46 replies to this topic

[The Average Joe]

As a teacher I am not going to support all these cuts this year as I understand the request now. I am spending more money out of my pocket to compensate for materials not provided, spending more time prepping and grading for more students and all for less money. Now they're asking for more furlough days, a loss of P.E. prep (great for teachers and an absolutely worthy P.E. program for the kids), along with a freeze in the pay scale. I've been at the same salary for three years and this is my year to move down a row so I absolutely don't want to see the pay scale frozen! They haven't mentioned expanding class size even more but I'm sure that is coming too! All of these requests aren't going to save the jobs of all teachers now anyway. Let me also mention that cost of living has increased too! I get part time jobs during the summer to allow me to afford entertainment throughout the year.

Geee, welcome to a small taste of what the rest of us have been facing...working more for less, no raises, paying out of pocket,etc... only we don't have a private retirement fund, unsustainable benefits packages, and nearly guaranteed employment...

[sunnyCA]

I teach at Sac State and we have 18 furlough days this year. We are not allowed to take them all on teaching days so in many ways we are doing just about the same work for 10% less pay.

FCUSD needs to prove to the teachers that furloughs WILL save jobs--use the furlough savings to restore CSR, keep electives, keep PE, etc. Those teachers keep their jobs. And, the teachers who are still there all have better working conditions. I am sure that a 1st grade teacher would rather have 20 students than 32. Or rather have the PE prep period than lose it.

That's how furloughs can be palatable. When furloughs are not palatable are when they are seen as pay cuts with no clear benefit for the individual taking the cut. If teachers know they might pay a bit less out of pocket because some classroom funding is restored, or that they can keep the PE prep period, they might be more likely to approve the furloughs.

[supermom]

Geee, welcome to a small taste of what the rest of us have been facing...working more for less, no raises, paying out of pocket,etc... only we don't have a private retirement fund, unsustainable benefits packages, and nearly guaranteed employment...

--huh--

[the_professor]

I teach at Sac State and we have 18 furlough days this year. We are not allowed to take them all on teaching days so in many ways we are doing just about the same work for 10% less pay.

FCUSD needs to prove to the teachers that furloughs WILL save jobs--use the furlough savings to restore CSR, keep electives, keep PE, etc. Those teachers keep their jobs. And, the teachers who are still there all have better working conditions. I am sure that a 1st grade teacher would rather have 20 students than 32. Or rather have the PE prep period than lose it.

That's how furloughs can be palatable. When furloughs are not palatable are when they are seen as pay cuts with no clear benefit for the individual taking the cut. If teachers know they might pay a bit less out of pocket because some classroom funding is restored, or that they can keep the PE prep period, they might be more likely to approve the furloughs.

I'm all for more furlough days or a pay freeze. But, the district has been quite clear that jobs/programs will not be saved.

[JoAnne Reinking]

I'm all for more furlough days or a pay freeze. But, the district has been quite clear that jobs/programs will not be saved.

If you've been told that , you are receiving inaccurate information - any savings generated through furlough days would be used to save certificated jobs. The jobs saved would be decided during negotiations

[pet lover]

We have heard unofficially that with all the considerations asked for it doesn't save EVERY teaching position. I think teachers are aware that the things we have fought for over fifteen years since I have been here will save jobs, just not ALL of them! I want to see sports trimmed to the bare bone, elementary music offered to only the kids who want to be there, etc. I think the district needs to work at finding other ways to fix the problems than asking its employees to give up SO much! Teachers "helped" the district several years ago and were jipped so I think many of us have little trust with what the school district/board says and does.

JoAnne you are an incredible addition to the FCUSD board and it is too bad the rest of the board doesn't feel YOUR passion.

I am willing to give in to all the requested furlough days, but that is about IT!

If you've been told that , you are receiving inaccurate information - any savings generated through furlough days would be used to save certificated jobs. The jobs saved would be decided during negotiations

[stacycam]

Great, so the teachers don't think the kids should come first, either.

[normajean]

............................"The late agreement for this school year was the reason the school year couldn't just start a week later since school had already started before the agreement."..........

i believe that is not true. the teachers agreed BEFORE the start of school to take the furlough days..........

[JoAnne Reinking]

............................"The late agreement for this school year was the reason the school year couldn't just start a week later since school had already started before the agreement."..........

i believe that is not true. the teachers agreed BEFORE the start of school to take the furlough days..........

Yes- the teachers agreed over the summer and before the start of this school year to take furlough days. This year we have the option of reducing the school year to 175 days. As a result, furloughs if agreed upon could change the calendar more than last year. Last year's furloughs only included 1 instructional day. Also, teachers had only (1) day without students to prepare to the start of the year. Note- at this time, next school year is scheduled to start Aug 9th.

[JoAnne Reinking]

"I am willing to give in to all the requested furlough days, but that is about IT!"
e]

[JoAnne Reinking]

I am willing to give in to all the requested furlough days, but that is about IT!

Thank you for supporting furlough days. I understand the rest of your post.

[normajean]

does it bother anyone, besides me, that one of our board members stated the reason the school year didn't start later was because the teachers/unions didn't agree to until too late.....and that is NOT TRUE, and another one of our board members validated that????

sadly, our teachers get a bad enough rap already, do we really need a school board member making false accusations to fuel the fire??? what is up with that?

[normajean]

why is one school district paid a higher rate per student than another district? i thought it was a state determined amount. anyone know about that?

[rightwingknot]

does it bother anyone, besides me, that one of our board members stated the reason the school year didn't start later was because the teachers/unions didn't agree to until too late.....and that is NOT TRUE, and another one of our board members validated that????

sadly, our teachers get a bad enough rap already, do we really need a school board member making false accusations to fuel the fire??? what is up with that?

normajean, I think I can help clear up some confusion. There is a piece of the puzzle missing for you that may help.

The teachers voted on the agreement last year on July 27th. Both sides had to negotiate when the furlough days would be applied prior to the terms were agreed to knowing that it would not be until the following week that surplussed teachers would receive their new assignments. I believe that took place on Wednesday or Thursday.

The teachers presented what they believed to be a reasonable calendar as a part of the negotiations. The school board has sole authority over the district calendar and agreed to it also, I believe at the July 30 meeting. Changing a school calendar is no easy task I can assure you.

So, the board could have changed the calendar if they wanted to, but it was realistically too late and would not have been fair to the thousands of families that have already committed their schedules to begin school on Aug. 10. Besides, in a technical sense, I believe the board's policy is to provide the community 6 months notice on changes like this. So, too, to start school at a later date would violate their own policy.

Me thinks Mrs. Reinking has nothing to gain from making false accusations to fuel the fire???. In fact, aside from Mrs. Stanley, she is the only other board member making an effort to connect with the community; you might want to cut her some slack here.

[normajean]

thank you rightwing! that does make more sense to me. sure is a different explanation than .........................."The late agreement for this school year was the reason the school year couldn't just start a week later since school had already started before the agreement.".............(i took this as yet another slam on the teachers)

i did not mean to make it sound as if ms reinking is the board member making the false accusations. i agree with you, she is the one that appears to be factual and is making a wonderful effort to connect with those of us that voted for her......my comments were referring to ms stanley's post # 11 of this thread.