Monday, May 12, 2008

Teacher Contract Approved

Many important things happened at the School Board meeting tonight, but clearly the news we were all waiting on was the status of the labor agreement with the Hilliard Education Association (HEA), the teachers' union.

Little was said about the specifics of the agreement. Only one Board member, President Denise Bobbitt had any comments at all. She said she was disappointed that the process was so painful, especially since the final agreement is substantially the same as the one offered in January (prior to the levy vote). Mrs. Bobbitt also said she is philosophically opposed to putting 'caps' in the agreement, and her subsequent comments clarified that she was talking about the structure of the algorithm in which the teachers contribute to health insurance costs.

The resolution passed unanimously with no further comment.

I'll ask for a copy of the new agreement, and do a complete analysis of the differences between the new contract and the last one.

I'll post a couple more things tomorrow about other aspects of the meeting.

64 comments:

  1. So basically it is business as usual, no details from the board, or HEA, so we will need to dig
    for the information. Nice way to
    build communication.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yep anon at 8:33am is right - it's like pulling teeth to get solid information. It's odd that public schools, committed to providing information, is so reluctant to part with it.

    One two-teacher household told me they would lose $5,000 over the next 3 years - although I'm not sure how that's calculated (i.e. whether that is relative to what they WOULD have had under the old contract or if that is truly a dollar loss off their income).

    ReplyDelete
  3. As an HEA member, I am frankly offended by Bobbitt's comment at last night's Board meeting (as reported on this blog) that she was "disappointed" about how painful the process was since "the final agreement is substantially the same as the one offered in January" (prior to the levy vote). In the first place, the new agreement is certainly NOT "substantially the same," as evidenced by her next comment on her opposition to the capped amounts of the insurance premiums in the mediator's proposal. There's a HUGE difference for members in paying a percentage of a blind amount versus paying a capped amount. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that! There are other KEY, non-monetary differences in the agreement, too, from what we were offered in January, which the public will hopefully learn when the new contract is publicized. However, what disappoints me--particularly as someone who urged fellow members to settle rather than resort to more drastic measures--is that Bobbitt continues to make statements that divide, rather than unite, us as a district. Clearly, to state that the agreement is "substantially the same as what was offered in January" is intended to blame teachers--many of whom donated countless hours working FOR the levy campaign--for the levy's failure. It would be just as accurate to say that had the Board is to blame because they could have offered us the mediator's proposal back in January, hence avoiding this long, protracted struggle. I can only hope Bobbitt wakes up SOON and rethinks her communications with all stakeholders in this community before it is too late.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with anonymous at 4:26. I also voted against the January proposal because of the non-financial issues that were not in this current agreement. The cap also makes a big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To the HEA members that have posted, I am hopeful that as a regular person who is a taxpayer, that I will get a chance to see what this agreement is very soon. It should have been posted on the District website by today.

    I remain hopeful that the levy will pass as I have voted for it in the past, but in my posts I am also trying to get the HEA leadership and Board to recognize that the perception is, right or wrong, that
    the public has finnally figured a few things out.

    As I have noted before you go in the hole in these situations as you can count on 40% saying no, and
    40% saying yes. The issue is you have to get 11 out the next 20
    and last time it was not close.

    I am waiting patiently for access
    Then perhaps one you would be kind enough to show the differences in the non economic area, as well as
    the medical and raise area.

    We as the public dont know right now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Details in the Dispatch only show the 3% increasein pay Plus step raises of 4% According to the reports about
    69% will benefit from the step raise

    So we have given 4% raises to the admin. in addition.

    This is not about the kids. It is about premium raises in a time when things are very tough. The district does not get it. The levy
    will have a close vote in the fall
    Hope it passes, but dont hold your breath with this type of nonsense

    ReplyDelete
  7. The reason that the Dispatch only reports the 3% cost-of-living raise is that step increases are-- as has been mentioned many times in this blog--a TYPICAL part of the teaching profession EVERYWHERE, whether you like it or not. Although the exact step structure may differ from district to district, step increases are the NORM in teaching. And keep in mind that teachers have agreed to assume part of the cost of the health insurance premiums -- so progress HAS been made in this agreement. Calling this contract "nonsense" is simply unreasonable. It is, like most negotiations, a compromise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you make 7% more this year than you made last year, you got a 7% increase. It is dishonest to report it as anything else, whether it is normal and customary or not.

    Does anyone have a problem with reporting a 7% increase as a 7% increase? If so, what is the problem (please be specific).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, the Dispatch did mention the step increases:

    "In addition to the raises in their base salaries, teachers with up to 15 years of experience, 20 years of experience and 23 years of experience receive "step" increases of about 4 percent. Sixty-nine percent of teachers will receive step increases."

    While step increases may be customary in the labor agreements with school employee unions, it is a compensation method virtually unheard of in private industry. I'll suggest that until I started writing about it in SaveHilliardSchools.org, few people in our community even knew that step increases were part of the compensation structure for teachers. I think the surprise of learning this is part of the reason for the reaction. Allowing it to be a surprise is a failing of the school leadership.

    Whatever way you cut it, the 3% annual base pay increase compounded with the 4.15% step increase yields a 7.27% annual raise for the next three years for those teachers who will get both.

    The lowest paid teacher who will not get both is one with 16 years of service, and presumably at least a Masters' degree. The pay for such a teacher is $72,363 on the 2007 pay grid, and will be $74,534 on the 2008 grid (the 3% increase).

    I won't presume to analyze the net impact of the new contract on the certified team. It is likely to be very individualized depending on the degree of medical expenses a family incurs (i.e. for a family with few medical events, an increase in the deductible has little effect).

    And you are correct, this was a negotiation between the School Board and the HEA, and neither walked away from the table smiling. That's often the way negotiations come out. A boss of mine once said that's when you know you got a decent deal - the other party quits smiling.

    Another negotiation remains - the one between the School Board and the voters to determine how many employees will be on the payroll for the 2009-2010 school year. In March, the voters said they didn't like the deal on the table.

    I think it is a voter education issue - the whole reason SaveHilliardSchools.org was started. There's still a lot of work to be done, and only 139 days until absentee ballots will start coming in.

    PL

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon got it exactly right with the
    7% increase. So it is an expectation
    and an expensive entitlement

    So while the private sector has been faced with double digit % increases
    in medical costs, for at least the last 5 years, and get either no raise or just a merit raise not in the ball park of the district employees, the individual taxpayer is chastised

    So over the last contract and now this one for another 3 years we are paying out considerably in the
    face of 7% plus raises. That is not fiscal integrity.
    We also handed out 4% raises to administrators.

    So the district has made their choice, and now in November the taxpayers will make theirs. We will hear about hurting kids,
    not giving them opportunity.

    We will see more fees increase in the fall , which is even more cost
    AT 6% medical contr. the employee will still be no where close to
    what we are paying in the private sector. Note a dual employee family can enjoy that 14% increase

    This is way out of wack, I fear a contentious fall vote. It is very
    disheartining

    Now one thing I am sure of
    The HEA leadership and their members and the school admin, will
    again support candidates with
    their major campaign contributions
    that sell this district down the river. Funny, somehow I think we are all paying into the campaign fund of the HEA to get them more money, and less in ours.

    I have voted yes on the levys and
    at this point, I have cut quite a few things. So with the increase on the next levy in June, I need to
    cut out more of what I need

    7% is not the answer that I wanted
    but unfortunatly figured that that is what it would be

    Perhaps we now should see some accountability to remove poor teachers in the classroom. But with the HEA I doubt they will support that.

    Oh well, dig deeper, and shut up
    That is what the district and the HEA has communicated in this agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well not unexpected to see big raises handed out.

    Question, is there new language in the contract that can remove teachers not performing? Probably not.

    Tommorrow, in the private sector the job may be gone, you are removed,
    layed off, with no notice.
    So this is another benefit the district employees have.
    When are we going to say enough ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is quite frankly rather disgusting for Anon 6:12 to post their comments given the fact that 19 teachers just had their job taken away from them. I fear that this forum will rapidly degenerate from a place for rational (and enlightening)discourse to one of "hit and run". Over time, I've noticed on Paul's blog's that are on topics that people can rant and rave about (all anonymously) are the most venomous and populated. The blogs that contain information that peole can use to be helpful are virtually ignored. Newsflash folks....sitting around and complaining isn't going to make anything better! It is simply a huge waste of time and space. And another newsflash...if you would take the time and effort to actually read the teacher contract (Paul has posted the link many times) you would find that there is absolutely nothing in there that prevents a teacher from being dismissed for just cause.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I will agree that some harshness is here on the forum, but there are some good comments made and a lot has been learned and good information shared in my opinion
    Just because everyone is not in lock step with the HEA does not mean they are anti school. I have voted for the levies.

    Yes there were employees who lost their jobs. perhaps if we had not given out large pay increases over the last 9 years, they might still be employed. I am suprised at the combined raise amounts.

    Just cause, have tried that route and failed when I tried to ask questions about how a course was
    being taught, etc. Got the run around and deal with it. No big deal, it just affected my students
    grade point. which also affects scholarship dollars and college
    acceptance. So above a 4pt went haywire because, "that is the way it is" That will cost scholarship money because of poor communication but we have no recourse.

    I did like the comment about campaign contributions to the
    office holders whom the HEA supports with large contributions
    who have failed our district
    in funding. AND a response perhaps that the HEA did support all of the current board members. HMMM
    how does that relate to very nice
    raises again, in exchange for
    HEA financial support and legwork ?

    I think personnally alot of people are hurting financially and when they see this, and will have to pay
    increased taxes and cut back even further, I think they get a little steamed

    One anon did have a good comment that

    ReplyDelete
  14. ABM:

    I think you need to have faith that there's a fair number of silent readers out there who find benefit from the main body of the posts here. In the last 5 months, somewhere around 2,800 unique individuals have landed on this blog, about 100 times the number of people who showed up at the presentation put on by ACT a couple of weeks ago.

    In about half the cases, the visitor stops at the top page, reading whatever has been posted last. In that mode, you don't even see the comments. That's not necessarily a good thing, as some important stuff shows up in the comments. But it means that the casual visitor sees less of the kind of dialog that concerns you.

    Here again is the link to the prior HEA contract.

    While it clear that a teacher can be terminated 'for cause,' it's still not the same thing as what most of us experience in the private sector. Ohio is an 'employment at will' state, meaning employees can be fired at any time for any reason as long as the reason isn't an illegal act of discrimination (race, creed, color, et al).

    Some people have the opportunity to operate under the protection of an individual or a collective employment agreement. I never had such protections at any time in my career, and I'll guess that few members of our community have either - certainly not for private sector jobs that require an advanced degree, as does teaching.

    In the private sector, an professional services firm gets income to pay salaries only if the firm's customers value the service. Any employee who fails to contribute to the value of the firm's services is likely to get canned and replaced by someone who will.

    But in the public sector, the customers' money (ie taxes) flows from the customer to the service provider whether or not the service is worth it. I'll not mention the agency, but I was downtown yesterday to apply for some permits and was very much disappointed by the lack of urgency on their part, especially since I was the only person in their office and my parking meter was running down. If those folks had any competition, they'd be out of a job.

    School districts are abstracted one more level still in that the recipients of the service are our kids, who might sense which teachers are effective and which are not, but don't necessarily feel empowered to do anything about it.

    I think that's what standardized testing is all about - trying to figure out a way to quantitatively measure teacher performance. But it's not that easy - test scores can say more about the performance of a kid's earlier teachers than the current one for example.

    The people in the best position to evaluate teachers are the principals. But all of the principals are former teachers, often having taught right in our own school district. The dynamics are easy to understand - a principal is not likely to fire a poor performing teacher and risk a network of friendships unless there is extreme pressure to do so. And so a 'just get by' teacher walks up the payscale and gets to retire with the same pension as a star.

    I'd like to pay those stars a lot more money, and have said so many times. The money is in the budget - we just need to take money away from the poor performers and redirect it to the top performers.

    The solution to rewarding the top performers is not to just pay everyone more.

    PL

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pointing out that the Hilliard schools costs, primarily labor costs, and that people can no longer afford it, is not drive by complaining. A contract that gives 7% raises and only 10% of medical in today's world is too generous. I hope that teachers, administrators, pro-levy people who read my "reduce costs permanently, then we'll see about a levy" comments realize that people like me are not "anti-child". This is not about the children, it is about costs. I have cut my expenses to the bone. Since 90% of the budget is labor, 90% of any levy increase will go directly from my pocket into someone else's. I am not inclined to vote to reduce my budget by another $600+ a year to benefit someone else. My discretionary income is nearly $0, and you are asking me to cut back on essentials to give big raises to others. My answer is I'm very sorry, but I can't.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When was the last time a district (any district) in Central Ohio fired a teacher for cause. How much did it cost? A teacher that chooses to contest the firing gets free representation from OEA while the district's taxpayer can expect, on average, a $200K legal bill. That's a real number. "For cause" doesn't mean the teacher is a bad teacher, you really have to do something criminal to get fired from a teaching position. The bottom line is that after you get seniority, most teachers are safe for a lifetime, regardless of whether they can actually teach.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Where can I pick up my "Vote NO for Hilliard School Levy" sign. Passing the levy will cause many to leave the Hilliard area to surrounding suburbs due to the enormous tax rate. The Hilliard community has said no in the past and most likey will say no in November. The administration needs to make more cuts before the majority of the community will support the levy.

    My annual pay raise doesn't cover the increase in the fuel costs and I pay a large portion of my salary to cover my health insurance.

    The HEA needs to stop the greed and look at reality.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Paul, I appreciate your ability to voice many of my thoughts in such a rational manner.

    I get so irritated when I think about negative impact the teachers union has on the cost and quality of the education being provided. Working in the private sector for 25 years has provided me the opportunity to see excellent workers recieve promotions and bonuses and and the underperformers either are let go or at the very least are not promoted to a higher position with higher pay, simply because they remain in their job for an extra year. One of my friends who is a Hilliard teacher couldn't possibly imagine any fairer method to determine pay increases than based on seniority. I asked her if she thought it was fair for the poor teachers to receive the same increase as a star performer and she said that it was, because otherwise there would be personal bias involved in the decision. Well, where I work it's a simple matter - I manage 6 employees who make an average of $70,000 per year. I am told that our average salary increase will be 3% this year. That means that I have $12,600 to allocate to my employees. It doesn't matter how much I like or dislike an employee - I'm going to give a 0% increase to the one who I feel is overpaid, based on his/her productivity and the number of complaints I have from his co-workers about his attitude. If he wants to leave, fine. That will free up money for me to hire someone else who most probably will be a better performer. It doesn't matter whether I like that person or not - He/She has a negative impact on the morale of the staff and isn't performing at the level for which he/she is currently being paid. My top performer, on the other hand, will probably receive a 5.5% increase as a reward for going above and beyond - At my company we don't get paid extra for every committee we join and for every meeting we attend. Those responsibilities are considered part of being a professional. If all employees were to receive the same increase, regardless of effort or output, what motivation would any of the have to do anything except the minimum required to be "terminated"

    If principals were given a percentage of the current building salary budget to work with in determining salary increases, I think that common sense would lead them to reward the stars and the underperformers would get the message that they are underperforming and would either work to improve or would find employment elsewhere. Problem solved.

    Unfortunately, until someone (or some board, hint, hint) addresses the unfairness of the step program to our star teachers, we're going to continue to reward poorly performing teachers with 7.27% increases.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It will be interesting to see
    how all of this plays out in the fall. Will Gas be at $4.00
    Will insurance costs continue to rise. In November people will start being informed about what type of increase in medical premiums and deductibles will be
    in 2009

    I am not opposed to raises, but
    rather they should have been in
    the range with the step of 4.5%
    total. The administrators also
    got 4%

    If we conservativel estimate
    that wages in the district might
    be 120 mill A 2.5% reduction in the amount of raises that are going to be handed out would be would be about 3million per year
    times 3 years would be 9 million
    dollars. That would have lessenend
    the need for a significant levy
    amount, and also might have bought an extra year at current levels
    Or as pointed out by the staff member 19 people lost their jobs
    and those could have been saved?

    Some points that people will view

    Significant increase in compensation accross the board.
    No one is getting these types of
    raises. Merit raises are given
    If you dont perform, zero

    A very nice medical plan

    Yes, teachers do not just work during the day 7 to 3 anymore
    But many people also dont and are on call, and put in plenty of evening time. This is a wash

    A very nice STR system

    Significant sick time days

    Weekly break at Xmas and Spring Break.

    Even with going to class to keep updated in the summer Vacation
    of approx 6 full weeks. Yes there is time after school lets out and before school starts to put in
    But roughly as in this year
    Time of 6/23 to 8/7 off

    Snow days ?
    Planning in service days ?
    Private sector does planning on their own weekly, and you have to show up to work regardless of the weather

    So there are many benefits besides the compensation. Teachers work hard, so does the vast majority of the private workforce

    Here is a consideration as was talked about

    a 14 million dollar shortfall

    How much money could have been saved with 3 years at 2.5% across the board raised each year instead of what was negotiated ?

    While I value what the district
    has to do, it would seem that there is some disparity on the sacrifice expected.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I just want to say to all of the people who feel teachers are overpaid or complain that teachers get all of this time off, get paid for being on extra committees, get a teaching license. Instead of complaining, join the ranks. I don't hear anyone on this site complaining that a doctor could make $300k+ a year for working hours that he/she determine. I could bring up example after example of this. Become a teacher or stop complaining about them!

    ReplyDelete
  21. No one doubts that being a good teacher requires both the gift for the vocation and a lot of hard work. I'm not sure I could last a day in the classroom - certainly not a whole school year.

    But my job wasn't easy either. I went to college too - paid my own way. In my first years, I worked 10-12 hours/day (as did my wife). Then I carried home a briefcase of work. Oh, and I was on call 24/7.

    Later, my position required quite a bit of travel. I made a point to be home for every soccer game and concert, but otherwise was usually gone. Instead of reading them bedtime stories, my kids got used to talking to me every night on the telephone. At the end of my career, I commuted to DC every week, meaning I was home for the weekend and maybe another day or two during the week.

    When we went on family vacations, I always took my laptop with me and spent the mornings dealing with business matters. My family members who are educators spent the morning on the beach, knowing they were a couple of months away from returning to the classroom.

    Yes, I was (eventually) paid well, and had some extremely good luck when my company was bought out. But I have no pension and, being a decade away from Medicare, underwrite the cost of my own health insurance.

    In the private sector, you don't get paid what you deserve - you get paid what your employer (or your customers) is willing to fork over. Each of us negotiate our own deal.

    The downside of negotiating collectively as a union is that the other side (which is the community in this case) might hold the whole accountable for the shortcomings of a few. That's why I believe it is in the best interest of the HEA to take the initiative of pruning the deadwood from their ranks.

    By the way, I think you'd be surprised how little money family physicians clear compared to the amount of effort, time and money they have invested in their training. A physican friend of mine said that net of her business costs and malpractice insurance, she cleared $50,000 last year...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well here we go.......

    A doctor does set regular hours, are on call and by the way, no one is forced to go to the doctor. It is not something you do on a monthly basis
    or perhaps longer

    We are forced via property tax to pay
    to support various entities. I do not have a problem providing
    REASONABLE support. I am not opposed to raises in compensation
    I am opposed that in this environment our school district
    with the entitlement and pay up and shut up attitude has chosen to give out raises that the district
    cannot afford. Would the educational level fall if raises totaled say 4% totally and the administrators got 2.5% would the
    effort be reduced ? Hopefully not

    So here is reality

    In the current economic environment
    with gas, medical, food, etc all
    moving up very fast, why do you think those of you from the HEA
    that people would be concerned about their budgets.

    One question NO ONE from the HEA has answered is why you have supported the current ruling
    regimes in the city, school district and the state and congressional level, who have just screwed over the Hilliard district
    The HEA has a big campaign budget
    When you look back you cannot get elected to the board with out their support plus the money thrown out there to support them
    So what is your response. probably like the one we hear on this site
    TOO BAD for you

    The districts attitude toward using
    financial common sense has escaped them

    So here is a scary advertisement
    for November against the levey

    Headline 7% raises for the next 3 years, 7% raises the last 3 years
    Administrators just got 4%
    What as a homeowner did you get as a raise. And wasnt it on merit ?
    Did your medical contribution go
    up double digits again ?
    OLD HEADLINE It is for the kids
    No its not its about big time raises that no one else is getting

    Put about 10,000 of those around town and you get..........................
    a big levy failure.

    So I would suggest to the HEA and the district they have some
    fence mending to do

    The expected response is
    "The public does not get it"
    " And we got our money the heck with you"

    So much for It's for the kids

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you all for proving my point once again. I'm glad we could all be so "un-unified" together. I guess THAT is the "real" truth.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DKL:

    Not sure I understand your zinger.

    Look, one kind of truth is in regard to facts and figures. The core purpose of this blog is to help those truths come to light (in the absence of effective communications from the school leadership). Whenever someone, especially me, gets their facts wrong my hope is that it is detected and correctly quickly.

    Then there is the truth of our feelings. We can all look at the same facts and still disagree as to how we feel about them. Unfortunately, levy votes around here have almost always been about feelings, not facts. I'd like the facts to play a bigger part.

    Few of us make decisions entirely on facts - feelings always play a role. As long as those feelings are expressed in a respectful manner, they are welcome here.

    PL

    ReplyDelete
  25. To DKL.

    From a unified standpoint I dont think that the basic end result on educating our children has too many differences. As Paul noted, this forum helps exchange information IE, some did not know you could not use the sale of part of the Grenner property for operations. The more information the better.
    The points that are in disagreement is that if we are
    making cuts, then why are we handing out 7% increases to the staff and 4% increases to admin.
    I do not believe that NO raise should happen either. But given economic conditions, you do have a good number of older folks, those
    who have had pay reductions, more medical contributions etc. in the private sector who are struggling
    An extra 300.oo plus a year in taxes with gas and food prices going up means they are making major cuts to their living situations. And these folks live in very modest homes

    I think people will see the 7% increase figure and wonder about the fiscal responsibility in that
    given our flat funding from the state.

    Also with the sale of the Grenner property, we will see an additional increase in students
    It would have been cheaper to hold the fort on the land.

    I respect what the teachers try and accomplish given the challenging times of today

    Unfortunatly, I and many others
    have reached the point that we have eliminated the extras
    cable, cell phone, vacations
    eating out, to deal with increases in food, gas, medical increases as
    we are getting minimal raises due to the private sector downturn
    and have for the last few years
    So any increase in taxes, while they have to be paid come from
    whatever savings are left.

    I voted for the levy, but it would seem there is a very negative
    connotation coming from the HEA
    and this I have noted has also been prevalent in the classroom
    As my one child graduates this year,it was not refreshing to hear that her graduation was in jeopardy
    from inside the building. Those comments were inappropriate

    Unfortunatly you cannot stand up and speak your peace one on one in the schools for fear of retribution to your children.
    That is not right, but many including myself as I talk to other parents dont want their children negatively affected by comments made by their parents.
    So people have given up because of very poor communication by the district and the HEA.

    So with perceptions being everything, 7% and 4% raises just dont seem to sit well, plus a very nice benefit package.

    Sorry that the teachers think
    people dont support them, but some actions by SOME not all of your
    fellow employees have not helped

    ReplyDelete
  26. To DKL.

    From a unified standpoint I dont think that the basic end result on educating our children has too many differences. As Paul noted, this forum helps exchange information IE, some did not know you could not use the sale of part of the Grenner property for operations. The more information the better.
    The points that are in disagreement is that if we are
    making cuts, then why are we handing out 7% increases to the staff and 4% increases to admin.
    I do not believe that NO raise should happen either. But given economic conditions, you do have a good number of older folks, those
    who have had pay reductions, more medical contributions etc. in the private sector who are struggling
    An extra 300.oo plus a year in taxes with gas and food prices going up means they are making major cuts to their living situations. And these folks live in very modest homes

    I think people will see the 7% increase figure and wonder about the fiscal responsibility in that
    given our flat funding from the state.

    Also with the sale of the Grenner property, we will see an additional increase in students
    It would have been cheaper to hold the fort on the land.

    I respect what the teachers try and accomplish given the challenging times of today

    Unfortunatly, I and many others
    have reached the point that we have eliminated the extras
    cable, cell phone, vacations
    eating out, to deal with increases in food, gas, medical increases as
    we are getting minimal raises due to the private sector downturn
    and have for the last few years
    So any increase in taxes, while they have to be paid come from
    whatever savings are left.

    I voted for the levy, but it would seem there is a very negative
    connotation coming from the HEA
    and this I have noted has also been prevalent in the classroom
    As my one child graduates this year,it was not refreshing to hear that her graduation was in jeopardy
    from inside the building. Those comments were inappropriate

    Unfortunatly you cannot stand up and speak your peace one on one in the schools for fear of retribution to your children.
    That is not right, but many including myself as I talk to other parents dont want their children negatively affected by comments made by their parents.
    So people have given up because of very poor communication by the district and the HEA.

    So with perceptions being everything, 7% and 4% raises just dont seem to sit well, plus a very nice benefit package.

    Sorry that the teachers think
    people dont support them, but some actions by SOME not all of your
    fellow employees have not helped

    ReplyDelete
  27. To Anon. at 9:07 a.m.: Can you please explain what you mean by hearing that your child's graduation was "in jeopardy from inside the building"? I do not teach at one of the high schools, so I do not know what you mean by that?? As a Hilliard teacher, I agree *completely* that comments should NOT be made to the kids about the negotiations situation. That is completely inappropriate regardless of what is happening between the Association and BOE. On behalf of other HEA members, I apologize for that lack of professionalism. Please realize, though, that as with any large group, we cannot control the attitude and actions of all of our members. Please try not to judge all members by the inappropriate comments of a few, hard as that may be. In my building, I believe we have all worked hard to maintain professionalism all year, despite the negotiations situation.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As another member of HEA, I totally agree with Anon who posted at 9:07. I too apologize for the words/actions of a 'few' of our members. After our last general membership meeting to discuss the last contract proposal, I am sure I can guess which of the 2 high schools your child attends based on the over the top behavior of a select group of staff. Please do not judge the HEA collectively based on the actions of a few. I can tell you that graduation was never in jeopardy, in terms of a potential strike, and those comments were completely inappropriate. Could it have been in jeopardy had the staff of that particular school chosen not to attend, I suppose that is possible. I really become angered in reading some of these postings that are negative against a collective HEA. Although we all have a vote in negotiations, it is a select few, "rep council", who runs the show. The community needs to understand that we were given two options last week by the negotiations team and HEA president; ratify the contract proposal we were given or vote to authorize a strike. Honestly, we were divided right down the middle and I can understand both sides of the issue. Many did not want to ratify but also did not want it to come to a strike. Many of those who were against the contract for personal reasons chose to ratify in the best interest of our students and the district as a whole. How pleased would our students and community have been if we'd authorized a strike at the start of the school year in the fall? Keep in mind too, that our proposal included much smaller raises. We too know that there is no way Administration can honor what was ratified when the levy fails in the fall and I personally believe it will. A no win situation from our side as well!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks very much for your insights relative to the HEA. Clearly an organization of over 1,000 members is not a homogenous mass. Neither are the 40,000+ voters in our community.

    The funding for our school system is screwed up because the people of the community chose to ignore how our community was being run (ie the explosion in residential development), and in our apathy let a small group of people serve their selfish desires at our expense.

    I'll suggest to you that the members of the HEA are doing the same thing. You've let a small number of people dictate your employment situation because it was easier than being truly involved, and now you are living with the consequences. Not only that, but you let the HEA leadership decide which candidates for office would get your money to run their campaigns.

    How many of the current Board members were endorsed by the HEA? I suspect that all of them were, perhaps other than Mrs. Whiting, who was appointed by the Board itself. How is that the HEA could have such a hostile negotiation with the very Board it endorsed?

    I'm hoping that we the people will begin to give a damn, and take back control of our community. Maybe it's time for the teachers to take back control of their union as well.

    PL

    ReplyDelete
  30. Where is the money that the state and federal governments should be kicking in to support all schools not just those in Hilliard? Why doesn't anyone seem to care that the state wasted millions of dollars trying to test first graders and then found the tests too difficult to give? Why do we keep electing presidents into office who support No Child Left Behind but fail to fully fund the program? Interesting opinions and discussions here. I just think that the bullseye should be broadened a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  31. First of all two the two teachers
    I very much appreciate your comments
    Thank you. I think you shed some great information that many people did not know about. That is why this forum is great network. Thanks to Paul, for doing this. At least he took some leadership.

    I think that the vast majority appreciate the job the teachers do.
    It is not easy. But as noted we have some staff, note some not all
    that have this entitlement attitude and could care less about the students and parents, taxpayers.
    They want what they want, and the HEA leadership is full of this attitude. It is laughable to hear
    the HEA leadership, not rank and file note, talk about how much they care about the kids. I think the majority of the teachers do.

    Note to HEA leadership, you had better realize that you will be the poster child of the next levy
    Your arrogant attitude, and how
    you feed the small group of entitlement only staff in this district will cause this levy to fail.

    As Paul noted, the HEA supported the current group. And to the last poster, you are totally getting it
    as our local officials only care about campaign contributions, not
    helping this district out

    This is not a Dem vs, Rep. issue either. This is about our local
    reps, not delivering. When you do that in the private sector you get
    fired.

    A reminder as another poster noted.
    When you vote for your congressperson in the fall, remember YOUR state senator would not commit to stopping unfunded mandates to the schools.

    Concerned about your taxes. The first question you should ask
    from school board, to city council to mayor, to state rep, state sen
    and on up.
    Put a moratorium on unfunded school mandates, get a funding bill for education, stop residential
    growth tied to campaign contributions, and stop handing
    out premium increases in compensation to public employees
    Note did not say no raises.

    Our school board failed us on this contract. They have given out way too much money inraises.
    The HEA leadership, I will change some terminology thanks to the
    two great teachers who had the guts
    to post here, along with the Board
    can 0nly hold themselves responsible when the next levy goes down in flames.

    Note in New Albany as reported this morning, the area is looking at buying up / not selling as we just did, to put a stop to the residential growth that has the potential to put New Albany in the same position we are in.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon at 6:25pm who wants the government to kick in more money, President Bush has increased the size of the Federal Dept of Education by the largest amount in history. Ohio has increased state funding by 4 times the inflation rate over the last 20 years while enrollment across the state has declined.

    How much would be enough?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Funding has increased over the last 20 years and so have increased mandates, testing that did not occur

    We as a growing district have not reaped the benefits of similar funding increases.

    Our current State Senator, supposed conservative, would not commit to
    not voting against mandates to the schools that are not funded.

    There are certainly ways to adjust things, and the current contract increases and admin. raises, are clearly out of line given our current and short term future funding

    However, the powers to be, and those that are enamored with the Bush adm, our congress, state rep etc are supported by big money interests. The regular taxpayer individually unless a union member has no effect on the current electoral system.

    It takes big money to even run for school board. !

    ReplyDelete
  34. Firstly, I never said I was an HEA member, so why did you all make that assumption? Is it because I actually have knowledge of how schools work or because I defend teachers? So, don't assume you know who I am when you don't. In any event, it should not matter if I am or am not an HEA member. I choose PURPOSELY NOT to state whether I am or not so that my opinions are not automatically dismissed by those who are not HEA members.

    Secondly, those of you apologizing for others, don't. Let them apologize for themselves if they see it fit.

    Thirdly, I totally agree with the lack of communication between the board and HEA. It's crappy. No other word for it.

    My beef is that even though the teachers settled, most of you on here STILL are not satisfied. I'm not sure if it's because you believe the spin the Denise Bobbitt has put on the board's point of view or because you are feeling undercompensated in your own job so you feel the need to lash out at others who are trying to get compensated for their own. I am not - repeat, AM NOT - saying that teachers deserve more than other employees in ANY industry, state or private. What I am saying is, we are ALL making these sacrifices some of you say you are making.

    But, basically, what I am getting on here from most of you is that you believe the contract was too generous, yes? If that's the case, give me one that is not.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And by the way, Paul, I totally agree with what you said about teachers taking back control of the union. I think unions can be good things, but not if things get out of hand. But I think we as a general public need to learn to take accountability for how we voted instead of blaming state employees when we get tax hikes.

    ReplyDelete
  36. To DKL: Well first off apologies about the HEA link. And I was wrong to assume that.

    The 7% is what it is. Many will wonder why at levy time we will talk of cuts our children being hurt?
    when large raises were given out
    Simply put, right now in the private sector raises are very limited and
    that is being eaten up by increases in medical costs. Now we have increased pricing on gas, food
    etc.

    So instead of 4%adm raises and
    7% teacher raises why not something less, not zero by the way, to
    show some fiscal responsibility.

    On the apology part from the two
    HEA members, perhaps you are correct. The teachers should be able to do whatever they want.
    If they know it will upset the students so be it. If we as parents cannot ask questions for fear of retribution on our children so be it. I can be comfortable with that, life lessons learned
    about life after all. However, it is a bit troubling to have the school system complain about lack of parental involvement, when you cannot ask basic questions, and the district chose to politicize graduation, knowing the affect on the seniors graduating and their parents.

    I believe that the community and many of of us have consistently supported the school by voting yes on the past levies.

    I just get confused because it is allways about the kids, but in too many cases this year, it wasnt about the kids and their situation but about the teachers and the board and what they want.

    I am glad the two HEA members pointed out that everyone does not feel that way in the HEA. Sorry you disagree DKL, but those two teachers happen to have it right and pointed out some things that many feared all along

    The bottom line, is that what the
    HEA leadership is promulgating
    as well as the board, and administration. HOW do you think
    people will say yes ?

    ReplyDelete
  37. dkl, Your point is well spoken from a union members stand point.

    As a tax paying member from this community, we can no longer afford to throw money at the school district every time more is needed or required as we have done in the past. Many people have cut out the extras in their own household budgets to make ends meet.

    We all made a choice to live in Hilliard; no one forced us to live here. We all have chosen our own career paths. I take offense to "because you are feeling undercompensated in your own job so you feel the need to lash out at others who are trying to get compensated for their own." We are not lashing out due to be under compensated; we are looking at the big picture through reality.

    The tax payers will have an important choice in November for the school levy. Your statement "But, basically, what I am getting on here from most of you is that you believe the contract was too generous, yes? If that's the case, give me one that is not." Yes the contract is very generous for our current economic state. How about a contract based on merit? You perform, you get an increase. You perform at an average level or the company didn’t have a profitable year, you don’t. This is what private sector uses which make up the tax base that pays for your annual contract increases. I know you don't want this option because there are no guarantees.

    My choice for the November levy if further personnel cuts are not made...NO! We can't keep operating like this. Hilliard is going to tax the average person out of the community.

    ReplyDelete
  38. So the new contract was approved, retroactive to Jan. 1. It's too bad that all of the activities that were curtailed or re-arranged so that the teachers could "work to rule" can not be recovered. Last year, Memorial had a Talent show for the students in the evening, presumably so the parents could attend to see the talent of their children. This year, I assume the only reason that the Talent show is even going on is so the teacher(s) can earn their supplemental pay because they're having it during the school day, but not in the evening. As a single parent with a non-union job, I am unable to take time off during the "school day" to attend and I can't even begin to describe how unfair I believe that the union was to direct teachers to "work to the rule" and how selfish the teachers are to continue to do so, even after a very generous contract was approved, retroactive to Jan. 1.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Just a couple of corrections...

    The contract is retroactive to March 15. As are the medical premiums. Not Jan 1.

    Also, Anon May 14, 2008 6:10 PM... If both spouses work in the Hilliard district as teachers, its STILL a 7% increase, not 14%. It's a 7 percent increase over both salaries, it's not additive. For instance, if my salary doubles and that of my spouse doubles, it's a 100% family increase, not 200%.

    If the contract ratified by the BOE last meeting was essentially the same as that offered in January (pre levy) then why is Bobbitt so unhappy with it? If the contract was the same, why did it fail by over 90% in Jan and passed by narrow margin in May? Did the HEA just fold? Or was there indeed a significant difference in the two?

    Interesting fact that most miss.... teachers work 184/185 days a year. We in the private sector work on average 220 days a year. That's an 8 week difference (or roughly 20% more). I think sometimes we act like the private sector works so much longer than school teachers.

    The 3% raise, in addition to step, has only been in effect the past few contracts. Back in the day, Hilliard teachers were underpaid compared to neighboring districts. It's fair to say they've caught up... for the most part. It's time the 3% raise gets dropped... but that's the issue with negotiating contracts.... things added are hard to remove, and things removed are difficult to get back. One reason the negotiation process is so "sticky". Collective bargaining is a terrible trap.

    ReplyDelete
  40. KJ: I think your comparison of working days may be a little off:

    52 wks * 5 working days/wk = 260 days
    subtract 15 vacation days (3 weeks)
    subtract 5 sick days
    subtract 10 holidays
    net = 230 working days

    The HEA contract calls for 183 days, and allows 15 sick days.
    Net = 168 working days.

    That's a difference of 62 days, and is 27% fewer days that 'normal' jobs.

    But few teachers use all those sick days as actual sick days, and instead allow them to accumulate in order to increase their retirement payment (Article 26).

    So let's say a teacher only uses 5 sick days. That yields 178 working days, or 52 fewer (23%) than 'normal' jobs.

    I don't know - 52 more days off seems pretty significant to me.

    Some use these numbers to calculate a 'salary equivalancy' for comparing to other jobs. That is, you would multiply a teacher's salary by 230/178 to compare to a year round job. The average 2008 HEA salary of $57,000 could be said to be equivalent to $73,600 for a year round job.

    You could look at it either way:

    1. The teachers have a $57,000 job with 77 days of vacation;

    2. The teachers have a $73,600 job, but get laid off for 77 days every year.

    Whichever way you look at it, this is a very different arrangement than most of us have.

    PL

    ReplyDelete
  41. KJ,

    Quick question. You made a comment regarding pay at Hilliard saying "back in the day, Hilliard teachers were underpaid compared to neighboring districts. It's fair to say they've caught up... for the most part." I've spoken to several local teachers in other districts that have been surprised at the pay and benefits at Hilliard (especially the free health care up until this contract). Please elaborate on "for the most part". From everything I have read and teachers I have spoken to, the contract seems excellent (and more generous than they have). What exactly "needs work" with the salary / benefit package that you refer to? How is it lacking? Note that I am not trying to pick a fight; just trying to understand how the Hilliard contract is lacking compared to other districts, as you seem to imply.

    Regards,

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  42. It is different, and in many ways better. I don't argue.

    However, sick days are accumulated for much more than "retirement padding". They are also used as the only means of short-term disability. It's the case with most government jobs. Most private sectors get somewhere near 6 months of paid short-term leave, the same as the maximum number of sick days for teachers. To me, it's a wash. Unlike the private sector where one gets short-term leave as a benefit from day 1 (or after a probationary period), teachers (or most government employees) have to accumulate to six months. But either way, it's 6 months of short-term medical leave for private and public.

    I see sick days as a non-issue and a wash.

    The average sick time in the private sector is between 5 and 10 days, depending upon the data source. But again, it's a wash if we assume "reasonable" usage of sick time will be the same for teachers and non-teachers.

    I used 4 weeks of vacation in my numbers for various reasons, but we can use 3 if you prefer. I yield 5 days back.

    Again, I'm not wanting to get into a point by point comparison of private vs public jobs, but if we are going to do so, then we must count the 3 days for getting rooms ready and torn down each year, the 1 day unpaid retreat that isn't contractually provided, but is attended. We should include the 4 to 5 days per year (12 to 16 per three years) for continuing education for license renewal as well. That's an extra 9 days or so.

    My point is that I think we often think of educators as working far less than private sector. As you said it's 23% less, I claimed 20%. Are we really that far apart in our math?

    (Note: I'd love to have the days off in the summer too. Who wouldn't? But I would do so at a discounted salary rate... as do teachers in your argument.) In reality, a teacher works less than a year and is paid accordingly.

    Again, I won't say growth of salaries shouldn't be slowed. I believe I said that explicitly above. I'm not saying teachers are underpaid either. In fact, for a college-educated professional, I'd say the yearly wage you cited is about right and what I would expect a college grad with 10 or more years of experience to make. I know we hire new chemical engineers out of college at about $65K a year. At year 10, they are making almost 6 figures. Seems proportionate to me.

    ReplyDelete
  43. KJ, you dont mention sick time, I believe the number of sick days is
    15, and those can be rolled over
    Many private entities have a limit
    of 5 and there is no roll over

    You also have to count working holidays in the private sector
    as many dont have the 3 day weekend the school employees enjoy.

    I see working at least at minimum
    48 weeks total at 5 days. For 240
    And that does not count the weekends worked also.

    Also I would be happy to get a
    double 7% raise, not 14
    Even with both at 50,000 if my calculations are correct that
    household would increase 13,000 plus over 3 years. And they are not paying medical of over 250 per month premiums only.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Mike:

    Here's a chart I posted earlier comparing salaries of other central Ohio school districts. Like any such comparisons, it has some distortions, which I discuss in this post.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mike, I agree they have caught up. "For the most part" was meant to imply that perhaps at some levels (starting, Masters plus, whatever) they may be 100% equal... but in general Hilliard teachers have caught up and its time to remove the extra increases.

    I was just giving a history as to where that 3% raise came from and that it is no longer needed.

    I don't recall saying the contract wasn't fair or in any way bad for teachers. I believe I said the exact opposite.

    Did I not call for the removal of the 3% raise?

    ReplyDelete
  46. I didn't subtract sick days from the teachers number, correct. That was an ommission on my part and I apologize. subtract an extra 5-10 days from teachers.

    I also didn't include "extra" hours worked because that becomes a blurry mess.

    I can argue that I actually get much fewer vacation days than I actually do because often on vacation I'm checking email, calling the office, even calling clients. I can argue that I work more than 220/230 days a year because I also work weekends and extra hours during the week that I suppose add up to "extra days" of work. The same can be said of almost all professional jobs. I didn't go beyond the "standard work day".

    I work the standard, traditional work day/week like most. Teachers have a good deal. As do some of my friends that work swing shift (sometimes 4 or 5 days off in a row), firemen, those that work 4 10's, and on and on. I'd like to have that schedule where I had 3 days off each week. Those are definitely positives, but I'm sure there are things about my job that are better than those that work 4 10's or have 4 days off after swing shifts. It's a combination of pros and cons that makeup any job. Same for teachers and same for each of us. Again, I only considered the normal work week as I consider the "extra" to be a wash. A good teacher is putting in a lot of extra time, just as a good private-sector employee is putting in extra time.

    Again, teacher's accumulate sick days at a rate of 15 a year. That doesn't mean they take them. Where I work, we have no limit and we average between 5 and 7 sick days a year per person. With that said, I assume teachers and private sector employees would take, on average, the same amount of sick time.

    The average vacation time for those with 12-19 years experience is 18 days a year. Since Paul used an average teacher salaray and we average right around 12 years experience, I felt the 4 weeks of vacation more appropriate. I realize that in non-professional jobs this vacation time is less. But I am comparing teaching to a professional job. So, to me, they relate.

    So, ok, teachers work somewhere between 20 and 23% less than the rest of us. That is reflected in their pay. Using Paul's extrapolated numbers, I'd say $73K for an employee with an advanced degree to be about right.

    So, I agree, teachers are paid just right. They should no longer get the 3% raise. I believe I said that very clearly. If they increase at a constant rate of 3% or so, I'd say they stay pretty much in line with the rest of us over time. While many may be getting lower raises today, on a 10 year average I bet we average right around 3%. So, I have no problem with an annual step increase in the neighborhood of 3%. However, BOTH raises is too much. I believe I've been clear on that.

    ReplyDelete
  47. One item left out of the analysis is the job security of a teacher. Granted, as a professional with a Master's degree, I do receive a good salary, but I also deal with the threat of layoffs constantly. This pushes me to go above and beyond to keep a paycheck coming in. Teachers on the other hand (unless they are relatively new and low on the seniority list or really mess up bad legally) have pretty much a job for life.

    Hard to quantify this, but this is another "perk" of the job. Unfortunately, it protects the slack teachers (ever heard the term RIC - Retired In Classroom?) and punishes some of the younger better teachers because of seniority.

    ReplyDelete
  48. When a teachers union tells it's members to either approve the contract offer OR take a strike vote, that union has shown that it is NOT about the kids. So what if they took the strike vote and the vote was "nay"? What then? Do they continue to work under the terms of the old contract; if so, for how long? Infinity and beyond? Or are they required to work for the new contract offer even though they did not approve it?
    And once again, why all the secrecy regarding the January offer and the newly approved offer? The BOE says it was basically the same, the HEA says not even close. Who are we to believe? And why aren't we even told what the differences were- I mean, it is only WE that are paying it. Unions have no place in education; as a business owner, I would work 25 hours a day to bust any union that tried to organize my shop. Employment at will serves the private sector very well and should be the model in the education system also. Of course it is almost impossible to break a unions hold so that will not happen in our lifetime without legislation, which will also never happen. So we are stuck with Mr. Slater deciding what is best for our educators. What a crappy system. If I were a teacher I would withdraw from the HEA in a heartbeat thereby not contributing to HIS salary.

    ReplyDelete
  49. To the comment about the unions, I agree for the most part. We used to have a union at my location (which I was not a part of). The demands and work rule shenanigans got so bad that the company had enough, and moved the work to Mexico and China.

    Though I agree that there was a place for unions years ago, I feel that so many state and federal laws covering discrimination and safety rules that unions now overall are a bad idea.

    In terms of the HEA, I have no doubt that the majority of their members really do care about the kids. The HEA itself, however, exists for one reason only; to support it's members and negotiate the best deal possible for them. Fundamentally that's a tug-of-war between the BOE and the union. Add the "good of the kids" argument in there and the battle goes 3 ways. I truly believe most teachers do care deeply for the kids and probably do struggle with the implications of strike votes, etc. on "their" kids. In terms of the HEA entity however, do not be mistaken. They fundamentally exist for the good of the union members only. Any "good of the children" comments on the part of the HEA hierarchy I consider to be nothing more than political maneuvering at the expense of the kids.

    ReplyDelete
  50. For Hillirdite: Unfortunately, membership in the HEA is NOT optional but mandatory and membership dues cost each of us a significant amount of money annually.

    ReplyDelete
  51. When I read the posting about how President Bush has given the largest funding increase to our schools in history I think the poster should also be aware that he also gave the largest burden to the state and the local tax payer. I am surprised to hear someone singing the praises of the way our government funds our schools. The fact is that the federal government funds less than 10% of our schools budget but is responsible for the largest mandated increase in spending from our state. The result is that our state is forced to fund mandated testing instead of the schools themselves. The state then funds the majority of the cost of tests instead of taking the burden off of the already overtaxed community member. I remember about a year ago there was a petition that was going around trying to get our schools funding put into the constitution, but the group organizing this push could not get enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Why was this so hard to do? I don't know the answer. I wish I did. My guess is that the districts that are the "haves" didn't want to even the playing field with the districts that are the "have nots". What would the effect of equal schools have on the inflated property values in cities such as Hilliard? What will happen to our property values if levies continue to fail? I don't know the answers to these questions. I am just throwing out things to think about. I am against new taxes. I am tired of paying percentages of my paycheck only to hear that my tax money is being misused or spent on ridiculous causes. The real answer to this problem is to fix the funding system once and for all. I am sure if all the schools in the state received the same amount of funding per pupil then the schools would actually be equal and comparable. Finally I keep reading all the comments about teachers who aren't pulling their weight. I am sure as with any job this happens. I personally haven't seen it, but my children are very young and as far as I am concerned their teachers have been outstanding. So I guess my question is how will I know? I know that when I look at the make up of my child's classroom it is very different than that of other schools. Most of the parents at their school seem to be very involved and active when it comes to their children, but I am sure there are schools where the parents aren't. So how can we tell who isn't working to the level they should be? Just curious here not trying to cause anyone to have high blood pressure.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Actually, teachers do have a choice whether or not to join HEA. However, a teacher who chooses not to join can facc a good deal of hostility from other teachers.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Interesting, given the posting in the teacher work room in my school building which states clearly that membership in HEA is NOT OPTIONAL.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Note this section in the 2005-2007 HEA Contract:

    Article 33 FAIR SHARE FEE, Paragraph A. Notification to Non-Members of Fair Share Fee The Association shall provide adequate notification to non-members of the fair share fee and their opportunity to object to the amount of the fee prior to the deduction of the fee. The notice shall include a certified audit of the Association's budgeted expenses for the year divided into clearly chargeable expenditures and clearly non-chargeable expenditures and those which might reasonably be in dispute. The fee shall represent the portion of the dues allocable to negotiating and administrating this Agreement.

    In other words, certified employees who are not members of the union still have to pay the union a fee for negotiating on their behalf, since all teachers work under the same contract whether union members or not.

    Here is a website you might find interesting...

    PL

    ReplyDelete
  55. To Anon @ 5:40pm on 5/23:

    You said: "I am sure if all the schools in the state received the same amount of funding per pupil then the schools would actually be equal and comparable"

    That might be true, and it might even be a good thing. But if you go this far, I think you need to go all the way by eliminating local school districts altogether and convert to a state school system in which any kid is allowed to attend any school. Better yet, eliminate government operated school systems completely and go to a Friedman-style voucher system.

    Not going to happen, because of exactly the point you made: "My guess is that the districts that are the 'haves' didn't want to even the playing field with the districts that are the 'have nots'"

    You also said: "I remember about a year ago there was a petition that was going around trying to get our schools funding put into the constitution, but the group organizing this push could not get enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Why was this so hard to do?"

    The funding thing you are talking about - "Getting it Right for Ohio's Future" - is not at all what it appears. Here's what's up.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I mean this as an honest question...

    If one must pay dues and one works under the union contract, how is it they aren't union members? OK, "technically" I guess one could declare to be a "non-member" but they have no choice in paying dues or on the negotiated contract. Is that correct?

    I'd say that would sum up my spouse and a lot of teachers I know. Dues leave their paycheck but are "non-participating" union members.

    My limited understanding of unions is you either have a "closed" shop or an "open" shop. CLosed means one cannot join the workforce without being a union member. Open, I thought, means one has a choice in being a member of the union.

    The contract reference you gave Paul seems to say that a member can not be a union member, but really can't escape the dues or the contract. I suppose that individual would not receive the liability insurace and other union "entitlements". Is that the only difference in a paying member and a paying non-member?

    I don't know, strikes me if one is paying the dues (without choice) then one is in a union; Technically speaking.

    Would it even be worth it for a teacher to be a non-member? Seems there is really no difference other than being able to claim not being a union member..... and honestly, that would be enough for me! lol. Maybe I'll ask my wife to find the paperwork that allows us to truly be a non-union family. I'd like that!

    ReplyDelete
  57. KJ:

    I think that in principle, the Fair Share Fee would be less than full union dues, since the Fair Share Fees is supposed to be only the 1/1000th or so of the union's cost of negotiating the contract. After all, contract negotiations take place only once every three years.

    I wonder if anyone has ever actually asked the HEA leadership to perform the audit contemplated in this clause of the contract. My guess is not - at least no lately. It takes courage enough to decline HEA membership (especially in some buildings); it would definitely up the tension to ask for this audit.

    I think the "worth it" question has two parts:

    1. Is it worth it financially? I suspect the HEA leadership works it such that the negotiating fee charge is a large percentage of full union dues, and there's not much money to be saved;

    2. Is it worth it as a philosophical statement? I doubt that many (any?) teachers enter their profession with the goal of being labor activists; they just want to teach. I bet more than a few fresh new teachers are surprised when they hear they have to fork over a chunk of their small paycheck for union fees.

    In fact, I wonder what it is that is said to a newly hired teacher, fresh out of college, when they seek employment by Hilliard City Schools? Does anyone tell them that HEA membership is optional, like a HR person or their building principal? Do they have an orientation session with HEA leaders, and if so, do those leaders disclose that membership is optional (wink-wink)?

    What if a teacher who is currently an HEA member chooses to resign? Has it ever been done? What price does that teacher pay in terms of shunning or outright hostility?

    It would be great to hear the answer first hand from a teacher.

    PL

    ReplyDelete
  58. Interesting in todays dispatch, that tax collection revenues are down for the first half about 2mill

    Nice to hear this in the paper versus from the district?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Here's a link to the article you mentioned...

    ReplyDelete
  60. Paul wrote: In fact, I wonder what it is that is said to a newly hired teacher, fresh out of college, when they seek employment by Hilliard City Schools? Does anyone tell them that HEA membership is optional, like a HR person or their building principal? Do they have an orientation session with HEA leaders, and if so, do those leaders disclose that membership is optional (wink-wink)?

    What if a teacher who is currently an HEA member chooses to resign? Has it ever been done? What price does that teacher pay in terms of shunning or outright hostility?

    It would be great to hear the answer first hand from a teacher.
    ===============================

    Here are my answers, as a teacher who is relatively new to Hilliard (less than five years in the district) but who has taught in four other districts/schools during my career:

    1. I do not recall being told that HEA membership is required, at least at the "Fair Share" level, until after I was hired. I may have been, but I honestly just don't remember when I learned that. However, having taught in another district where membership WAS truly optional, I will tell you that although I would never be hostile to a colleague over it, I DID privately resent the fact that those who chose not to join were privileged enough to have the same contract and benefits as the rest of us, who WERE paying the union dues that funded the negotiation of that very contract. This simply does not seem fair to me. If non-members had their own separate contract, on the other hand, I would have had no problem with their choice to decline membership, whatever the reason. It should be noted that the non-union contract would have to be representative or typical of the types of contracts teachers have in non-union schools, which I'll mention later.

    2. I do not know whether anyone has ever resigned from HEA membership. However, having taught now in a few different buildings in Hilliard, I do not believe that anyone faces any "shunning" or "hostility" due to this decision. The only people who would even know who the Fair-Share fee payers are would be the building reps. I did know of one person at my previous building who was Fair-Share, only because he was quite vocal about it and did not care who knew, but it never seemed to me that anyone cared or said anything to that person about it. Just my point of view, which (like anyone's), is certainly limited to what I can observe, but there it is.

    Finally, in my opinion, the union dues are well worth it for many reasons. I have taught in three non-union districts/schools where I was, frankly, ridiculously underpaid for my services. I am highly educated and have worked hard to stay current in my field. I certainly am not perfect, but I work as hard as I possibly can--often giving my own family less attention in the evenings and weekends--to meet each student's needs. Unfortunately, I quickly realized that to live the way I wanted (take a modest vacation once a year--though with gas prices, we are not going anywhere this summer--eat out occasionally, and send my kids to college, for example), I was going to have to move to a public school, where the unions have resulted in contracts that I believe compensate me more appropriately for the quality of work I do. And although I hope to never, ever need them, I find the legal benefits comforting, particularly given the litigious nature of our society today. So IMHO, it is worth it. I may not always agree with everything the group does--but then, I cannot imagine a group (religious, occupational, or familial) where that is not the case at least sometimes for most of us. But at the end of the day, I would not dream of giving up that membership.

    I know Paul has mentioned before that he does not object to paying good teachers well, but he (and others) object to paying all teachers the same. I understand that concern, though I do want to mention that having taught in two different buildings and had children who attended a few others in the district, I have not seen very many of the stereotypical "slacker" teacher at all in Hilliard. Most of my colleagues work very hard, as do I, and I see them attend students' sporting events, chaperone dances, and do numerous other things they are NOT paid supplemental stipends for, just because they love kids and want to be able to tell a student, "Hey, great game!" next day in the hallway.

    Remember that the state has also instituted new measures, such as the Praxis III performance assessment and entry-year mentorships, that are designed to ensure all teachers perform at high levels. Moreover, HCSD's evaluation procedures are the most rigorous I have experienced, compared to the four other places I've taught. Remember that the union helps set those procedures! In two non-union schools where I taught, I was NEVER even observed by my administrator, and I taught in one of those places for SEVEN years. So tell me, who has the higher standards? In Hilliard, I have to meet with my principal to set instructional goals for the year based on my previous year's performance (as indicated by test scores and administrative observations), and I have to present a unit with student artifacts, evidence of successful parent communications, evidence of ongoing professional development, etc. All of us have to participate now in designing common assessments and analyzing data to determine whether our students are mastering the state standards. Could more be done to ensure high levels of teaching performance? Probably, and some states are making progress in these areas that we could learn from, but please realize that we are nowhere near the bottom of the pile in our current evaluation procedures. In fact, we are ahead of MANY, if not most, districts.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thanks very much for the insider's view - it's very helpful and informative.

    Just to clarify two of my positions, which you stated correctly:

    1. If our teacher evaluation system is effective, one would expect that relative performance would approximate a standard distribution. I hope it is true that the curve for Hilliard teachers is shifted to the left (ie better on average) compared to that of most other school systems, and I also hope that it is true that the bell curve is very narrow (low standard deviation).

    If those things are true, why does a teacher with a Masters + 15hrs and 15 years of experience make nearly $15,000 more per year (23%)than a teacher with the same education and 10 years of experience?

    2. In the past 100 years, unions have done a good job of fighting for worker safety and decent wages/benefits - I grew up in a heavily unionized region of the country and understand this. But I also know the unions priced themselves out of business - their jobs first moved to non-unionized areas of the US, and next overseas. The thing that was forgotten in the battle between union and management over the spoils was that the ultimate decider is the customer. So what if the UAW wins a big contract by bringing GM to its knees with a prolonged strike? If the customer is buying Toyotas and Hondas, it doesn't matter - both the company and the union loses.

    We have conditions developing like this in Hilliard and many other traditionally well-funded districts in Ohio. I've talked about the cause many times (uncontrolled development), but the result is that the community taxpayers - homeowners and businesses alike - are becoming unhappy with the cost. And they're the customers in this analogy.

    Some homeowners and businesses have bailed out of community in search of school districts with a better economic picture.

    The rest of us are trapped, unable to sell and move in this down real estate market. And we're worried about our jobs, and certainly aren't getting 7% annual raises.

    But we do get to decide how to vote on levies. Only the most generous and well-informed members of our district will vote in favor in November, knowing it will substantially add to their tax burden.

    The rest will make the only choice they can - to vote down the levy.

    Only an extremely effective communications program from the district leadership has a chance of avoiding this disaster on our horizon.

    It is now only 120 days until absentee voting begins...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, Paul. I can't respond to the standard deviation/curve question because I frankly don't understand statistics well enough to talk that talk (smile), but it is certainly my opinion as a parent and teacher with experiences in multiple buildings and districts that our teachers DO perform better than average in Hilliard. Unfortunately I cannot offer data to prove this other than my anecdotal claims -- but someone in administration or CO ought to be able to provide such evidence.

    You also wrote the following question:

    If those things are true, why does a teacher with a Masters + 15hrs and 15 years of experience make nearly $15,000 more per year (23%)than a teacher with the same education and 10 years of experience?

    ==================================
    I'm not sure I completely understand the question, but it sounds like you're asking why more experienced teachers earn more money. Is that correct?

    All I can say is that in education (and I expect in many fields) people typically improve their performance as they gain greater experience. When I think back to my first classes, I frankly shudder. I was doing my best, no doubt, but I know I made several "mistakes" --whether it was while explaining a concept or choosing the most effective way to deal with a class disruption--as a young teacher. Like parenting, teaching is best learned "on the job," and I believe for most teachers--one can always find exceptions, but again, for MOST teachers--time brings more effective teaching. Every year I, and most teachers I know, re-evaluate the way we've done things and try to make improvements. So all I can say is that it does make sense to me that more experienced teachers earn more money. And when I think of my friends and family members, most of them work in jobs that are structured that way too. Even fast-food establishments give raises to those who stay longer and learn additional skills. But if I've misunderstood your question, let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thought I would add a P.S. to my last post as I realized I forgot to respond to your second point about the union issue. I would love to agree with you that the need for unions in education is past, that we are in a better situation than we used to be in the days of yore as teachers and we can dispose of teacher unions. And I can almost do it...until I remember my colleagues in non-union districts with the abysmal salaries and benefits. If unions are not needed in education anymore, why do so many non-union schools lag so far behind in fair wages? This is a complicated question that involves all the school funding issues that have been addressed here and elsewhere, for sure. But without collective bargaining, teachers are at the mercy of individual school boards, and it is easy to see throughout the country what happens when that is the case. I know of one non-union school in Ohio where NO raises (cost of living or otherwise) were given for seven years -- and that was when the economy was in GOOD shape! So it would be hard to quell fears that if we do away with unions, we will go back to the days of poor compensation. And keep in mind that even with what many posters believe is a "premium" compensation package in public schools, many sources are still predicting dramatic teacher SHORTAGES in the future. In most areas, teachers could still earn better salaries in industry than they do working in education.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Yeah, I didn't communicate that very well with the statistics lingo.

    What I'm trying to say is that I suspect teacher skill and classroom performance isn't necessarily related to time on the job - at least not after the first years. I picked 10 and 15 years for the illustration because I suspect that by that point of their careers, the experience factor matters less than motivation, preparation and attitude. I'll go further and say that I believe that at some point, an additional year of service has little incremental value.

    If that is truly the case why should a motivated and effective teacher with 10 years of service get paid substantially less than a motivated and effective teacher with 15 years of service? Why shouldn't the salary curve be flattened out so that teachers hit their max earnings earlier (and earn less than now in latter years)?

    I have no hard evidence, but my understanding is that we still have multiple applications for every teacher opening in our district. If true, that would suggest that our colleges are still pumping out more teachers than we have job openings.

    Maybe there are some projections which suggest that teachers are going to start retiring faster than they can be replaced. That would be a disaster for retiring teachers by the way. As with every other pension system, the payments to current retirees comes in part from payments made by contributors still working. That has worked well until we Boomers started retiring, and living until we are 90.

    One could argue that the smartest thing for senior teachers to do is lower their pay scale and give it to younger teachers to make sure we don't lose them in those first years when they make peanuts.

    But the OEA leadership who understands this has another solution - stop funding schools with local levies that can be easily defeated and turn the funding responsibility over to the State, and make school (ie teacher pay) funding the top priority. That's exactly what Getting It Right For Ohio's Future is all about.

    I'm not anti-union. The point I'm trying to make is that for several decades, unions seem to have taken on a mindset that their job is to battle with management rather than delighting their organization's customers. While that may have resulted in better wages/benefits for the union members still working, it has driven jobs out of our country.

    Yes, I know that I have no business criticizing what workers get paid when we have corporate executive making obscene amounts of money.

    But you know who's fault that is?

    The Boards of Directors who are supposed to control management on behalf of the shareholders, but instead tend to become pals and even co-conspirators.

    When I was running for the School Board last fall, the HEA leadership interviewed me (as well as the rest of the candidates) to decide who to endorse. One of the questions was (paraphrased): "The Board, the Administration and the HEA have had a friendly relationship for many years. Would I preserve that?"

    My answer was that I thought those three parties needed to be friendly, but not friends. It is the duty of the Board to see that the district is run in a manner that best serves the taxpayers of the community, not the school employees - be they administration, teachers or staff.

    For community members who have kids in school, there is usually a very positive relationship between the parent and their kid's teacher. But the majority of the voters in this community don't have kids in school, and for them the face of the teachers is the HEA, and this last negotiation made that face seem a little less attractive.

    And so, the HEA played a part in the defeat of the levy in March. For it to pass in November, the HEA must heal the relationship not just with parents, but with the majority of the electorate without school-age kids.

    That's the question I put to the HEA leadership and members - what will you do to win this November the support of voters without kids in our schools? Will you take the lead in developing the program to educate our community members on how school funding really works? Who better than teachers to do this?

    PL

    ReplyDelete