tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post5278167335974159623..comments2023-06-24T10:52:34.846-04:00Comments on EducateHilliard.com: Teacher Contract ApprovedPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-14304277363742654552008-06-01T23:26:00.000-04:002008-06-01T23:26:00.000-04:00Yeah, I didn't communicate that very well with the...Yeah, I didn't communicate that very well with the statistics lingo. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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)?<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I know that I have no business criticizing what workers get paid when we have corporate executive making obscene amounts of money. <BR/><BR/>But you know who's fault that is? <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>PLPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-84943163996580909122008-06-01T21:05:00.000-04:002008-06-01T21:05:00.000-04:00Thought I would add a P.S. to my last post as I re...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-63481686844202649542008-06-01T20:49:00.000-04:002008-06-01T20:49:00.000-04:00Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, Paul. I can't...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. <BR/><BR/>You also wrote the following question:<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>==================================<BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-80078013189143431472008-06-01T18:27:00.000-04:002008-06-01T18:27:00.000-04:00Thanks very much for the insider's view - it's ver...Thanks very much for the insider's view - it's very helpful and informative.<BR/><BR/>Just to clarify two of my positions, which you stated correctly:<BR/><BR/>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). <BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Some homeowners and businesses have bailed out of community in search of school districts with a better economic picture.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The rest will make the only choice they can - to vote down the levy.<BR/><BR/>Only an extremely effective communications program from the district leadership has a chance of avoiding this disaster on our horizon.<BR/><BR/>It is now only 120 days until absentee voting begins...Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-50204009660611697762008-05-31T23:11:00.000-04:002008-05-31T23:11:00.000-04:00Paul wrote: In fact, I wonder what it is that is s...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)?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>It would be great to hear the answer first hand from a teacher.<BR/>===============================<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-78078729571002501872008-05-26T22:44:00.000-04:002008-05-26T22:44:00.000-04:00Here's a link to the article you mentioned...<A HREF="http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/05/26/copy/NOMONEY.ART_ART_05-26-08_B1_8NAA94A.html?adsec=politics&sid=101" REL="nofollow">Here's</A> a link to the article you mentioned...Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-16836768618015526032008-05-26T20:08:00.000-04:002008-05-26T20:08:00.000-04:00Interesting in todays dispatch, that tax collectio...Interesting in todays dispatch, that tax collection revenues are down for the first half about 2mill<BR/><BR/>Nice to hear this in the paper versus from the district?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-8562779253729342482008-05-25T08:03:00.000-04:002008-05-25T08:03:00.000-04:00KJ:I think that in principle, the Fair Share Fee w...KJ:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I think the "worth it" question has two parts:<BR/><BR/>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;<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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)?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>It would be great to hear the answer first hand from a teacher.<BR/><BR/>PLPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-12349083477847138972008-05-25T01:39:00.000-04:002008-05-25T01:39:00.000-04:00I mean this as an honest question...If one must pa...I mean this as an honest question...<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>I don't know, strikes me if one is paying the dues (without choice) then one is in a union; Technically speaking.<BR/><BR/>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!KJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742741131942481773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-83095032735680637482008-05-24T23:31:00.000-04:002008-05-24T23:31:00.000-04:00To Anon @ 5:40pm on 5/23:You said: "I am sure if a...To Anon @ 5:40pm on 5/23:<BR/><BR/>You said: <EM>"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"</EM><BR/><BR/>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 <A HREF="http://savethehilliardschools.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-i-mean-by-charter-school.html" REL="nofollow">Friedman-style voucher system</A>.<BR/><BR/>Not going to happen, because of exactly the point you made: <EM>"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'"</EM><BR/><BR/>You also said: <EM>"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?"</EM><BR/><BR/>The funding thing you are talking about - "Getting it Right for Ohio's Future" - is not at all what it appears. <A HREF="http://savethehilliardschools.blogspot.com/2007/04/taxes-to-left-of-me-taxes-to-right.html" REL="nofollow">Here's what's up</A>.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-71237969953663698902008-05-24T23:13:00.000-04:002008-05-24T23:13:00.000-04:00Note this section in the 2005-2007 HEA Contract:Ar...Note this section in the 2005-2007 HEA Contract:<BR/><BR/><EM>Article 33 FAIR SHARE FEE, Paragraph A. Notification to <STRONG>Non-Members of Fair Share Fee </STRONG> 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.</EM><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_t.htm" REL="nofollow">Here is a website</A> you might find interesting...<BR/><BR/>PLPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-62051931494508079102008-05-24T17:11:00.000-04:002008-05-24T17:11:00.000-04:00Interesting, given the posting in the teacher work...Interesting, given the posting in the teacher work room in my school building which states clearly that membership in HEA is NOT OPTIONAL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-8239197462208361922008-05-24T07:39:00.000-04:002008-05-24T07:39:00.000-04:00Actually, teachers do have a choice whether or not...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.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-60627562778414780092008-05-23T17:40:00.000-04:002008-05-23T17:40:00.000-04:00When I read the posting about how President Bush h...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-67645669478155125452008-05-23T17:12:00.000-04:002008-05-23T17:12:00.000-04:00For Hillirdite: Unfortunately, membership in the ...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-1669033841150806392008-05-21T22:03:00.000-04:002008-05-21T22:03:00.000-04:00To the comment about the unions, I agree for the m...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-36034699988967997802008-05-21T16:04:00.000-04:002008-05-21T16:04:00.000-04:00When a teachers union tells it's members to either...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? <BR/> 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.Hillirditehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502059362611692461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-25980120212377126472008-05-21T12:59:00.000-04:002008-05-21T12:59:00.000-04:00One item left out of the analysis is the job secur...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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-65696970285552947442008-05-21T10:10:00.000-04:002008-05-21T10:10:00.000-04:00I didn't subtract sick days from the teachers numb...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.<BR/><BR/>I also didn't include "extra" hours worked because that becomes a blurry mess. <BR/><BR/>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".<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.KJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742741131942481773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-2914291493938104412008-05-21T09:57:00.000-04:002008-05-21T09:57:00.000-04:00Mike, I agree they have caught up. "For the most ...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.<BR/><BR/>I was just giving a history as to where that 3% raise came from and that it is no longer needed. <BR/><BR/>I don't recall saying the contract wasn't fair or in any way bad for teachers. I believe I said the exact opposite.<BR/><BR/>Did I not call for the removal of the 3% raise?KJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742741131942481773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-53197051829951017792008-05-20T23:46:00.000-04:002008-05-20T23:46:00.000-04:00Mike:Here's a chart I posted earlier comparing sal...Mike:<BR/><BR/>Here's a <A HREF="http://www.savehilliardschools.org/DistrictSalaryComparisonChart.pdf" REL="nofollow">chart</A> I posted earlier comparing salaries of other central Ohio school districts. Like any such comparisons, it has some distortions, which I discuss in <A HREF="http://savethehilliardschools.blogspot.com/2008/03/teacher-pay-comparisons.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A>.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-23774512985553498752008-05-20T23:16:00.000-04:002008-05-20T23:16:00.000-04:00KJ, you dont mention sick time, I believe the numb...KJ, you dont mention sick time, I believe the number of sick days is<BR/>15, and those can be rolled over<BR/>Many private entities have a limit<BR/>of 5 and there is no roll over<BR/><BR/>You also have to count working holidays in the private sector<BR/>as many dont have the 3 day weekend the school employees enjoy.<BR/><BR/>I see working at least at minimum<BR/>48 weeks total at 5 days. For 240<BR/>And that does not count the weekends worked also. <BR/><BR/>Also I would be happy to get a<BR/>double 7% raise, not 14<BR/>Even with both at 50,000 if my calculations are correct that <BR/>household would increase 13,000 plus over 3 years. And they are not paying medical of over 250 per month premiums only.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-14911593261896414902008-05-20T22:39:00.000-04:002008-05-20T22:39:00.000-04:00It is different, and in many ways better. I don't...It is different, and in many ways better. I don't argue.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I see sick days as a non-issue and a wash.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>(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. <BR/><BR/>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.KJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742741131942481773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-19616953258153576672008-05-20T22:26:00.000-04:002008-05-20T22:26:00.000-04:00KJ, Quick question. You made a comment regardi...KJ,<BR/><BR/> 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.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4289345346387194350.post-5434744656652398342008-05-20T22:06:00.000-04:002008-05-20T22:06:00.000-04:00KJ: I think your comparison of working days may b...KJ: I think your comparison of working days may be a little off:<BR/><BR/>52 wks * 5 working days/wk = 260 days<BR/>subtract 15 vacation days (3 weeks)<BR/>subtract 5 sick days<BR/>subtract 10 holidays<BR/>net = 230 working days<BR/><BR/>The HEA contract calls for 183 days, and allows 15 sick days.<BR/>Net = 168 working days.<BR/><BR/>That's a difference of 62 days, and is 27% fewer days that 'normal' jobs.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>So let's say a teacher only uses 5 sick days. That yields 178 working days, or 52 fewer (23%) than 'normal' jobs.<BR/><BR/>I don't know - 52 more days off seems pretty significant to me.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>You could look at it either way:<BR/><BR/>1. The teachers have a $57,000 job with 77 days of vacation;<BR/><BR/>2. The teachers have a $73,600 job, but get laid off for 77 days every year.<BR/><BR/>Whichever way you look at it, this is a <EM>very</EM> different arrangement than most of us have.<BR/><BR/>PLPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960574627644930183noreply@blogger.com