KPLU on Layoff by Seniority

It's a pretty good piece that you can listen to and read here; the best reply I can give is a post that I wrote back in March, Layoff By Seniority Really Is the Best Way.

Also of note on the KPLU page is the discussion about the contract negotiations between the Seattle Public Schools and the Seattle EA; they took the month of July off and are getting back after it in August. The contract expires August 31st. I wonder how far apart they are.

Read more here, if any.

Summer Vacation: A Chance to Breath, Reflect, and Blog Again

The last month has been one kick in the ass after the other, almost completely tied to my work as president of my local. No layoffs in my district, per se, but the hidden story that many districts aren't talking about is the "provisional" teachers (those in the first two years of teaching) who are being non-renewed because state law says that they can be. It's not a layoff, or a RIF, but it is a teacher losing their job in a very real and tangible way, and that's just as hard on them as a layoff would be on someone in the private sector.

In my home district there were 9 provisionals, all of whom were given non-renewals. Some of them were called back almost immediately--my young speech therapists, for example, who can't have their jobs filled by anyone else in the district, or the PE teacher at my high school whose position is funded out of a grant. A couple of others I was able to negotiate through after the Federal stimulus money became more of a tangible asset; this is what's saved two of my special ed teachers. Two more were non-renewed for performance reasons, and in those situations all I can do is make sure that the district dotted the i's and crossed the t's before trying to negotiate the best exit package that I possible can.

The toughest ones are the three who had fine evaluations, and whose programs are going to continue on without them. My HS choir teacher, for example--because I'm in a district with declining enrollment, they were able to cover the three periods he teaches with other music teachers from the district. There's a 6th grade teacher who isn't exactly fond of the union to begin with, and is very angry at how things have been handled, but I've been able to get a commitment from the district that they will bring her back first before looking at anyone else, and that's more than most around the state are being given.

It's my shop teacher that really has me heated. He is provisional in the district and they've decided to start contracting with the Skills Center to provide shop classes. Fine, but that locks out my Freshmen and Sophomores who can't use the Skills Center. Plus, he was turning out kids who could go right into apprenticeships and get work in the trades, and that we would throw that away really annoys me.

The back-story is that I think it has a lot more to do with high school politics (i.e., there's another teacher in the building who has the principal's ear on what CTE "should" look like, and she wants my shop guy gone), and given that he's a provisional teacher I can do the full Rumplestiltskin (pull hair, scream, stomp feet) and it'll only create a pleasent diversion while the process goes on unabated.

I'm filing a grievance Monday morning, but it's a long shot.

Representation is *hard.* I take being the local president pretty seriously--I've been given a charge, and by God I'm going to do it to the best of my ability--but it would be seductively easy to skip a phone call, miss a deadline, say that there's nothing you can do, and just let it go. I've got a newfound respect for our Uniserv staff state-wide who are fighting this same battle on a x1000 scale.

It's summer. The battles are almost over for a few weeks, until the next round in the fall.

Thank God, it's summer.

Read more here, if any.

My Open Letter to the Colleges of Education

Hey there, Colleges o' Education,

Ryan here. You may remember me from the credits that I've taken from you, particularly Eastern Washington U--hey, how's it going, Cheney!--and now that I'm a union guy I spend even more time interacting with y'all on a variety of projects.

It's in that capacity that I'm writing to you today. What with the budget cuts and the layoffs and the reductions-in-force and all, it's not really easy on us union leaders. I think there's a chance that I might be able to get my members through the storm with the only job losses being through attrition, which is a trick that I didn't think I'd be able to pull off after the Senate budget came out a few weeks ago.

But really, let's cut to the chase: you guys, you Colleges of Education, are making my job an awful lot harder, and I'd really like you to knock it the hell off.

Exhibit A: One of my school psychologists. The only thing that he could be is a school psychologist, because somehow, some way, he got out of his prep program with only an Educational Staff Associate (ESA) certificate and nothing else. For the last 10 years he's been a capable psych, but with my district looking to cut back his position was at risk.

He can't go into the classroom.
He can't even become a special ed teacher, even though he's the guy who qualifies people for special ed.
The only thing that he can do for the schools is to be a school psychologist.

Exhibit B: My music teachers. The number of credits required to become a music teacher is ridiculous, which gives the college kids going down that path absolutely no time to pick up a minor, or an endorsement, or anything else. The result is that you Colleges of Education are graduating really good music teachers who are completely and absolutely SOL when the schools are faced with budget crises and decide to cut back on music.

They can't go into the classroom. They're not highly qualified under the federal rules.
Legally, oddly, they can teach the pay-go general ed preschool, but most districts don't have that option.
No, the only thing that they can do for the schools is to be music teachers.

Google "How to Avoid a Layoff" and one of the first sites you'll find is this one, which rehashes advice that we've all heard for as long as the industrial society has existed: the best way to keep yourself employed is to have a wide variety of skills that would be useful to your employer. If you can only fill one role, you're very expendable when that role is no longer needed.

Colleges of Education, you're prepping your students to be the proverbial buggy-whip makers if you only prepare them to be one role for their schools, and that's a damned shame for the poor schmucks paying honest money for you to get them job ready.

In a way, guys, I don't really blame you. The Professional Educator Standards Board changes their mind more often than a baby gets a diaper change, and God only knows where we are with Highly Qualified/HOUSSE right now. The hoops that the state puts up have blown right past ridiculous, with layers of well-intentioned nonsense piled atop one another; a sort of surreal, bureaucratic onion that makes you cry when it cuts you.

That said, take a serious look at the world we live in right now, and then look at the graduates that you're about to unleash. Are they really, honestly prepared? Have you given them a skill-set that gives them a real chance at both being hired and earning continued employment for as long as this downturn sustains?

Often, the answer is yes, you are. It's the exceptions that are making things quite messy, and you'd be doing everyone a favor if you'd fix the problem.

It's on you when these things happen.

--Ryan--

Read more here, if any.

The Union President's Dilemma

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

With the recent release of the House and Senate budgets it's looking like the economic situation for schools is going to get even more dire. Add in the fact that a lot of this year's relief is because of the economic stimulus money from the Obama administration, and I'm running under the assumption that as bad as this year's cuts have been next year could be even worse.

It's something I've been thinking about since September, when I officially took over as president of my local. It's been a hell of a first year, and the next two months could be the cherry on the proverbial *hit sundae. My superintendent has been telling folks to expect an even $1,000,000 in cuts--about 13 teaching positions--and in light of the past two days even that eye-popping number could be a case of raging optimism.

The question for local union leadership becomes this: how do you respond?

Consider my local of about 130 members. If we did lose 13 positions it would be devastating to all five of my schools. Morale would be ravaged, and I truly don't think that's too strong a word to describe the impact. Class size would spike, particularly if the cuts to I-728 and levy equalization that are being bandied about actually come to fruition. Members are looking to me to save their job, which is a hell of a responsibility; similarly, drastic cuts to staffing also lower the quality of the workplace for everyone left behind.

The temptation is to look at the contract and see what could be "given back" to the school district to save money. We have 86 hours a year of per diem, for example; that's more than $500,000 a year that could save roughly 7 positions. Given that per diem is extra money, some reason, they're willing to give up the extra for the good of the whole.

Not so fast, though. That money is also pensionable income, so any teacher who is within sight of retirement (3 years) needs that money in their paycheck to bump up the pension that they'll receive for the rest of their life. Giving away that $4,000 of per diem this year not only costs them now, but the difference for them every month of their retirement could be profound.

Or, consider my members at the very bottom of the seniority list. The $2,500 that per diem means for them is Christmas, is the property taxes, is the automobile insurance. How close to the bone would I be cutting if they didn't have that cushion?

Another area that comes up regularly is health insurance. There's a piece of the budget called the "Health Care Authority Remittance" (HCA), which is much better known as the carve-out. This is the money that school districts have to remit to the state to pay for health care for retired teachers, paras, and administrators, and right now the bill is about $60 per month per teacher. When carve-out started that cost was about $5 a month, which lead to many districts agreeing during contract negotiations that they would just cover the cost. Now that it's trebled four times over we're talking big dollars: for my district, about $90,000.

I could say, "OK--you can take that money out of the monthly health insurance allotment that we receive from the state." The practical impact would be that the people who are already paying out of pocket would see their costs go up $60 a month; for me, a guy who already pays about $440 a month out of pocket, that would make it about $500 a month. Those who insure only themselves--the single people, or those with a spouse who has good insurance--could come through untouched, or only paying a token amount.

Or, I could say that all the money that currently goes into the insurance pool could be used for the carve-out. That wouldn't completely eliminate the bill, but it would alleviate it some. The impact of that would be felt by anyone who uses the insurance pool to lower their monthly costs. That hits the people with families and kids the hardest.

My speech therapists get stipends--three days a year--but taking that away makes it feel like I'm targeting a very narrow band of my membership. My ag teacher at the high schools has a 40-day extended contract which pays him an additional $10,000 a year, but he earns every penny of it because his FFA duties keep him going all summer long. I could bargain those away, but that's lousy leadership.

What to do?

It's worth noting that the official advice of the WEA is that you never, ever trade money for jobs. Getting cost items into the contract is always a fight, and surrendering the long-term gain to avoid the short-term pain makes no sense in their view. The jobs always come back--remember, it's layoff AND recall--and while the pain is real for those sent away it's just part of doing business.

I understand that. Economically, intellectually, it makes all the sense in the world. When an organization that is fueled by member's dues money is telling you that the right thing to do is to have less members, that's probably something that you should listen to.

That said, teaching is a relational business, and layoffs hurt relationships. Culture counts, and I can understand the temptation to put the school family ahead of the fiscal ideal.

It's going to be an interesting couple of months.

Read more here, if any.

Layoff By Seniority Really Is the Best Way

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -- Winston Churchill

The RIF/Layoff situation statewide is getting intense. In my neck of the woods, Eastern Washington, there are 11 districts that have already committed to reducing staff next year, and I think that number could easily triple (or more!) after the Senate and House release their budgets next week. In my home district the Superintendent has told all the provisional teachers that they may not be invited back next year because of an impending million-dollar budget hole that needs to be filled.

I'm sympathetic to thoughts like those expressed at What It's Like on the Inside, where The Science Goddess questions why seniority is the be-all, end-all in deciding who stays and who goes in a budget crisis. It's an idea expanded upon by old nemesis Marguerite Roza here, but the devil is right there in the lede:

K-12 school districts that lay off personnel according to seniority cause disproportionate damage to their programs and students than if layoffs were determined on a seniority-neutral basis.

The trouble I have is that if you're going to be neutral on seniority then you're going to have to decide who stays and who goes based on other factors, and that's when things really fall apart.

Consider the state salary schedule; a teacher who is "maxed" makes $64,887 a year in base salary, while a new teacher only takes home $34,426. If you need to save $100,000 you'd have to RIF three new teachers to get over that bar, while you'd only need 2 advanced teachers. For $500,000 in savings it's 15 new teachers, but only 8 senior teachers. Clearly, there's less disruption to program if you fire the tier-I people first.

But in its own way, isn't that layoff by seniority? If you go to the top of the seniority list to save money--and I absolutely believe that there are administrators in this state who would love to do that--then you're targetting the senior teachers for making more money, which is just as capricious as seniority.

This EdWeek article gets into the idea of tying teacher "effectiveness" with layoff, but that way madness lies. How do I do that for the psychologist, the PE teacher, the Math Coach, or the nurse, all of whom are in my bargaining unit? If the worst teacher in my district is the speech pathologist, a layoff isn't going to help that situation because she's also the first one to be called back into that position.

Similarly, who validates "effectiveness"? Last year when there were three teachers new to the grade level the other senior teacher and I took on most of the toughest kids so that the new folks could have a softer landing, and that's the responsible thing to do. If doing the right thing puts me in position to get fired, I'm not going to do the right thing any more.

Layoff by seniority may be the worst way to do it, but it's better than all the other alternatives.

Read more here, if any.

An Eloquent Debate About the Role of State Government....

....is not what you'll find in the comments thread of this article at The Olympian.

Read more here, if any.