Teachers give union leaders the go-ahead
By Katy Murphy
Tuesday, May 4th, 2010 at 5:46 pm in OEA, strike, teachers.
The vote is in: Union leadership is now authorized to call an indefinite strike as long as a council of representatives from each school approve it first. (As long as it’s less than 10 days long, it’s considered a “short strike” and it won’t need the council’s approval.) The proposal won 75 percent approval last night.
The turnout was roughly the same as it was in January – 755 votes out of a membership of 2,800, including substitutes,according to OEA’s website. That’s about 25 percent.
755 total votes
565 – yes
184 – no
6 – abstained
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
May 4th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
So, 565 votes out of 2,800 (25%) constitutes a mandate to strike? C’mon OEA, there are better ways to really find out what your membership wants, without making them sit through a 3 hour meeting. Or did you really only want to hear from the hard-cores?
Good luck people, this is one teacher who isn’t striking. Been there, done that and it sucked.
May 4th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
I don’t see a mandate to strike or take any other action as a result of this vote. Back to the bargaining table.
May 4th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
This is the worst news ever. It is not a mandate. I agree with Longtime Oakland. These votes should be done like the elections: over a number of days, and at the school site so every member’s voice can be heard. Plenty of people didn’t vote; that must mean that plenty of people didn’t have access to the process. YUCK!
May 4th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
the meeting started late at 4:15 and was over at 6:30.
…there was dissent and no one was unprofessional toward anyone for expressing their views.
… you could vote at 5:15. i saw people get there at 5pm, vote 15 minutes later, then leave.
no excuses, please …
May 4th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I agree it will be awfully hard to convince taxpayers and parents with that turnout. It’s a dud that could blow-up right in their own collective faces if they choose to strike.
May 4th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Oh Oakland of blog posturing. It’s an authorization to call a strike if the district isn’t bargaining in good faith, and then only if the rep council approves it. No one is calling a huge work stoppage at this point.
The bylaws say strike authorizations are in person, not by paper ballots at school sites. Every member was invited, and all invites specified the purpose of the meeting. People who chose not to go opted out; they weren’t excluded. They could have come straight from school, gotten their ballots, and left them with someone to turn in at 5:15; they could have come at 5:15, voted, and left; they could have come and stayed to hear all of the discussion. But if they didn’t come at all, they can’t complain about the result.
May 4th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Unless the strike is authorized sometime within the next week while we are in CST/STAR testing, isn’t a strike kind of pointless? The district makes money every day teachers strike, they can use last years attendance and the standardized tests are done– just pay a few subs for all of June to put on movies… From what I can tell about the districts concern and care for its students and teachers with the proposed contract it doesn’t sound too far fetched…?
May 4th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
While I think a strike will be ineffective, I agree with Harold. Democracy is messy and apathy hurts. Sure, it would have been nice or “effective” to hold the vote over days at sites, but we all know unions want control which is why I believe many people didn’t show up because they didn’t want to deal with the “atmosphere.”
Every election, millions don’t vote. We can’t even get the census turned in. Too bad, so sad. If it meant enough to be heard, people would show up. Instead, you’ve abdicated the authority you had and gave it to . . .
Now we have a game of chicken with the kids being the losers.
May 4th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
From the email I received in response to a question posed to Betty Olson-Jones, I understood that the voting would only commence at 5:15; she did not make it clear to me that I could have come at 4, voted, and left (as cleverly suggested by #6).
I really struggled over this yesterday, as I have young children whom I had to retrieve from child care and yet I did want to vote. Of course I could have gone all the way to Berkeley, picked them up, and then schlepped them all the way back, in heavy traffic, to try to find parking and carry/chivvy them into the auditorium, etc. But after I considered this, I thought–maybe my vote won’t make a difference anyway.
And I did feel bad about this–I mean guilty–but I would have felt guilty putting my children through such tedium when it was pretty apparent what the result would be anyway.
I don’t say I should be excused for not having voted, but I resent the way the vote occurred, and I do not feel represented by the union.
And by the way, I have NEVER missed a political election, and filled out the census form on the day we received it, with excitement.
But in both those cases, it is clear that my vote/presence is sought, as a part of our democracy; not to be cynical, but I feel the OEA does not really want to hear from all of its members.
I am sure I am not the only one to feel this way.
May 4th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
An open-ended strike, if called, would most likely be planned for early fall when average daily attendance starts counting again. Hopefully, however, the district will bargain in good faith, commit in writing to allocating 60% of future eligible funds to class size/compensation, etc. No one wants to strike, but no one wants to watch another talented cohort of teachers turn over either. It’s hard on the kids, community, and teachers who stay. It’s bad for everyone involved. We need a sustainable solution.
May 4th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
We stayed out last Thursday. We will miss no more days this school year no matter who gets in our face or takes pictures of our license plates.
May 4th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Hey, I was at the meeting and I voted “No” to a strike authorization.
In this economy, with double-digit unemployment in Oakland, the goodwill that we felt from the community last Thursday will evaporate quickly with a prolonged strike. Strikes hurt kids, families, teachers and schools. For the first time ever, I will cross a picket line if a strike is called.
May 4th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
The union’s chickens will come home to roost. Fewer and fewer parents will put up with the way they’re being played in this game. You have to be delusional to believe the goal of the union is to do what’s best for the kids. If they were, they’d be ready to put an end to the ‘dance of the lemons,’ would support an efficient process for firing incompetent teachers, would have no objection to giving parents the choice of an alternative (charter schools) if they so choose, and would support merit based compensation to reward competent and effective teachers (like Obama is pushing). Any sentient observer can see that.
May 4th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
If it had been mandatory voting, the results would likely have been the same.
When we do leadership votes at the sites, many don’t participate then, either.
Many teachers block all of this out. Not everybody wants to participate, that is their right.
As for teachers like Ms. J, who are complaining — how many people do you think work at the union? How many people are trying to negotiate on the one hand, and organize this far-flung district of a gazillion personalities and agendas? Answer the phones and emails? Talk to the media? Field grievances? Three? Four? Five?
People act like the union is the friggin’ Death Star or something. Jeez.
There is a lot more to be true little-d democrat than just voting or filling out the census.
May 4th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
@ #13 – “How many people do you think work at the union?”
Answer: Not very many. If a strike is so well supported, why doesn’t CTA hire more manpower to get on the bandwagon like in ’96? Why did they move their offices out of the OEA center a year or less ago? The question is not about how many either, it’s aboout how many are competent in what they do – and, whether or not they are behind all of this or not…bottom line is put up or shut up….
May 5th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Urban Public School Teachers are relatively unimportant in the scheme of things when it comes to strikes. When truck drivers strike we will see how many days of food New York City has (not many). When power and water workers, police & fire workers, or other really important workers who think they need a raise or less pay cuts go out, it will be more important. So let the Teachers strike all they want.
Widespread striking is what you get when the economy is off kilter. Sit up and take notice when the striking starts to threaten infrastructure. Teachers are not infrastructure.
Watch the news from Greece. Remember Spain already has 20%+ unemployment. When their welfare schemes (open ended unemployment “insurance”) collapse, you’ll see dangerous rioting there also. This is what socialism gives you. You can’t print money fast enough to keep paying everyone off. The productive people withdraw from industry and then flee the nation. Like Canadian Doctors and UK professional class workers. The UK didn’t drink the Euro Kool-Aid because of Margaret Thatcher. If Euroland falls the UK will look stronger in comparison. But the UK is already weakened by socialism and the beginnings of totalitarianism.
My point is that the open borders, free trade, endless welfare, business-regulating society the two political parties wanted for CA and the USA cannot go on and is heading for the eventual collapse. You will see wage and price controls attempted by the government when the strikes get too annoying. And when that fails you will see a totalitarian state. You cannot have an open-borders welfare state and any kind of freedom for long. Our one advantage is that the other Western Nations are further along in the decline and their money and productive class want to flee to here.
Now the choices – short term – are, print the money to pay people what they want or curtail the welfare state and take the rioting. We will print the money. Then the galloping inflation will start. Inflation transfers wealth from wage earners to capital owners. More sorting of the population into haves and have-nots.
The urban teachers are still not going to have Ken and Barbie attending their schools. And as long as they school only low status students the urban teachers will get little in the way of improvements in working conditions, pay or equipment. They must have some other reason for being.
Maybe it is possible that the Obama experiment will bring in a Reagan/Thatcher type resurgence in 2012. Palin for President? Someone new? Another movie/TV star perhaps?
Brave New World.
May 5th, 2010 at 8:17 am
i am totally unclear on what the teachers want. I mean, I know they want lower class sizes and higher pay – and I agree with both – but where is the money coming from? The state is broke and OUSD can’t just manufacture money.
May 5th, 2010 at 8:41 am
In today’s East Bay Express, Bob Gammon writes that Oakland Unified should close 25 to 30 schools if it wants to pay its teachers better. I wonder what teachers at new, small schools think of this idea.
You can find the story here: http://bit.ly/9TlL9Q
Note: The average pay for Pleasanton teachers that Gammon referenced — while way higher than the average pay of an Oakland teacher, any way you cut it — includes the health benefits package as well. Some districts, such as Pleasanton and New Haven, give teachers as much as $10,000 to $15,000 to purchase health insurance through the district, and that amount is rolled into the base pay, making it look higher. Oakland Unified doesn’t do it that way; its pay scale doesn’t reflect district contributions to employee benefits.
May 5th, 2010 at 9:01 am
“Pleasanton and New Haven, give teachers $10,000 to $15,000 to purchase health insurance through the district, and that amount is rolled into the base pay, making it look higher. Oakland Unified doesn’t do it that way; its pay scale doesn’t reflect district contributions to employee benefits”.
All that wailing and gnashing of teeth, and for what? We all know that being employed is better than not being employed.
May 5th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Another nail in the coffin for Oakland public employees:
Oakland faces pension costs, higher taxes
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/04/BARQ1D7JUI.DTL
May 5th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Just to clarify: I don’t know exactly how much each district contributes to teacher health benefits; I know New Haven Unified gives teachers $15,000 to purchase health insurance, which is included in the base pay, but the contributions in other districts (rolled into the pay scale or not) are less. I just wanted to note the apples-to-oranges comparison.
May 5th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Betty and her cadre of activists are clearly out of touch.
By inching ever so closely to a strike is to ignore the grim state of financial affairs in Oakland, the Bay Area, the state and the nation.
A strike won’t change the economic picture, but it will help to turn off parents, harden the administration and drive a major wedge between the front-line teachers who chose to walk and those who don’t.
Betty talks about sending “a message.” Agreed: OEA is clearly telling the community that they are not only ignorant, they’re arrogant, too.
May 5th, 2010 at 10:29 am
The entitlement mindset will end, because there is “no money” and therefore “no choice”.
May 5th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Re: health insurance as compensation, let’s not forget that salary is taxed, while health benefits are not. And not all money used to buy health insurance is deductible; only that part over 7.5% of adjusted gross income is deductible.
May 5th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Tactically the union leadership needs the strike vote to negotiate whatever settlement with the schools they can get. So I believe the strike vote itself is likely in the best interests of the teachers.
From history I believe we are probably going to see some kind of settlement rather than a protracted strike.
“Workers of the world, unite”, etc. etc…
All this is just a bump in the road on the path to real trouble – strikes affecting public safety, food & fuel distribution and infrastructure. Those are the only strikes everybody will really care about.
Look for the schools reacting to labor problems with a new interest in automation, outsourcing & labor-savings. If they are smart..
Lessons of History.
May 5th, 2010 at 11:30 am
The entitlement mindset is not limited to teachers. It’s the American way for the last 40+ years. Greece is a warning shot that we will not hear. Only when the creditors come for us as a debtor nation will we wake up. We refuse to learn from the mistakes of others. OUSD has a $100 million loan and $85 million deficit and folks want more spending. Sounds like Greece to me. But, at least they’re striking over actual cuts.
A strike should be reserved for abuses of power. I gather that OEA feels that is what is happening. If true, that says something profound about the Trib, the East Bay Express, the Superintendent, his staff, the Board and all of the Oaklanders that elected them as stewards of the Oakland public schools.
Disagreeing is one thing. Striking and making kids suffer is quite another. If they want to protest funding cuts, I hope they find a better way. If they think priorities should shift, I think it hard to believe the Board and Superintendent are taking a deaf ear – and if so, unelect them.
However, to make kids suffer, families suffer, generations of staff relationships suffer, Oakland as a city to suffer all because OUSD is not cutting salaries, not cutting benefits, not taking furloughs, not doing wholesale layoffs, not raising class sizes beyond comparable districts, and returning to negotiate – just proves what an alternative universe many Oakland teachers live in.
May 5th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Truth,
I agree, as a matter of fact capitalism at it extreme is “the” entitlement attitude. Many people do not realize that many of these “for profit” “private sector companies” biggest customers are in fact the government(state or federal) and by extension the taxpayers. I am not just “coming down” on teachers, everybody needs to ease back on the throttle a bit for the collective good of everyone.
May 5th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
I think many people have been swayed by the media, talking only about pay increases (while it is true that we are the lowest paid in the area), while there are so many other reasons why this contract is inexcusable!
Increasing class sizes (particularly those of special education and elementary school) and cutting adult ed will only drain the tax payers more in the long run. Many studies have shown that putting emphasis on early education increases student motivation later on in life and cuts down future costs (such as court fees and jail costs). as well as eliminating adult ed leads to much harsher transitions for those students who require the aid into adulthood.
This possible strike isn’t about wanting more money, it’s about getting what WE and OUR STUDENTS deserve.
May 5th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
In this day and age it amazes me that OEA chose to use ‘paper ballots’! If they really wanted the true sentiments of all their members they could have easily developed an electronic ballot. That way those providing intervention for students afterschool and/or those with childcare issues could have voted as well. It seems they weren’t really that interested in hearing everyone’s opinion.
May 5th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
This possible strike isn’t about wanting more money, it’s about getting what WE and OUR STUDENTS deserve.
I was going over API data reports for the last decade, and it looks like the OUSD students(excluding the hills) deserve more help than they are getting(they are low relative to other districts). When you make a statement about what teachers deserve you might not want to use such a broad sweeping statement. Remember this, parents and their children are leaving OUSD, parents have decided that their children’s needs are not being met. So when you say “deserve” in regards to teachers, the public is not so sure what you mean.
May 5th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
@one tired teacher. Do you believe there is a disagreement about what students or teachers deserve or about where the money is going to come from to pay for it?
I’ve seen strikes in other places and it’s been much more acrimonious with claims of lying, corruption, hidden money and the like. Here, it seems that both sides are saying teachers deserve more, students deserve more. The disagreement seems to be about what monies are available. Am I wrong?
May 5th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Oakey- I believe I’m a sentient being and can’t agree with you. I don’t understand the emphasis on firing teachers as teacher incompetence is such a miniscule problem. (Teachers need some protection and due process, but that’s a whole other discussion.) Charter schools are unregulated and permitted to pick and choose which students they’ll teach. Merit pay will end up corrupting the system (just reference the most recent experiment in merit pay where several OUSD principals and teachers cheated in order to earn the reward) and won’t change outcomes. Applying the capitalist business model to the public school system is just plain whacky. Teachers for the most part are not motivated to teach “better” because there is a chunk of money in it. We always try to do our best.
May 5th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
TruthHurts: The OUSD Teachers are workers negotiating for themselves. They are not negotiating for the benefit of “the students” – at all. Anyone who thinks otherwise or even wishes otherwise is deluded.
The teachers of OUSD are not responsible for “the students” and should not give up a crumb from their tables for “the students”. This is not a matter of what the teachers “deserve”. This is a labor negotiation and the settlement if there is to be one is a matter of what the teachers can get for themselves.
Workers are selling their labor, they are not running a charitable society for “the students”.
In negotiating a contract they (the workers) are to only think of themselves, their futures and their own families, not anyone elses. That is the way labor negotiations work.
Having said that there is no reason to believe this labor negotiation won’t result in some contract. THEY USUALLY DO. And when it’s done we will all forget about this strike and move on. That is the way US Labor and management work.
I think it would be nice if labor didn’t do to the schools what the United Auto Workers did to the US Auto Manufacturers. But it is all strictly their business. The families with students can vote with their ballots and with their feet. So everybody is well represented.
The students are leaving public education en masse, just as the auto consumers walked from Chrysler, GM and Ford. When the sellers have something good to sell maybe they can get customers. Or they can go the way of Packard.
There is no margin here for feeling sorry for anybody. Everybody here does have somewhere else to go.
Brave New World!
May 5th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
JR — So when you looked over the API data, you must have noticed that OUSD schools improved more than any other urban district in the state for five years. Looking at high-performing schools that always have been high-performing does not say much about the quality of the teaching there, but a lot about the privilege most of those students enjoy at home with highly educated parents, stimulating reading materials and conversation at the dinner table and nice places to do homework. I guess you think those who urban teachers who move their students forward steadily despite high poverty, low-education levels of parents and widespread violence don’t deserve a raise, while those who maintain the status quo in comfortable suburban or affluent communities should be?
Interesting.
May 5th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Teacher,
Everyone knows the differences between affluence and poverty quite well, for instance on the issues of teacher transfer and bumping rights statistically 6th grade is the “least” preferable while 2nd,3rd and 4th are the most desirable for teachers(but still they choose the path of least resistance). Why am I going off tangent a little? I am trying to show you that the way that the education system is being run is idiotic and geared toward mediocrity(seniority,bumping are factors in that). The teachers themselves are part of the problem(they play the game of have and have not as good as anyone), and they refuse to acknowledge it. I don’t feel like writing a position paper on it. As far as API goes, at some point mathematically there is nowhere to go but up.
May 5th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Nextset: I believe consumers moved away from American autos because of inferior quality, poor design, etc. These are management responsibilities and have nothing to do with the union. Read up on how those companies were managed vs. Japanese car makers. Also, teachers care very deeply about students and the direction of public education. Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions. Yes, the contract is a labor document but it also is a line drawn in the sand. For example, class size has a huge impact on student learning. Teacher prep periods are good for the teacher and are enrichment for the students (art, music, PE, science). In states where schools are better funded, students get enrichment every day. A competitive salary attracts new teachers who will hopefully choose to stay in OUSD. These are contract issues that affect the students directly and that put teachers on the side of students. Of all the issues in the current contract dispute, I would say that class size is the one teachers feel strongest about. Reporting in the media doesn’t seem to convey that and instead emphasize the salary issue.
May 6th, 2010 at 9:01 am
@the truth hurts
the OEA has spoken about the mismanagement of funds, 13 million to outside consultants etc. etc.
Many teachers that I work with spend their own money to supply for the needs of their students. We’ve purchased them nice clothes for job interviews/graduations/promotion ceremonies, I buy healthy snacks to give out in my classroom regularly because I see that school lunches and the food they have at home (read: buy from the liquor store down the corner) are not providing my students with much more than type two early onset diabetes. I even spend many weekends with my students taking them to kid-friendly festivals to give them a break from their neighborhoods.
But I know that this is not sustainable. As I am obtaining my Masters in Special Education now, my finances are drained. I cannot continue to provide for myself and my students. I find myself contemplating taking out student; not just for my education, but to supplement my classroom with curriculum and supplies.
Many teachers leave Oakland because they cannot support their families and their students. So why is Oakland paying 13 million to consults and training teachers who are leaving to higher paying districts? Lets retain our dedicated teachers, make Oakland a place where people WANT to teach. Not a place they have to leave to support their families.
May 6th, 2010 at 9:18 am
@One Tired Teacher: I think though that I read in a blog post on this website that when OEA looked at the consultant fees, they only proposed getting rid of a small amount. I think it was because a lot of those “consultant” fees go to paying for mandatory services for disabled students. I’m not 100% sure about this. But if I’m remembering these things correctly, then OEA’s bruhahahing about consultant fees is just posturing. Not that I think teachers shouldn’t be paid more, I do. The should be paid a lot more. On the other hand, teachers unions need to stop protecting incompetent or even harmful teachers.
May 6th, 2010 at 9:56 am
LK: The UAW (with co-operation from management) raised the labor costs in US Auto Manufacture to unsustainable levels. That is, unsustainable in an open borders/free trade sense. Once superior cars could be manufactured abroad for less and imported without tariffs, the US Big 3 Auto Factories collapsed and the workers were dumped. The factories were sent to Canada and now the same thing is going to happen there.
So the US Autoworker society migrated into working (among other places) as prison guards and police officers. And those unions have similarly pushed the labor costs for those jobs (in real dollars) into the stratosphere.
Is this a great country or what?
As to the teachers and their issues – well, it’s a job, people. The unions may pretend they are worried about the chillun not being able to learn if there are one too many students in a classroom – but that is only a con. The urban public schools stopped teaching anything a generation ago or more. The workers are in their jobs to support their own families and any other concern is window dressing. We all know that these “schools” are just holding pens for the proletariat. For all the (average) scores we are getting from OUSD the students could have taught themselves from Dick and Jane readers. The “good” students would have had their scores no matter who taught them.
This insignificant OUSD contract dispute will settle as they all do historically. The real problem before us all is the death spiral of CA urban schools. If something isn’t done the Charters will eventually be the only primary/secondary schools society cares about. Charters will have all the innovation. Charters will be the responsive schools who give the families what they want. And Charters will be the places good people want to work in. And the Charters will serve to sort people from Childhood into Castes. The Charters are not designed to promote social mobility the way our Public Schools once were.
Maybe that’s not such a bad thing. The Public Schools had their chance and the blew it.
There will be a new contract. And There will be teacher layoffs, lots of them. The PUrban ublic Schools will shrink – dramatically. They’ve lost their white students and the immigrant Asians and high functioning minority students will follow (ie Los Angeles Unified). To the extent the Public Schools become a version of Martin Luther King Hospital in Compton – no one will care who they kill. And students who might have had something made of them will just become roadkill.
Brave New World.
May 6th, 2010 at 11:26 am
@ Brad
I have 4 consultants who do nothing more than tell me “good job” and “wow, you’re job is so difficult.”
When I’ve given feedback about my mandated curriculum they repeat lines such as “oh that’s a good idea” or “I wish we had thought of that when we were making the curriculum” …
I’m not sure how much the district is paying them, but I’m not seeing any results on this end worthy of their salary.
May 6th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Thankfully, the parents of Oakland have shown to be much more supportive of teachers than the 3-4 folks who comment on this blog everyday.
Saw this email on a teacher’s listserv and thought it has more “truthiness” and actual truth than 9/10ths of what is written above.
“Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 22:40:18 -0700
From: Jack Gerson
Subject: Re: [oaklandteachers] Dragging it out?
Well, we’ll probably know a little bit more about the district’s approach in the near future. Here are my main concerns right now:
(1) The school board and Tony Smith lost a good deal of credibility when they imposed and walked away from the bargaining table. They came off as arbitrary, dictatorial and unreasonable. They surely realize that — so even before our strike, they said they wanted to discuss returning to the bargaining table. We need to make it clear to all our members, and to
parents and the community, that just returning to the table isn’t enough — they’re only being reasonable if they return with a reasonable offer.
(2) In this time when most public entities have severe budget shortfalls, many find it hard to believe that OUSD really does have enough money to handle its deficits AND meet our contract demands. But the fact is, OUSD brings in proportionately more money than most California school districts — $3,000 more per student, which translates to well over $100 million more.
And they pay proportionately less on teacher salaries than the average school district. What are they doing with this money? We know where a lot of it goes: OUSD spends nearly double on outsourced contracts that the average school districts — that comes to an additional $40 million per year spent on contracts, compared to the average school district; and OUSD has too many administrators and spends too much of their budget on them — that’s an additional $10 to $20 million per year. That’s not all, but it’s a good
start at unraveling the mystery of what OUSD does with all the money it takes in. We need to educate our members and the community about this.
(3) The state trustee, Vincent Matthews, has veto power over all financial decisions. So with whom are we bargaining, the school board and school administration, or the state in the person of Vincent Matthews and Jack O’Connell. I think the answer is pretty clear: we’re really bargaining with
the state. When the school board imposed, they said that they had no choice because if they didn’t, the state would again take over OUSD. The board,
then, provides a facade of “democratic” cover to the state’s power over every decision involving money — includiing and especially our contract. We
need to get the state’s heel off our neck, and that’s a political fight.
It is truly outrageous that the state TRIPLED the school district’s debt under the state administration (2003 – 2009) while cutting programs, schools, libraries, etc. It is even more outrageous that Oakland taxpayers must pay the state $6 million per year as debt service on the debt that
they, the state, ran up. The whole Oakland community and ALL of Oakland’s political leadership needs to tell the state to let go: cancel the debt, end
the trusteeship, return REAL control of Oakland Public Schools to the people of Oakland.
Jack Gerson”
May 6th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
First, teachers were notified about the vote. I went door to door at my school, sent out email reminders, and another teacher made a loud speaker announcement about the meeting and invited people to come, only 4-including myself, showed up to vote. Sorry, you don’t vote-you have choosen to have no voice. If you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain about it later.
As pointed out previously, according to bylaws, you must show up and vote. As for electronic voting, we saw how well they worked during Dunderhead Bush’s coronation. There were complaints of the electronic systems not accurately counting the votes. Something, I’m sure would have come up for electronic for union matters. Most likely brought up by the chicken littles among us.
Reagannomics? No thanks. He is the reason there are so many mental patients on the streets. He was no saint but honestly, he wouldn’t be elected today because he would have believed in stem cell research or something not inline with the Republican party hard line. Palin? Again, no thanks. She isn’t smart enough to know what’s happening in her own house. What do you think might happen if we let her control the US? Obama bashing is really boring. I am not an Obama phile by any stretch of the imagination but Dubbya took a huge surplus that the Clinton Administration left us, and pissed it away. He allowed the big business to run rampant, throwing us into deep, economic decline. So if it takes a little more that a year for Obama and his staff to fix the huge f up that Dubbya left, so be it.
May 6th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Cranky,
You think it’s just a few people angry about this, once you get your head out of the union-protected box of sand it’s in, you will find out different. Oakland unemployment is extremely high, and it’s tax base is weak(even in relation to other cities), you don’t notice because you are a teacher, and your checks just keep rolling in. Why don’t you ask one of the young teachers who are getting RIF’ed what it feels like to be scared about being without a job? I do agree that admin needs to be cut to the bone, but they call the shots on that particular human resource move and they aren’t going to lay themselves off.It’s the same way that the older teachers throw the younger teachers under the bus, and don’t even flinch. If everyone at OUSD was doing their job, they never would have been taken over by the state.
May 6th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
@Brad
You posted: “I think it was because a lot of those “consultant” fees go to paying for mandatory services for disabled students. I’m not 100% sure about this.”
I’m pretty sure. My high school senior has been in a full-inclusion (mainstream classrooms) program for autism spectrum students since 5th grade. He’s always had a one-to-one aide since 2nd grade (special day classes). The majority of aides in the program (and prior to it as well) were OUSD employees, not consultants. When the program first started, most of the aides were “consultants” – contracted from a company called BCRC based in Marin. But the district’s Department of Programs for Exceptional Children (i.e. Spec. Ed and GATE) moved quickly and steadily replacing BCRC aides with *qualified* district employees. This year, there is one and only one aide in my son’s program who isn’t a district employee, and next year there will be none, because that one aide from BCRC is required to fulfill the terms of my son’s IEP.
I have a very, very negative opinion of the Director of Special Programs (I don’t think I could be in the same room with her without becoming physically ill, or attempting to harm her – so I don’t go anywhere near her offices anymore), but I have to say that she’s worked hard to cut the disabled students’ “consultants” from her department’s expenses, and replace them with less costly district employees.
May 6th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Starshaped,
Yes, to some extent I ‘chose’ not to vote; but the choice was between creating a hardship for my family and voting, or abstaining for the vote (and thus not being counted) but sparing my kids. Of course I acknowledge that I had a choice, at some level, but I think it’s similar to the ‘choice’ of being a union member (and paying dues) or not being a union member (and paying dues).
I want to be a member of the union, and I appreciate what the labor movement has done for workers in this country, but I do not think the OEA really wants to hear from all of its members. People have repeated that it’s in the bylaws that a vote must be held only at a meeting. Well, who wrote the bylaws?
I also acknowledge that the people who are simultaneously teaching and representing, at whatever level, in and with the union, are doing more than I am. I am grateful to them. But I still think I should be able to have a say in an issue which concerns me and my profession without having to go so far out of my way.
May 6th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Nextset – It pains me that there are people out there who are so set in their assumptions that they will believe that teachers don’t care, that it’s “just a job.” Cashiering is just a job. Waiting tables, bar tending, etc. is just a job. All honorable work, to be sure, but jobs you can walk away from at any time. Teachers are not in it for the money, believe me. Yes, we want a decent wage, but most of us teach because it is a calling. There are too many people on this blog who are not interested in dialog and merely spout their prejudices. Walk in a teacher’s shoes for a week or even a day. If you have a degree all it takes to become a certified sub is to pass a basic competency test. Do that, then come back and tell me that teachers don’t care and it’s just a job.
May 6th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
L.K.
So what you are stating as fact are that:
1. All teachers care(every single one) about their students because it’s a calling(and by extension there are no bad teachers).
2. None are in it for the money.
3. No one except a teacher can absolutely positively have any idea what a teacher goes through(not a parent, or PTA member, or even a spouse of a teacher).
4. We don’t(can’t) know about lesson planning, differentiation, modeling, classroom management or IEP’s.
are you sure about the facts on which you stand?
May 6th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Just so you know, I am very well aware of the fact that teaching is difficult(for the good ones anyway)and even moreso at this time. One thing teaching is not, it is not rocket science. The good ones are underpaid, just as the bad ones are overpaid. That is the price we pay for collective bargaining, so don’t protect the ones who shouldn’t be teaching. Pointing the finger at bad doctors and lawyers is no excuse and is not unlike what kids do on the playground, which I am sure you are aware of. You say kids aren’t widgets and shouldn’t be treated the same(which is correct) well, what about teacher, there are excellent, average and awful. Should they all be paid the same? Or worse yet, should the primary criteria for raises be service time, and not ability?
May 6th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
J.R., Are you a Texan son?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohYUKdPzLTw&feature=related
May 6th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
@cranky, I thought I recognized the name jack gerson, so I Googled. Hmmm is all I’ll say. Since I like the ed-data site, I checked on what Mr. Gerson is saying. Oakland indeed gets more money. Did Mr. Gerson mention that is also true of several districts in Alameda county? Did he mention that some of them spend less of their money on compensation than OUSD? Did he mention where those funds come from and whether there are strings attached to how they could be spent? Did he look at how they have higher class sizes than OUSD?
I doubt it.
Ask Mr. Gerson to do that “homework” and he’ll discover there is a bigger picture. Or, perhaps he knew that and chose not to share.
May 6th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Sue- I like the asterisks around *qualified”. It’s interesting to me that you are usually so positive about your son’s services/schools/program, yet you are so negative about the sped director.
Another day, another thread? (Maybe some day over coffee?)
Back to topic: there is a really great teacher written letter circulating that talks about the reasons this teacher is willing to strike. Some of us are copying it and sending it out to our families. We are willing to make short term sacrifices for long term gains. We are not willing to accept that some schools have all new teachers each and every year due to teachers quitting. We are not willing to accept class sizes so large that students can’t get the attention they need and teachers continually quit. Oh, and we are not willing to increase class sizes for special education classes either.
Other school districts do not fill vacancies from TFA or similar and they don’t have the turnover that we do. We are not willing to accept high counselor ratios that result in high school students not knowing which classes they need to take to graduate. We are not willing to accept that OUSD receives more money per student ($3000 more I believe) than other districts, yet we pay our teachers less than other districts. Something needs to change in the fundamental way we do business here, and the teachers believe it is their obligation to stand up and insist on something better for everyone who is in the classroom (adults and children) or working directly with students.
May 6th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
GOOD NEWS!!!!!
To the “HORROR” of the CTA(and thats a direct quote)SB 955 has passed the Senate Education Committee on a 5-4 vote. This will eliminate seniority based preference for re-hiring and instead base decision’s upon merit(evaluations and competence). They are finally getting the courage to let the principals do their jobs, and it’s about time. It’s about time they brush aside the nonsense that these “adult” professionals would act like children and get rid of someone “just because they don’t like them” or “she is a bad teacher,but the principal likes her”. Time to get real about consequences and let the principals assemble their own staff, and then the responsibility is on their shoulders, that is accountability.
May 6th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Oh, there are some other CTA comments “this bill is unnecessary and it scapegoats teachers”(in whose universe)? I hope the bill becomes law, as it’s effect will be immediate and we cannot wait.
May 7th, 2010 at 6:28 am
I can’t speak about all schools, but I do work in a school where the principal plays favorites, and the teacher he caters to the most, is in my opinion the weakest teacher. He is punitive toward the teacher I believe to be the strongest.
I worked at another school previously where the new principal was severely criticized by the strongest and most experienced teachers. She retaliated by making them all switch classrooms and grades yearly, but left alone the awful teacher who did not give her a hard time.
Sorry, but principals are sometimes highly motivated by personal feelings rather than objective standards when it comes to teachers. Some examples: Is the teacher willing to be on the SSC and rubber stamp everything ($ for chosen programs) the principal wants=5+ pts. Does the teacher ever question or criticize a principal selected program, or vote against it=20- points and a grudge carried forever.
I have always gotten great evaluations and consider myself a good teacher, but have to come out 100% against that bill. There are too many principals who would be biased if given a mandate to hire and fire their teachers. Most principals (I hope) are decent people, but there are some who are power driven and vindictive.
Important fact: In today’s world (especially Oakland), many schools have principals who are young and have far less teaching experience than some/many of their teachers, but for whatever reason, did not want to remain teachers. Those veteran teachers are less likely to be part of the principal’s “posse” and more likely to be penalized for their independence. Other school districts do not look to programs like TFA or OTF to be a constant backfill of all their vacancies. Their teachers stay in the district and don’t use it as a training ground. I am sick of Oakland students being used like some type of laboratory for teacher training, by people who move on to other districts or careers as soon as possible.
May 7th, 2010 at 6:51 am
JR – Facts? That wasn’t my point. I believe it was Nextset who was making blanket statements about a whole class of people (teachers) and their motivations. I was merely making a suggestion on how this person could broaden his/her narrow point of view. I love your question about being in it for the money. Now that is a hoot! I’d give anything to see you make that statement in a roomful of teachers. The laughter would be deafening.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:19 am
J.R.,
What is your profession? I am just curious. I am a teacher, and I read this blog (perhaps too) avidly as a source of news as well as opinion on my job, my colleagues, my district, and more general happenings in education. I think I get too sucked in and possibly devote more time to writing here than I should. Maybe I’ll try to scale back. But since it concerns me and what I spend more than half of my time doing, I think it makes sense that I’m a bit obsessed. What do you do when you’re not reading and writing your declarations here? And what gives you so much certainty about what you say?
In whose universe, you ask, will teachers be scapegoats? In our universe, in Oakland, in California, in the United States under NCLB and now Arne Duncan. It already happens, every day, in this blog and on editorial pages and EVERYWHERE.
BTW, I am dying for more thorough evaluations, but this bill will not ensure that I get them. But whether or not I am a good teacher (which I think I am) or will become a better one (which I strive to do), the media and public opinion will continue to lay a lot more at my door than I can reasonably be accountable for. This year, I’m teaching kids who do their homework, whose parents check in with me, who are happy and safe at home (for the most part). And their progress reflects that, as well as what I do with and for them. In previous years, I taught children who were far more troubled and less supported. And their progress reflected that, as well as what I did with and for them. I am not excusing myself from responsibility for doing my job, but I do not think a teacher’s job is to save the world. (There was a great article in the Onion a month or so ago about how many Americans are now “School-homing” their kids–very topical!) Society is complicated and people are struggling, and school is ONE piece of a puzzle.
And those who scapegoat teachers do.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:21 am
I meant to end by saying that I do not think a teacher’s job is to save the world, but that those who scapegoat teachers apparently do.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:51 am
What do I do? computer support this, computer technician that..on and on……. Saving the world a little at a time. This reminds me of my favorite little story
Starfish
As the old man walked the beach at dawn, he noticed a young man ahead of him picking up starfish and flinging them into the sea. Finally catching up with the youth, he asked him why he was doing this. The answer was that the stranded starfish would die if left until the morning sun.
“But the beach goes on for miles and miles and there are millions of starfish,” countered the other. “How can your effort make any difference?”
The young man looked at the starfish in his hand and then threw it to safety in the waves. “It makes a difference to this one,” he said.
Author Unknown
You can put those children who “desire to learn” on the path which they should go. Isn’t that worth it?
I believe for some teachers(who are the best), it is a calling, and that is primarily why they do it.
May 7th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Once again,
No matter what your union says, we are not scapegoating teachers, we are just preventing you from protecting the bad teachers, because the children are more important. Your jobs(as opposed to what your union thinks) are not a basic human right). There are bad admins, but sooner or later they are dealt with by parental complaints. We are on our third principal in five years here in a nearby school, but never(and I mean never)have any teacher been terminated(the most that the district can do is transfer them).
May 7th, 2010 at 10:10 am
The Democratic State Assembly will not pass this bill (SB 955)in a full House vote. They know they will lose CTA funding and support in elections. This is just posturing.
May 7th, 2010 at 10:15 am
The money or the kids, what will they do, maybe you are right, they might go for the money. To heck with the kids.
May 7th, 2010 at 10:26 am
“I don’t represent the children. I represent the teachers”.
— Al Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers
Is everyone connecting the dots????????????
May 7th, 2010 at 10:53 am
“Cranky,
You think it’s just a few people angry about this, once you get your head out of the union-protected box of sand it’s in, you will find out different. Oakland unemployment is extremely high, and it’s tax base is weak(even in relation to other cities), you don’t notice because you are a teacher, and your checks just keep rolling in. Why don’t you ask one of the young teachers who are getting RIF’ed what it feels like to be scared about being without a job? I do agree that admin needs to be cut to the bone, but they call the shots on that particular human resource move and they aren’t going to lay themselves off.It’s the same way that the older teachers throw the younger teachers under the bus, and don’t even flinch. If everyone at OUSD was doing their job, they never would have been taken over by the state.”
J.R., you just keep talking and talking … but what are you saying? Teachers are spoiled? Teachers should keep their mouths shut? Teachers should not point out how our district is mismanaging its resources?
As for the community, I’m sure there a diverse set of opinions. But absent some significant polling, here’s what we know: Parents kept their kids home from school a week ago Thursday, in the tens of thousands. Parents honked for us, shared their support for us on the picket lines, and on and on. They know what it looks like when their child spends a year with subs because OUSD can’t retain teachers, or what it looks like when their teacher quits 8 weeks in because no “pipeline” or “boot camp” for 5 weeks in the summer could prepare them for the job as virtual cannon fodder.
Yet, you say this is about the economy, and that because my neighbors may be unemployed or underpaid, I should not demand what is fair for both teachers and students in this district. That is a reductionist argument, similar to saying if somebody is exploited at Wal-Mart because they don’t have a union, I should get rid of my union out of some misguided sense of loyalty.
As for me, I guess you are making assumptions that I am a veteran teacher, haven’t been pink slipped, haven’t been affected by the recession, etc. All wrong. But whatever, simplicity serves your arguments.
“The money or the kids” — the ultimate oversimplification! Of course the two are interrelated…
May 7th, 2010 at 11:17 am
This just seems to have become a teacher bashing blog! If you read through all of this you would think that teachers have created all of the world’s problems, and that the vast majority of them are “bad”. So many complaints for so few people. I guess teachers are responsible for the economy, toxic loans, gobal warming,unquenchable greed,ect, etc. Really teachers are in it for the pencils and the wonderful school lunches, not like the unlucky people with billion dollar bonuses and stock options
May 7th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Did I say this was all about “YOU”, that is is part of your unions problem, you “think” it “IS” all about “YOU”! Is your conscience getting to you?
May 7th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Steve,
Sorry about the facts, but the largest part(teachers pay and bene’s)of the largest part of the state budget is involved here(40%-%50%), so yeah it is important that we not expend money on lemons. If you can’t bring yourself to see that inadequate teachers(in whatever form that takes)should not be teaching kids, and you can’t distinguish between bad and good, then I can’t help you(If you are a good teacher, you don’t have to worry).Thats the way it is here in the real world anyway.
May 7th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
The attack rhetoric about people being “all for the children” — or not — has never made one bit of sense to me. Anyone who is a parent KNOWS that when the needs of the caregivers are well taken care of, the caregivers will be much more effective at doing their jobs.
Exhausted, isolated, unhappy, screamed-at, resentful caregivers won’t do as good of job at taking care of their charges as if they were well-rested, supported, praised and contented. This is why I give my broad support to the teachers and their unions, instead of insulting them like some people on this blog like to do.
There is a good reason behind why flight attendants instruct parents to put their emergency oxygen masks on first, before attending to the masks of their children. Just at when positives lavished on the adult caregivers will trickle down to the children. it’s just common sense.
I’ve been a parent in this district for 17 years, and have known many, many teachers (100 at least!). My view is to start with a positive outlook and presume that the teachers are doing a good job. Only very rarely have I had an experience with one who is not, and I find that their continued presence in the schools is ALWAYS due to administrative weaknesses (lazy, overwhelmed, or passive principal), not the fact that unions exist. An effective principal knows how to deal with a bad teacher.
As with dealing with children, if you start by being close-minded, judgmental and suspicious about teachers, your most negative fantasies are quite likely to come true. It relates to the old saying, “You’ll get more bees with honey.”
Here’s a cognitive therapy tip for when you need to criticize someone. Use the 2:1:1 rule: two positives, followed by a negative, then another positive. It works wonders!
Like this to J.R.: It’s wonderful that you are interested in education issues and it’s clear that you care about kids. However, your messages here are grotesque in how they generalize that all teachers are “bad” — something that’s just impossible to be true. Despite the negativity you express, I am still certain you must be a fair-minded person.
May 7th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
I said “all teachers are bad”? where exactly is that quote(date,time)?
May 7th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
LK: I find your post strange.
Did I say teachers don’t care about their job? I don’t remember such a thing.
Perhaps I could could say it doesn’t change much that they care – OUSD is still OUSD.
It’s not as if the teachers ever set policy. Or have any control over bad students remaining in their classrooms. Or control who enrolls in which classrooms.
For the record, our problems with OUSD is far more involved with bad students than bad teachers.
Workers of the world, Unite!?
This strike is nothing more than a job action over money and working conditions. The (foolish??) teachers are going to settle for less money and worse conditions that it would take to get me to work at OUSD. And I was once a sub a long time ago – and my family has 4 or more generations of public school teachers. As a rule they generally worked segregated black schools (primary through college). In present times it’s black & mexican schools.
I’ve seen ghetto. And I’ve see higher functioning minority schools. OUSD I have (policy) problems with. But you probably know all this.
Have a nice weekend.
May 7th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Nextset – I was going off this: “The OUSD Teachers are workers negotiating for themselves. They are not negotiating for the benefit of “the students” – at all. Anyone who thinks otherwise or even wishes otherwise is deluded.”
May 8th, 2010 at 6:27 am
This blog is getting pathetic Katy.
Why do you do it? I mean I know its a job, but this is getting terrible. Only smut and smacks!
Education used to be something to respect, now its trashed by only smut!
This site is the TMZ of education.
May 8th, 2010 at 8:44 am
I was watching the April 28 School Board Meeting on TV last night. Jody London brought up the point that only 52% (Could have been 54%) of the eligible Oakland students attend OUSD schools. Just over half.
I have two sons – one in elementary school and one in middle school. My younger son had three consecutive years of teachers who did not teach grade level content. The last two years (same teacher who switched grades) the teacher did not know the math content for elementary school. She told the students. She uses student work to grade student work and has often left incorrect answers alone (did not mark them wrong) and has marked wrong correct answers. In the two years my son has been in her class she has not corrected a single piece of writing – not for grammar, spelling, word choice – no corrections at all. She does not teach over half of the content as defined under the California State Standards. This teacher is tenured, hired two principals ago and has used the union defense to get out of teaching the standards. She has a group of students she calls “the students who will never get it” and she has a group of students she calls “the ones with complainer parents who expect that the kids have to learn something new every day.” Everyone in her class knows who is in these groups because she uses the group names every day in class, when her aide is in the class, when the volunteers are in the class and even when the principal mentor has been in the class.
We spend over $5,000 per year in PTA contributions, writing camps, math workshops, and science camps just to have the state curriculum taught. One of us must also take time off work to transport my son to each of these events.
My older son is in middle school and had to give up an elective to be able to take an advanced math class “before it was time.” He was required to take his regular sixth grade math class and algebra – which was deemed his “elective.” He cannot take more than one year of foreign language because it is not offered – and because OUSD offers only one elective and for my son, it is algebra before its time, we must pay for language classes outside of school.
We had originally planned to sent our elementary son to OUSD middle schools, but we applied for and received a scholarship to a middle school that will put our annual cost at $7,000 – more than we are spending now, but my son will not have to go to five different places to get the state standards – one school – that’s it. And he can play baseball again instead of learning writing during the time he could be playing baseball.
So, Ms. London, if you want to know the reason why we will be part of the 48% who is not enrolled in OUSD, it is the competency of the teacher. As parents, we know there is nothing we can do about it. As the principal, she knows the only thing she can do is move the teacher down to a grade level which she must assume matches the competency of the teacher (who has not passed a CBEST or CSET and refuses to demonstrate competency). As the teacher, she knows there is nothing anyone can do, the union told her and she told us.
So, we will be leaving. In high school, my older son will be leaving OUSD. No language classes, six periods a day instead of seven periods a day in middle and high school means 14 semesters fewer electives than other school districts in the area. It’s not about getting into a college, I know my sons will get into college. It is about a well-rounded education from teachers who have high expectations of themselves and their students. It’s about schools that do not punish students for excelling such as taking away an elective for someone who is ready to take algebra before seventh grade. And finally, it is about teaching all of the state standards to all of the students, not picking and choosing based on the flavor of the year.
OUSD agrees to take money from the state to provide a state-standard based education. Teachers agree to teach the state standards and to differentiate for each student – they take home a paycheck and ratify contracts that say they will differentiate. Parents believe if they send their children to OUSD their children are receiving the same education they would get in any other district. In each of these cases People have taken money and have not given what they have agreed to give and parents have not received what they assumed they would get.
So, Ms. London, that is the very long answer to your question about why we are the 48%.
May 8th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Its hard to believe that someone who hasn’t passed the CSET or CBEST, has a tenured position. Don’t you have to pass the CBEST just to get in the front door?
… i imagine that with higher wages, there will be more qualified people applying for Teaching positions in OUSD.
May 8th, 2010 at 9:32 am
@ Harold – she got her credential before any exams were required.
May 8th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
@Jenna, I get it. Of course many here will say you’re “teacher-bashing.” Others here are “administration-bashing.” Your stories and the stories of the administration bashers are relevant to the concerns we all have about the state of education in Oakland.
I don’t think there is general agreement that there are highly effective teachers and schools in Oakland and at the same time, “the system” is woefully ineffective as a whole. It is ineffective for students, parents, staff, teachers and most recently, even the state. There are myriad reasons – some based in Oakland – many outside of Oakland, but NO EXCUSES.
While I appreciate the “bashing” stories as evidence of need, I really appreciate the posts that offer a solution. Frankly, I haven’t offered many such posts. For me, it probably is more engaging to poke fun at the alternative universe which is Oakland. How folks on all sides of discussion seem content with lack of information, mischaracterizations and untruths. For me, highlighting this lack of intellectual rigor underscores the change in thinking necessary to get to some solutions.
A couple of friends have recently become part of the 46%. They knew some “good” OUSD schools, but they didn’t get in – so they’ve moved on. We know OUSD teachers and principals (as a group) don’t send their kids to OUSD schools either. Hopefully, Dr. Smith is appropriately motivated to fix schools at least as fast as his child is growing. She will be a middle-schooler soon enough and God help her if something doesn’t change before then.
May 8th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
I do not see how any teacher can be working without having passed the CBEST and CSET (or the tests prior to CSET). From what I have seen, teachers who have not either taken and passed these tests demonstrating some minimum proficiency are fired. I saw one given one week to pack up in the middle of the year, and that was 4+ years ago. It was somewhat ironic, because she was an excellent teacher, but had refused to take the test on general principal. She was very strong in math, so that was not the reason. So they filled her spot with a newly credentialed “highly qualified” teacher who was a complete disaster. The kids learned nothing from the day she left.
I also know that this year, any teacher that does not have the “latest mandatory credential” required for teaching second language learners (CLAD), is being fired. They have all received termination letters, and many of them are teachers with 30 years and even administrators. So, while initially I felt really upset by your child’s classroom experience, I must say I have a hard time believing that there are ANY teachers still in a classroom that have not passed some type of subject matter competency (CBEST, MSAT, Praxis, CSET). You can’t even stay in a classroom for longer than 30 days as a sub with just CBEST. Do those tests mean that the teacher is more than “highly qualified” except on paper? No, of course not. I must also say that just because someone receives a letter from the school district stating that the teacher is “not highly qualified”, does not mean that they haven’t passed one of these tests. It only means that they may be teaching out of their subject area, e.g. teaching English when their credential is History. My credential is not in math, but I certainly have the math skills and understanding to be able to teach Algebra (no, not Calculus), if I were to do so (I haven’t and don’t plan to).
I have seen sixth grade students at Montera take only Algebra, in seventh grade take only Geometry, and then in eight grade their only math was Alg II and Trig at a CC. So again, what you describe is not what I have seen happen over many years. I do wish we still had a seven period day, but they don’t have those in any public school district I know of anymore.
The teacher you describe should not be in a classroom, because anyone who describes elementary school students as “will never get it” is going to fail. As a teacher and a union member, I would never defend that. My kids have had some zingers over the years. But I adamantly disagree that students cannot learn and thrive in OUSD, and have seen exactly that happen every year in my classroom, my peers’ classrooms and my own children’s classrooms all the way through 12th grade.
There are OUSD teachers and administrators who send their kids to OUSD schools from K-12. I hope that those of you who choose private schools are happy with your decisions and I am not going to talk trash about your school choices. What I have seen over many years is that private school “defectors”, always need to bash public schools to justify their decision to themselves and others. What I tell people who are thinking about the next transition (starting elementary, middle or high school), is to talk to families/students who DO attend public schools. If you talk to people who DON’T attend public schools or are leaving OUSD, you will hear a diatribe of all the things that are wrong with OUSD. OUSD is the one entity that everyone who doesn’t choose it, criticizes instead. I have only known of one person in the past 15 years who left OUSD who kept her mouth shut. BTW her OUSD grad got into a much better college than her private school grad.
Why does every single thing on here always turn into a teacher trashing parade? I think that the vast majority of teachers are good, much better than the teachers I had growing up in a middle to upper-middle class school district in the suburbs that was well thought of. I never had a teacher (K-12) the caliber of some of the teachers my children have had.
My friends who sent their kids to private school also teacher bashed. I think they were very angry that they were spending huge amounts of money on private school. But I also think that they were misguided and fearful of having their kids attend school with so many students of varying socioeconomic and racial backgrounds – sad! But what liberal wants to admit that, so instead: on to OUSD school/teacher bashing!
May 8th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
LK: That passage hardly equates with “Teachers not caring about their jobs”. Earning an appropriate wage is important. Teachers also have feelings about their jobs.
May 9th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Tell me more J.R.
What do you think of a paid OUSD Consultant using District contact numbers to promote his personal consulting business?
http://www.aaronsokol.com/index_files/Page546.htm
There are others too…
May 9th, 2010 at 11:23 am
To be clear, I was not teacher bashing. I was stating that two teachers in one elementary school were substandard. One of those teachers does not know the content, and the union is protecting her. My sons have also had excellent and fine teachers at the same school.
At Montera, the current principal, who has done fine things in many respects – reduced the number of hallway incidents involving horseplay, use of subtle bullying by reducing the space in which some students give others to walk, and by making sure that there is finally a shop teacher. However, there are other things that are really frustrating such as an attitude toward parents who advocate for their children and their children’s needs.
Parents should not have to have five or six parent-teacher conferences per year to be able to have their students learn in the classroom. If students are respectful, complete their homework, participate in class and in after school activities, parents and teachers should be able to work together a couple of times a year to keep education plans on track.
I know and expect that there are private schools with similar issues. I think the big difference is that there are many kinds of private schools, Archway – for example is a small learning community of 12 – 15 students per class – Bentley has larger classes but caters to students who are intellectually and scholastically ready for very rigorous coursework. The vast majority of students do not need classrooms with 12 students, nor could the vast majority of students handle both Latin and Mandarin in elementary school. My point is that OUSD has not taken into account these two examples of schools that meet the needs of specific groups of students.
As for the school districts that still have seven periods a day: Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Piedmont, Albany and Berkeley – these are just a few of the school districts around us who have seven periods. The advantage of seven periods a day of course is that more state standards are met in middle school and high school. Nearly every private middle and high school also has seven periods a day.
We have many, many positive aspects of our school district. Students are making progress in learning. And, teachers make a huge difference – the vast majority in a positive way, about 10% in a negative way. Jody London and every other Board member seems to ask the same question, why do students choose private schools and charter schools – my experience is that charter schools are chosen, not because parents think students will learn more, but because most have discipline policies which make parents feel safer. Fighting at the school happens less often and the fights that do happen are less violent. Often, there is a strictly enforced dress code. Students must have homework done.
Parents choose private schools because they feel students will be held to higher standards of learning. There are often foreign languages, music, geography and other coursework that is done in similar proportions as language arts and math. In public schools, particularly those trying to raise test scores, the time spent on language arts is 50% – 60% of the school day with math another 25% – 30% of the school day. As we know, transition – moving bodies, books, papers, etc. takes 5% – 10% of the school day, and that leaves very little time for social studies, science, music and art.
We need to find a way in our schools to make every teacher and administrator accountable for bringing up the level of all who have student contact. Often peer pressure is needed. We also need to recognize that many, many students want to work and learn across the disciplines and we must find a way to weave in all subjects or we will lose our students to private schools, charter schools, other districts (through legitimate and illegitimate inter-district transfers), and through general drop out (by not showing up in middle school and officially dropping out of high school). We are seeing it now and we need to be mindful that parents do have choices and the parents who do see their choices will make them – and the vast majority of the choices will not benefit our school district.
We also must begin to look at the seven period middle and high school as an option. It seems to be the only way to me to be able to meet the minimum state standards in ALL areas of the grade level curriculum.
May 9th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Please remember to keep your comments respectful. Criticism is one thing; name-calling is another. I’ve just deleted a comment for that reason.
May 9th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
I know for a fact that Berkeley does not have a 7 period day; I can’t speak to the other districts. When there are obvious errors in postings, it makes me wonder exactly how much is accurate. Most schools have an “A” period before school and/or “B” period after school. Perhaps that is what you are (mis)understanding to be the 7th period. OUSD high schools have the same.
We would love to have class sizes as small as you mention in #79. As a matter of fact, we are united in our fight to keep class sizes small. Unfortunately, the new imposed contract will result in an increase across the board in class sizes, a huge loss for OUSD students.
There are many things Oakland teachers would like to see improve in our schools – both in terms of the students’ learning conditions and our working conditions. That is why we are taking a stand: with over 90% of us not working on April 29, and why over 75% of our members who voted on May 3 agreed to give our OEA leaders the go-ahead in terms of future actions.
May 9th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Jenna: I think you might be interested to know that 8 years ago, the teachers at Montera asked for a seven period day so that students could have the access to the core curriculum that each needed as well as having a range of electives. The teachers were told that they had to ask for a waiver from OEA to work in a condition counter to the contract. OEA, surprise surprise, denied the request because it would create for unequal work conditions within the union. Here you had a group of teachers asking, unanimously, for a waiver to do what they knew was right for their students, and they were told by the “Oakland EDUCATION Association” to basically sit down and be quiet. OEA is not about education as much as it is about maintaining equality over equity. The result is always the same: mediocrity.
May 10th, 2010 at 6:28 am
@Oakland Teacher – Look at Berkeley High School’s bell schedule. I don’t understand why they would publish a bell schedule with seven periods if they had fewer than seven. The same with each of the other districts. Perhaps they intentionally publish their bell schedule wrong?
In addition, many of these schools districts mentioned offer an A period (After school) or a B period (Before School) when they have classes in which they cannot meet the needs of the students.
I was in no way suggesting a class of 12 students. Quite honestly, the range of students at Archway is incredibly narrow and would not serve the vast majority of Oakland children and teens. Class sizes that small limit the number and range of experiences, ideas, and abilities. And in creating such small classes, the expertise that is offered is smaller. I mentioned Archway, because it is an excellent school for students who have difficulty in working in a larger setting, playing with students who are three or four years older or younger or for students who need additional resources to meet their learning needs.
The highest percentage of students in Oakland classrooms do not meet these criteria. However, I do believe that OUSD should have some of these smaller class sizes to meet the needs of the students who need them – however, as mentioned in 82 the OEA would say it is not equitable.
I believe OEA believes “Equitable” = “Same” – nearly everyone on this blog, with the exception of OEA leadership understands that Equitable DOES NOT EQUAL Same.
Students have different needs. There are students who need small class sizes and longer school days to learn one year’s curriculum – curriculum as defined by the State of California. There are students who could learn that same curriculum in four or five months and have time remaining to think more deeply, use the information across the disciplines, look more closely at details, looking for patterns or looking at trends over time. My sons do not need a class of 12 to 15 students. It would not serve them well. They enjoy larger classes of diverse students. Both sons feel comfortable with flexible groupings for different subjects that include students who are excellent in math, other students that may be at the same level or a different level in writing.
With such a small class size it is difficult to have diversity in groups because those students who are brilliant in math also look to be ahead in other subjects. The groups become stagnant rather than flexible because there are so few students. So the fight you describe for these small class sizes of 12 to 15 students is wasted on our family – it is simple too small to provide the diversity for the needs of my sons. You could save it however for the students who need it because they are working below grade level – oh, wait, that would not be equitable, equal or the same? Would it?
May 10th, 2010 at 6:58 am
OEA member here. I cannot speak for anyone else, but i would welcome a seven period day in Oakland.
May 10th, 2010 at 7:10 am
Berkeley has “0″ and “7″ period. They are before and after school, just like the “A” and “B” periods in OUSD schools.
I would love to see 7 period days as well. I would love for us to have the small class sizes seen in the private schools you mention, but I don’t understand why this particular thread is being used to discuss OUSD vs private schools. The only thing that connects the discussion is that the poster thinks teachers should not be compensated at the rate of all other Alameda County teachers because they have decided to place their child in private school. Tiresome!
May 10th, 2010 at 9:25 am
I DO believe OUSD teachers deserve a raise. Whether or not I send my sons to private school OUSD teachers need a raise. I will vote to increase the tax on my home to give them a raise whether or not they are in private school – sorry if that is so tiresome.
What I do not subscribe to is the same size classes for all schools for all students. Same is not equal. What I subscribe to is that there is differentiation of curriculum in every classroom as is in the AGREED contract between OUSD and OEA members. What I do subscribe to is learning why families choose charters, parochial and private schools so that we may learn HOW to meet the needs of more students. And finally, what I subscribe to is the belief that every child in our district is given the classroom opportunities to learn the ENTIRE state curriculum with our tax dollars without excuses.
We simply cannot do all of these things in six periods per day. Teachers need to understand and take responsibility for differentiating the curriculum for all learners, not just those on the bottom and the middle beginning in kindergarten. Principals who do not insure that differentiation is happening in every classroom every day should be coached, counseled and let go if they cannot make the change happen. Teachers who are unwilling or unable to differentiate every day in every classroom should be trained, coached, counseled and let go if they refuse.
OEA and the OUSD should be mindful of salaries, benefits and the needs of the teachers and the students and Oakland families should support both. At the end of the day, all students should have the opportunity to learn at the highest levels at which each individual student is capable and the very minimum standards of learning should be the minimum State of California standards.
Tiresome but true!