disrupt our childrens’ educations with a strike. Reagan got it right — if they won’t show up for work, find others who will.”

I find this objectionable. Teachers have the right to strike and of course, you have the right to cross the picket line. It is part of the collective bargaining process, and a necessary tool in negotiation. The district has imposed their last best offer which is unacceptable, especially in light of the salary and perks and benefits district administrators make and the fact that our Board of Ed actually earns money and health care benefits to oversee a broken system. Everyone expects teachers to sacrfice. What are these other players doing to actually help reduce the deficit–even it’s a small gesture of the board eliminating its salary and benefits and the superintendent and other administrators taking pay cuts.

So I’m feeling the atmosphere and certainly don’t look forward to any strike lasting more than one day. Hope I don’t sound fatalistic, but a whole lot of teachers all over the state have received pink slips, and a lengthy strike at the end of the school year might not be the soundest economic gamble.

Again, I’ve always been a union teacher. If it weren’t for our teachers’ unions, we might still be making the kinds of salaries presumed sufficient for kindhearted ladies who depend on our husbands or parents for most of our life sustenance. There’s some comfort, too, in the promise of due process and, if necessary, legal representation should something go weirdly sour on the job. I’ve heard some very disturbing stories about teacher salaries and job conditions in non-union states. Union teachers are generally less burdened with the stigma of the do-gooder chump.

But we also work with children who are easily enough thrown off course without this kind of stormy climate, and the entire state is also shouldering a serious recession. So I’m taking a bath and going to bed early. I’ve got a headache.

You and others in our union say it is the principal’s job to get rid of these teachers. There are over two full reams of documentation on each teacher, yet the union has stepped in to protect their jobs. The school has taken money out of the funds my classroom needed for microscopes to provide training and a substitute for one teacher who NEVER SHOWED UP TO THE TRAINING. The principal said she had to reimburse the school, the union said no. No training, no microscopes.

We have many more good teachers than bad at my site – but several teachers have been given opportunities and the students in these classes are suffering. I am picking up the slack in the next grade. We both know the amount of content knowledge required in the average grade is beyond what most of us have time to teach. When I get students from this class, I literally have nearly two full school years’ material to cover.

Shame on us for allowing this to continue. I want a raise, but our school could afford the raises and classroom materials if the bad teachers were gone.

For those who say the money is not there… It’s true there is not a lot of money anywhere right now. But the impartial factfinder came up with some suggestions (eg, creating an account for any new sources of money that comes into the district, to be designated exclusively for class size reduction and teacher pay increases), and the district just ignored them all, refused to negotiate any more, and imposed.

I believe the issue is money. Clearly if the district fired all of its custodians, HR department, security, police, principals, it could give teachers a substantial raise. So, some might say, it’s an issue of priorities. I think that’s silly and so I think it’s money.

I’ve looked over the District’s site, the unions financial proposal and perused the fact-finders report (at least the recommendations). The District offered 0% and OEA demanded 15%. That’s a big gap. The factfinder recommended 2% for 1/2 year in 2012. Given that backdrop, who was being more realistic about money for the last two years of bargaining?

Frankly, if I were OEA, I’d be more interested in a conversation about how to bring Oakland to the median of salaries for the county rather than striking over not receiving a paltry 2% in 2012. What’s the financial difference between 2% in 2012 vs. 0% now and conversation about how to get to the median? Or is this about anger, frustration and “respect” more than terms and conditions?

It’s clear to me that if OUSD is to do anything substantial (more than 2-3%), they are going to have to get creative. Recently, I’ve been hearing about another parcel tax. I’ve got serious doubts about that working right now, but it certainly won’t work with teachers out on strike. It certainly won’t work if teachers are opposed. What is morally the righteous opposition that’s preventing teachers supporting a tax to get 15% vs. squeezing the last blood out of a district where the factfinder said they could only pay 2%, in 2012?

That seems like a lot of wasted effort for very little reward. But hey, what do I know?(opening for personal attacks)

I’m sure Reagan is somewhere in hell getting a little joy at watching these groups fight each other over crumbs leaving them too distracted to see the bankers make off with the real money in this economy while producing NOTHING and while funding tea party’ers to fight new taxes to properly fund education. I’m sure this mess is giving him a grin.

Kakishiba was spot on when he said the process here had proven itself not to work. Go Tony. I believe he’s being honest with all sides in this.

We should have zero tolerance for those who disrupt our childrens’ educations with a strike. Reagan got it right — if they won’t show up for work, find others who will.

A.O.E., I’m imagining you are fairly young, probably without a family and not really thinking much about what will help you tolerate this job over the long haul. Perhaps I’m wrong. But I believe it is going to be mostly young teachers – particularly if they are short-timer temps like TFA and OTF-types – that will be most likely to be dismissive of the goals of the OEA.

When I was a recent college graduate and new member of the nursing profession, I was quite uninterested in getting involved with defending labor issues. I was living in a state that didn’t have a nurses union, and a small movement arose to start one. As I got older, I realized that I hadn’t cued into what the pro-union people were fighting for at all. At that point in my life, the benefits they wanted the hospital to provide for us seemed irrelevant and abstract.

In those years I was more preoccupied with perfecting my day-to-day job skills, enjoying a steady income for the first time in my life, having a good time on my days off, and looking for love. In my youth, I could easily work all kinds of hours and situations, and would never complain – such is the physical and mental stamina of youth.

Looking back on it now, I realize that I was in a phase of my life where I could just focus on myself and didn’t have to worry about my future being secure. I fit perfectly into Erikson’s developmental stage of the young adult (age 20-34). I wasn’t yet married, hadn’t started a family, and hadn’t thought about buying a house. I hadn’t yet been subjected to all the other difficult things that inevitably come along in maturing life like financial, mental, and physical health problems and crises of my immediate family and other loved ones.

A few years ago, I was listening to a public radio talk show about the make up of the U.S. work force. A young person called in to bitterly complain about all the older workers he knew who weren’t willing to “work as hard” as he did and to express his resentment about the amount of time they took off. The wise guest advised him to call back in about 25 to 30 years and let everyone know how he was seeing things then.

To me, a reasonably compensated and fair work environment is what unions exist to fight for, and they are very valuable to that. The OEA isn’t asking for too much considering that what Oakland teachers get is at the bottom of the barrel (if you haven’t, read the fact finding report). Everyone complains about the extent of teacher inexperience and high turnover in OUSD, and the harm that it has on kids. If you care about your students, you should support OEA’s proposal because it is a long term goal that could help alleviate that situation. I hope the OEA can get some of their demands met and I wish them well.

PS: We should ALL channel this frustration by going to Sacramento and storming the doors of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s mansion. He is a huge Milton Friedman fan, so naturally despises the fact that governments are involved with supplying public education. So, school districts have been utterly abandoned.

In Illinois: “An estimated 15,000 people gathered at the Capitol in Springfield Wednesday calling for a tax increase that could stave off major budget cuts. The gathering, dubbed the “Save Our State” rally virtually shut down traffic around the Capitol building and is expected to be one of the largest demonstrations ever in Springfield.” (Huffington Post)