Comments on: Correction: FUSD negotiations

By: Jon Simon

Jon Simon — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:03:12 +0000

Dear Board Members,

Please keep class size reduction. The funding gains aren’t close to worth the educational losses. Use reserves to help pay for it. That’s what they’re for. If things get worse, such is life, but the money was spent exactly as it should be, on the kids.

Respectfully,
Jon Simon

If you have your own message for the board members, here are their addresses:
bryan@bryan4schools.com, lily@lilymei.org, larry4sb@aol.com, ivy826wu@yahoo.com, lmyork@comcast.net

By: TR

TR — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:57:12 +0000

I have worked as both an ‘at will’ employee AND as a contracted teacher. The benefit to a contract from the district/student side is that the teacher cannot leave in the middle of the year, with two weeks or less notice. This protects the students from a constant flow of short term teachers. At will employment is for both the employee and the employer – The children need a teacher who is committed to be there for the school year, semester or trimester.
And Mike is right explains the difference well – the treatment of teachers without the no-lay-off is more like ‘seasonal’ employees than ‘at will’ employment.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:36:49 +0000

Mike: well put… the lay-off notices really have an impact in the classroom.

By: MikeTeeVee

MikeTeeVee — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:51:39 +0000

The point is, when I do get laid off, it’s right now and it’s final. And typically comes with some severance pay. Then I go on unemployment until I find a new job. In a quarter century, I’ve been laid off once, and so has my wife.

What teachers go through, with the annual “we might lay you off” pink slip limbo every spring, and “just kidding” every fall, is quite different.

By: bbox231

bbox231 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:23:02 +0000

MikeTeeVee is right -

“At will” employees are “notified” from the moment they are hired that their job can be terminated at any point in time, for cause or not.

Remember the little form you signed acknowledging your “at will” status ?? Re-read it . . . ..

By: MikeTeeVee

MikeTeeVee — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:49:32 +0000

I’m in a field with “at will” employment. I don’t get a pink slip every spring with the threat that I might be unemployed every fall.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:22:02 +0000

If the whole educational system were “at will” like the private sector we would be able to keep the best teachers(irregardless of seniority) and dump the lemons(we all know there are some). The process for teacher dismissal is too long,laborious and expensive.

have a look everyone, because the parents need to make changes in the interest of children because no one else will.

http://community.fremontcitizensnetwork.org/forum/topics/hands-tiedis-this-any-way-to

By: bbox231

bbox231 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:44:49 +0000

Thanks for the clarification TR.

With your experience with this “psycological torture” you describe in the public education system, can you characterize how the process you are familiar with is significantly different from “at will employment” – which is almost universally enforced in the private sector – and which effectively states that an employee can be terminated for any reason, at any point in time, with or without cause . . . .

By: Bruce

Bruce — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:22:25 +0000

My older boy has seen some of his favorite young teachers laid off. It is tough for them to finish the year after getting the pink slip in the spring, not being sure if it will stick or not. Some handle it with fortitude, some just get depressed and disengaged.
I know that the whole country is hurting right now, but the way school budgets get changed late in the year and teachers are expected to teach with a sword over the head is not constructive. Even if schools are going to be cut back long term, I think their budgets should have a longer term plan and more stability.

By: TR

TR — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 04:13:39 +0000

For clarification, the no lay off clause does not impact removal and firing of employees. Teachers can be fired – there is a process for this that is not impacted by the no-lay-off clause. They just agree not to lay off teachers at the end of each year if they have a perm. contract – If a school site has to reduce the number of teachers it has, the teachers with the lowest seniority get put on an unassigned list – The district is so large, there are usually jobs at other sites for which they are qualified. As the spring goes forward, and into the fall, these teachers are placed at sites and in positions through out the district. This way, Fremont retains experienced teachers.

When other districts cut back, they lay off a ton of teachers, and then are left scrambling for teachers at the start of the year when the numbers change. This leaves classrooms with subs and less experienced teachers at every school. The no-lay-off clause is a benefit for the district and the teacher – but who it really benefits is the students. Students are more likely to have a qualified, experienced teacher each year.

and the “odd form of psychological torture” is being told each year in March that you will not have a job next year, every year, year after year. Schools cannot plan, teachers cannot prepare for the next school year. Essentially, teachers in some districts are treated like contractors – paid for the 9 months, and then set free.