About that 2 percent raise…
By Katy Murphy
Friday, March 11th, 2011 at 8:00 am in budget, OUSD central office, teachers.
Here’s a real-world word problem for you:
The across-the-board salary increase Oakland school district staff have built into the second half of next year’s planning budget (the raise would go into effect in January 2012) would cost about $2 million in general-purpose dollars. For a full year, of course, it’s double that amount.
What if the district tabled that idea in light of the 500-plus March 15 notices it plans to distribute? How many teaching positions could it afford to keep?
Annual cost of a 2 percent raise in OUSD: $4 million
Average teacher cost, according to HR: $73,000
That comes out to more than 54 full-time teaching positions. For the upcoming school year, it would be 27, since the raises wouldn’t start until January and therefore would cost half as much.
Of course, that doesn’t come close to the 538 jobs that could potentially be lost in Oakland’s public schools under the doomsday scenario of losing $900/student, or $30 million, in general-purpose money. (Yes, I’m told that is the scenario upon which the hundreds of March 15 notices were calculated in OUSD. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says that if the tax extension fails, and the state needs to close a $26.6 billion deficit, k-12 education will likely be cut by at least $4 billion — $700 per student — and possibly much more.)
Should the district reconsider the raises to save jobs and minimize disruption to schools and programs? At last night’s meeting, an Oakland adult ed teacher proposed furloughs for that reason. Do you agree?
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
March 11th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
I think teachers should speak to this issue as has been the case in other school districts and other workplaces – including San Jose firefighters. As a parent, I’d like to see more teachers, but not if they can’t feed their families and have a bad attitude.
I also think management probably hasn’t been creative enough to free up dollars. Doesn’t Oakland still have WAY too many schools for the students it has?
Doesn’t Oakland have its own custodians, payroll department, benefits department, gardening department, etc? Most companies give that work to outsiders who are cheaper, more efficient and more accountable. It amazes me the amount of school money not spent on educators.
March 11th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
I agree entirely with TheTruthHurts…
March 11th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
As a teacher, I would postpone a raise (especially a paltry 2%) to save jobs for some of my colleagues and reduce disruption for the students. I have lived without a raise for so many years I can’t remember. One more year isn’t going to make that much difference to me and could mean the world to 54 teachers who would otherwise get laid off. As for custodians, gardeners, etc. I fear that phasing out in-house employees would simply mean that those services would be pushed onto other staff (i.e. teachers and principals). The district laid off most of its plumbers, for example, and I’ve had a leaky sink for two years because there is no one to fix it. The head custodian at a school is not just someone who cleans. He or she is also the building and grounds manager. You can’t outsource that and principals have too much on their plates to take on the job. Also, the few employees in custodial, food, and buildings & grounds are mostly community members and the jobs are relatively decent. Laying off low paid locals to bring in lower paid locals just rubs me the wrong way. I understand that research was done to outsource payroll, but educational pay is very complicated and private firms lack the expertise to handle it.
March 12th, 2011 at 2:41 am
As an OUSD teacher, I would also postpone a 2% raise if it meant saving TEACHER jobs.
However, the bottom line after working for this district in various capacities at over 100 schools(some no longer in existence) during the past 15 years is….. that most of the teachers I have worked with have been dedicated and extraordinary. But, I continue to be appalled by the enormous waste of human and financial resources and the vast ineptitude I have witnessed from nearly every aspect of each and every other department within OUSD.
There should be NO outside consultant contracts allowed at all…… period.
All of the ridiculous “professional development” contractors brought in from Boston, Chicago, etc… needs to be stopped immediately! There are local experts, many of which work(ed) for OUSD that could provide more meaningful PD for Oakland teachers.
All of the “packaged curriculum” needs to stop. All of the excessive test prep focus needs to be redirected towards meaningful classroom instruction where students actually engage in higher level thinking, problem solving, discussion, project presentation and creativity… which is not necessarily measurable on a fill-in-the-bubble test sheet.
Value experience! Stop hiring non-credentialed teachers (and administrators) and allowing Americorps and OTF people to go through a revolving 3 year door. Hire only teachers who are fully credentialed and hang on to the ones who have proven successful results in their classrooms. Then, OUSD wouldn’t need to spend so much time and expense on trying to teach people HOW to teach.
OUSD has driven out from our district SO MANY wonderful teachers. The good news is that each and every one of my former colleagues who is now teaching elsewhere are 1. HAPPY and less stressed and 2. making a lot more money.
There is plenty of money in OUSD for the things that our students need. There always has been. It’s the people who have been allowed to prioritize the spending of that money who have wasted it on frivolous and unproven “programs” or used it to hire their relatives or to do business with companies on the basis of personal gain…… not the best interest of students in Oakland classrooms.
March 12th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Let me be the third avaricious, self-serving teacher to say: postpone the raise if it means saving positions. It isn’t just about saving teacher jobs, but offsetting the erosion of site stability and the increase in class sizes.
March 12th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
I too say postpone the 2% raise. 54 teachers are way more important to the students. One question I have is why haven’t furlough days or freezing pay for a year or two to save more jobs been discussed?
March 12th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Thank you teachers for putting your students and colleagues ahead of immediate gain (however small). I know that you all put yourselves out there for our kids, often without enough support and at your own expense, day after day, year after year.
On a personal note, this past year has been a difficult one for our middle income family, as we went from a two incomes to just one, and we have struggled to keep our house. For this reason alone we are loath to support further taxes without seeing OUSD and other government entities balance with cost reductions first. But if we see OUSD is making those efforts, we are more willing to cut our income even more by further contribution (that is, taxes).
As has been suggested, we need OUSD to cut it’s Central HQ consultants, and close facilities or find revenue sources for them. Fast. Or get some more Foundation grants to continue that work (valuable as it is) off of OUSD’s shrinking resources.
I hope the large Foundations that Tony is appealing to are shortening their grant cycles, with the understanding that the traditional cycles are leading to cuts in kids educations while they ponder, delay and otherwise act like their professions are divorced from reality (at least so it appears on the outside).
March 12th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
I would be very weary of a raise, especially after so many teachers have been given pink slips. Think about the potential class-sizes current teachers will have to deal with next school year. This 2% raise the district offers coincides nicely with the 35-45 student classrooms that will soon follow.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
1. There is never a good time for a raise in OUSD
2. The consultants are well paid
3. We spend too much money away from the classroom
4. Parents should be demanding all cuts be away from the classroom
5. Teachers should not have to feel guilty about anything except not doing a good job
6. We have the highest paid superintendent in the county
7. Our mayor took a voluntary large cut in salary to show good faith. How about some of the high paid central admin doing the same thing? Symbolically, it would mean a lot. I would like to see them raise a family on a teacher’s salary.
8. I hate to admit it, but my salary is so low, that 2% is nothing. I would rather have teachers keep their jobs, but the reality is that it is never an even trade-off.The cuts will still happen no matter what sacrifices teachers make for the greater good.
9. OUSD admin is in the “cat bird’s seat” when there are teachers (see #6) asking why we can’t just accept a pay freeze. Why are we always the ones who have to take less?
10. They need to: close small schools (under 200 for elementary and more for middle/high), fire all the consultants, break the contract with edusoft, stop all the endless testing that wastes student time/money.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:03 am
When you ask why furloughs have never been put on the table, I suggest that you ask OEA and UAOS and their respective executive boards (FYI: ALL administrators received March 15 notices).
They are so busy spinning philosophy and and social re-engineering, that they have never taken the time to meet and know young, committed, and innovative teachers and principals (20%+ of the teachers and principals).
Why would they take the time? No cuts would touch their altitude, at 10+ years. Remember, state law says that if you stick it out the longest, you are the BEST educator, please silence the discussion… In less delicate terms, it’s a pissing match!
OEA and UAOS are the only two labor organizations in the District that HAVE NOT agreed to a furlough at this point!
Current numbers show a 3 day furlough for teachers and principals (perhaps the 3 Buy Back PD days?), would mean a 1.6% pay cut (roughly $75 per month per teacher or prncipal), which is a paltry sum, but it would save over 60 beginning teachers’ jobs (FYI: They are the ones getting March 15 notices).
However, the “mandarins” of OEA and UOAS executive councils have yet to consider these options, as the waters of the floods are not, as this point, lapping at their silken toes. It’s all “quid pro quo” for them: “Give us something, and we MIGHT give you something…”
What happened to unions representing ALL of their members, not just the ones with the grayest hair? Young teachers and principals, TAKE BACK YOUR UNIONS!!! You pay the same $800-$900 per year in dues! Isn’t your money as green as that of the other (older) members? Make your organizations fight for the REAL you, not just the “every educator is of equal quality and value” you!
March 13th, 2011 at 6:33 am
I’m in the administrator’s union and I want nothing to do with it. Leave me alone and stop stealing my money. UAOS is useless and as a younger principal, I don’t respect the E-Board nor want any part of it–what a colossal waste of time.
I support furloughs and no, I’m not retiring tomorrow, but if I was, I’d still support furloughs. If my site loses 16 of its 17 teachers, we’re done for. Next year will be so bad I can’t even conceive of it.
When I was a teacher, it was the same. I didn’t have ANY need for the union but I was still forced to donate hard-won dollars to monthly dues. What did I get from my teacher union? Nothing at all. NOTHING.
Younger and sensible teachers need to take back the unions. If furlough is on the table and we balk and then layoff 500+ awesome teachers, the children in OUSD will suffer once again.
Unions are like corporations. They serve THEMSELVES. Grrrrrowl.
Get rid of all the unions, get rid of many of the consultants, trim the fat further at central office, and get rid of ineffective principals and teachers, who are a drain on the budget. Then, central office can do something besides putting fires out that are started by these people.
Close schools, too. We have WAY too many.
March 13th, 2011 at 7:36 am
It’s nice to know now I am hated because my hair is gray. Last week at my school site, I heard the (young) principal talking about how older teachers have no business still being in the classroom, and they should all retire and make room for the younger teachers. I am grateful that I have a union that protects me from such ageism and hatred. What #10 suggests is right out of the book “Make Room” and the movie “Soylent Green”.
If we allowed layoffs to be anything other than by seniority, 95% of principals would choose to lay off all of the their most senior (expensive) staff. Next, they would choose by who they had personal grudges against/who had ever questioned their leadership/who had ever asked that the contract be followed.
I am unaware of any unions in OUSD taking furloughs – particularly SEIU.What OUSD unions have taken furloughs? I can’t even imagine how that would work – one day a week my students have a sub or get spread to other classes? Does that sound like it would benefit students?
March 13th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Oakland Teacher,
Do you think the same would be true — principals choosing to lay off all of their most senior/expensive staff — if actual teacher salaries (as opposed to average salaries) were taken out of the equation for individual school budgets?
March 13th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Katy-
You not too long ago ran a piece on the tens of millions of dollars questionably spent by OUSD on private consultants and the programs that they sell to OUSD-many times more than other districts spend per pupil on private consultants.
You would do well for your readers to compare the 7% cut that Superintendent Tony Smith and the OUSD School Board are guaranteeing at the school sites with $ spent on these private consultants -and what profits the business interests that they represent make from OUSD-when raising a challenge to us regarding pay cuts and furloughs.
Tony Smith is, if my data is correct, the highest paid superintendent in California, making almost the President of the United States salary. Why are you not putting this in perspective when challenging us to think abot furloughs and pay cuts on your blog? Is it easier and more provocative for your blog to posit that OUSD employees are the ones to take further cuts to nobly protect the jobs that are being lost due to the mismanagement-BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE SCHOOL BOARD-of the district budget?
HERE IS THE REAL QUESTION-
WHY SHOULD WE BE TALKING ABOUT FURLOUGHS AND PAY CUTS WHEN MISMANAGEMENT OF OUSD’S $ BY THE CENTRAL ADMIISTRATION OF OUSD, THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION-under Superintendent Shiela Jordan-THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-under Jack O’Connell, during which this dramatic shift towards private profiteers invading Oakland Unified began-HAS RESULTED IN THIS 7% CUT TO THE SCHOOLS? THIS CUT IS SEPARATE FROM WHATEVER HAPPENS WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET.
March 13th, 2011 at 10:02 am
I think that most experienced principals would choose to throw RBB in the garbage if given the opportunity. According to most of the posters above, experienced principals (like experienced teachers) are all “ineffective” and “insensible”, since only new and young teachers/principals are “effective” or “sensible”.
But yes Katie, I agree that principals would NOT choose to lay off their more senior staff if teacher salaries were taken out of the equation. However, newer and younger principals sometimes resent more senior teachers who are: older than them, do not completely “bend” to their will, know our contract and try to make sure it is followed within reason. Might they like to get rid of those teachers? Yes, but not at the same rate as when you factor in their salaries, which can be significantly higher than new teachers.
It’s a sad day in Oakland, when teachers and site administrators are infighting like this, and the central admin sitting in their offices eating it up.
One other comment: I do not understand the “bumping” concept that may happen. Previously whenever a teacher was consolidated at a school (due to school closing, becoming a small or charter school, or declining enrollment), they were given priority for open positions. That meant no one was getting “bumped”. The idea of seeing many dedicated teachers at my school bumped to other schools by other teachers does not sound right. While I disagree with most of what the principal above (#11) wrote, I cannot agree that rotating teachers all over the place is going to help anything. It seems like it would send schools into chaos. It is unfortunate that anyone has to be laid off, but it seems like the people who are staying should be allowed to stay at their current placement. Destabilizing schools that way is harmful and unnecessary.
March 13th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Teacher are paid for 186 days, and teach 180 days. A furlough of up to six days (while not great because it would be a cut in pay and a cut in “paid time” for planning and preparing classrooms) would save as many as 96 teaching positions and would not reduce the number of days of learning for the kids.
I didn’t take me very long to do this math. My question is why the OEA Executive Board hasn’t even raised it as a possibility?
March 13th, 2011 at 10:53 am
OUSD Teachers should not agree to any pay cuts.
OUSD is not a “school” in the actual sense. They are something else involving leftist policy and patronage. This is why they spend money on things that don’t make the difference in the student’s outcomes (endless consultants, etc) and continue to push expensive administration rather than educational programs that actually lead to higher earning power for the students.
I have in the past thought of OUSD as a funny farm, a Soviet Style failure factory or words like that.
This being the case, if the teachers volunteer to take a cut in their standards of living for benefit of OUSD the money will only go into more consultants and more administration, with little or none into more teachers. Besides, why should teachers with some seniority take a pay cut so junior teachers can have jobs, to the extent it would mean a junior teacher would even actually keep that job anyway?
So forget pay cuts. Let the school layoff anyway they can or will. The right thing to do here is for the teachers to keep the pay they have negotiated to date. The school to raise classroom size to whatever it takes, and automation to be used to try to bolster whatever education is actually going on. In times like these we can’t afford to continue the old secondary school business model, we should (may have to) move it towards the college business model of larger classes with lectures followed by study and work groups attended by lower paid (non-credentialed) staff.
your bright students will manage, your dull students need to go get a job anyway.
March 13th, 2011 at 11:32 am
David Laub
I guess Katy forgot about the professioal services consultants too.
listed below are the contracts approved in the past year in addition to the OUSD lawyers on staff we are now paying out money to 3 other law firms,
an inspection servies co to review the police dept
(but what are we paying the ousd chief of police to do?)and then I found a contract for a consultant to help with the transition of the new leadership team at PEC (why can’t PEC read the ed code laws and figure out what they say without paying for a 75,000.00 consultant?)
and the last one we paid to teach students how to answer questions, and then somebody created interview and focus group guides
I cannot believe all this waste another parent told me that their school’s music teacher just got a layoff notice…. there is OUSD money out there you see it in these contracts but how come this money is not going into the classroom and being spent like this?????
File #: 11-0641 Version: 1
Name: Professional Services Contract – Executive Inspectional Services – Legal Department
Type: Agreement or Contract
Status: Committee General Consent Report
File created: 3/15/2011
In control: Safety Committee
Title: Ratification by the Board of Education of the Professional Services Contract between the District and Executive Inspectional Services (“EIS”), Dublin, CA, for the latter to provide up to 160 hours of consulting services relating to an independent review of Police Services and to confer with the General Counsel, for an amount not to exceed $ 20,000 for the period of February 7, 2011 through June 30, 2011.
File #: 11-0602 Version: 1
Name: Memorandum of Understanding – Edrington, Schirmer & Murphy LLP Law Firm – General Counsel
Type: Agreement or Contract
Status: Committee General Consent Report
File created: 3/14/2011
In control: Finance and Human Resources Committee
Title: Approval by the Board of Education of Memorandum of Understanding between the District and EDRINGTON, SCHIRMER & MURPHY LLP, Pleasant Hill, CA, for the latter to provide legal services to the District for general advice matters and litigation, for the period of March 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 in a fiscal year.
Contact: Jacqueline.Minor@ousd.k12.ca.us
File #: 09-3539 Version: 1
Name: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – Liebert,
Cassidy & Whitmore – General Counsel
In control: Finance and Human Resources Committee
Title:Approval by the Board of Education of Memorandum of Understanding between the District and Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore, Los Angeles, CA, for the latter to provide legal services to the District for civil litigation and general advice matters, as described in the Scope of Work, incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth, for the period December 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011, in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00 in a fiscal year.
File # 09-3492 Version: 1
Name: Memorandum of Understanding – Stubbs & Leone -
General Counsel
In control: Finance and Human Resources Committee
On agenda: Final action: 6/23/2010
Enactment date: 6/23/2010 Enactment #: 10-1183
Title: Approval by the Board of Education of Memorandum of Understanding between District and Stubbs & Leone, as Special Counsel, under direction and supervision of General Counsel, pursuant to terms and conditions stated therein, providing specialized expert service on civil litigation matters, for the period December 1, 2009 through June 30, 2013, at a cost not to exceed $300,000 in a fiscal year.
File #: 10-2054 Version: 1
Name: Professional Services Contract – Marie Souza – Programs for Exceptional Children
Type: Agreement or Contract
File created: 1/3/2011
In control: Teaching and Learning Committee
Title: Approval by the Board of Education of a Professional Services Contract between District and Marie Souza, Danville, CA, for the latter to provide 1000 hours to support the transition of the new leadership team at Programs for Exceptional Children (“PEC”) by supporting compliance with laws and regulations governing special education and the redesign of special education to provide services to children in alignment with the Strategic Plan that was approved by the Board on June 9, 2010, for the period of July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, in an amount not to exceed $75,000.00.
Contact: Sharon.Casanares@ousd.k12.ca.us
File #: 11-0552 Version: 1
Name: Resolution – Non-Public Schools/Agencies – Programs for Exceptional Children
Type: Agreement or Contract Status: Committee General Consent Report
File created: 3/14/2011
In control: Teaching and Learning Committee
Title: Approval by the Board of Education of Resolution No. 1011-0130 Approving Amended and/or New Master Agreements or Contracts and Individual Service Agreements with Non-Public Schools and Non-Public Agencies 2010-2011, pursuant to terms and conditions stated in said Resolution, including Attachments A and B, at a cost not to exceed $14,451,132.88.
Attachments: Document(s)
Contact: sharon.casanares@ousd.k12.ca.us
Funding source: Special Education
Coherent gov. no.: OE-11 Resource code: 6500-975
File #: 11-0302 Version: 1
Name: Professional Service Contract – Data Center – Quality Community School Delvelopment
Type: Agreement or Contract
Status: Committee General Consent Report
File created: 3/14/2011
In control: Teaching and Learning Committee
Title: Approval by the Board of Education of a Professional Services Contract between District and Data Center, Oakland, CA, for the latter to provide 100 hours of engagement with students in the District to answer the following questions: How do we know if our schools are effective? And What makes a good school? through facilitating a team of OUSD youth to organize and facilitate peer listening circles and create interview and focus group guides for the period of December 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, in the amount not to exceed $5,000.00.
Attachments: Document(s)
Contact: david.montes@ousd.k12.ca.us
Vendor number: I004903
March 13th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Oakland Teacher appears to believe in “ageism” of a different sort. Against the young. Not all young principals and teachers think there’s a problem with experienced teachers. And without support that this is in fact the case you have no reason to so generalize.
The challenge is when there are below proficient teachers who also have senority, protecting them base on only half the equation, pretending it is the whole equation, and making your argument by pretending another group has said something they haven’t said. That is disingenuous and argumentative just for the sake.
It is also what the OEA is engaged in. Want to prove me wrong? Then start representing your entire constituency. And recruit younger teachers to your meetings and show you’re interested in representing them too.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
At the same time I agree with Oakland Teacher comments in #9. Central HQ cuts are the key. As I do with David Laub’s in #14 (about historical budget mismanagement) & Gee Yu in #18 (about continuous unchecked consulting fees. Some of those are recent and the Board shows no signs of stopping in the face of a budget crisis).
March 13th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
As a teacher who is getting a pink slip and who has been in the district 5 years, I take offense at the anti union rhetoric spewed by some of my colleagues. YOU ARE THE UNION! If you want change, you must be willing to put in the work. Despite getting slipped, I support seniority because youth/new to the career doesn’t denote more passion/ability to do the job. I’ve been teaching for ten years and I’m just hitting my stride as an educator. Being pink slipped sucks hardcore. The mere thought of changing schools when I’ve put my all into my community is heartbreaking. In fact it would cause me to look for employment elsewhere but I would double dog dare you to blame the OEA for this kerfuffle. Furloughs haven’t been brought to the table because as a contract issue, they must be bargained on and this has not been brought to the table by the district as of yet, that I know of. If, as Oakland Teacher pointed out, those at the district office, including Dr Smith took a pay decrease, it may ease the wheels of compromise. The burdon of the budget shouldn’t have to be shouldered by principals and teachers. More importantly, it shouldn’t be shouldered by the children of Oakland.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I never thought I would be saying this, but: thank you Nextset for the following:
“This being the case, if the teachers volunteer to take a cut in their standards of living for benefit of OUSD the money will only go into more consultants and more administration, with little or none into more teachers. Besides, why should teachers with some seniority take a pay cut so junior teachers can have jobs, to the extent it would mean a junior teacher would even actually keep that job anyway?”
Frankly, I have seen so many teachers come in go in recent years, that I am loathe to take a pay cut for someone who will leave soon anyway. I also do not trust that the money would actually be available to keep more teachers teaching.
Those contracts are impressive! Especially special education. There was one for $14,451,132.88. That is 14 million dollars to send Oakland kids to private and non-public schools! That is astonishing. Supposedly they are not cutting any positions either. It would be interesting to know where that money is coming from, as it definitely isn’t coming from the state.I thought the district was supposed to have lowered the amount it spends on those types of schools; I hate to think what they were spending before they made “cuts”.
It is definitely time to revolt against these types of expenditures. Note the dates on those; it was all last week. If we ask questions, they will respond “It is already budgeted and we have a contract to uphold.”
So, while there are carefully placed rumors about how teachers are responsible for this mess, and we could make it all go away, OUSD continues to do BUSINESS AS USUAL.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
I’m not sure how UAOS works but every member of the OEA Executive Board (excluding the president) is a full-time teacher elected by their colleagues to represent them for two-year terms. At least 5 are under 40 and at least 3 have received pink slips themselves. This is not about a smoke-and-mirrors, yet-to-be-approved 2% raise. This is not about seniority. This is about funding choices plain and simple, both in OUSD and at the state level. In OUSD, it’s time to take desperate measures to deal with desperate times. Set an OUSD-wide salary cap for ALL non-school-site employees at the top of the teacher pay scale. Do not renew any OUSD-wide contracts that don’t have to do with food or other basic supplies. Is Si Swun more important than teachers in the classroom? Edusoft? Action Learning Systems? BayCES? Rescind the Reduction-In-Force letters. Put students first.
Steve Neat,
5th Grade Teacher,
OEA Secretary
March 13th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
re: post #18 from Gee Yu
“I cannot believe all this waste another parent told me that their school’s music teacher just got a layoff notice…. there is OUSD money out there you see it in these contracts but how come this money is not going into the classroom and being spent like this?????”
March is national “Music in Our Schools Month”
I was informed that in addition to many art teachers and other “non-essential” teachers, at least 12 OUSD music teachers were getting March 15th pink slips. I have already heard confirmations from 5 music teachers of the most successful middle and high school music programs in OUSD. And it’s not even the 15th yet.
Oakland students and families are being shortchanged of a well rounded, quality education which INCLUDES the ARTS. Oakland teachers can barely survive on the lowest salaries in the area and the highest cost of living.
Yet, OUSD continues to ignore the CA Ed Code mandating the appropriate percentage of the overall district budget be spent on teacher salaries. Sheila Jordan grants OUSD a waiver every year.
OUSD continues approving and encouraging the use of expensive consulting contracts instead of focusing on supporting and fully funding classroom teachers.
OUSD needs to spend more and more money for lawyers and legal help because they knowingly allow administrators and principals to perpetrate all sorts of harassment, unfair labor practices and in some cases illegal work actions against teachers and staff they are SUPPOSED to be supporting.
The school board wonders why the district enrollment has declined so far…..and what they can do to get Oakland families to return to the public schools. DUH! How about making the schools a supportive, caring and outstanding place to work and learn by supporting the teachers who actually teach the students? How about putting the SCHOOL COMMUNITY first and not allowing the revolving door of principals with their own personal agendas to traipse into established school communities and tear them apart? How about we stop spending millions and millions of dollars per year on outside consultants and programs that take the focus away from the important work that OUSD teachers are striving to provide in their classrooms each day?
I truly believe that there is a much larger agenda being implemented upon Oakland. Losing music, art and many, many wonderful teachers is just a part of the destabilization plan.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Hi, when I started looking at the contracts I did not include the ones that are title I funded… all are given to out side contracted LLC and organitions and these were in the millions too!
I can put them up on this site if you want me tooo
I couldn’t believe these contracts either GY
March 13th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
1. Re: furloughs. I would oppose furloughs. A furlough is like a pay cut, except students lose a week of school. So I would prefer a straight pay cut before a furlough. If kids matter at all, we would not go the furlough route.
2. Re: outside services contracts: I believe it was Nextset who argued that the District should contract out services, because it would save money. Of course, when they do, then people complain about “outside services contracts” (eg, the legal contract set forth in #18 above). The District is damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
3. Re bumping (#15) — it is not going to happen. The contract doesn’t work that way. A senior teacher without a position can only be placed in an open position (albeit one that might have been created by a layoff). A teacher w/o a position cannot bump someone who has not been laid off.
March 13th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Gordon – I think you are wrong re bumping. I have heard that it is going to happen. Talk to your site admin. I know it sounds crazy, but I have heard it numerous times.
March 13th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
@`Gordon,
So, if you are a teacher getting a pink slip because you have only 2 or 3 years experience, you are out of a job. Then, the District places a teacher with more seniority in your spot…what happens if you are one of the teachers re-hired? Would you get your spot back at your school, or would you be placed in an open position at another site? Put another way, do they “re-hire” by seniority, or by school site?
March 13th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
There is no bumping of teachers by seniority. It can not happen. The District may be thinking, on top of everything else it is doing to create chaos, of issuing mass administrative transfers to teachers based on some “need”. For example, because of the lay-offs, many bilingual classrooms are affected. The district might transfer a teacher who has a BCLAD credential but who is not teaching currently in a bilingual classroom to a bilingual school. This can be done within the contract.
Whether you are rehired at your site depends on when the decision is made to rescind. If rescinded before the principal has to make a hiring decision (June 30?), you remain at your site. If you are called back later in the summer, you might have to take an available vacancy if your position has been filled. Most principals will hold off filling positions as they are informed of the probability of the final cut-off point.
March 13th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
# 28 and Gordon
another parent just called me and said that a music teacher who had been hired in 1993 got a pink slip. so if your hired after 1992 you were laid off???
isn’t art and music an elective in middle school and high school? what are the a-g regs?
March 13th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
How much money did OEA, CTA and NEA give Obama’s campaign? He has completely abandoned his base. I can’t wait to vote his a$$ OUT OF OFFICE!
March 13th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Thank you Trish…so it seems that there is some discretion at the site, as long as no one has been offered the position. It is scary to think that OUSD could wait until August to rescind a pink slip, how many great, young teachers will be long gone by then!?!
March 13th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
#30-The music teacher(s) likely did not get a pink slip. Any teacher whose salary is paid for, all or in part, by categorical funds receive a certified notice of potential reassignment. In most cases it is a formality.
March 13th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Hey you all- don’t forget about the 11 school counselors and 6 psychologists on the pink slip list as well.
I agree, the consultants have got to go.
March 13th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
“How much money did OEA, CTA and NEA give Obama’s campaign? He has completely abandoned his base”.
This speaks volumes about the real problem with the system as it exists today. Our own tax money is used to buy politicians who financially pound the real taxpayers into submission(one hand washes the other, and all that).
March 13th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Oakland Teacher: I’ve spoken to my principal and union folks. It just doesn’t work that way in OUSD. No bumping.
Yastrzemski: I don’t know, but my guess is that a rehired teacher would go to an open assignment.
Gee Yu: A year of art or music is on of the A-G requirements (H, I beleive), and I think it is a graduation requirement. But many schools (such as Oakland High) offer advanced art; it is certainly possible that a principal might decide to eliminate all art classes beyond Art I, and thereby eliminate an art position.
Harold: What does Obama have to do with teacher layoffs? How do you figure that he has “abandoned his base.”
March 13th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Harold,
Contrary to what some people think, Barry doesn’t have a money tree in the back, that money is borrowed and will have to be paid back with interest by taxpaying citizens.American citizen’s kids and grandkids are saddled with this debt, each essentially owing tens of thousands of dollars in debt years before they would even start looking for work. Since you will be retired by then I guess you don’t care, but it seems as though that is a rather common sentiment. It’s just too bad, but like they say (the character shows itself).
March 14th, 2011 at 5:30 am
JR!
Yes! You’re right. Obama owes the unions a favor, right? At the expense of kids?
We have substandard teachers in this district–not horrible or bad–but substandard. Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general
Let’s pay teachers more and get rid of tenure and mediocrity. An awesome senior teacher is worth her weight in gold, as well! Too bad a lot of veterans are so ineffective. Let principals do their jobs, which is to serve communities awesome educational opportunities.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:49 am
JR:
Can you explain this odd propensity of those who oppose Pres. Obama to refer to him as “Barry”? What’s the deal with that? Yeah, I know he used to go by that when he was, like 20, but can you shed some light on it?
PS: Re the debt:
A) “Tens of thousands of debt” isn’t all that much, since most people owe more than that on their homes, and many owe that on their cars. Not to mention student loans.
B) It isnt that high as a percentage of GDP, compared to the international norm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt
c) It is how the money is used that is crucial. If it is used to make us richer in the future, like for infrastructure, R&D, education and the like, then no problem. If it is used for tax breaks for rich folks, then it can be far more problematic. But, then, that wasn’t “Barry’s” doing.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Gordon,
First of all, don’t use wikipedia(you do know how the info is uploaded don’t you?) unless you verify its info with at least two other reputable sources.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/
Tens of thousands(I think the latest figure is 30K+ per child) of debt on each child who has bought and owns nothing is insane and it’s too much before they have even started their own independent lives(BTW, children will have this debt in addition to mortgages and car payments).
Barry is responsible for ballooning the debt 3-4 trillion in just a few years. One thing that really bothers me is the contention that tax breaks come out of the budget(that assumes that the government already owns a good part of peoples money before they even make it, although, you being paid by taxes is a different story altogether).
To shed a little light on Barry, he is just a normal man(with an abnormal expectations and an even bigger ego)who is in over his head(much like Bush Jr. only worse. Not very presidential at all in any way shape or form.
The shame here is that we will never get out of this because people(in general) choose to be oblivious of the situation and self centered at the same time.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:19 am
re: #33 @Trish
I can attest that the music teacher referred to in #30 has definitely
received a pink slip, along with at least 4 other music teachers. The teachers were told that at least 12 music reachers would receive pink slips but I have not been able to confirm the other 7 have actually been notified as yet. We have been informed that there will be a meeting for the district music department later this week.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Bottom Third,
“Look, I’m not a fan of teachers’ unions. They used their clout to gain job security more than pay, thus making the field safe for low achievers. Teaching work rules are often inflexible, benefits are generous relative to salaries, and it is difficult or impossible to dismiss teachers who are ineffective”.
The way the system is designed to pay everyone the same regardless of ability(relative to years served is the problem). The ineffective teachers are overpaid, and the effective teachers end up being paid less than they are worth as a result. We could simplify the system by not even having to rank teachers by best to worst, but by simply discharging those that are not doing a good job regardless of service time. None of this would be necessary if some so called professionals weren’t taking the cruise down the path of least resistance. Just look at the breakdown of students who are/are not proficient(also the amount of remediation in high school and college), and that tells you the the story without the need to bring up test scores.
March 14th, 2011 at 10:36 am
JR: The Wikipedia article cites its source (the CIA Factbook), which is one reason that Wikipedia is often more reliable than normal dictionaries, which almost never cite their sources.
More importantly, you didn’t answer my question re: the “Barry” thing
March 14th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Gordon,
Re: Barry
“To shed a little light on Barry, he is just a normal man(with an abnormal expectations and an even bigger ego)who is in over his head(much like Bush Jr. only worse. Not very presidential at all in any way shape or form”.
Bottom line is He is not Presidential material(therefore he is just Barry).
March 14th, 2011 at 11:06 am
They call President Obama “Barry” as a sign of disrespect. What they really mean is “boy” but they don’t dare type it out loud.
March 14th, 2011 at 11:07 am
re: #42 @J.R.
I hear you dumping on teachers (again) and holding them completely accountable for student failure. Tell me…. where do you place STUDENT accountability in your perfect, teacher-less world of the (near) future?
How do you plan to address the needs of students who are apathetic towards education, society and life in general? Do they need to assume any responsibility for their own actions? I hate to burst your bubble…. but there are actually some students in our classrooms (when not cutting) who are simply dealing with their own personal or familiar issues to such a degree that they are unwilling or unable to control their behavior and allow others to learn.
It’s difficult enough to try and reach these kids with smaller class size. Once they start loading up the classrooms with a larger percentage of troubled Oakland youth, more chaos will ensure.
At what point do we teach the lesson that we as humans are responsible for our own actions and their consequences?
March 14th, 2011 at 11:27 am
SIB,
Everyone seems to be oblivious to the actual written words(or maybe the union propaganda is so deeply ingrained that you don’t even realize it)I think good and great teachers should be paid more(they do a terrific job), but many in the trade(I’ll call it trade because of the teamster-like tactics of the union)are underperforming. Come to think of it, parents that sit in classes and or are closely involved in student progress can tell if the students are performing better than your colleagues can, after all aren’t these teachers busy with their own classes? How do other teachers know if colleagues are performing well or not(do you just take their word for it)? Believe it or not parents do know when their kids are progressing or not. The bad apples should be taken out of the bunch, whether teachers or kids. Small schools and small class sizes have been tried, and they didn’t make much difference, because the parents matter more, but we can’t fire parents and it’s the liberal philosophy that is to blame for irresponsible people being given housing,food,money that has allowed them to procreate, and now you(the teachers) are stuck with the little darlings. Surprise, surprise! The responsible people are living life the responsible way and paying taxes for those that are irresponsible, now you tell me where to put the blame. You have been reduced to babysitter status by(in part) your own hand.Until you make the connection yourself I can’t help you.
March 14th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Peaches,
Unless you have the ability to read minds and know the heart of the person or follow their action in minute detail, your opinion(and that is what it is)is almost meaningless. I wrote exactly why I refer to Barry as I do, and It was no different from calling Bush (Shrub).
March 14th, 2011 at 11:40 am
“At what point do we teach the lesson that we as humans are responsible for our own actions and their consequences”?
How utterly ironic that statement is(I really hope you think about it in depth).
March 14th, 2011 at 11:58 am
JR:
You are right – it is the same as calling Bush, “Shrub,” but isn’t also equally devoid of content? Both are beneath serious consideration, aren’t they?
PS, re: US gov’t debt, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/america-is-not-broke/2011/03/10/ABOiNBV_blog.html
March 14th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Gordon,
Number one, we are a debtor nation, we spend far and away more than we take in(in taxation even though tax burden is quite high on many of us).Federal debt is about $10T and annual federal revenue is about $2.7B, so the federal government has a debt-to-income ratio of about 3.7 to 1. While broke may be just a bit of hyperbole, we cannot continue this pattern of drunken spending. The government needs to be downsized in both scope and benefits(only keep what is truly necessary and beneficial). On that note did you know that State Super Tom Torlakson announced that “time was running dangerously short to place a tax extension on the ballot”. Gee thanks Tom, what would we ever do without you(Our schools would literally fall apart)your salary is money well spent. Sarcasm off! there are just too many unnecessary people and pensions being pushed on the backs of taxpayers, it’s just sickening.
March 14th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Its all about busting unions. From Rhode Island, down to Baltimore … over to Wisconsin and now in California.
Class-warfare has begun in America. Thirty years of trickle-down economics, drugs and neglect has left us with a cynical citizenry, prepared to cannibalize itself.
March 14th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Harold,
Try working as a physical therapist at a hospital, and physically busting your butt(putting in tons of hours), and then getting taxed at 40% rate(it’s happening to my niece. If you were on the other end of that equation you would get tired of bending over too. See how eager you would be to increase taxes to pay for the comfortable retirement of those who aren’t doing their job(as I said before the good and great I have no problem with paying for, it’s the incompetent and unnecessary that have me bothered).
March 14th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
@JR – You are on the front lines of the union busting movement. You are totally invested in it. We will not see this the same way. So, we can just agree to disagree.
I bust my ass everyday at my site. Take extra work home, etc…
March 14th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
JR:
If you take a look at the link in my previous post, you will see that we CAN continue the current level of spending. (Entitlement reform is arguably another issue, particularly Medicare).
More importantly, even if you think that we should reduce deficits, it is manifestly not true that “the government must be downsized,” because “tax revenue as a percentage of the economy is at a 60-year low.” That’s according to Bloomberg.com, not exactly a bastion of the Left. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-07/bonds-show-why-boehner-saying-we-re-broke-is-figure-of-speech.html
March 14th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Harold,
I can’t remember how long ago, that I told you that it wasn’t just me, well I hope you believe it now. Because things are going to change for the benefit of kids and taxpayers, and we will change it with you or without you. If you do the job that we pay you for(you owe the taxpayers and kids something not the union), then that’s a good thing. It’s the teachers that can’t or wont do their jobs that will need to worry. Union or not new or tenured, simple as that.
March 14th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Public employee pensions are paid by both the employee and employer. The portion paid by the employer is matched by the employee. This is deducted from our gross pay, before net. The portion paid by the employer is part of the total compensation worked out at the bargaining table. There is no freeloading on the backs of taxpayers-this is a blatent fabrication of truth that has been supported, unfortunately by the media-including silence on the facts at this very site. We public workers pay as much as everyone else, at the same tax rates.
Katy-you should be able to EASILY verify this for your blogosphere. This is an invitation for you to-as the reporter, and author of this blog-to do so.
March 14th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Gordon,
I don’t like Reagan(never have as a matter of fact),but he said something that is very true. “A government that is big enough to do anything FOR you, is big enough to do anything TO you. I don’t want to make a huge list of make-work near useless dept’s and bureaus in government(just Google it yourself), but anyone with any discernment can see we have far more than we need, and money is being wasted. Here are some real numbers on worker/retiree levels paying/receiving from the system. What sounds healthier for the economy 16 workers to one retiree or 3 workers to one retiree?
March 14th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“Public employee pensions are paid by both the employee and employer. The portion paid by the employer is matched by the employee”.
And ALL of that comes from taxes(plus your union dues as well)courtesy of your local fed up taxpayer. Check my earlier posts to learn how the free market(private sector) works vs the captive market(public sector).My free market employer isn’t forced to pay someone wages irregardless of quality of work(he can fire me any time). In the public sector there are no checks and balances to ensure quality of work, the taxpayer pays regardless(we are stuck, and it might as well be a gun to our collective head. As far as bargaining neither side of the table actually cares(it’s not their money) they don’t go out and struggle to make the money. My dad always said ” if you don’t earn it, you won’t fully appreciate it.
March 14th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Oops here is the the link about retirees:
http://www3.prudential.com/signature/Social-Security.html
March 14th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
“Public employee pensions are paid by both the employee and employer. The portion paid by the employer is matched by the employee.” Are you saying that’s true for all public employees? Is that true for teachers? Please clarify. Because I know that this isn’t true for City of Oakland employees. But I don’t know for teachers.
And Federal employees receive a much more market based, sustainable retirement package (compared to City employees. Again, I don’t know about teachers).
March 14th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
As much as I have questions about how unions work, all this infighting doesn’t seem productive. Old vs. young. Teachers vs. principals. Unions vs. staff. This seems silly.
Why don’t we just decide what is best of the bad options from the perspective of STUDENTS? I don’t know what that is, but that’s my frame. It doesn’t involve jettisoning veterans, unions or administration.
It means cutting fat wherever it is, being realistic about the number of schools and the class sizes allowed by state funding. It means reevaluating EVERY dollar spent, including the salaries of “leadership.”
I hope folks can stop the infighting long enough to realize the students need everyone.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
trish I saw the packet today that the 1993 teacher got..it not what you called a reassignment… OUSD is telling this teacher that is if the teacher doesn’t not agree with OUSD they have to go to a hearing.. reassignent was never stated in the pages of lawyer talk..
March 14th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
@ J.R. Says:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Hey Junior, his name is Barack. Or, President Obama, if you want to be formal.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Peaches,
No I have witnessed enough that in my personal determination, Barry suits him just fine.
March 14th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Livegreen, CalSTRS, the teacher retirement plan in California, is less generous and financially sounder than many other public employee plans. According to the CalSTRSBenefits.us webpage:
Contribution rates for members and employers have not changed for more than 20 years.
Employer contributions have remained at 8.25 percent for 20 years.
Member contributions have been held at 8 percent since 1972.
Each year the State of California also contributes a percentage of the annual earnings of all members to CalSTRS. The State of California’s contributions declined from 4.3 percent in 1998 to the current 2.017 percent. The teachers’ retirement fund is the only non-state employee pension fund that the state contributes to.
In 2000, after several years of a booming economy, CalSTRS was actually collecting more money than it was projected it would need to meet its obligations, so the state decreased its contribution and some modest upgrades were offered to retirees. Those upgrades will expire and not be renewed next year. The recession has hit CalSTRS, as it has hit all financial organizations, but as the economy recovers the gap between expected income and expected payments will narrow. Minor adjustments in contributions will allow the system to remain financially strong.
March 14th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Wasn’t this thread about OUSD’s expenditures, budget cuts and the timing of a 2 percent raise to OUSD employees? Let’s get back to it.
March 15th, 2011 at 6:56 am
The thread title “About That 2% Raise” was deliberately provocative, raising the issue of how dare teachers ask for or accept a raise when our members are being laid off. Of course, that digressed into union hating, teacher blaming, pension hating propaganda. The stuff about Obama’s moniker was off track, but unfortunately, everything else is what would be expected in any article about teacher salary, pensions, layoffs, etc…
Katy – you forgot to make one thing perfectly clear: The raise is completely hypothetical. It would not even happen until at least a year away. We are working under an imposed contract; today’s reality is there is NO RAISE. The layoffs are unrelated to the board agreeing that someday in the future teachers deserve a raise. Today’s layoffs are not due to any proposed 2% increase. The whole scenario feels “1984 ish”, with the people who set policy playing with us like puppets, not only manipulating action, but thought.
Unrelated: yesterday one of my struggling students made real and meaningful connections to problem solve/using critical thinking skills. I had the happiest dream last night about him. This is what keeps me going. It must be really hard for teachers who got a March 15 letter to be feeling positive about their work right now; you are all in my thoughts.
March 15th, 2011 at 8:54 am
The 2 percent raise would be for all employees, not just teachers. It’s built into the district’s working budget for next year, and I explained that it wouldn’t begin until January 2012 — thus, costing the district $2 million next year, rather than $4 million. The OEA president, herself, expressed earlier reservations about the implications of the raise and what it would mean for class sizes and other working conditions for teachers.
It’s a policy question, and a relevant one.
March 15th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Thanks Stephen. This helps me understand that teachers have not gotten the benefit spikes or unsustainable pensions some other Local and State employees received during the bull market.
When State Budget negotiations breakdown over higher pension contributions by State employees, and the State Unions call for solidarity, remember they’re trading their concessions for major cuts to education..
March 15th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Katy-
“Wasn’t this thread about OUSD’s expenditures, budget cuts and the timing of a 2 percent raise to OUSD employees? Let’s get back to it.”
WHAT ABOUT THE CONSULTANTS, PROGRAMS AND CONTRACTORS THAT OUSD HAS SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON RESULTING IN THE DETERMINATION BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE SCHOOL BOARD TO CUT 7% OF EACH SITES BUDGET RESULTING IN MASS LAYOFFS WITHIN ALL OF THE CATEGORIES OF SITE STAFFING.
IN LOGIC, WHEN A PREMISE IS FALSE, THE CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TRUE-EVEN IF WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE TRUE.
THE PREMISE OF YOUR ORIGINAL THREAD IS OUT OF CONTEXT, FALSE-THAT A 2% “RAISE” IS TIED TO MAINTAINING STAFFING AT THE SITES.
AGAIN-
USE YOUR POWERS AND SKILLS AS A REPORTER TO GIVE US REAL DATA, NOT PROVACATIVE “THREADS”.
March 15th, 2011 at 11:10 am
I just heard that Walnut Creek teachers just got a 3% raise. Walnut Creek does not spend $2000 per student on consultants.
Katy-
How much does Walnut Creek spend per pupil on cosultants? Does Oakland spend $2000 per pupil on consultants? How does OUSD compare to other districts on this issue in California? How skewed (statistically) up are we in OUSD on this issue?
March 15th, 2011 at 11:36 am
I recently blogged about a Pepperdine study that compared California school districts’ expenditures on consultants and “the classroom.”
http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/2011/02/03/report-ousd-spent-big-on-consultants/
The report, however, lumped together central consultant costs and those of outside contractors that provide direct services to students. Peter Schrag called the research a “soggy waffle.” http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/8648
March 15th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
And Troy Flint is still supposed to get back to us with those #s. At what point does thinking “this takes time” reasonably switch to “maybe they don’t want to tell us?”
Or maybe they want a reasonable answer/solution worked out first?
March 15th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Damage control?
March 15th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
@Livegreen – Yes, we’re still working on taking the raw data and turning it into something that is accessible for the general public. It’s taking longer than anyone would like, but we have’t forgotten this project.
Really, we have no motive not to provide this information since the dominant narrative holds that OUSD spends an exorbitant and unreasonable amount of money on unnecessary consulting services. Whatever the actual numbers, at worst, releasing this data would only reinforce the general consensus and at best, it might change a few (very few) minds.
There’s no strategic reason to withhold the data so I don’t think the conspiracy theories play here, but I do acknowledge the information is overdue. I’ll sit down with Finance, Procurement and Labor Management tomorrow to see what we can provide in short order.
March 15th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
david
WCSD did get a raise heard for an admin directly…J.R. I quit waiting for OUSD and started looking on the school board web site…….
katy the contracts passed in the last couple of months were never calculated in the pepperdine study
March 15th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Barack Obama. I voted for him. But look what he did:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/
March 15th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
It’s never bothered me to hear someone refer to our president as “Barry.” First of all, it usually means that somebody’s trying to rattle my chain, which can be amusing in itself. It also gives me a quick indication of the level of discourse and insight that will follow, which can save me a lot of time if I’ve got more rewarding things to do, such as catching a nap or refurbishing the catbox.
For example, blaming President Obama for the country’s current financial strain makes about as much sense as, say, my being blamed for the springtime test scores of several dozen students who’d arrived at high school in the fall reading at third-grade level.
I wonder where all these rabid deficit hawks were hiding when his predecessor was rushing the country into a couple of huge wars with such little regard for how they’d be financed, immediately or in the coming decades when our country will, I hope, be taking far better care of our disabled veterans than we did and do with some of their predecessors who were bumbled into Vietnam.
Besides, I’d be a hypocrite if I found the “Barry” stuff irksome. There’s the First Amendment, for one thing, which as a citizen I revere, and which as a teacher I’ve sworn to defend and protect. But some years ago I also won a generous pair of nightclub tickets by phoning in to enter a spur-of-the-moment radio quiz announced over the UC Berkeley station. It was early in 2001, and the question was, “Who can tell us what the W stands for in our new president’s name?” Must have been a slow day at KALX, because I was the first caller, and when I answered “Wienertot!” the DJ said “That’s it. Contest over; you’re our winner.”
But on a more useful note, I wanted to let people know that our own local hero, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, is one of the guests on tonight’s Charlie Rose show. It will run again at midnight on KQED, and again tomorrow at noon. I only caught a sliver, so I’ll have to set the VCR, but she did express her own disdain at the kind of budget “recovery” that will come from extending tax cuts to millionaires.
By the way, our government could have saved much money, time, and aggravation by way of Ms. Lee’s health care plan, H.R.3000, which she introduced in June, 2009. Just one of many commonsense bills that make me proud and honored to live in her district.
http://lee.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=69§iontree=2,37,69
March 16th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
@Troy Flint: How did your meeting(s) with Finance, Procurement and Labor Management go? The truth and the actual numbers really need to come out– could we get an update?
March 17th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Thanks Troy, I look forward to your info. I realize it’s complicated sorting out consulting contracts, since even some Central ones might fund site ones (just a guess). I would have hoped OUSD would have codes in its date base to help sort such things out (though i know nothing about data base management, I’m guessing this exists).
March 17th, 2011 at 10:41 am
BTW, even if Central funding of consultants turns out to be small, and most Central funding supports the schools (heating, security, OUSD PD, maintenance, etc. – I have to look at some of Katy’s previous posts and links in more detail), there are steps that can be taken to mitigate wholesale layoffs and departmental cuts.
The City of Oakland, no shining light of fiscal management, has given us examples includes:
-Terminating many unfilled jobs (most of their job cuts actually came from such open positions. It doesn’t hurt anyone so is a no-brainer);
-Mayor’s voluntary cut, and City Councilmembers pay cuts to their offices;
-5% cut to all City employees earning $100K+;
-Requiring all contractors to take a 10% cut.
-Limits on all travel and meal expenses (I don’t know all the details on this one).
Some of these are big, some are small, but they all add up. Maybe OUSD is working or has already done some of these, in which case I would appreciate reading about them. But besides getting us the #’s, OUSD, Administration and the Board need to a) Show they’re being proactive; b) Show that they’re actually taking action we can SEE (again, if they are doing some of these we need to read about it); c) Accept that Central HQ needs to share meaningfully in the cuts this year, regardless of last year.
Without all of these, if the cuts that come down hit mostly Schools, Teachers & Principals (through layoffs), OUSD and the Board are going to hear about it anyway and then either suffer the consequences at the ballot box or backtrack, after the fact. Better to be proactive and show that Parents & Teachers have been heard. Then any other bitter medicine will be easier to swallow.
I realize I’ve left closing [failing small] schools and other difficult choices off my list. The examples I’ve given is, again, mostly easier, realistic cuts that the City has shown an example on…
March 18th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Has anyone thought about a serious furlough for the politicans in Sacramento and a huge if not complete cut for all expense accounts- yes bring a bag lunch or talk over that peanut butter and jelly sandwich sans the Merlot…..let them take a week off a month…and keep teachers in our classrooms. Who could possibly challange that idea, except the obvious. I had a real eye opener…..the check for the luncheon meeting was just about my salary for the week! Is this idea on Jerry’s plate?