171 replies to this topic

[2kids4me]

Hmmm---so you're saying that by the union (gag me) forcing the teachers (because I am assuming that teachers can not "opt out" of a union decision if it involves their paycheck)---to give up .38% cola will amount to somewhere around $2500 per employee for the year, that we are not only saving jobs but we are also saving those 2.5 electives for students at the middle school?

I'm supposed to believe that? Hook, line, and sinker?

It sounds more like a steamed up houka dream..

The way I understand tessica's post is that the COLA for this year is -.38%. Apparently the Governor thinks our cost of living is going down. She responded to two separate comments in the same post - one to supermom and one to sckfc. From everything I've read here, it's going to take a lot more than -.38% to fix the schools.

[the_professor]

The negative .39% is what the state is taking AWAY from each student - the districts get a certain dollar amount for each student - the state is supposed to fund a cola every year (which would increase the $ per student each district gets) - Arnie decided to fund it for the first time in like 5 years because it's NEGATIVE cola - This cola talk has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with teacher salaries.

[JoAnne Reinking]

Last night, the Board approved the (3) day agreement. Doing so was a very tough and well thought out decision. Our students need/deserve more than the 3 days will provide. The district and board will work to restore jobs and services. However, in doing so we will only be creating future obligations that will need to be paid starting in 2011/12. Our faith lies in the willingness of our unions to work with us now to continue to solve this problem~ not doing so will by all indications require more and deeper sacrifices next year.

[Barb J]

Joanne: what is the status of the education foundation drive to raise money to keep the libraries open?

Barb J

[tessieca]

You're confusing me Smom. The negative COLA for next year has nothing to do with this year's deficit and reductions of $14 million.

The -.39% is next year's COLA, per the Gov. That's for 2010-11.

The negative is far worse than that. By December the district has to identify an additional $3.2 Million to satisfy the county reporting requirements. Once that is accomplished, the total CUTS will be up to $38 million over the past 4 years.

On top of that, the expected cuts for next year totals an additional $6.2 million, including the governor's proposed -.39% COLA.

Education is not only not being fully funded; it's being cut, cut and cut at the state level. Not long before academic results follow.

[supermom]

No. Perhaps I am the one confused?

My understanding is that COLA is cost of living allowance- an equalizer for empployees whom work in an area that is "costlier to live".

A paycheck deposit.

So when persons were talking about the union fighting for the cola-I am assuming that the union understands it certainly is more expensive to live in folsom rather than south sac.

Then we were talking about cutting electives and how-if we cut teacher pay- we can afford to keep those teachers and thus-we have completely screwed every teacher in the district and we are enabling a broke system to go on for another year. Teachers salaries are paying for my kids education. Rather ironic.

Then we started talking about teacher sacrafices to save other teacher jobs and teacher sacrafices that will only support the status quo for a few more months.

Get rid of the electives. Balance the budget. Go title 10 and get the federal assistance monies. (Yeah, I know-no one wants to go title 10 because to get the funds you have to do what the feddies say)

And we know-the feddies would never allow the the board to sign paycheck increases (not evenautomatic increases) or sign on new top brass (when their annual income is equivalent to 3 teachers salaries and we are cutting teachers--ofcoarse we couldn't have just spread the sups respnonsibilities around until we could afford a fat contract) when kids classes are being cut.

[sckfc]

No. Perhaps I am the one confused?

My understanding is that COLA is cost of living allowance- an equalizer for empployees whom work in an area that is "costlier to live".

A paycheck deposit.

So when persons were talking about the union fighting for the cola-I am assuming that the union understands it certainly is more expensive to live in folsom rather than south sac.

Then we were talking about cutting electives and how-if we cut teacher pay- we can afford to keep those teachers and thus-we have completely screwed every teacher in the district and we are enabling a broke system to go on for another year. Teachers salaries are paying for my kids education. Rather ironic.

Then we started talking about teacher sacrafices to save other teacher jobs and teacher sacrafices that will only support the status quo for a few more months.

Get rid of the electives. Balance the budget. Go title 10 and get the federal assistance monies. (Yeah, I know-no one wants to go title 10 because to get the funds you have to do what the feddies say)

And we know-the feddies would never allow the the board to sign paycheck increases (not evenautomatic increases) or sign on new top brass (when their annual income is equivalent to 3 teachers salaries and we are cutting teachers--ofcoarse we couldn't have just spread the sups respnonsibilities around until we could afford a fat contract) when kids classes are being cut.

Just because they are called electives, does not mean that they are not necessary for our children's education. You take those away from students and they are at a real disadvantage for the rest of their academic career and life. I learned some very valuable things in Home Economics, Wood Shop, Art, Typing and Spanish. Don't tell me that those classes were not necessary for me. Unfortunately, the electives program that we have now does not even come close to what I had in school.

I agree. Nobody should be getting raises in this district right now. A private company would have suspended all pay increases. They would promote with a 5% increase at the most. They probably would have laid off many people by now. But school districts are at a real disadvantage when cutting jobs. Those jobs will not be able to be performed by anyone else. Those services are lost to our kids. A private company can absorb the duties of a laid off employee. They can spread the responsibilites around to the employees that they keep. In order for a school district to deal with cuts, the employees need to take pay cuts. It is the only way to make cuts without cutting services. The union rules make this a necessity. But the unions will not agree to cuts. It is a real mess.

[the_professor]

It's too bad the FCEA acted in such a short sighted way. I am a teacher and would have glady given up whatever it would take to bring all positions back. Unfortunately I was very much alone in these thoughts as the union vote was 96% for approval.

[supermom]

Just because they are called electives, does not mean that they are not necessary for our children's education. You take those away from students and they are at a real disadvantage for the rest of their academic career and life. I learned some very valuable things in Home Economics, Wood Shop, Art, Typing and Spanish. Don't tell me that those classes were not necessary for me. Unfortunately, the electives program that we have now does not even come close to what I had in school.

I agree. Nobody should be getting raises in this district right now. A private company would have suspended all pay increases. They would promote with a 5% increase at the most. They probably would have laid off many people by now. But school districts are at a real disadvantage when cutting jobs. Those jobs will not be able to be performed by anyone else. Those services are lost to our kids. A private company can absorb the duties of a laid off employee. They can spread the responsibilites around to the employees that they keep. In order for a school district to deal with cuts, the employees need to take pay cuts. It is the only way to make cuts without cutting services. The union rules make this a necessity. But the unions will not agree to cuts. It is a real mess.

Just because they are present in the schools does not mean they are necessary by state law to be in the schools.

The basic 3 r's, PE and special services are state and/or federally mandated. The pomp and flourishes are the parents responsibilities.

I understand people have a hard time accepting that--but--tradition has no friends on the other side of red marker lines in the black book.

Drop the classes. Drop the pretenses of necessities. Put the kids into 6 point what ever hours of reading, writing, and arithmatic; and lets see if we can balance our budget in a year. Then...lets see how many teachers we can afford to rehire in a year without causing any more harm to the teachers pay, the students education or the school districts budget.

Isnt that what the city is doing to their 30 employees (without the promise of even considering rehire rights).
it is what the state is doing.
It is what the feddies are doing

[the_professor]

No. Perhaps I am the one confused?

My understanding is that COLA is cost of living allowance- an equalizer for empployees whom work in an area that is "costlier to live".

A paycheck deposit.

So when persons were talking about the union fighting for the cola-I am assuming that the union understands it certainly is more expensive to live in folsom rather than south sac.

Then we were talking about cutting electives and how-if we cut teacher pay- we can afford to keep those teachers and thus-we have completely screwed every teacher in the district and we are enabling a broke system to go on for another year. Teachers salaries are paying for my kids education. Rather ironic.

Then we started talking about teacher sacrafices to save other teacher jobs and teacher sacrafices that will only support the status quo for a few more months.

Get rid of the electives. Balance the budget. Go title 10 and get the federal assistance monies. (Yeah, I know-no one wants to go title 10 because to get the funds you have to do what the feddies say)

And we know-the feddies would never allow the the board to sign paycheck increases (not evenautomatic increases) or sign on new top brass (when their annual income is equivalent to 3 teachers salaries and we are cutting teachers--ofcoarse we couldn't have just spread the sups respnonsibilities around until we could afford a fat contract) when kids classes are being cut.

The cola has nothing to do with teacher salaries - see earlier post.

[MikeinFolsom]

I think I am getting rather tired of JoAnne always attempting to blame the "outrageous" salaries of the teachers as being the prime suspect for all the cuts needing to be made in the education system. The district is currently building a Taj Mahal as an office building. Sure the funding for that building is coming from a "different fund". But what about the costs to run that building? These teachers are just like you and I trying to make it work during hard times and support a family and make monthly payments.

Teachers get paid no more or no less than mainstream occupations in California. Their salaries/benefits/retirement packages are all part of their compensation. Quit blaming their AVERAGE salaries as the only fix in the current budget. How much do YOU make JoAnne?

There has been obviously poor oversight on spending the last several years. Money spent needlessly on crap. How many assistants have assistants that have assistants that have secretaries? Quit looking to the worker bees as the "quick fix"....I know it is the popular stance right now, but it is truly getting quite old.

[aubie84alum]

Ha ha! Since the state calculated a negative COLA this year, there won't be much to negotiate .

Exactly! I'm a little curious...don't you always say how much you value teachers? That "Ha ha!" is a little disconcerting....

[aubie84alum]

Last night, the Board approved the (3) day agreement. Doing so was a very tough and well thought out decision. Our students need/deserve more than the 3 days will provide. The district and board will work to restore jobs and services. However, in doing so we will only be creating future obligations that will need to be paid starting in 2011/12. Our faith lies in the willingness of our unions to work with us now to continue to solve this problem~ not doing so will by all indications require more and deeper sacrifices next year.

With the retirement of the asst. to the superintendent, the job she filled was downgraded, saving about 100k, right? How many other jobs are like that? The administrators, school site, took 6 days instead of 3, and that only saved about 200+k. Do you think there may be other ways to decrease the spending?

It's too bad the FCEA acted in such a short sighted way. I am a teacher and would have glady given up whatever it would take to bring all positions back. Unfortunately I was very much alone in these thoughts as the union vote was 96% for approval.

Are you a two salary kinda' guy? Many of us are not.

Just because they are called electives, does not mean that they are not necessary for our children's education. You take those away from students and they are at a real disadvantage for the rest of their academic career and life. I learned some very valuable things in Home Economics, Wood Shop, Art, Typing and Spanish. Don't tell me that those classes were not necessary for me. Unfortunately, the electives program that we have now does not even come close to what I had in school.

I agree. Nobody should be getting raises in this district right now. A private company would have suspended all pay increases. They would promote with a 5% increase at the most. They probably would have laid off many people by now. But school districts are at a real disadvantage when cutting jobs. Those jobs will not be able to be performed by anyone else. Those services are lost to our kids. A private company can absorb the duties of a laid off employee. They can spread the responsibilites around to the employees that they keep. In order for a school district to deal with cuts, the employees need to take pay cuts. It is the only way to make cuts without cutting services. The union rules make this a necessity. But the unions will not agree to cuts. It is a real mess.

There is a lack of common knowledge that is pervasive. Electives give us wordly knowledge that cannot be found in other curricular areas. This may be especially true for the Cordova side, which serves a quite diverse population.

[aubie84alum]

Hmmm---so you're saying that by the union (gag me) forcing the teachers (because I am assuming that teachers can not "opt out" of a union decision if it involves their paycheck)---to give up .38% cola will amount to somewhere around $2500 per employee for the year, that we are not only saving jobs but we are also saving those 2.5 electives for students at the middle school?

I'm supposed to believe that? Hook, line, and sinker?

It sounds more like a steamed up houka dream..

Sure teachers can opt out of the union. No one forces union members to vote, either. The COLA would only be an issue if there was money coming into the district.

Just curious...the "gag me" thing, isn't that from the "ME" generation?

[supermom]

Just curious...the "gag me" thing, isn't that from the "ME" generation?

no--its actually from a movie.

not sure if I remember which one, anyomore.

the line was"gag me with a spoon"

But, beside the point.

to other OP:

no one is arguing that electives do not hold some value. I find it sad and laughable that someone would say-especially for the rancho side....

The fact is--middle school electives are : art, conversational spanish (only a few kids each year get that, anyway-because it is so limited), typing and technology class. Then there is the music hall. All of them are on the chopping block, still, anyway--right?

kids do art when they do their wonderful greek gods, animals of the seas, literary book reviews--reports.

They are typing these reports.

The music is harder to replace outside of the actual class.

Frankly, that should be the one department that is carefully considered before the others.

But, they are just fluff compared to the major stuff.

Ulitmately, we really need kids who understand math, can read, write and hopefully appreciate the sciences (this is california, afterall!).

I'm not trying to upset the great deal of teachers who participate on this site.

I'm just saying there comes a time when you really do have to completely look at the priorities. Sometimes, that means peeling the dried skin off the onion.

yeah, the skin enhances the flavor and promotes a longer shelflife of the onion--but, the great part about this, is that these are kids, not onions and they can survive without the fluff, and they probably would do better passing the cahsee and getting jobs if they have more class time in the 3 R categories.

Sucks, but true. I don't hear anyone arguing that part. Really, can you?

Can anyone argue that giving the kids more time in the 3 R's would be catastrophic to their education?