Comments on: Mt. Diablo district war of words continues in Clayton Valley charter debate

By: School Teacher

School Teacher — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:44:06 +0000

I would like to try and clarify this concept of tenure. I think most people perceive the receiving of tenure as some type of lifetime right to a job. That is not what tenure is, at least that is not how it has been explained to me in my teaching career. My understanding of tenure is that it gives a teacher the status of being “permanent”, which means that he/she cannot be fired without cause. There is a periodic system of evaluation that teachers are supposed to go through. If they are not doing their job, or need to try and alter their teaching practices, then it should be noted during that evaluation process, and hopefully be addressed by the teacher during the subsequent year of teaching. I understand that the evaluation system could probably use some revising, clarification, streamlining, or maybe just enforcement to accomplish some of this (and some of that evaluating burden is on the administration of each site). But, I think taking that security away from teachers will only hurt the quality of teaching at that school/district. Administrators in this district don’t have that type of security, and look at what lap dogs they end up being to their “bosses” at the district offices. I think most people would agree that not all the principals weighing in on the charter conversion are doing it just because they have that passion all built up inside of them. I think it is quite likely that they were told to do so, and if not done, they might not be in present postion come next year. I believe that if teachers didn’t have the security to do what they felt was best for teaching their students, and primarily had to worry about pleasing their administrators, we would lose a lot of quality teaching. I would remind most folks that most administrators really don’t bring much actual teaching experience to the table. Just because someone is a principal or a superitendent doesn’t mean they were/are a good teacher. If they were really that passionate about teaching, they should have stayed in the classroom, where the real teaching happens.

By: Just J

Just J — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:25:22 +0000

@curious. This is the exact reason we need to end tenure practice for teachers. We deserve highly qualified teachers always. If a teacher gets burned out we need to find a way to re-energize or let them move on.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:18:42 +0000

All the teachers have been informed of this. Yet, Pat Middendorf said virtually all of the teachers who originally signed the petition were still on board when they took a straw poll last week.
She said about five teachers indicated that they may decide to leave (I’m not sure if that was out of the total or if it was part of the 80 percent).

By: Another CV Parent

Another CV Parent — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:15:59 +0000

Although 80% of the CV teachers signed the charter petition, they did so believing that they would be able to take leaves of absense to work at the charter. District staff says that will not be the case; they will have to resign to work at the charter. So I imagine a number of teachers will have to take a long, hard look at whether or not they want to work at the charter.

By: Curious

Curious — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:05:35 +0000

Teacher #43 and Theresa, The issue is not the number of teachers who might use “bumping rights” but the specific teachers who may be bumped. Parents may not care that 80 percent of teachers remain every year if the one they want for their child’s classroom is let go simply because another has seniority. Often teachers in their first and second years in a district (before qualifying for tenure and becoming “permanent”) bring a level of enthusiasm and resourcefulness that parents appreciate and don’t want to see their school or student lose. While there may not be a lot of “bumping” going on, it’s an important issue for those who do lose their jobs and the parents and students who love them.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:53:34 +0000

@#48 If just one of those “dominios” falls, the whole budget collapes.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:26:14 +0000

The district has built approximately $6 million into its budget for furlough days, including nearly $4.6 million for furlough days that MDEA hasn’t yet agreed to. In addition, the district is already projecting millions in revenues from three School Improvement Grants that haven’t yet been renewed. It is already spending 14.46% more on teachers’ salaries at the three SIG schools for the extended school day. That money was supposed to be funded through the SIGs, so the district may be dipping into its extra $7.6 million now to help cover that stalled funding.
In addition, the board just approved $683,602 more in funding for special education transportation and nearly $765,000 for additional special education assistants, which were not included in the original budget.
Ron Bennett, of School Services of California, told me it’s common for districts to build cuts into their budgets that haven’t yet been made, so they can certify “positive” on their budgets. However, if MDEA doesn’t agree to the cuts, the district will need to take them out of its projections at some point.
Another incentive MDUSD had to certify positive was to make its bond sales more desirable. If the district had certified “qualified” or “negative,” its bonds wouldn’t have been as attractive to investors.
If the County Office of Education agrees with the district’s “positive” certification, there is no danger of a state takeover.
In the recent past, the County Office of Education recommended that the district consult an outside fiscal adviser. However, I don’t believe the district followed through on that advice.

By: Number Eight

Number Eight — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:48:49 +0000

Just J,
Who at the county said that? It’s mind-boggling how they abdicate responsibility. The county reviews the district budget. A while ago they pressured Acalanes district to reduce exorbitant teacher raises. Time for the county to use the same pressure on MDUSD. Or is MDUSD in the clear with its $7.6mil windfall???

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:22:03 +0000

Linda Mayo said she seconded the motion “for discussion.”
Eberhart said he wouldn’t support it because the kids need transportation now. However, he asked Rolen to get the information to Hansen.
Although Rolen previously told me he would present a transportation report to the board, it appears that he has instead given an oral presentation to the Community Advisory Committee. Since there is no written report or Powerpoint, anyone who missed the CAC meeting is in the dark.
Hansen said it is important to report back to the public whether the initially projected savings have been achieved or not. Rolen said he thought they had, but he had no documentation to support that assertion.

School Teacher: A few other teachers made the same point Tuesday — that bumping happens every year and if 80 percent of the teachers remain, there won’t be a whole lot of bumping going on.

By: Just J

Just J — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:49:09 +0000

Dr J. The whole discussion was a disaster I don’t think anyone gets it except for Cheryl
This is a very sad time for mdusd. From what the county told me the only reason the state hasn’t taken over is because the state is broke.