5 Key Issues with the Tentative Agreement

ednabrewer123

“Five Reasons to Reject this TA and Fight for Better” authored by Mark Airgood,

Adapted from
Tania Kappner, Adarene Hoag

 1.     The guaranteed salary increase is only 5.5%.  All other raises are tied to

extra work time (2.5% in January of 2016 tied to an extra half hour weekly starting

in 2016/17) or contingent on an elaborate formula tied to state funding.  Starting

in 2016/17, increases in the average cost of Health Care Plans for members will be

rolled into the total compensation formula.  If the cost of Health Care plans go up

(which they do) we will have the cost deducted before we see anything in our

paycheck. In addition, with the statewide rise in STRS Pension contributions by

3.15% over the next 3 years, take-home pay will rise even less.  Lastly, everyone

knows that while California now has a surplus, in future years it is likely to have

another deficit.

 2.      There are no Hard Caps for Special Education class-size and caseload. The

Soft-Caps that were instituted a couple years ago have not been honored. The size

of Special Education class-sizes and caseloads have continued to rise. There is no

reason to think that soft-caps will work now, because of the addition of another

committee to monitor them. We need enforceable language that protects the civil

rights of students with disabilities.

3.     The rewrite of Article 12 in this TA is unacceptable.  It is not appropriate for

some of our members to collaborate with Administration over the hiring and

replacement of other staff members. We must reject having teachers “trained by

Human Resources” for this process (Section 12.2.2.3 of the TA). In addition, at the

time of this writing the TA language for Article 27 on the Waiver process is not yet

available to members. This bears close watching, as it is another area of potential

attack in establishing some schools in which members and students have second-

tier contractual protections.

 4.     Health care is still left out on its own on a separate bargaining table with

the other District unions.  They already gave up Health Net years ago, so there is

no reason to think that this is anything but an attempt by Administration to use

the other unions against the OEA.  We need to keep control of our own heath care

plan and bargain it as part of our package. The loss of Health Net and/or increase

in premiums has a tremendous impact on families and those who fall seriously ill.

After wages, healthcare is the biggest monetary piece of our contract.

5.     Important parts of the contract are opened up for reopeners – Early

Childhood Education in 2015/16 and Evaluation and PAR in 2016/17.  We cannot

let these important parts of our contract be determined in isolation from the rest

of our contract and at a time when we have no effective means to strike. Our

strength is in our unity and ability to take mass action – with our members and

Oakland as a whole. Reopeners are advantageous to the District Administration

not the OEA.

We can do much better! VOTE NO on this Tentative Agreement and fight to win

what we know we need. There is no better time to fight than now.

OUSD seeking approval for $100 million construction of new Administrative Complex

ednabrewer123

kzt123's avatarParents United for Public Schools

Oakland Post article raises questions about the new Dewey Academy project

Unanswered Questions as OUSD Moves Forward on Headquarters Development

Rendering of new OUSD headquarters,

Rendering of new OUSD headquarters, “Design Concept One.”

By Ken EpsteinPosted May 23, 2015 5:42 pm

The Oakland Unified School District is moving ahead with its plan to tear down the district’s old administration building on Second Avenue and East 10th Street and replace it with a new educational complex.

<

View original post 554 more words

Are charter schools the solution?

ednabrewer123

Op-Ed piece by Dan Siegel:

OP-ED: Charter Schools are not the Answer to Oakland’s Public School Crisis

The debate over charter schools is waged on misleading and superficial grounds. According to the dominant narrative, the charter school discussion pits incompetent teachers championed by corrupt unions against sincere, committed parents fighting for a decent education for their children in safe, clean schools.

Reality is much more complicated. Public education is in crisis. Many children, especially low-income children of color, are poorly served by public schools. But charter schools are no better. A recent study concludes that about 30 percent of charter schools out-perform public schools with comparable student bodies, while another 30 percent perform less well than the public schools. We can also identify many examples of successful schools, both public and charter.

But to understand the situation, and the likely result of the move to the large-scale creation of charter schools, people need to pay attention to what is occurring nationally in the charter school movement:

The charter school trend is increasingly dominated by the for profit sector and is receiving massive investments from hedge funds and other investors whose focus is profit, not improving public education.

The primary features of the for-profit model are:

1. Poorly paid, lightly trained teachers whose role is simply to present a simplistic, canned curriculum geared to performance on standardized tests. Few of these teachers will make a career of education, and many charters turn over half of their teachers every year.

2. Limited curriculum that neglects the development of higher order, critical thinking skills in favor of rote learning geared to standardized tests. Some charters actually limit instruction to English language and mathematics, with an increasing percentage of the curriculum presented by computers.

3. Elimination of very poor students, second language learners, and children with learning disabilities, behavior problems, and other characteristics that make them “too expensive” to educate.

The ultimate impact of this model is the re-creation of separate and unequal education systems. Affluent families will send their children to high performing suburban, private, and parochial schools with small classes and experienced teachers who will teach them to think critically, write well, and engage with challenging curricula in the arts, mathematics, science, and foreign languages. Graduates of these schools will be prepared for success in the nation’s best colleges and universities. The charter school graduates will be prepared, at best, to enter the military, community colleges, and the fast food industry.

Our focus in Oakland should be on improving our public schools. Fortunately, we have excellent models based on recent Oakland experience. Oakland Tech, now viewed by many as Oakland’s best high school, was recently a violent, dangerous place with little academic success. Frick Middle School, now a candidate for reorganization, was until recently regarded as a safe, successful school in a severely challenged neighborhood.

Here are some of the elements of a successful school:

1. A strong principal focused on instruction, a teacher of teachers rather than a disciplinarian or fund-raiser. Oakland has many excellent principals and many who should be replaced. When Dennis Chaconas was appointed superintendent in 2000, his first priority was the replacement of 60% of the District’s principals. And then he replaced some of the replacements.

2. Well-paid, well-trained teachers. We need to demand that teachers be paid as much as nurses or police officers, so they can support their families and make instruction a career. The relationship between principals and teachers is clear – good principals attract and retain good teachers, while poor teachers readily leave schools where the culture and peer pressure demands their best efforts.

3, Site-based decision making in the context of accountability for school results. Public schools, just like charters, should be encouraged to develop their own identities and specialties. Public schools could be organized around specialities such as environmental science, African culture, or language arts to provide choices for students and parents.

4. Programs that address students’ life circumstances, including physical and mental health, violence prevention, and nutrition.

5. Active, engaged parent involvement that participates in decision-making as well as support activities.

Over the last 20 years Oakland has enjoyed a substantial number of successful schools at all levels and in all neighborhoods. Concentrating on replicating these schools provides our best opportunities for success.

To fight for successful public schools we need a broad parent-teacher-community coalition with a vision for successful schools and a strategy to make this happen.

Dan Siegel is a civil rights attorney in Oakland.

http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2015/03/02/op-ed-charter-schools-not-answer-oaklands-public-school-crisis/

March to School Board Meeting this Wednesday!

ednabrewer123

Edna Brewer teachers, parents, and students are planning to march on February 25th to the school board meeting. OEA Reps spoke at our PTSA meeting tonight and got a lot of support. We are planning to leave Brewer at 3:30 and march down to the lake, meeting up with others at the Colonnade at 4pm and march down the side of the lake to the Board Meeting. We are hoping that other schools will join!

In addition to addressing the contract demands, there will be items on the board agenda on giving an unprecedented 3 year contract to TFA, and on reorganization of the job classification of SEIU members working as Teachers’ Aides . Great time to show union solidarity.  We will be inviting all the SEIU members at our site to join the march.

Message to Superintendent Wilson:

ednabrewer123

Give Teachers the Raise They Deserve and

Demand the State Forgive the Debt that It Ran Up

From Superintendent Wilson’s February 11th, “Teacher Contract Negotiations Update”:

OEA has put forward something that is very similar to the salary increase from 2000-2002 that contributed to District bankruptcy and State takeover…

OEA Proposes 20% Salary Increase: Memories of Receivership

OEA’s proposes [sic] a total salary increase of approximately 20% phased in over 3 years, 2014-15 through 2016-17. This proposal is reminiscent of the approximately 20% increase between 2000 and 2002 that set the stage for the District to lose local control, enter state receivership, and take a $100 million loan from the state against which we must still make $6m annual repayments.

Mr. Wilson’s misleading analogy is historically inaccurate and it either mistakenly or purposefully implicates Oakland teachers in the District’s past financial problems.  It also undermines Mr. Wilson’s own stated goal, that he is “… hopeful that we can continue collaborative, good faith negotiations…”.

The discrepancies begin with Mr. Wilson’s rounding up of OEA’s proposal.  According to OEA representatives, OEA’s actual proposal for a salary increase, to be phased in over three years, has ranged from 14 – 17% throughout bargaining, with a possible additional 1.65% based on the District’s proposal of an extended Wednesday workday — not “20%” as Wilson states multiple times.  The difference between the real proposal and Wilson’s distortion is around 10 million dollars.

Additionally, when compared to the 2002 raise, which was actually 24%, the difference between the 2002 raise and this year’s proposal is a whopper:   between 7 and 10%.  Mr. Wilson’s comparison distorts and unfairly stigmatizes the 2002 raise.  Considering that Oakland is still at the bottom of the pay-scale nationally in 2015, how underpaid and under-staffed would Oakland be if that 2002 raise hadn’t been given?

Wilson is also disingenuous in his retelling of recent Oakland history.  While it is true that Oakland is making large annual payments to repay the $100 million loan given by the state, the debt is due to mismanagement, not the increase to teacher pay.  Oakland’s finances had been in shambles since at least as early as 1998, when it couldn’t provide a balanced budget to county auditors.  Also, a 2000 State Audit (which Taxpayers paid $750,000 to fund), gave the District an “F” grade in five key areas:  personnel, pupil achievement, facilities, community relations, and fiscal management, and warned that “the district’s budget office was simply rolling over budgets from one year to the next without making demographic or personnel adjustments.”

Additionally, during the 6 year period that followed the raise, while the District was under state control and teachers received virtually no increase in pay, the debt tripled.  Outside contracting, an excessive number of administrators, and decreased student enrollment increased the deficit from  $37 million to $110 million. As of 2015, OUSD is repaying the state for a debt that was run up under state control.

Superintendent Wilson’s purposeful rhetoric, in conjunction with discrepancies, accidental or deliberate, misses a chance to build a new path with lessons learned from the past.  The 2002 raise was, in reality, an important precedent.  At the time, large inequities existed between schools throughout the city and Oakland teachers were the lowest paid in the surrounding area.  The salary increase was desperately needed to attract and retain quality teachers.  The need now is the same, and it requires a similar significant, guaranteed salary increase.  Families and our community deserve what students in other districts receive: experienced, effective teachers who are paid enough to sustain a living in the community in which they teach.

As Wilson acknowledges, this will only occur with both sides acting in good faith and working in collaboration. Towards this end, a good start would be acknowledging the harm that Mr. Wilson’s words caused, intended or unintended.  OUSD currently pioneers a restorative justice model in many of its schools, where harm is acknowledged and owned by those who cause it― as a pathway to repairing it.  Mr. Wilson should act according to this model and going forward, act in good faith to present the facts accurately and avoid negatively implicating teachers who work tirelessly for our students.  It is important that we stay positive and focused on giving Oakland students the resources they deserve.

Additionally, Mr. Wilson can cultivate fertile ground for collaboration by taking a mutually beneficial step:  he should seek loan forgiveness from the state on behalf of OUSD.  It was the state, after all, that ran up the 100+ million dollar debt that is now impacting our students in receiving the instruction and support that they require. The logical and moral action is for the state to forgive the debt rather than placing it on our students’ backs.

Work to Rule in the Press

ednabrewer123

http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_27328724/homeroom-alameda-county-superintendent-gets-raise

“MORE OAKLAND TEACHERS JOINING WORK SLOWDOWN

Frustrated with the pace of contract talks with Oakland school district leaders, teachers at three Oakland schools are no longer leading after-school tutoring, clubs or sports teams and are not doing any work outside school hours, such as grading or class preparation.

Teachers at Montclair Elementary School this week joined those at Joaquin Miller Elementary School and Montera Middle School in the “work to rule” action, meaning they will cease any work not specifically outlined in their current contract.

The school district has offered teachers a 10 percent raise over three years. Teachers are asking for caps on class sizes in special education and caps on class sizes in general education from transitional kindergarten through third grade and in high-needs schools. They also want to lower the case load on school counselors.

Oakland school district officials agree teachers are under paid and have said more raises are in the works if this contract is signed.”

OEA Bargaining Update January 27, 2015

ednabrewer123

The organizing and mobilizing efforts of OEA members has been and will continue
to be critical in impacting what is happening at the table. We have seen movement
in compensation, movement away from extending the workday without a reflection
in compensation, and a commitment to lower class sizes. However, the District has
so far refused to address caps in caseloads/class sizes in Programs for Exceptional
Children or counselor ratios. The district’s November 6th proposals regarding
Assignment/Transfer/Vacancy/Consolidation Policy and school site flexibility
continues to create an on-going struggle over agreement on what is most impactful:
supports and resources or perpetuating the “bad teacher” narrative.

January 13th Negotiation Session
Article 9 Academic Freedom
OEA clarified the intent of our proposal by adding the following language so it now
reads: “Academic Freedom includes, but is not limited to: teacher initiative and
flexibility in the design, sequencing, and pacing of any and all courses they teach.
This shall be based on student needs, as determined by the instructor. This shall not
be construed as exempting unit members from ensuring all students are provided
instruction to meet adopted state frameworks and standards.”
Article 10 Hours of Work
OEA altered our proposal for increased prep time in elementary schools to those
with 90% unduplicated pupil percentages, rather than 80%.
Article 15 Class Size and Caseloads
The district responded to our proposal that calls for escalating payment to a teacher
when class size maximums are exceeded after the balancing period. The purpose of
the escalation was to create a financial disincentive for such overages. The district
offered to compensate teachers, but the amount was too small and without an
escalation over time. We feel that their proposal incentivizes them to exceed class
size maximums.
Article 21 Special Services and Specialized Assignments

The parties agreed to a stipend of $1500 to all holders of a BCLAD and to extend dental and vision coverage to our STIP Subs. OEA maintained our proposal that 6th grade be included in computing the counselor ratio at 500:1, but removed our demand that every elementary site have a 0.4 FTE counselor assigned. We also removed our proposal for laptops for speech andlanguage pathologists, but maintained the rest of our proposals.

On January 27th, 2015
OEA’s proposal for class size maximums in elementary schools with an unduplicated
pupil percentage in excess of eighty (80) percent has been changed to ninety (90)
percent effective the 2015-2016 school year. The maximum student contacts in
secondary schools with an unduplicated pupil percentage in excess of seventy five
(75) percent has been changed from 150 total contacts to 10 fewer contacts. This
language does not alter our prior position. Please see the side-by-side comparison of
proposals for more details regarding disincentives for class size overages.The OUSD team presented OEA with a comprehensive package proposal. This
Package was presented as one unified proposal. It must be accepted or rejected in
its entirety. While some components contain significant movement, many of our
priorities have not been addressed: moving our salaries closer to the median of
Alameda County, reducing counselor ratios, hard caps for Sp.Ed classes, and
supporting schools with concentration of poverty, English language learners, and
foster children.
OUSD’s Package Proposal
As a part of this package, the District maintains its previously stated proposals on
the following Articles:
9-Academic Freedom
12-Assignment/Transfer/Vacancy/Consolidation Policy
15-Class Size and Caseload
25-Peer Assistance and Review
Article 1: Term of Agreement
The district proposes the term of this agreement to be:
2013-2104: From July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014; and
2014-2015 through 2016-2017: From July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017.
The district also proposes presentation of bargaining proposals for a successor
Agreement on or about December 1, 2016 and bargaining to begin not later than
January 15, 2017.

The district proposes to reopen negotiations during the term of this agreement in
the following areas:
Article 13 Performance Evaluation
Any Articles necessary to address Career Pathways, which may include
Compensation
Article 22 Early Childhood Education Centers
Atricle 24 Compensation for the 2016-2017 school year
Article 25 Peer Assistance and Review
Article 27 School Site Flexibility Process Task Force and any other Articles
necessary to address task force work, which may include Hours of Work,
Transfer/Assignment/Vacancy/Consolidation Policy
Article 10: Hours of Work
The district’s proposal to extend the duty day for 30 minutes on minimum days for
collaborative work has been revised. Their revision is to clarify that however time is
spent will be determined at the site level. It is still contingent on the district
receiving additional funding to cover the costs of paying members an equivalent of a
1.5% salary increase for the extra 30 minutes on minimum days. If funding is
available, the District proposes implementation of extended collaboration time
beginning the 2015-2016 school year and will be applied to all salary schedules and
substitute rates.

Article 21: Special Services
The district has now agreed to our proposal that each speech and language
pathologist shall be provided two release days to complete mandated paperwork.
They have also proposed a stipend of up to $500, contingent on available funding for
speech and language pathologists. Our proposal calls for at least $500 with no
contingencies.
The district has offered adult education hourly members teaching ten hours per
week or more one hour of paid preparation time per week in addition to their
instructional hours. This hour shall count towards eligibility for health benefits.
Article 24: Compensation
The following increases will be applicable to all salary schedules, adult education
hourly employees and substitute teachers:
2014-2015 School Year – 3% increase beginning in January 2015 and a one-time
bonus of approximately 0.7% contingent on available revenue and the cost of a 1%
increase at that time
2015-2016 School Year – 3% increase beginning in January 2016 contingent on the
district receiving the amount of increased funding they presently project. 4%
increase beginning July 2016 contingent on the district receiving the amount of
increased funding they presently project. Effective the 2015-2016 school year all
new OEA members shall begin at step 2 on the salary schedule. Members who are
assigned to an Intensive Support School shall advance 2 steps on the salary schedule
for every year they are at an Intensive Support School. Members maintain their
current placement on the salary schedule if they are no longer at an Intensive
Support School.

2016-2017 School Year – Reopen negotiations
In the event that contingencies are not met, the district has provided a formula that
would still increase compensation based on the amount of increased funding
received.
Article 27: Task Force to Implement School Site Flexibility and Intensive
Support Schools Intervention (replaces “New Schools” language)
The district maintains a proposal to implement school site flexibility (selection of
staff, schedule and calendar, budget, student assignment, and curriculum and
assessment) for schools designated as intensive support schools that need
intervention and high performing schools that choose to design a plan. The
proposal calls for the creation of a joint OUSD/OEA Task Force that will design
procedures, application (and other) forms, templates and to address any other
matters necessary to implement this article.