Union letter: Send your kids to school on Thursday, at their own risk
By Katy Murphy
Friday, April 23rd, 2010 at 5:08 pm in families, OEA, teachers, union contract.
It’s official: The Oakland school district will hold school on Thursday, despite the one-day strike. So far, about 300 emergency teachers have cleared background checks, with more in the pipeline, according to district spokesman Troy Flint; at least 60 people from the central office will head out to the schools as well.
But just in case you were thinking about sending your kids to school on strike day, this letter from the Oakland teachers union — which was sent home with children in at least one school — warns that you might be placing them in harm’s way:
Please be aware that the district is hiring emergency replacements for the day of our strike, but they are far less qualified than your child’s regular teacher and substitute teachers. We are concerned that this poses a real safety threat. Support our strike and our demand that all students have a qualified teacher in every classroom!
I wonder if these letters were sent to homes across the city.
”In many of our neighborhoods, I don’t think you can make an argument that not being in school is safer than being in school,” Flint said. “That’s particularly true for those parents who can’t afford daycare or to take off work.”
Of course, Flint didn’t claim that much learning would happen.
Will you send your child to school Thursday? Will you take the day off work (or school) and picket, like Sue and her family? Why (or why not)? Are parents coordinating child care to support the strike?
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Stupid letter. Using fear is always dangerous. Like, why should we be concerned only about the replacements? maybe the whole industry is unsafe for kids.
This is a union mistake to put out such a letter.
Also, I might be one of the replacements. I am highly qualified!
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:23 pm
We are not going to school on April 29. We generally don’t cross picket lines.
The district should have extended some kind of olive branch to the teachers. The fact finder suggested a no cost use of 2 days of prep time as time off which results in a paper raise.
OEA shouldn’t be sending out a letter with scare tactics, unless the reason is there won’t be enough adults to supervise the kids. 360 adults for 39k students doesn’t sound like enough….
Hey, both sides, go on a retreat! Heal! Work together because we are stuck with each other and a bad economic situation! Superintendant Smith, when UCB was faced with cuts, many years ago, the Chancellor at that time, Chancellor Tien cut his own salary first to show leadership and solidarity. What about it? It won’t be alot of money, but would go a long way to show leadership….
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Honestly, I don’t see anything wrong with the phrasing of this letter. (No worse than the propaganda being distributed by the district.) I am going to be on the front line at my school and I am genuinely concerned about the safety of our students. When talking to my parents, my intent is not to instill fear in them, but rather explain that I am not going to be in the classroom that day and I don’t know who is going to be in my classroom since regular substitutes are part of our union and have been asked not to cross the picket line. While I have a good relationship with my students and families, my parents are aware that there are some troubling behaviors in my classroom that not even “highly qualified” teachers can’t deal with. My students go crazy with the regular substitute; I don’t know why they wouldn’t choose to do the same with all the strike energy circulating.
The union is a group of working teachers/nurses/education professionals, not bullies, who care deeply about their students. (Yes, even if that means leaving them for a day for a cause they believe in.) We spend more waking hours with these children than their parents do and would be devastated if something were to happen. However, just as I’ve told my students, we can’t stand by and be treated like our working conditions (and their learning conditions) don’t matter.
I understand that people need to work and cross the line. I understand that the district needs to pretend that it’s going to be “business as usual” on Thursday. It’s not. It’s going to be glorified babysitting that some of the families need because they can’t afford otherwise. Any person that has not spent significant time in a classroom recently is, in my opinion, not qualified to be in the classroom on Thursday, not because of lack of knowledge, but because of lack of classroom management skills. (I’m a “second career teacher” in my second year teaching and I’m still honing them.) The good news, you get to leave at 2:40 with $300. (It’s more than I make a day, plus you get lesson plans done for you.) We get to return to work on Friday knowing that the Board of Education still doesn’t give a damn about our opinion and chooses to not even discuss the fact-finding report suggestions.
In response to your comment about the whole industry being unsafe, I think there is some truth to the fact that there are many schools that are becoming unsafe to children. Increased class size, fewer security officers and nurses, and practically invisible counselors/social services contribute to that. (In fact, just today I had to be all those people in a one hour period. Not a whole lot of teaching going on then.) All of these issues where ALSO addressed in our contract negotiations and the fact-finding report, though it seems that most people are fixated on the raise issue.
Best of luck to you on Thursday.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:13 pm
@Concerned Parent – Is it too early to try and nominate you for Board of Ed? (jk) First, thank you for your support. It means the world to us. Second, I agree with you that at some point we are going to have to learn to get along. Having spent 15 years on the “outside,” it quickly became evident that I joined the education field at a particularly volatile period. For me it’s difficult to see only one side of an argument willing to compromise. It’s also disturbing to witness the lack of professionalism displayed by members of the Board (intentionally turning backs when someone is speaking; fluttering around the room having side conversations when someone is laying their heart out) and, on occasion, members of OEA. In my opinion, this is not the way things are done. With all that being said, I am “walking the line” on Thursday not because I think the district has any intent to budge on the points, but because I think if they aren’t going to listen to my disgust, they need to see it.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
We were not planning on crossing either line.
The union is out of line on this one. I work with families who do not have sick pay, vacation pay and cannot afford to stay home the day of the strike and they live in neighborhoods where it is not safe to leave even upper elementary students home alone.
To the union members who think this letter is okay, will you voluntarily keep these students with you all day and take responsibility for them so they do not cross the picket line. Or alternatively, will you give the $65 per day the working parent earns so that he or she can stay home and take care of his or her child(ren) so there is no crossing the picket line? If you are unwilling to do either of these options DO NOT CRITICIZE. As the lowest paid teacher you earn an annual salary almost three times as much, have paid vacation (Thanksgiving, Winter and Spring breaks), paid medical and dental, paid sick time and do not have to fear that your children will not have medical and dental attention they need.
I feel like I deserve a raise. Between lesson plans, correcting homework, editing essays, planning field trips and planning science experiments to make science meaningful, I have been working 10-11 hours a day. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But I have gone through the OUSD budget with a fine tooth comb and I can find about $70 million that can be cut – yet more needs to be cut. I spend another 4-5 hours on the weekend trying to help my students’ families connect with people who have connections to get students into therapy, get them the medication they need and this week, save a permanent tooth that was going to be pulled because of infection.
Keep perspective, stop scaring and put your commitment where your mouth is or stop badgering.
April 24th, 2010 at 9:18 am
TFT, if you or any other “emergency teacher” crosses our line on Thursday, you will not work at our site again. It’s short-sighted to grab $300 at the expense of steady subbing jobs. During those times when the sub office has claimed there were no subbing jobs in the district, really just a cover-up for periodic glitches in the system, our loyal subs have had work basically every day they’ve wanted it.
I appreciate all of the parents who are willing to honor the picket line and those who will join us on Thursday. I also understand that people have different life situations. If you are not in our bargaining unit (parents, classified staff) and really can’t stay home, it’s not as if we’ll throw eggs and refuse to speak to you ever again. We just need as much participation as we can get from the community.
The letter is not a scare tactic; it’s true. We have a large campus with 98% committed participation. That means for a student population of almost 1,000, there will be two teachers at most who regularly work there. Even when everyone is present, discipline incidents erupt in a population that big.
OUSD is waiving many of the very basic substitute requirements for their emergency teachers; I think basically you need a BA. Period. No experience with kids? Oh well, have fun corralling 1,000 of them you’ve never met before, with only two administrators there to help you sort it out, at the same time they’re trying to help the handful of other shell-shocked scabs…
If I were a parent and had the means, I would definitely keep my child home, send her to a relative’s house, etc. But I do not blame the parents. This is the district’s responsibility. If OUSD doesn’t have enough qualified stand-ins (which they don’t), they need to come back to the table and settle with us in a fair way–at least discuss the fact-finding report.
April 24th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Are you threatening me, Oakland Educator? Not a good way to get what you want….
April 24th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Damn, The Oakland Educator sounds like a shot caller! Subs will not ever get to work there again! Wow, so much for the kids right? Union teachers are so outdated that the reform of schools is going to steamroll them out of exisistence
The schools are not safe anyway… ask Lazear parents!! The letter is a joke.
April 24th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Name-calling is not allowed on this blog. I just deleted a comment for that reason. Feel free to re-post the critique — without the insult.
April 24th, 2010 at 11:05 am
But threats are fine, apparently…
April 24th, 2010 at 11:23 am
TFT – The veteran teachers at the school sites I work at reminded me of the last strike (that were 20-30 days long).
Friendships and grade-levels broke down because some people chose to go back to work. Many people stopped talking for years.
It’s not a threat to say that you won’t as a sub from a teacher. A teacher has the right and ability to select the substitute from the sub system.
I am a current substitute and pay union dues. The union is also fighting for the rights of subs. The regular subs (who are fully trained and many are fully licensed) won’t go to work that day because many have been union members their entire time in Oakland.
If you are classified as an “emergency sub”, and Thursday will be your first time in a classroom, then you are neither a union supporter and will not be called back by the staff because that is not the way to enter the work force.
April 24th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I don’t like threats either, but I have to draw the line somewhere (like calling someone an a-hole). I hope you understand; I don’t mean to discourage you or anyone else from registering their points of view or disagreeing with each other.
April 24th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
This letter exemplifies precisely what is wrong with Oakland’s school system.
It’s short-sighted (not to mention narrow-minded), confrontational and wholly unreasonable.
What’s more, it paints a broad, negative picture of replacement teachers (how the heck can OEA claim that they’re “all less qualified” without specific knowledge of each one?)
Finally, the logic is nonsensical – and quite pedestrian – drawing the conclusion that that alleged “less qualified” teachers pose a “real safety hazard.”
This tactic has surely exposed the OEA for what it’s truly out for: THEMSELVES.
The real point that’s being missed is that times are brutally tight. That there are more than 300 people willing to cross pickets to find work ought to speak loudly to those who already have jobs and are still whining that they want more money.
The message: Be grateful that you’re even working in this economy.
April 24th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
I have been a union teacher for 12 years. I stopped teaching a couple years ago due to cancer, and now have a private practice doing educational therapy (I have an MA in Dev. Psych.). So, if I sub in Oakland, I will more qualified than many of the regulars.
I only commented on this thread because I found the Oakland EA’s letter rather short-sighted, as Harlemmoon mentions.
Threats, fear and violence are not supposed to be how we fight for what’s right. But the OEA has used fear, and now members are using intimidation. And you want respect?
What John Stewart said to Bernie Goldberg! (better?)
April 24th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I respect the teachers at my kids’ school, but employees who don’t like the terms of their employment should find work elsewhere. Employers should replace workers who refuse to show up for work.
God help anyone who tries to keep my kids from getting the get the education I pay for through taxes and PTA support through intimidation. Any union leader who’d like to discuss that with me personally: let me know where to contact you.
April 24th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Thank you, @Think About It… I’m not threatening you, @TFT, and neither are any of the other teachers who wouldn’t call you for a sub job in the future. Subs are in our bargaining unit. You have the choice not to sub that day. We are forgoing our pay on that day to seek a fair contract, and one of the OEA’s positions is that subs should be paid more. If we lose pay partly on your behalf, and you cross the picket line, why would we ever, ever call you to sub in our classrooms? Why is it a threat to say with absolutely certainty that we will call the subs who were on the line with us?
April 24th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
That should say “absolute” certainty. I know how people love to jump on typos, in addition to unnecessary name-calling.
Thank you, Katy, for allowing this forum and moderating from time to time.
Here’s some math I’ve been contemplating: OUSD says they imposed because starting the contract immediately would save $1-3 million. They also say they need 2,500 strikebreakers to keep the schools open on Thursday. 2,500 * $300 = $750,000. So to save $1 million, we should spend 3/4 of it on strikebreakers?
April 24th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Why is it a threat? Because you are threatening me banishment for trying to feed my family and educate kids. And I am not an OUSD sub, so your threats are in effect meaningless to me. It’s clear you wish I were an OUSD sub so your scare tactics would work on me. Sorry.
Look, I understand you need every weapon in your arsenal, and scaring subs is a good weapon–fear usually works. Even if you mean what you say about never calling for me to sub, that is a threat; I assume you mean it. And I don’t care.
I would be crossing your picket line to make money. You see, I need money, like you. But I would also be doing it out of a sense of decency–decency that your union lacks, made clear by the letter to families I am decrying here in this thread.
Again, my only complaint is that OEA sent out a letter that used fear of child endangerment by slighting folks–some of whom you don’t even know. When you Oakland educators admit your union made a mistake putting out this kind of letter, then I might feel differently about you.
But, so far, all of you have been using fear and intimidation by acquiescing to your leadership and their really lame, fear-based, over-the-top letter to parents.
Union members don’t cross picket lines unless they are hungry. Unions, especially teacher unions, shouldn’t use fear of child neglect/abuse by teachers or subs, to get what they want.
Clear enough?
April 24th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
threatening me banishment
Should have stuck in a with there….
April 24th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
First, the truth is MANY families in Oakland have little choice but to send there kids to school and in fact their alternatives are likely MORE dangerous for their children. Sure, I imagine some parents will be home with their kids or have relatives or can afford to send their kids somewhere more productive. Those parents should remember the city in which they live and those less fortunate.
Second, as for the threats, it’s unfortunate, but OEA wouldn’t be much of a union without them. Let us not forget what a strike is. Let us not forget that a union needs solidarity to be useful. Threats of members and non-members alike is how all unions I know of conduct their “business.” It is democracy enforced by intimidation and threat because there is no other method of enforcement. Think of a strike vote of 51-49 where the 49% went to work. Not very effective. That is the reality of unionism and I invite any rational disagreement with that point. Katy, what is the percentage of total OEA who voted for the strike (not just the percentage of those who showed up)?
As for non-members and parents, we only need to read their flyers, rhetoric and this blog. Let us not forget the use of terms such as scab for people who are trying to feed their families in an economic downturn – how progressive. I don’t begrudge unions this and teacher’s unions are relatively benign as unions go. This is ultimately the power that gives them leverage and they intend to use it for their purposes. It’s just ugly to have to see it.
I hope OEA members behave with professionalism as they protest and don’t have rogue (sp?) elements that end up blocking freeways during commute time. It’s not pretty to see this side of people in which we entrust our children – but I understand.
If I were a parent of means, I’d probably keep my kids home or take a day off and go somewhere fun, or teach them about better dispute resolution than we see here. However, I would teach them that some parents and their kids need school to be open in order to help ends meet and if a safe environment exists, they are totally justified to send their students.
It is a shame that a parent need worry about retaliation against their student for coming to school. It’s unspoken, but a realistic fear. Surely most teachers wouldn’t do such a thing, but it’s a shame that a parent even has to think about it. It is a shame that sending a child to school has become a political expression. Just a shame.
The whole thing is sad.
BTW, I think Dr. Smith taking a voluntary pay cut (or at least a deferral with performance bonus) would be a good idea. Any show of good faith would be welcome at this point.
April 24th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
@post #17.
Strikes usually pay for themselves for management. Usually management hires fewer subs than regular workers and the regular workers get no pay nor cause salary-based costs like unemployment insurance, etc. Management can usually afford to pay slightly above its average costs and still come out “ahead.”
This is probably true in education as well so strikes save employers money as long as they don’t make the wage concessions demanded. Strikes are also one-time costs and employees usually want to create ongoing expenses.
April 24th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
@Tim, IMHO you don’t understand unionism. In a society with near full employment (the USA before 2008), switching jobs was a reasonable strategy if one were unhappy with an employer.
During the birth of unionism and in severe economic downturns, employees banded together to FORCE the terms they desire. Without legal might, they used threat of economic, social, political or physical loss as their power. Luckily for teachers today (and most public employees) that’s in the LAW for them. No such thing as “irreconcilable differences” when you have tenure to contend with. Much easier to get a divorce than separate a tenured teacher from an employer. Ask the parents at Lazear.
For better or worse, for richer or poor, in sickness or in health, this is the TRUTH of the situation. As for me, I think it perfectly appropriate for teachers to stand up against conditions they feel are ultimately not in the best interests of students. What I don’t appreciate is an utter lack of realism when faced with OUSD’s budget or the larger economic context. What I don’t appreciate is paternalistic intimidation of 25-year olds who just want to go to work and teach “their” kids or parents who need to make ends meet and feel their kids are safe going to school.
To be fair, most teachers don’t see themselves simply as “employees” as teaching is much more of a social-emotional-political investment for many. I’m glad for that and I believe OEA is standing up for teaching as much as they are for individual members. I just question their timing and realism in asking for 20% and then 15% in raises. What did they expect?
April 24th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Let’s be clear: NO teacher in Oakland would ever want a family to fear retaliation if their student attends school on a strike day. NO teacher has ever said that. This thread is like a game of “telephone” where each posting has one slight thing changed from the posting prior until all kinds of rumors are flying. TFT accused someone of making a threat; next thing you know “Truth” is saying it is a shame parents have to fear retaliation. The fact is they do not and never did have to fear retaliation.
We do really appreciate our families who actively support us by not crossing picket lines, bringing us food, joining our pickets/rallies, and speaking up in public – thank you!!
I am thankful that I know the 2 subs I use (on the 2-3 days out each year) would never cross a picket line. I trust them with my students, they know how to follow my lesson plans, and they are able to keep my kids on track for the day. However, I would be really disappointed in shortsighted thinking that would lead someone across a picket line, unless they were truly hungry. That does NOT apply to children and their families. It applies to workers.
April 24th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
I didn’t accuse someone of making a threat. Your OEA letter IS an implicit (actually, it’s also explicit) threat. The threat being that children will be ill-served and IN DANGER at an OUSD school on that day. The words in the letter I am referring to are the words “safety threat” in the last paragraph. See the word THREAT in there?
As for retaliating against kids, it’s just your promise that would put someone at ease. And in your OEA letter you promise to have unsafe schools on the 29th.
Think about it….
April 24th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
“Please be aware that the district is hiring emergency replacements for the day of our strike, but they are far less qualified than your child’s regular teacher and substitute teachers. We are concerned that this poses a real safety threat.
How does one take the statement that we are concerned that there is a safety threat translate to (according to #24) a “promise to have unsafe schools”. Please stop twisting things around.
We all know that some subs are far better than others at managing classrooms. We also know that it takes experience and practice to be able to do most things. Frankly, I hope that the people who are watching students are able to keep things together. I would not wish chaos for my students. But expressing concern does not mean that I am promising (or hoping) that the environment will be unsafe, just that I am worried about the kids. It is highly unlikely that there will be much learning going on that day in the classrooms. Oftentimes classes are grouped together in auditoriums so that people who have never been in charge of kids before are not left alone with them. I know my administrators will have a hard day and that most of them are (secretly) rooting for the teachers.
April 24th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
@Oakland teacher. You are right. No teacher has said here that parents should fear retaliation against students – that was my writing and I take responsibility for it. I also indicated that surely, few teachers would engage in such behavior.
That said, you write “We do really appreciate our families who actively support us by not crossing picket lines, bringing us food, joining our pickets/rallies, and speaking up in public – thank you!!” How do you feel about the parents that don’t? Or, the parents that disagree? Or, the parents that make it clear they are sending their kids to protest what they think is a selfish act by teachers?
You write, “I would be really disappointed in shortsighted thinking that would lead someone across a picket line, unless they were truly hungry. That does NOT apply to children and their families.” Why not? Why aren’t you “really disappointed?” Why aren’t they “short-sighted?” What makes them different?
Listen, parents complain about bias and retaliation already without a strike and for a myriad of things that happen on and off of campus. Is it outlandish for them to fear retaliation in such a pressurized circumstance?
April 24th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Please be aware that the district is hiring emergency replacements for the day of our strike, but they are far less qualified than your child’s regular teacher and substitute teachers. We are concerned that this poses a real safety threat. Support our strike and our demand that all students have a qualified teacher
in every classroom! That last sentence, where you use the word “demand” should have been included above, Oakland Teacher. That really makes your threat solid!
Let’s see, you bash the replacements (whom you paint with a broad brush as less qualified, even though some are more qualified) as posing a safety threat. You are, in effect, saying these replacements are unable, or at best less able than you to make school safe, hence the safety threat. You make it clear that school will be unsafe in your opinion–the opinion of someone who knows.
That is how I turn it around to say that you are basically promising to have unsafe schools. How else to take it? Just register concern without specifics? No, the specifics are “safety” and no parent wants their kid unsafe.
That’s why you wrote the letter in the way you did–to scare parents. And with what do you scare them? You tell me. I think the threat is clear–send your kids to OUSD at the risk of their bodily safety.
Come on.
April 24th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
The last time there was a strike, there weren’t enough emergency subs at either of the schools I primarily work at.
All the kids were put in the cafeteria and they watched movies all day.
April 24th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
“I didn’t accuse someone of making a threat. Your OEA letter IS an implicit (actually, it’s also explicit) threat.” (@TFT #24)
To clarify, much of this “threat” discussion started with your post #7, asking if I was threatening you, and @Think About It and I have since reiterated it’s not a threat but a fact that teachers will choose to work with subs who choose to honor the strike.
As a former “union teacher” (@TFT #14), maybe a lot of this defensiveness and venom is coming from your inside knowledge of the value of a union? OEA, despite the caricatures, is not some corrupt, out-of-touch organization, but rather an association of fellow teachers working to make sure that we can do our jobs without being run out/burnt out by capricious and inconsistent conditions.
There is absolutely pressure for members not to cross the line because we cannot make gains in a fragmentary, every-teacher-for-herself way. People who understand the value of collective bargaining similarly feel pressure not to cross OTHER people’s picket lines, not for fear of physical danger (no one will physically prevent you from crossing on Thursday), but rather because their values dictate honoring the line.
I have spoken with principals who were not going to cross last time around for this very reason, which could have cost them their jobs, but the strike was called off at the last minute. Many other community members share this respect for fair labor practices and have chosen not to take $300 at the expense of their values. Many parents will make the same choice, but again, parents are not in our bargaining unit, and teachers understand that many parents have very difficult circumstances and cannot keep their children home.
And values aside, Thursday will be a chaotic day, whether there are enough strikebreakers who resort to calling people “a-hole” or not. We don’t want to see that for our kids; we’ll be back teaching them on Friday and want them to succeed. But in the long run, we won’t be back teaching them if working conditions and compensation continue to deteriorate to such an extent that it is untenable to stay (I could have netted a 25% raise by switching to a Marin district this year!).
For that reason, we are making the hard choice of disrupting this week with the hope that OUSD will come back to the table and discuss the fact-finding report, some of whose elements cost nothing at all in the current economic climate–for instance, promising to allocate 60% of eligible future revenues to salaries and/or class size reductions, or eliminating mandatory Saturday work.
April 24th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
@think about it . . .
Were they unsafe? Were they more unsafe than Oakland students seem to be on a daily basis from what I’ve read? Was it appropriate in a union letter to parents asking for strike support to “remind” parents their children might be unsafe?
Thou dost protest too much. Just call a spade a spade and move on.
April 24th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
@Oakland Educator, you wrote, “For that reason, we are making the hard choice of disrupting this week with the hope that OUSD will come back to the table and discuss the fact-finding report, some of whose elements cost nothing at all in the current economic climate–for instance, promising to allocate 60% of eligible future revenues to salaries and/or class size reductions, or eliminating mandatory Saturday work.”
I thought Dr. Smith said he was willing to come back to the table and talk. Am I missing something? If that is the reason for “disrupting this week” and you mean it when you say “We don’t want to see that for our kids,” then what are you doing?
I’m sure the Board wasn’t concerned about those things that didn’t cost money and you know it. Let’s at least be honest – it was a slap in the face to have the imposition, but OEA has been planning and voting on a strike since January, before the fact-finding hearing, before the report, before it’s conclusions and before the board imposed. All of that has been reported on this blog. OEA wants better pay and that’s what this is all about. Sure, class sizes matter, but be honest, if OUSD kept class sizes unchanged and offered no raise, you’d be on the picket line anyway.
Why can’t people just be honest? Is it because the truth hurts?
April 24th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Nope, imposition is exactly the opposite of saying you’ll come back to the table and talk. It marks the end of OUSD participation in bargaining. OEA has said since the strike authorization that we would strike IF we didn’t have a settlement by two days before the scheduled date. That date had to be moved twice because we were waiting for the fact-finding report, which was delayed in large part because OUSD decided to file an unfair labor practices suit against us for saying we would strike IF we were strike legal IF they wouldn’t settle. (You can infer whether I think their suit holds water.)
If the board “wasn’t concerned about those things that didn’t cost money”–Saturday work, future plans for compensation–they would have made those concessions and said they were holding out on compensation. The fact-finding report doesn’t even suggest a real raise (just a reduction in non-instructional days) until 2012 (and then a whopping 2% after two more years’ worth of inflation!), and still OEA was willing and planning to go back to the bargaining table to work toward a settlement–and prevent the strike.
Tony Smith has not offered to come back to the table; he’s only made a YouTube “personal commitment” to seeking better compensation, despite his unwillingness to put that commitment in writing in the form of pledging a percentage of eligible future funds to compensation/class size reduction.
And class sizes are a huge issue, so your raise-with-unchanged-class-size scenario doesn’t fly. Right now we can have up to 35 students in a period as long as our total is under 160 (Want to grade 160 papers this weekend? In other words, want to have a weekend at all?) The district’s “goal” is to have 32 students per class, but squeezing the extra 3 in this year meant we scrounged for desks (the district facilities warehouse was all out), and there’s literally not enough room for special ed aides to circulate and help their target students.
Even if this were only about money–which no, I will not concede because it’s not true–let’s talk Econ 101. If you put artificial ceilings on wages, you have vacancies. That’s the case in classrooms across the district on the first day of school each year, despite programs like TFA and OTF. Some special day classes don’t have a permanent teacher ALL YEAR; they have a new sub every 30 days. If you want to improve education, you have to be willing to devote the resources, or you can’t be surprised by the outcomes of financial irresponsibility. (Do you like the shiny new touch-screen computer in the entrance at 2nd Ave headquarters? Forget teacher pay; let’s start with some paper towels or hot water in our kids’ bathrooms instead!)
April 24th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I have decided not to cross your picket line.
April 24th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
@Oakland Educator, you wrote, “OEA has said since the strike authorization that we would strike IF we didn’t have a settlement by two days before the scheduled date.”
So striking isn’t about “talking” it’s about having an agreement. In other words, offer something we can agree to or we’ll strike. That sounds reasonable, but no more reasonable than agree to what we’ve offered or we’ll impose. Flip sides of the same coin.
Classic stalemate if you ask me.
You wrote, “Even if this were only about money–which no, I will not concede because it’s not true . . .” I never said it was ONLY about the money. What I said exactly was, “OEA wants better pay and that’s what this is all about. Sure, class sizes matter, but be honest, if OUSD kept class sizes unchanged and offered no raise, you’d be on the picket line anyway.” That means without the money – no deal. Am I wrong? If so, tell me. I’ll retract my statement.
You can spare me the, “we want higher wages for someone else” argument, it smells as bad as Dr. Smith’s 6% raise. If it is to ensure that classrooms are full, I doubt you have any proof that higher salaries at the top salary range or anywhere above the first few levels will fix that. And, I’m extremely confident you have no evidence that 2% raise is the most cost effective way to attract or retain teachers in the next 36 months.
I could be wrong. I’m waiting to be corrected . . .
While you’re at it, explain to me why teachers are opposed to a parcel tax that would give a meaningful raise while striking over a paltry 2%? Or why, apparently some other employees have accepted 0% as reasonable under the circumstances? Or why, a liberal editorial board like the Trib would say OEA has been “unrealistic?”
I’m not against teachers striking, I’m just not against the board imposing either. This is how labor disputes are resolved sometimes. I just think this time, there really is no money or any money that is there is so small it’s not worth striking over. That’s for teachers to determine. I just hope they’re doing it – eyes wide open.
April 24th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Well, this may be poor judgment, but I just had to remark on TFT’s comment in #18 that s/he would be crossing the picket line (if s/he did so) in order “to educate kids”. Why wait for a strike to do that? That just seems disingenuous to me, and a deliberate misunderstanding/mistrust of the union and teachers’ motives.
April 24th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Can someone explain to me why Oakland doesn’t have a magnet school or schools like San Francisco’s Lowell? Couldn’t such a thing help with the budget crises and create more union teacher slots?
Take a look at my blog post here: http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2010/04/24/why-cant-oakland-compete-with-san-franciscos-lowell-high/
I’m serious about this. Maybe the city needs a voter initiative to force the district to do something about this?
April 24th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
If we are really being honest, perhaps we can stop saying “smaller class size” and start saying “additional bargaining units.”
Additionally, I watched last Wednesday’s board meeting on TV. If all of the OEA members had acted like grown ups instead of storming out after contract was imposed, they would have heard that 1) the purpose of imposition was essentially to cut some positions (adult ed) and that 2) Tony Smith and everyone on the board thinks that Oakland teachers deserve a raise. And they are committed to figuring out how to make that happen.
Don’t talk about the lack of trust within the process and the lack of respect that teachers receive and then behave like bratty adolescent children who didn’t get their way.
April 25th, 2010 at 2:33 am
Ms. J, it was poor judgement. I educate kids every day.
April 25th, 2010 at 9:02 am
I want to express appreciation to @TFT for sharing the decision not to cross the picket line, however that decision was reached, as well as for engaging in the discussion prior. The democratic process is messy, and it’s important to air opposing views in a public forum to help others consider their choices, too. So thank you.
@Ousd Funemployed: Cutting all of adult ed isn’t OK either, so while it’s inaccurate to say that imposition was “essentially about cutting some positions,” that’s not an acceptable position. Adult ed helps people transitioning out of incarceration, people with disabilities, and parents who need job retraining, among others–to create, for one thing, a positive route away from Oakland’s recidivism cycle. OUSD wants to go from a minimum of 64 full-time adult educators to a minimum of 0, i.e., shut it down; this is in part to retroactively make it OK that they moved a huge chunk of adult ed’s money to cover other obligations.
The fact-finding report suggests a compromise of 55 full-time adult educators next year, and 50 after that, a position OEA was willing to work with at the bargaining session OUSD refused to have. I’m glad you watched the meeting, but you need more than the board’s planned soundbites to have the whole story. If it were about cutting a few positions, the fact-finding report paved the way for cutting some positions; however, OUSD refused to even try to bargain based on the report before imposing.
I’m glad “Tony Smith and everyone” THINK we deserve a raise, but given that we’re at the bottom of the heap in the county, even counting benefits–and given the high turnover among superintendents–those THOUGHTS mean less than nothing until they’re enacted or, at a minimum, in writing as a future plan. Again, the fact-finding report suggests a commitment of 60% of future eligible funds to compensation and/or class size reduction, so if Tony Smith were thinking that hard about it, he’d be willing to commit in more than a YouTube video.
April 25th, 2010 at 10:44 am
@OaklandEducator: Maybe the reason Oakland teachers get paid so little is because most of the schools do poorly on standardized tests? It’s always hard to argue for more money in a situation rife with failure.
April 25th, 2010 at 11:05 am
@Oakland educator, Still waiting for some facts or evidence.
While I’m waiting, I decided to do some homework on this assertion that Oakland teachers are lowest paid in the county. What I found (http://tinyurl.com/4fxshg) was a mess of information on compensation at the state’s website. When talking compensation, it’s silly to omit benefits (health, retirement, etc.) However, most districts didn’t report what they spend on health benefits, so it’s hard to figure out. I know some districts (e.g. Fremont) spend nothing and found others have a max (e.g. Castro Valley).
When adding salary levels at year 10 (the only year reported) with health benefit expenses Oakland was indeed near the bottom. Guess, what though? Oakland wasn’t at the bottom. Who was? Alameda City Unified. I thought they had money in Alameda. Heck, their class sizes were higher too. For Oakland, the combined total compensation was $68,972. For Alameda, the combined total was $68,292. Not much of a difference and both a far cry from Piedmont’s $82,663.
So, why aren’t Alameda’s teachers striking? Don’t know. But I do know they settled their contract with increases in class sizes and up to five days less work for five days less pay! A pay cut!?!?! Yep. http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_14513507. What are they doing about it? Looks like teachers and management are working TOGETHER on – guess what – a parcel tax. Wow. How ironic. I thought the trib editorial reported OEA opposed a parcel tax in Oakland and threatened to do so again. Yep. You got it. http://www.insidebayarea.com/education/ci_14938331
It’s so amazing what you uncover when you search for the truth. To recap,
1) Oakland teachers have the lowest salary in Alameda county on multiple measures. However, they don’t have the lowest compensation in the county when health benefits are included (that would be Alameda Unified). Anyone with an internet connection can check my numbers.
2) Alameda teachers are taking a pay cut and their class sizes are increasing. Oakland teachers are not taking a pay cut, but it looks as if class sizes are increasing.
3) To solve the problem Alameda teachers settled their contract and are working WITH management on a parcel tax that will prevent further cuts and hopefully add to compensation. In Oakland, management imposed and the union is striking after management attempts to support a parcel tax have been shot down by the union for reasons, they’ll have to explain.
What other assertions are false or misleading???
April 25th, 2010 at 11:33 am
I’m not crossing the picket line because I got other work that pays more.
April 25th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Truth: How about analyzing every other year in the salary schedule and see how low we are? Look at year 1-5 or look at year 15 and we are at the bottom again. You searched for the one year that was different. We should be at the median salary, not the lowest or second lowest.
April 25th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
@Oakland teacher.
First, I think Oakland teachers should be ABOVE the median because they are asked to do more than teachers in many other places. Certainly, lowest or second lowest is not right. However, I live in the real world and unless Oakland has Piedmont money, they are not going to compete in that way.
Second, I didn’t search for anything. As I said in my post (see the parentheses), this is the information provided by the state of Kalifornia and it says BA+60 at 10 years. I’m assuming this is Bachelor’s degree plus 60 credits and 10 years of work. If they had provided another number, I would have used it. They did provide average salaries too (where Oakland is even lower), but since average salaries have as much to do with average years of service, it seemed misleading to use that number. I believe what I provide is an accurate reflection of what a teacher with those stats stands to benefit if she has medical coverage for her family. Was I wrong?
Third, part of what I was trying to illustrate was how close lowest and second lowest are. The $500+ difference in total compensation is relatively tiny, yet the two districts seem to have taken very different paths in dealing with it. Say you’re right and Oakland is the lowest. Say Oakland agrees to “tie” Alameda by giving every teacher 500 bucks. Now Oakland isn’t the lowest, but it’s still crappy. Given the difference is so small, who cares? Seems more psychological than practical to me. Nobody wants to be the lowest, but someone always is. Maybe the three lowest districts should collude and have the same salary and benefits. Would that solve the problem? I think not.
Besides, after Alameda’s reductions in salary, the salary levels are going down while Oakland is holding stable.
April 25th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
@Oakland teacher, since you asked, I decided to answer your questions (at least based on what is readily available). As I did, I realized you must be missing something. At each level, the salary only for OUSD was the lowest. The change occurs when I add what OUSD pays for a family medical plan vs. what Alameda pays. OUSD pays $14K+ and Alameda pays $8K. That means for every difference in salary of less than $6K, teachers with families that need medical make out better at OUSD.
Now, if you have no family or they have insurance elsewhere, obviously this doesn’t matter to you. But, as an example OUSD starting salary was $39456 and Alameda was $41893, over $2000 and roughly 5% higher. However, add benefits and OUSD is putting out $5000 and 10% more. Clearly, the importance of these numbers will vary by the situation of the teacher, but what can be said is OUSD is on the hook for more money than Alameda based solely on the family planning decisions of its employees.
April 25th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I know some districts allow employees who forgo insurance (because they use their spouse’s, for example) can get $$ in lieu of insurance–usually a percentage of the cheapest plan the district offers, or something similar.
April 25th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
TRUE AND FALSE take a break from all this QUIZ
1. Contract negotiations generally translate into contract take-backs. (T,F)
2. The percentage of ineffective teachers is no more or less that the percentage of ineffective superintendents and/or administrators. (T,F)
3. Teachers at charter schools have high rates of turn over that are not related to competence. (T,F)
4. Many principals make less per hour than veteran teachers.
5. Superintendents are hired, make big salaries, often do nothing at best and screw up at worst and then get a higher paying superintendentship somewhere else. (T,F)
6. The public is concerned with preserving teaching as a unionized profession.(T,F)
6. The same folks who develop and sell the textbooks do the same for the standardized tests. (T,F)
7. Unlike the oil industry and the insurance industry, textbook and test publishers do not have lobbyists working for them. (T,F)
8. It is generally agreed the publisishing companies have the best interest of all students in mind. (T,F)
9. The same folks that design and sell the texts and tests provide the “data” for judging competency on individual, programmic, school-wide and district levels. (T,F)
10. The same folks rival oil and healthcare industries in profits, networks and political connections. (T,F)
10. Teachers unions and have one big difference from other unions (auto, maritime, longshore…)that makes labor actions more difficult. (T,F)
11. Oakland is broke and is paying for 2 top salaried Superintendents. (T,F)
12. The State Admin needs to go – or the state pays for ‘em. (T,F)
13. The other Supt. should bive back his 6% salary increase and match his raise with the OUSD employees. (T,F)
14. If the Oakland School sites were run like the district is and has been, WE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE. (T,F)
15. Kudos to the Principals and teachers for holding the sites together and making progress regardless of the recurrent plate shifts downtown.(T,F)
16. Public Schools are essential to our Democracy. (T,F)
17. We have, as a community, recognized that teachers as early as Kindergarten are able to identify students that need additional affective, social and academic supports and we, as a district, provide those supports. (T,F)
18. Many non-special ed middle and high school students who wind up facing the Discipliary Hearing Panel have been red-flagged in elementary school and district supports were in place for those students – such as mental heath services, aligned social services and family supports. (T,F)
19. Oakland has such tremendous potential. (T,F)
20. When I grew up in _________, my teachers belonged to a union. (T,F)
April 25th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Arent private schools and charter schools also facing cuts? Goes to show, some school roll up sleeves in this city and just get it done.
The union…huh Keep em
April 25th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
TFT,
The reason I was doubting my judgment(only one ‘e’ in American spelling)in responding to you was that I don’t want to get sucked into this nasty back and forth, but I just have to respond to your statement that you educate kids every day.
Great, and so do I, an OEA member and Oakland teacher.
What I questioned in your earlier post was the idea that the people who cross the lines on Thursday would be motivated primarily by a desire to educate kids. If people want to do that so badly, they have other avenues to pursue that goal than by making a statement against all of the teachers of Oakland who have decided (for many reasons, many of them discussed in many strands on this blog)to strike on that day.
I for one am ambivalent about the strike, but I believe it is important to stand with the other teachers and I have a more general commitment to unions as well. I do feel concern for the students who will be affected by the strike, both those whose parents send them to school and those who stay home.
I am a teacher in a public school in Oakland as opposed to in a private school (as my parents were) because I hope to perform a public service as well as enjoying stimulating work with ever-surprising children. But I don’t think that means I or my colleagues are selfish if we use a peaceful method of protesting when we think the work conditions are unfair, or harmful not only to us but to our colleagues in adult ed or the children whose ever-increasing classes mean they will receive less of the attention they need in order to learn and thrive.
April 25th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Easy to shoot these off with typos, eh….I have quite a few in mine.
Yea, keep em! Both my parents were strong union folk; Maritime Union and the Garment Workers. It may be one of those things you understand better if you experience for yourself and I worry about the implicit class divide and the many many young teachers who have no historical knowledge or experience with unions. There is a strong individulistic sense brewing that is pure undemocratic nonsense.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Goodness! Hard to read all of the comments when everyone is so fired up. I think we can all agree that public education is not what it should be. Rather than fighting amongst ourselves, we should be organizing together to support public education for all students. School choice, charter schools, PTA fundraising – when will people say enough to the stupid patches being offered to keep the sinking ship afloat. Public education is the frontline of democracy and what people don’t get is that the degardation of our society and the overcrowding in our jails and prisons are a direct result of the failure of public education. For you cynics, I would say that yes, many of our policies also have an effect, but as with anything, follow the money. The privatization of public education would make some people very wealthy. Many people don’t really understand all of the issues, but the bottom line is that our teachers are underpaid, our kids are overtested and not being taught a comprehensive holistic curriculum, PTA’s are being forced to fundraise ever greater amounts of money to fund science, art, p.e., technology and music and this fundraising, while benefiting some kids, just increases the already unacceptable disparity in “publicly” funded education. No, I cannot afford to take the day off, but yes, we will not be crossing the picket line and my kids and I will be protesting. I consider the experience to be as important to their education as anything the school’s are teaching them.
April 26th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
This brings back memories of other strikes, like one at the Oakland Coca Cola Bottling Plant. And the Air Traffic Controllers. The results are the same.
Strike away.
The problems these unions have is that times have passed them by. The workers involved have failed and neglected to adjust to changing times and adapt. Expecting to be paid to do work that is no longer respected or desired (as it once was) doesn’t work out well.
It’s too bad, really. All this pain in the Brave New World.
Like a lot of (wanna-be) middle class “professions” the teachers are about to see sharp reductions in their standards of living. These reductions are brought about by both national and state policy decisions involving welfare state economics and free trade/open borders. As a practical matter the middle class is being destroyed and the US will become more like the 3rd world nations we are emulating with rich and poor and little in between. The difference between the two will be determined by cognitive abilities which are largely inherited, a relatively small aristocratic elite that dominates all below them will little social mobility. Kind of like the USSR and for the same reasons. Striking won’t help the plight of the teachers because frankly they can all be replaced. And they will be replaced if they stay away long.
Teachers are not going to have the same salary and benefits they once enjoyed (in real dollars). It doesn’t matter how “inportant” their work is. There is no budget for that kind of teacher pay, retirement and health care. Not now and not in the future either – absent a huge increase in productivity which would occur in private education long before public.
CA and the USA are about to embark on a unprecedented monetary inflation brought about by welfare state policy. The Democratic Party likely with the collusion of the Republicans are talking about a national Sales Tax – a prominent feature of Socialist regimes. This will further erode standards of living as well as further promote the underground economy as in the USSR.
It’s going to be a real interesting 24 to 60 months.
The strikes will change nothing, strike away. Keep the kids home also. Or send them to OUSD. It just doesn’t matter. OUSD is not in control of their budgets. They haven’t the funding to satisfy the teachers wishes. The state has squandered the treasury on welfare state programs and cannot effectively raise additional tax revenue – and if they did they’d spend it on more welfare state programs and government overhead anyway.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
@nextset – so i guess you believe there isn’t a good chance that our military spending might get cut, to fund other government spending, like education?
April 26th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
What a treat to read through this long thread. I really really am happy to have made the decision to never send my child to OUSD. Given that the current student population is down to 37,000 (I remember when it was 55,000 when the city’s population was no different than now, maybe it was even higher before I arrived in Oakland), it’s clear how many parents watch what is a totally dysfunctional system and make their choices. It is clear that OUSD will continue to shrink, and it should. The only real solution that will lead to hope for improvement in the form of education for the children of Oakland is the dissolution of the district and starting again. Perhaps the Teamsters/union teachers can form their own school system, take full responsibility for it’s operation and try to convince parents to entrust them with their own precious child. Let the best educator win. I don’t give a damn about the interest of the school board, school administration, teacher’s union, janitor’s union, trades union or any adult leaching off the taxpayer’s teat. It’s the kids interest, stupid. And it is so so clear that not one of those special interests actually have the kid’s interest as their first priority.
Now, carry on. It’s fun to watch.
April 26th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Exactly what is a one-day strike supposed to accomplish? Especially after the school board has imposed a contract?
I’ve read the entire string, and there’s so much talk about supporting the union, but really, what is the union thinking? While negotiations were still going on, a one-day strike would show solidarity of the union members with the bargaining team and union leadership. I get that. But there are no negotiations going on.
So are members going to risk their jobs with a contract that contains no cuts in hard economic times by calling an extended strike until they get a “fair contract”? That would be a tough decision. But at least it would have some teeth to it.
A one-day strike? It’s in no one’s best interest. Mere disruption without a point.
April 27th, 2010 at 9:02 am
MeritBased,
Usually when somebody doesn’t know what they are talking about, it behooves them to not take such a know-it-all tone.
The one-day strike was called several weeks BEFORE the District announced it would not negotiate and the board voted to impose.
The one-day strike was approved by the entire membership in a vote. It can neither be canceled nor expanded upon without further democratic process within the union.
In being careful to represent the leadership of its members strewn across well over a 100 school sites, the union leadership is not going to make rash and anti-democratic decisions.
I’d like to know if the Oakland School Board did any similar systematic polling of the community before it voted to arbitrarily end negotiation to put the teachers’ backs against the wall?
After this contract issue is resolved, I hope we see the rise of principled recall campaign for all of the board members…
April 27th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Interesting. The union leadership already decided to postpone a one-day strike from April 22 to April 29. Sounds pretty unilateral to me.
Following that reasoning, wouldn’t the union leadership be authorized to postpone once again until after the membership has the opportunity to vote on their desired response to this new development?
April 27th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Saying that the strike was authorized by the “entire” membership is misleading at best, the rate of voting would be embarrassing even in dictatorial regimes.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:22 am
@Oakey, i always put my students first. I support a one-day strike, but I’m not sure i can support a protracted walkout, but we are not there, as of today. I have volunteered (no pay) my time in an after school program, for years. I work 10.5 hours a day. Teachers are people too! We have kids, bills, lives … and California is expensive! OUSD kept telling us to wait for a raise, they continue to pay million dollar fines, because they are not using state funds at the 55% rate.
Do you want your 2nd grade Teacher to burnt-out in the morning because she needs to work a night job to make ends meet? We are not looking to get paid like: Doctors, Lawyers, Firefighters, Policeman, or Wall Street executives. We want a fair living-wage. Nothing more. If we don’t get it – the great Teacher will start leaving. Is that what anyone wants to see happen?
Many people here talk about free-market principles, well you got pay for “good” help, right?
Trying to bust the Teacher’s union because of “bad Teachers” is going drive the best away, because no union means low pay.
Has anyone seen what Charter School Teachers make? Maybe that’s why their turnover is so high and they keep closing so many of them? just a thought.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:39 am
@ MeritBased — Right, because changing the date to conform with labor law is the same level of decision as canceling or extending the strike. Typical cheap argumentation — you can do better.
@Del — I’d say getting 30% of the membership to drive to another school after a long day of work to vote shows quite a bit of engagement, actually. Did you make the drive? Comparing that to a dictatorship is beyond lame — were the 90% in voted in favor on a secret ballot intimidated into it? Were the nays and no-shows scared to come vote their position?
Seriously, both of you need to work a little harder on your cheap shots before you come on here.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
@Cranky Teacher – If union leadership wanted to know what the membership really believes after these changed circumstances, it would have the membership meeting before the labor action. The membership didn’t choose a specific date for a strike–that was the leadership’s doing.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Excuse me, I got the letter yesterday from my child’s teacher and as I am a room parent scanned it for some families whose children were not at school etc. The letter basically tells the parent what the teachers will be doing, how you can support them, etc. There has been such hype and many misunderstandings and rumors and fear surrounding these negotiations and the strike, all families of students want badly to be informed and appreciated this letter. The one paragraph appearing in this post appears at the end of the letter, and is being taken out of context here by being isolated from the rest of the letter’s content. Katy – you should post the whole letter. I have a scan of it and would be happy to forward to you.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
No, I did not make the drive. I rode my bike. Of course, for the other two OUSD strikes I walked, I got to vote at my site. And I don”t really think that 30% is good enough, do you? Perhaps you disagree that dictatorships have similar voting records, but can you really make the argument that it’s democratic? No, I do not feel that the nays & no shows were intimidated (although yes, I did get some flack form some one at the vote for my nay), but I think that many of us are disenfranchised by the OEA, which is reflective of their “leadership” and our status as second class citizens in this economy—we see much the same voting records in my West Oakland neighborhood.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Montclair Parent: I did post a link to the full letter, which I presume some of the above readers have accessed. Look for the blue hyperlink.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Thanks Katy. I see the link. People should read perhaps before commenting on intent of excerpted portion, but it is really obvious that many of the comments here have a different agenda for this comment forum than responding to the subject of your post.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Montclair Parent,
Just to clear up your erroneous interpretation of the completeness of my reading I offer this…
I guess I am responsible for starting the whole “the letter is bad” thing.
After I read all 360 or so words of it I reacted as a parent and union member. It made me think of the worst kind of politics–the politics of fear. I don’t ever want to use them or have them used on me, like in the letter.
And fear is a tactic often used by unions, as pointed out above in comments.
There is no context that changes the use of fear in the last paragraph. It was a stupid thing to write. I stand by my critique.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Well, I guess I’m standing charged, tried and convicted of fear-mongering too. Before the teacher letter was posted, I was saying (on another thread on this blog) that it could be risky to send kids to school on the day of the strike, and advising another parent who had asked, that it would be safer to keep their child home if that was possible.
I had thought I was providing information and advice that another parent had asked for – what a surprise to learn that I’m really stupid and a fear-monger.
Thanks for the education, TFT.
April 27th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
The union is talking about class size reduction FOR ALL SCHOOLS
Do not support tax measures to increase pay if CHARTER SCHOOLS ALSO HAVE INCREASED PAY
All teacher with the same number of years and the same number of hours of education beyond a basic bachelor’s degree should HAVE THE SAME PAY
Teachers in the hills with a supportive PTA, children who have medical care, dental care, safe homes and food for students should be paid exactly the same as teachers in schools with children who have none or few of these things, even when the TEACHERS IN THE HILLS WILL NOT SWITCH PLACES WITH TEACHERS IN THE FLAT LANDS.
So here is what I suggest: since the data supports that class size reduction for middle and upper middle class households does not make a difference in academic performance, reduce class sizes in the flat lands. Leave them at 30 in the hills. However, allow the PTA to fund teacher’s aides in classes if they wish and OUSD do NOT make it difficult to do so.
Tax payers in Oakland give the union the best, final offer. We will support a tax increase of 5% per year for the next three years for 15% total and we will pay with property tax, but you do NOT get to say which teachers get it and which don’t – 15% across the board, fully disclosed, take it or leave it.
The union MUST support the effort to have fully functioning teachers in every classroom. This means that when a teacher is being documented for poor performance and or coming to class not knowing the standards they teach, the union may support that teacher as they do now, AND they also must slit the cost for an independent evaluator to come in and review the complaint IN THE CLASSROOM WHILE THE TEACHER IS TEACHING. If it is deemed that the teacher does not know the content, the teaching is weak, or the teacher is inappropriate, the union MUST support a three month intervention to correct the problem in which time the teacher must begin to show immediate and sustained progress toward resolving the problem or the teacher is removed and a HIGHLY QUALIFIED replacement is put in so students will be able to be taught and learn grade level material in the year they are in – rather than dumping it on the next year’s teacher, summer school or a tutor.
Teachers in Title 1 schools will be paid 25% MORE than teachers in the hills. Teachers in the hills with more seniority will be offered the first right of refusal for the positions in Title 1 schools at the new salary. The choice will continue by seniority from the teachers with the most seniority to the teachers with the least seniority. The 25% MORE salary will continue after the school has no longer been declared Title 1 for three consecutive years.
Union and OUSD f you want fairness and equity for all students in Oakland then put your money where your mouth is. If you want something for the handpicked keep doing what you are doing.
April 27th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
The truth hurts, Sue.
April 27th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
It is hard for families to sift through all the conflicting information we are getting from the OEA, OUSD, commenters on this blog. Here is another piece of info I have received from someone at our school (a fan of this blog as a good source of more objective reporting on the issue.) Please see here:
“According to OUSD’s Troy Flint, only 300 scabs have been hired for the entire school district thus far. Regular subs are part of OEA and will most likely not be part of the scab group. These scabs are being paid $300 a day (more than what most teachers make in a day) and most have not passed the CBEST test (minimum requirement along with BA to be a substitute) AND have been secured off of Craigslist. If you have any
questions about the strike that doesn’t come from the district’s perspective and is a little more balanced, check out Katy Murphy’s education blog on the Contra Costa Times website.” This is the kind of info we are hearing. Should parents not be worried? We love our teachers and no one at our school is happy about the whole situation. We went through this back in 2005-06 as well and it seems little progress has been made even though Randy Ward and the state aren’t in charge any more. Sigh.
April 27th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
A few points of clarification:
* OEA could not legally stage a one-day strike during negotiations. You are not strike-legal until 10 days after mediation ends, marked by receipt of the fact-finding report. It makes no sense to say we should have gone on strike during negotiations–strikes are the last resort when the other side won’t negotiate.
* All OEA members were invited to the all-membership meeting where we authorized the strike, and they knew what we would be voting on. If they chose not to come, that does not make OEA a dictatorship; it might make the no-shows apathetic about participating in the process. Many reps encouraged teachers who were against the strike to attend to make sure their votes would be counted, too. It wasn’t a rigged vote.
* The vote authorized the executive board to call a strike IF we were in this exact situation–no more cooperation from OUSD. Imposition is as uncooperative as you can get. We don’t need to hold a new vote based on imposition; we already authorized the the 1-day strike based on this possibility.
* The “union leadership” postponements consisted of a good 100 or so reps debating the pros and cons during a monthly rep council meeting before voting to approve, not a cabal of union executives unilaterally plotting in a room.
* You want to talk about misleading, how about the district claiming that instruction will proceed as usual. How is that possible if they only have 300 strikebreakers hired, none of whom are required to have a credential or experience with kids?
April 27th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Union Supporter But (#68): Hills schools and Title I schools are not mutually exclusive. Montera Middle receives Title I funds, and more than half of the students bus in.
April 27th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Yes, just in case the info on emergency subs was just more “threatening OEA” propaganda… I checked Craigslist and here is the posting:
Emergency Temporary Teachers (Oakland Unified School District)
——————————————————————————–
Date: 2010-04-22, 11:23AM PDT
Reply to: job-54zr2-1704921281@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
——————————————————————————–
EMERGENCY TEMPORARY TEACHERS NEEDED
FOR WORK STOPPAGE
FOR OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
The Oakland Unified School District serves approximately 40,000 students in 120 schools and child development centers.
In the event of a Work Stoppage, substitute teachers will be needed to teach our students.
Rate of Pay: $300 per day
Requirements:
1. Bachelor’s degree (Original diploma or official transcripts)* (If the transcripts are out of the country, they must be evaluated.)
2. Valid Drivers License, Identification Card, Permanent Residency Card or US Passport*
3. Valid Social Security Card*
4. Valid California Teaching Credential or 30-Day Substitute Teacher Permit (Or we will facilitate)*
5. Proof of passing CBEST (or we will facilitate a Waiver)*
6. Proof of TB clearance within the past 60 days* (Applicant is responsible for financial cost of the TB test)
7. Pass criminal background check (Fingerprinting costs covered by our district)
8. Completed hard-copy of application of employment
(Available at Orientation)
Sounds like instruction as usual….
I would not cross the picket line in the first place but there are people as pointed out above by many who have no choice. Is this the district showing regard for students?
April 27th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
In this situation, how would YOU have them show regard for students, Montclair parent? And can anyone tell me how this is different from OUSD’s USUAL sub hiring process?
April 27th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Union Supporter But (#68): Please, let’s be careful about generalizations. My two children are in a “hills” elementary school. We have students who are foster children that came from abusive homes, we have children who are technically homeless, and many children who have at least one parent who has been without work (and therefore health and/or dental insurance) for some time. We have affluent families too, but please know– it’s not as simple as what you wrote in your post, and the PTA can’t maintain the funding as you described for aids, etc., especially when a large amount of our families are just trying to make ends meet in their own homes. Top that off with the fact that the “hills schools” get much less per student (no title I funds, for example) than flat land schools, and there is indeed a great disparity. We’d love to have some of the fabulous computer labs that flat lands school have, or the new buildings (our child is in a portable from the 1940s), but understand that resources are finite. Again, this isn’t a simple sitation…
April 27th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
All CA subs merely require a BA and have passed the CBEST. It’s been that way as long as I can remember.
Nothing new here.
Society is not showing regard for students, or teachers.
And the information posted above by MP is on the OUSD website.
What is your point?
April 27th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Anyone who knows the first thing about education understands that the CBEST is the best way to determine if a person will be able to keep kids safe.
Oh, nevermind. The CBEST is the best way to determine whether a person can figure out which side of the pencil is sharp and which side erases.
The only issue here is whether kids will be safer with fewer staff members. Those who are arguing that it is better to keep kids out of school probably live in the hills. Try this instead, either send your kids to school or leave them on the Oakland corner of my choosing for the day.
Never-before-taught-underqualified-subs start to sound pretty good if you are a working parent who lives in the ghetto. The district is doing the responsible thing. Can you imagine if schools were shuttered and a kid was killed on the street?
April 27th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Joan:
I understand that there are many, many students in the hills who do not come from middle class backgrounds. But every school in elementary school in the hills that I am aware of – 6 to be exact – raises about $200,000 or more a year in PTA funds. In addition, each of those schools has teachers’ aides or volunteers in nearly every classroom, the library, the computer lab, morning and afternoon drop off, lunch room and in the halls and around the school. When students need help, teachers have volunteers to pull. When the lost and found is overflowing, parents clean it up – they organize weed pulling, garden tending and ecology clubs. All of which are missing from Title 1 elementary schools.
What that affords is support both directly and indirectly that are working below grade level. For the parents in the hills who are laid off, generally speaking, their unemployment benefits are more than the annual household income in the flatlands. And those families that have a laid off family member usually, but not always have health and dental benefits at least for children through the other parent. This is not usually the case in a flat lands Title 1 school. And finally, most of the students in a hills school have homework help either at home, in an after school program or with volunteers, which is not the case in a Title 1 school.
My two sons, particularly the youngest of the two, has had teachers who assigned homework on concepts that were never taught or even had exposure devoted in class (mathematics, English grammar, punctuation and science). Without parents at home who know the content solidly, these students must have the instruction or help at school. Hills schools provide both. Often Title 1 elementary have neither if the subjects were not taught well in class.
What I am suggesting is that the union is very clear they are fighting for equity. However, what they are really fighting for is the same for all – same salary, same class size, same benefits to continue to have two classes of students, hills and flat lands. I am suggesting that we offer the highest pay in the schools where we need the best, brightest, most resilient, and most dedicated teachers year after year after year. If we really believe that all students have the right to teachers who are in the school year after year, we would put our money where our mouths are.
In the hills we would be SCREAMING if there was teacher turnover at the level of some flatland schools. We have the ability to change that. But to do so we need to do something that is very, very uncomfortable and that is to have a difference in pay. I also believe that the tenure system is not broken, but simply needs to be refined. Therefore, offer those with the most seniority the Title 1 positions with the highest salary. It will truly be their choice. If they choose the hills, they choose to have an increase of 15% in pay over three years. If they choose the flats, they receive an immediate jump of 25% and another 15% over three years once the parcel tax is approved. It’s that simple – really, it is that simple.
April 27th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
The issue I raised in the first place was the denigration of subs by the union by using fear of their as yet to be demonstrated incompetence.
I only said what I did about the CBEST because some were saying that anyone–anyone–could be a sub, but that is clearly false. Only folks with a BA and who have passed the CBEST, among the other stuff, can sub in California–not that passing the CBEST is a harbinger of greatness. It’s merely a requirement.
And the issue was not about “fewer” staff members, as you so conveniently misstate. The letter characterizes the replacements as incompetent and posing a danger. Nothing in the letter refers to “fewer” staff, the letter refers to them as “far less qualified.”
You even went there in your last paragraph, Ousd Funemployed.
So, which is it? Fewer or far less qualified?
April 27th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Hey union supporter-but,
What if those well-to-do parents took a day or two and went to the flatland schools to help instead? And why don’t they take $75K of their PTA $$ and give it to the flatland schools?
You are full of ideas that impact teachers bottom lines, but rather bereft of anything that would require you or your well-off friends do anything helpful right now. You busy the 29th?
April 27th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Ousd Funemployed, is using fear tactics (post#77). I wonder if the anti-union folks will call that contributor on it?
April 27th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Our hills elementary school PTA raises considerably less than $200K/year. Not sure where you are getting your numbers…
April 27th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
TFT: I am saying that every teacher deserves a raise. Every one bar none. You teach in Oakland you deserve a raise. 15% over three years just like the union is asking for. I would support that with property tax. I would give the union exactly what they are asking for AND the teachers who dedicate themselves to teaching in the schools where resources are fewer deserve more. They have few human resources and students who have fewer resources.
And, for your information the parents at my sons’ schools have been asked to help and give money, books, time, office supplies, expertise, field trips and more to flat land schools. There are more flatland schools needing resources than there are Hills schools. So even if every hills Elementary school adopted three flat land elementary schools there is still not enough to go around.
Give all teachers the 15% increase. Do not take away from anyone. Give the teachers who must give more every day more pay. It really is that simple.
April 27th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
One more thing…my child’s elementary school teacher at a hills school recently confided in me that she misses teaching at a flatland school. She felt she was more respected in a lot of ways, both by the teachers and the families/students. She is hugely challenged at our school by all sorts of things, just as she would be hugely challenged by a school in any other area- including other cities such as Berkeley, Orinda, Piedmont, Richmond. Reading your argument in # 78, should teachers in Piedmont or Orinda get paid way less, just becuase they’re in an affluent community? Is teaching in an affluent community less challenging? If you think so, I beg to differ. Teaching is challenging, no matter where you are teaching. I know from personal experience both as a parent and an educator. It’s just that the challenges can differ by community, but all communities and socio-economic levels face challenges, and all teachers should be compensated equitably for working to educate our children. Differing the pay scale in such a simplistic manner is a huge mistake.
April 27th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Joan:
Piedmont teachers all took a voluntary 4% pay cut this year. They did so because they know they have the support, financial and voluntarily of the parents. They did not want to cut their classroom aides, the libraries, computer labs, and all of the other areas that support learning. Look at the Piedmont website. There base salaries are not that far from Oakland.
And, of course teaching is hard. But hills students begin school in kindergarten having heard 30 million more words – yes, 30 million before kindergarten. A child with a rich vocabulary learns to read more easily, can use words to express needs, can write earlier and all of these points are well documented from every major university around the world.
It is not an accident that teachers in the hills once taught in the flat lands. I don’t know of a single teacher in the flatlands who started in the hills. For the same pay, teachers in the hills have more resources, more children verbally ready for kindergarten, a type of home discipline that more matches the school environment (working out differences with words, sit at a table daily – usually during family meals, have regular exposure to books and libraries, have real world knowledge outside their neighborhood that is often referred to in both fiction and non-fiction used in the classroom.)
Teachers in OUSD move up the hill farther along in their career, not down the hill. You want to keep them out of the hills? Pay them to stay in the flatlands. It really is that simple.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Re: #85, Not that this is your central point, but depending on how you count (derivatives, etc.), there are less than 250,000 words in the whole English language. I might possibly believe 300 more words.
I appreciate your support for a parcel tax for a teacher raise. I also agree that there have to be more resources devoted to needier students, but I think the discrepancy between hills and flatlands is far less pronounced than that between, say, Oakland and Orinda. Our district and teachers across the board need more resources to elevate the community as a whole.
This ties into post #40, asserting that Oakland teachers get paid so little because most schools do so poorly on the standardized tests, “a situation rife with failure.” I would assert that the tests are rife with failure. I was hoping Steven Weinberg would step up and tackle that one.
In order to understand that the game is rigged so not everyone can cross the finish line, you need to understand the difference between criterion-referenced and norm-referenced tests. Mr. Weinberg has published an article on this; there’s also info on state test norming in _Making the Grades_, including how they align scoring to psychometric predictions. The CST is supposed to be criterion-referenced, but they structure it using norm-referenced methods. Someone always ends up on the bottom, and–surprise!–it’s the kids with fewer resources than Piedmont.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Ok, Union Supporter-But Says- instead of manipulating pay as you have suggested, why don’t we consider a way to educate and support the parents, yes the parents, of those children you write about in #85- the ones who hear so many fewer words before starting kindergarten? Teachers can only do so much during the school day. Children and families in some schools shouldn’t be penalized by having less attractive pay for their teachers, simply because the parents in those particular school are, for the most part, taking responsibility for their children’s education.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
I’m with Joan, our hills school has NEVER raised anywhere near $200K in the 6 years we’ve been there. Not even close. And we also have a lot of students who are not from affluent homes. I know of at least 2 hills schools that will feel lucky to raise even near half of that amount you claim this year due to the economy. It is true, we have a lot of volunteers, mostly working parents, not just wealthy stay at home doctor’s and lawyer’s wives fitting it in between tennis and golf games at the country club. My point in saying that the district intends to hire emergency “teachers” who have no experience in education and for whom they furthermore can apparently just “waive” the CBEST requirement, was to second the opinion stated in #71 that the OUSD statements that instruction will proceed as usual is misleading. Also to suggest that just perhaps the OEA’s letter could be motivated by the teachers’ wish to inform families about the strike since up to now all we have gotten is notices and telephone calls from the district, and perhaps also by the teachers’ genuine concern for who will be watching their students in their absence, not just as a threat. I give the teachers I know who personally signed those letters more credit than that. Since you asked, what I would have the district do is to go back in time and never have gotten into this situation in the first place thru mismanagement, or we could go back even further to my own days in CA public schools when Prop 13 passed and compare, repeal that, and avoid just about the whole decline of public education in CA since then, but regretfully these are 20/20 hindsight now and real reform will probably not happen til long after my own kids have grown out of OUSD schools.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Joan: The adult ed teachers are considered contract – we wanted to get rid of them. You can’t teach the parents without them. The way to reduce teen pregnancy is to educate students and keep them in school. Teens are not getting pregnant in the classrooms or in school bathrooms.
Generally we think of a generation as 25 years – in some neighborhoods a generation is 16 or 17 years. This child conceived is raised in poverty without parents to help with homework, volunteer at school or serve nutritious meals. To educate parents we must educate the child, and keep that child in school. We must be able to increase the generational age gap.
Montclair parents what if I said you will need to give up 25% of your teachers this year, next year another 25% of your teachers, the third year you only need to give up 3 or 4 but you will have to give up at least 2 every year thereafter. And, even though the teachers are gone, your school still needs to provide consistency in curriculum across the grades, keep up morale and help furnish those new classrooms with supplies, a classroom library full of books and manipulatives for teaching math. That classroom library is there because the teacher has been at your school for a long time and has been given books by other families, they have the materials because the PTA gave them funds and they have left over supplies from previous years. But if you get rid of the teachers you get rid of their supplies.
I guarantee every hills school would be questioning turnover like that. It would not be acceptable in any way, shape or form. Yet it seems to be okay to have that in the “other” schools.
For information on the 30 million word gap see: archive.aft.org/pubs-reports/american…/catastrophe.html
And, I apologize I made an error – It is not a 30 million word gap by kindergarten – it is a 30 million word gap BY AGE 3.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Oakland Teacher – there may be a more pronounced difference in Orinda and Oakland, but the teachers in Orinda will not be on the picket line on Thursday, the Oakland teachers will.
Honestly, how many hills teachers would voluntarily go back to teaching in the flat lands with no difference in pay? I have not heard of a single one.
If we want equity for all Oakland students it means having a well-qualified teacher in every class, every day. It means turnover of less than 10% per year. That’s what the schools in the hills get. If it is good enough for them it should be good enough for every Oakland elementary students. It is that simple, really.
April 27th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
I just looked at Piedmont Unified pay scale because someone claimed the wage is similar to Oakland Unified’s wage. I have taught for ten years in OUSD and have 75 units so I make 55,828$ if I worked in Piedmont I would make 69,292$. That doesn’t seem very close to me. They make 44,461$ as lowest units and first year lowest scale in Oakland makes 39,456$ that is closer; but all that says is, wow, it is better to work long term in Piedmont.
That is one of the things the teachers in Oakland have been pointing out for years. Only a die-hard is willing to stay when the pay differences are so extreme as we get past the first few years. At least without questioning the wisdom of it. Rapid turnover does not help the education of the children in Oakland.
I am sad that the state is gutting the reduced class sizes. I am sad the district is going along with it. No matter what anyone says it is much easier to give attention to 20 children than 30 children.
The imposed contract says we will renegotiate wages next year and the year after. That sounds like fun! The district imposed the contract and this puts us back at the full bargaining table anyway. That sounds like fun! You know those teachers in Oakland love contract negotiations for, let’s see, it will be at least three years; maybe, if we are lucky, four. It really helps us focus on the children we work with. If we don’t go out on Thursday I am sure these trustworthy nice people who imposed the contract on us will give us a wonderful contract. They said such nice ideas at the meeting such as getting rid of the columns on our step and column pay scale this is without any suggestions of what they would put in its place. If they do it by test scores that should really draw teachers to schools that are struggling.
The teachers in the United States have to deal with the constant changes put into places by the pressures of political parties that do not know what they are talking about the majority of the time. One of the reasons a lot of teachers in Oakland no longer work in the flatland schools is because of the reorganization rules required by that brilliant legislature No Child Left Behind.
I personally think the consistent degrading of the public education system is purposely put together by the political powers because the public education system gives power to the people. This takes away power from the elite class in our country. It also assists in this degradation if the political powers choose one scapegoat to blame for all the problems. The teachers did it all! It has nothing to do with the purposeful cutting of funding across education, the punishment methods for schools that are struggling, social ills, writing of standards and tests by people who have no knowledge of developmental levels, forced dumbing down of the curriculum, forced curriculum use that does not support the children, class, or racial issues.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I try my best not to read this thread, but something always draws me to it…go figure. In any case, I am an OUSD teacher, alumni of OUSD, a parent of two students in OUSD, and a homeowner in the city of Oakland.
Where does this leave me? Well obviously I’m on the picket lines, keeping my children home, and crossing my fingers that more Measure E’s don’t get passed until the district actually uses the money in the same way in which they market it “To attract and retain qualified teachers”. An equitable public education is a civil right for all in our country. I think that some of you union & teacher bashers have forgotten that…but hey, you have your bigger and better jobs to tend to…All I am is a measly underpaid, under-respected, public school, tax paying teacher. Why should my opinion count?
April 29th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Although many on this blog have knocked the emergency subs for lack of qualifications, I have two graduate degrees and experience teaching in higher ed. I have served as a business exec and a university lecturer, but am seriously considering getting my teaching license and teaching full time. I also have several children of my own and am a regular parent volunteer involved in their schooling.
The circumstances of filling in during the strike were unusual, but I took today as an opportunity to get to know some of the students at one of the local elementary schools. In my eyes, if I lived in Oakland and had to send my children to school today, I would want someone to put the children at ease and provide them with a good day.
I brought in several books of different levels and put advance thought into how to fill the day. We read stories, did math problems, constructed a complex story for language arts, and completed several worksheets corresponding to their current homework. We rounded out the day with about 20 minutes of extra outside time and a few games. I also taught a few students Scrabble and had them using the dictionary to find words.
Was it a perfect day? No. I am sure there was a structured lesson their normal teacher would have used. But was it a dangerous day? No, certainly not. The teachers on the picket line, I believe, would never endanger any child attending school. They really do have the childrens’ best interest at heart. Indicating otherwise is silly.
Regardless of the strike, the children attending school today deserved to be well cared for throughout the day, and I enjoyed the opportunity to meet the children and see a very nice school.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Enjoyed Meeting the Students,
I’m glad to hear that you thought carefully about how to teach the students you worked with today, and I’m sure the kids had as decent an experience as they could have under the given conditions. I honestly think it’s a great thing for people who are considering getting a teaching license to start with actual experience in public schools.
But man, I’ve gotta tell you that what you did today was NOT going to be indicative of what you will actually experience if you find yourself, in the future, joining the people whose jobs you held today.
If the school you crossed into is anything like most schools in the district today, you got paid twice as much to teach half as many kids with 5 times the support and 1/25 as many expectations.
The children (more of them) and the nice school will still be there tomorrow. I honestly invite you to come visit us again, and see why so many of us were on the other side of the line.
April 29th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Turanga_Teach:
Hi. Thank you for your kind note. Certainly, I would love to visit such a nice school again.
I am curious about one thing you said. The District, and numerous news sources, have quoted that the average teacher pay in Oakland is approximately $54,000. You can find numerous cites pointing to this figure. 180 school days x $300 = $54,000. This does not include any benefits, which effectively raise the salaries. Given that, why would you say that the subs today were paid 2x as much?
1/2 of the $300 would be $150, x 180 days is about $27,000. The starting pay in Oakland, again based on many cites I’ve read, is around $38,000. Certainly I am not saying that the “only” days teachers work are actually the 180 school days, but it is a basic number to use in calculations. I am in no way trying to be argumentative with you. I am mearly trying to understand the numbers. I look forward to your explaining it as you are knowledgable in this area.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I believe that’s in comparison to the daily rate of substitute teachers, not full-time teachers.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Yes, I was speaking more to sub compensation (many of our regular subs are union members, and the contract dispute is about them as well): many if not most new teachers in Oakland start out as substitutes until a position becomes available.
Though full time teachers actually report to work 186 days, not 180, and even an average or above average teacher wage gets a lot smaller than $300 a day after you do the usual deductions for salaried work.