627 replies to this topic

[mylo]

In other news...

"The California Federation of Teachers has invited Apple CEO Steve Jobs to either attend an annual CFT convention next month or offer a public apology for his "insulting comments" to California's teachers. Should Jobs fail to apologize or neglect to attend the conference, where he is encouraged to speak with the people who educate California's children and hear from them what the situation is like, the CFT will create a new award specifically for Apple's chief. 'We'll call it the Rotten Apple, for the individual who best personifies the need to think differently about public education and teacher unions,' California Federation of Teachers president Mary Bergan wrote in a letter to the executive. Bergan aggressively rebuted Jobs' statement to an educational reform conference last week, where he expressed belief that the schools have become unionized 'in the worst possible way' and that the unionization with lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is 'off-the-charts crazy.'"

...

"The group leader says the big problem is actually under-funding, and contested Jobs' likening of public education to a business.

"Let me do the same. How well could a business -- say, a computer company -- operate if you paid its professional employees so poorly and put them in work environments so unsupportive that nearly half of them left the company within five years?" Bergan asks. "How long could that business survive if it had to hold bake sales to get enough chips to build its machines?"

http://www.macnn.com...demand.apology/

[tessieca]

If I demand a 6% payrise, will you buy me coffee too?

I'd buy you one just because you amuse me.

Ah, SK and BH are Steve and Bette! Got it.

[aubie84alum]

Tessieca, maybe you can help me out with a few answers so I can see if the uinions information is factual. What is the superintendents salary? How many associate superintendents are there and what are their salaries? How do their salaries compare with neighboring districts. What is the districts current reserve and how does that compare with state mandates?
Thanks

Godwin-$182,000, Benefits pkg (including a $4500 car allowance) $31,233 = $213,323 (total benefits pkg w/salary) (it's about 12,000 per teaching/support staff).


2004-05 D. Bent $135,609 benefits pkg $23,535 Now EARNING - Increased to $163,800 benefits $35,981 pkg

Maureen Burgess (these 3 have separate contracts. the others have a standard scale) $153,352 benefits pkg. $27,278
(she's new to the district.)

All will get the same COLA we do.

[aubie84alum]

I'm opposed to cutting educational programs to pay ANYONE more!

That's the threat to make you think that we're greedy and don't care where the money comes from. It's political rhetoric.

For the person saying that he/she pays our salary via taxes....We pay taxes too. We're not servants, either. We provide a service. Different title in many ways.

[aubie84alum]

The charts from district have a few flaws. For example, the negotiating teams chose 12 districts for comparisons. There was an agreement from the beginning between the two teams. Godwin used Center as a comparison. This isn't one of the 12, but it looked better for them.

It's true that the admin get the same COLA as we do. They're already making $$$$. Maybe they should volunteer not to receive COLA. That would save the district huge $$$$.

[aubie84alum]

In the Sac. Bee this a.m.: Sac City Teachers Get 5% Raise.

Management and labor in the Sacramento City Unified School District have reached agreement on a new three-year contract.

The contract, which both sides approved last week, gives teachers a 5 percent pay raise -- 3 percent retroactive to July 1, 2006, and 2 percent on April 1 of this year. Teachers' pay will range from $40,000 to $84,000.

I was suprised that they settled for 5%; however, if you look at their salary & benefits pkg, they are already ahead of the game. I don't think you'd really want anyone to go to their web page and see the numbers. It's a lot better. Please do a comparison. It's a boost to us. Thanks for pointing the way.

[aubie84alum]

Last week when I heard a student talking about the teacher's position, I offered the other side of the argument (as his 2 friends were joining him), and it didn't take the kid long to realize he was being used.

He felt disgusted that his teacher hadn't brought up any of the points that I was bringing up. The kids were livid, furiously clicking away on their phones and ringing up their friends to tell them the other side. I told them to do to the teachers, the same thing the teachers are doing to them - use them. Fake supporting them, and spread the word.

Someone has to educate the kids.

What "facts" did you tell them?

[aubie84alum]

Completely agree. Next time I see the teachers passing out flyers I'm picking one up, photocopying it, printing a rebuttal on the opposite side and start passing them out to all the parents.

Please make sure they're accurate. Libel is still against the law.

[Holly Golitely]

Please make sure they're accurate. Libel is still against the law.

It seems that this discussion has been reduced to the na na na na na level.
Someday perhaps our knuckle dragging society will realize what is important to us all. (Or maybe our children and our future aren't really that important?)
House on fire? Call Beckam.

[39 degrees]

It seems that this discussion has been reduced to the na na na na na level.
Someday perhaps our knuckle dragging society will realize what is important to us all. (Or maybe our children and our future aren't really that important?)
House on fire? Call Beckam.

Not much to comment on. The teachers are in a holding pattern until the impasse process is completed. The issue will rebuild when the information comes out from the arbiter in a month or two.

I've read every post, except the j, h, k, etc...posts, and the lines in the sand have been drawn. I am squarely on the sides of the teachers on this one. If the numbers that the district is sending out to parents, many of them are inaccurate, are even close then this entire issue is about the superintendent and his sticking to his one and only offer. At least there will be a short respite before the teachers will need to make a decision.

I plan to speak at the next board meeting. I'll just be another fiery parent who is disappointed with this entire process.

[Robert Giacometti]

Not much to comment on. The teachers are in a holding pattern until the impasse process is completed. The issue will rebuild when the information comes out from the arbiter in a month or two.

I've read every post, except the j, h, k, etc...posts, and the lines in the sand have been drawn. I am squarely on the sides of the teachers on this one. If the numbers that the district is sending out to parents, many of them are inaccurate, are even close then this entire issue is about the superintendent and his sticking to his one and only offer. At least there will be a short respite before the teachers will need to make a decision.

I plan to speak at the next board meeting. I'll just be another fiery parent who is disappointed with this entire process.

I too have read every post. Its my sense the numbers the District released showing the pay scale, if the proposed raise was approved, is accurate. Its my take the teachers feel there are additional funds from the COLA that could be given to the teachers without cutting programs and its the Districts position if any additional raise is granted, then programs will need to be cut.

The teachers are in a somewhat tatical disadvantage as they need to prove that there is money available, hidden somewhere in the budget, without the advantage of preparing the budget.

What numbers is the District sending out do you feel are inaccurate and what is your source of the accurate ones? This information may be helpful to everyone.

[39 degrees]

I too have read every post. Its my sense the numbers the District released showing the pay scale, if the proposed raise was approved, is accurate. Its my take the teachers feel there are additional funds from the COLA that could be given to the teachers without cutting programs and its the Districts position if any additional raise is granted, then programs will need to be cut.

The teachers are in a somewhat tatical disadvantage as they need to prove that there is money available, hidden somewhere in the budget, without the advantage of preparing the budget.

What numbers is the District sending out do you feel are inaccurate and what is your source of the accurate ones? This information may be helpful to everyone.

I don't want to get into too much of an argument here, but the numbers on the salary schedule that are on the website do not add up. I sat with my child's teacher on Friday after school for a few minutes and we sat and tried to make the numbers add up to the numbers on the website. Neither of us could make them add up. I'm not a math major or anything, but I do know how to use a calculator. If the 2005-2006 salary schedule is still up and I think it is, all you need to do is multiply the number you want to compare by the superintendent's 4.65% and add either $100 or $200 depending on the time of the year. I did this and the numbers do not add up to what the district is posting online. I guess all I can do is tell you to try it for yourself.

I think your points are well taken. The teachers are at a disadvantage and it seems based on what I have read here, that the school board know this fact and is exploiting it. It's a waiting game now, my child's teacher told me that the real job of the arbiter is to find out which side is weaker and get them to settle. Not a good message for the teachers, but there are 900+ of them and only 5 school board members and the superintendent. I hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want my child's memory of this year being one where the teacher is holding a picket sign instead of being in the classroom. I will say as much this Thursday night.

[tessieca]

I'll explain the math for those of you who don't understand the district's comparison numbers.

Step 1: Take the salary at the level(s) the district is using. Multiply current schedule by 4.65%. That will get you the numbers on the district's comparison of "Salaries Only."

Step 2: Take those enhanced salaries and add the total benefits (you can't just add the additional proposed $100 per month). Try $6,324 for a year's worth of benefits with the enhanced amount. You will get the numbers on the second chart.

Remember, it's just a hypothetical since there is no agreement with the district's proposal.

For those of you who think that the teachers are at some kind of a disadvantage, I would counter that you are not giving them much credit for being the highly intelligent and educated people the district tends to hire.

[39 degrees]

I'll explain the math for those of you who don't understand the district's comparison numbers.

Step 1: Take the salary at the level(s) the district is using. Multiply current schedule by 4.65%. That will get you the numbers on the district's comparison of "Salaries Only."

Step 2: Take those enhanced salaries and add the total benefits (you can't just add the additional proposed $100 per month). Try $6,324 for a year's worth of benefits with the enhanced amount. You will get the numbers on the second chart.

Remember, it's just a hypothetical since there is no agreement with the district's proposal.

For those of you who think that the teachers are at some kind of a disadvantage, I would counter that you are not giving them much credit for being the highly intelligent and educated people the district tends to hire.

Wow, my child's teacher wasn't lying. How in the world did the district come up with $6,324? I will bring that number with me on Monday and we'll sit down again and try and figure out what that means. Obviously, I am missing something. I know I can add and multiply pretty well, especially with a calculator, but if my math serves me, remember I sat down with my child's teacher on Friday so I'm turning into somewhat of an expert at this, but if the district is paying $375 a month or $4,500 a year and then adding "enhancements" to make it $6,324 a year or $527 a month, then the numbers are based on information that is not on the website. I looked back over the superintendents information on the website and for the life of me I cannot find either one of those numbers, either $527 or $6,324. Help. I just want to have the correct information when I speak to you on Thursday. Not to be adversarial, but I assume you will be leading this meeting. I don't want to speak, but I feel I need to do this.

Your last comments sound like politics to me. Am I jaded already? I guess my only response to that is if you want to continue to have "highly intelligent and educated people" working in this district then the district needs to at least be where the superintendent said he wants the teachers to be; in the top quartile. I raise an eyebrow at that. I guess that won't happen overnight, but eventually the other districts will snap up the truly sought after teachers while the leftovers come to Folsom and Rancho Cordova. I, for one, hope that is not the case. I still have another child that will enter a Folsom school soon.

This concerns me more and more each day. To think, I was totally unaware of so much the teachers were dealing with just two weeks ago.

[aubie84alum]

For those of you who think that the teachers are at some kind of a disadvantage, I would counter that you are not giving them much credit for being the highly intelligent and educated people the district tends to hire.

Doesn't seem like you aren't worried about retaining the ones that you have or the younger ones who can't stay/can't afford the health coverage. I understand that some of the interviews end when the total benefits (salary plus health, etc.) is revealed. You just can't waste your time, especially if he/she is a..."highly intelligent and educated pe[son the district tends to hire.".