Welcome to our newest SAUSD thread – “Certificated SAUSD Employees!” We have added this thread by popular demand. Our 2009 SAUSD thread already has over 400 comments. Now we are offering a series of new threads so that our readers can focus on specific issues related to the SAUSD.
In this thread we invite parents, teachers and other community stakeholders to discuss “Certificated SAUSD Employees.”
I think the most pressing issue for certificated staff right now is the upcoming contract vote and explaining the new contract to all. Of course, all RIF’d teachers have more pressing issues on their minds, but until the budget from the state becomes a little more clear, I don’t think we can do much about RIF’s. If anyone has questions about the changes in the contract please post them here.
Some of the changes:
Benefits:
-Switch to Blue Shield from Blue Cross (not a part of negotiations, just a district decision)
-Increase in emergency room visits for all plans to $100.
-Increase in tenthly cost for insurance to 11% (varies with plan)
-Option for married employees not to coordinate benefits and have the tenthly cost waived.
-Loss of benefits to age 70 for all employees with less than 10 years by April ’09. Benefits will continue up until Medicare eligibility.
High School
-15 coaching periods, more only with administrator approval.
Other
-No freezes on step and column, this cannot even be pursued during salary negotiations next year.
-Changes to stipends for GATE coordinators.
-Three staff development days are the unknown because of the state, the district can take these away without negotiation resulting in a 1.5% salary decrease and 3 more days off.
-Plan for a committee to work on work related issues involving special ed and regular ed.
There are other items, I could post more if anyone is interested.
Another anon teacher,
In an earlier post (#333), you said, “The fact that CSR was not entirely eliminated by the district and the district will still get funding for classes that are between 20-30 makes me think that not as many elementary teachers will be in danger as previously thought.”
As I understand it, the District can receive 70% of the CSR money and still have classes up to 30. Doesn’t that pretty much amount to eliminating CSR and the corresponding number of positions (while still getting the CSR money), especially considering that 232 CSR positions are part of the total number of RIFs?
It depends on how it all works out financially. The percentages vary with the classroom numbers, so I’m sure the district will work it out to their maximum benefit financially. It remains to be seen if that could be at 30 students but it could possible be less, thus saving some jobs. There are so many questions out there that have yet to be answered and it may be quite a while until it all plays out. You can bet that they RIF’s based on 36 students per class, if they choose to take CSR money and hold at 30, some positions will be saved.
Teachers, 1440 teachers will be affected by this two tier insurance benefit reduction not 530 teachers. That is close to fifty percent of our membership. Why can’t our Association leaders not tell us how much money the district will be saving from such a ill thought out plan? I encourage you all to read the contract very carefully and asks questions. Do not let the district win and we will be the losers here. We must vote down this contract. Then send our team back to the bargaining table to develop a more resonable contract for all our association members.
Just In:
The Rif hearing concluded today (Thursday). The district will cancel your sub. Report to work tomorrow and NOT the hearing.
#5 what happened at today’s RIF meeting?
Thanks for any info.
#4
I don’t really think there is any way to discern the actual savings of the change in the retirement insurance. If you could explain why you believe this is such a large issue even though it affects many members, please do so. I personally know many people who will miss this by 2 months to 2 years and it doesn’t seem to be a big concern. The district’s insurance is only secondary to Medicare at 65 anyway and the district was having to fork over the full cost of the insurance even though it was secondary. This is a cost saving measure in the right place, where would you have another cut be made to make up for it? In addition to this, by the time these people retire I believe it is almost certain that Medicare, employer-paid insurance and the entire health care policy of our country will be entirely different.
Rif Hearing:
Our lawyer was defending the “Music” teachers and counselors this year. Maybe next year
he will defend the teachers for once.
They rescinded some people (the ones the district had something incorrect (hire date). 25 people have been rescinded.
In order for the district to have QEIA, they must have CSR (Class size reduction). They go hand in hand.
Carlos Perez (representing the teachers) made the following argument:
Counselors and Psychologists shouldn’t be let go because half of the district needs an SST and the demand is there (to meet those students’ needs). They also claimed they should be part of the “special” ed bandwagon like the speech pathologists and special ed people have (the no
rif bandwagon), but then many teachers can also say the same thing because most of us have special ed students mainstreamed into our classrooms.
They said that they are waiting to see if the May Props pass (see, I knew it). They use
us every year to get their props passed! In June (approx around June 9-10) Arnold will make his state of the state speech and we will know then. They moved the date to June instead of May because of the May 19th ballot.
I predict that the district will go to the new CSr flex plan which states that they can go over 24.5 kids (up to 30) and still receive 70% of the money.
As many people know, 192 Reading Coaches and BRT’s are being placed back into the classrooms, but the principals are whining to keep them to help them. We want them to stay in their current positions (of course) because then the CSR teachers won’t be let go (will not as many). If they go into the classroom…do the math.
232 CSR teachers
192 Reading Coaches & BRTs
40 teachers would be hired back is all. Next, take into consideration that 80 people are retiring and maybe only half are elem teachers, so add approx. another 40 teachers or so to that.
I predict about 80 additional teachers would be needed is all if the Reading Coaches & BRTs go back into the classroom and they use the 70% flex csr plan.
At least you guys get that option
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/04/sausd-teachers-complaints-to-obama-about-layoffs-hits-the-ap-wire/
I believe Anon. #9 is correct. The District can’t afford to lose QEIA/CSR $$ so they will to to a greater number of students per classroom and accept 70% of the money. I’m not sure they will be able to go as high as 30 students per class. Many schools [like mine, Wilson] have been “retrofitted/walled” to minimal dimensions to only allow 20-22 students per square foot. I’ve heard that the newest elementary, Heroes, has classrooms that are designed for 20 students. Will the District spend money to redesign/rebuild classrooms to accomodate more students per square foot or will they pretend to take the “high road” and defend CSR [20 to 1] when in fact they ran the $$#s and found that the retrofitting involved was cost prohibitive?
If you could see the size of the classrooms at my school, which currently hold 45 students and are probably designed for a max of 30, you would understand that the district has no interest in matching the size of a room to the size of a class. It is not even a consideration, they will just do it. And no, there are no fire codes that anyone can find that will stop them. We have tried and all we are told is that the maximum occupancy is determined by measurements exclusive of the furniture in the room. Then our only option becomes getting rid of the teacher’s desk and storage cabinets. We’ve been through it for many years, I think you will find that whatever you have been told about “minimal dimensions” will prove to have no teeth at all when the district puts 30 in those classrooms.
SAUSD’s Current CSR Plan
Student to Teacher Ratio
Old Penalty
Up to 20.44
No Penalty
20.45-20.94
20% or $4,284
20.95-21.44
40% or $8,568
21.45-21.84
80% or $17,136
21.85 and greater
100% or $21,420
FLEX CSR Plan
Student to Teacher Ratio
New Penalty
Up to 20.44
No Penalty
20.45 – 21.44
5% or $1,071
21.45 – 22.44
10% or $2,142
22.45 – 22.94
15% or $3,213
22.95 – 24.94
20% or $4,284
24.95 and greater
30% or $6,426
Class Size
Cost per Student
20
$ 2,679
21
$ 2,602
22
$ 2,533
23
$ 2,516
24
$ 2,411
25
$ 2,400
26
$ 2,308
27
$ 2,222
28
$ 2,143
29
$ 2,069
30
$ 2,000
Rules:
Districts participating in QEIA grant must continue to meet the 20:1 requirement for K-3 CSR in participating QEIA schools.
Combination classes are still permissible. For combination classes in grades three and four, incentive funding will continue to be available for students in grade three only.
Calculating CSR Revenue
When calculating projected K-3 CSR Revenue, remember to calculate revenue by classroom – not by student. This is particularly important if your district is considering significantly increasing class size. While CSR revenue is frequently stated on a per-student basis, this funding is limited to 20 students per classroom. In addition, penalties are calculated on a base of 20 students per classroom.
An Example: Increasing a classroom from 20 to 30 students would generate only $21,420 ($1,071 per student, 20 students) less a penalty of $6,426 (30% of funding) equaling net revenue of $14,994, or approximately $500 per student.
Assuming an operating cost of $75,000 per classroom, and CSR revenue with the new penalty levels, the table (above) illustrates the net operational cost per student at differing class size levels.
Due to the revised penalty structure, it costs only slightly less per student to operate class sizes at 25:1 than 24:1, so make sure to review the chart and choose class sizes carefully based upon the educational and financial needs of your district.
Maximum Class Sizes
While the revised CSR penalty provisions do not include class size limitations, this does not mean that a district could or should increase class sizes exponentially. Class size limitations in primary grades 1-3 are still governed by Education Code Section 41376 which limits class sizes to a maximum of 32 students per class, with an average class size of 30 students per class or less. Class sizes in Kindergarten are governed by Education Code Section 41378, which limits class sizes to a maximum of 33 students per class, with an average class size of 31 students per class or less.
While Education Code establishes class size maximums, make sure to check your local collective bargaining agreements, which may have more restrictive K-3 class size maximums.
Revised CSR Penalty Effective Date and Timelines
Like other categorical flexibility, the revised CSR penalties are currently effective for the 2008-09 year. However, unlike other categorical flexibility, the modified CSR penalties are available only for three future years through 2011-2012. All other categorical flexibility is available for four future years through 2012-2013.
Last week, staff from the Department of Finance, Legislature, and California Department of Education (CDE) met to discuss the intent of the flexibility agreed to during the Budget process. We have been informed that there will be no restrictions on a district’s ability to utilize the revised penalty provisions based upon priorities for CSR grade level implementation. LEAs will be locally authorized to increase class sizes in any grade level in which they were eligible for participation in 2008-09. Class sizes can be raised in all eligible grade levels with the new penalty provisions applied without further statutory limitations. The California Department of Education (CDE) has stated that they will issue further guidance and instructions later this month.
So, will they or won’t they???? That is the question.
California
Is school counseling mandated for grades K-8? No; (Yes for grades 7 &
Is school counseling mandated for grades 9-12? Yes (Grades 7-12)
Mandated School Counselor-to-student ratio: None
Source of mandate: Education Code
Who funds mandate? State Budget Act
Other: The California State Budget Act of 2006 (AB 1802, Chapter 79) amended the California Education Code to ensure that students in grades seven through twelve receive counseling services
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/cg/re/documents/counselguidelines.pdf
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/04/why-not-cut-administrators-pay-and-consultants-before-cutting-teachers-wages/
Another anon teacher,
You stated above (post #1) that, “Three staff development days are the unknown [because] the district can take these away without negotiation resulting in a 1.5% salary decrease and 3 more days off.”
How can the District take these away without negotiation if the prior contract states that the days and the salary schedule can only be reduced to the extent that the funding is reduced? Since the Buyback Day funding from the State is only reduced by 4.5% for next year, doesn’t that mean that the 1.5% would have to remain on the salary schedule (possibly less 4.5% of the 1.5%)?
Based on information provided at the Board’s Special Study Session on Thursday, it looks like the District is hoping to use the Buyback Day money to help fund staff at the elementary level, including Media Techs, APs, and Music Teachers. I know the State is allowing districts to use the Buyback Day money for other educational purposes, but, if the funding is still allocated, doesn’t our contract prevent it from being used for other purposes?
Perhaps, the answer to this question won’t ultimately have to be provided pending results of the May propositions, federal stimulus money, and availability of other funding sources. Nevertheless, the possibility of eliminating the buyback days and reducing the salary schedule has been raised, so I’m hoping for an answer to the contractual question. You seem very knowledgeable, so perhaps you may know.
Wouldn’t it be helpful if SAEA had an area on their website for members to post questions to be answered by union leadership and staff?
I could suggest a question and answer section be added to the SAEA website, it’s a good idea. I think normally they would just ask you to ask your rep. Your question is a good one and I’m not sure about the answer. I only know that if they do take away those days, we will not be working those days. Most likely they if the state is providing that money but removing the staff development requirement and allowing flexibility, then the district will be able to take the 1.5%. I’ll get back to you on that. I am now posting as “tmare” (formerly one of the “anon teacher”s and “another anon teacher”).
Extensive list of links and resources available. Excellent political contact links.
CA Teachers News OC By Jill Puich
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/04/educ/#comment-85336
SAEA should consider putting up a question/answer section on their website. It would generate far more traffic and teachers would use it as a go-to location to find out information and clear up rumors and other misunderstandings.
Some time back, 3 SAEA pres’s ago and before there was a SAEA website, I proposed just this. A colleague who had a web design business would build the site for SAEA with a moderated bulletin board (“blog” hadn’t come into use at that time.) We got a sympathetic hearing from the president, but got nixed in the end for what would probably be the same reasons the board would give a proposal today. The SAEA board at that time (none are the same today) felt any answer or opinion presented on an official SAEA website open to the public would be considered sanctioned by the executive board, and may be used to their disadvantage in dealings with the school district. They said anything put on a website would have to have prior approval by the SAEA board. So, I proposed an unoffical bulleting board, not linked directly to SAEA and got a no, no, no, please no. This is why I love Art, and you, too, RV, whoever you are.
Thanks SAHS Teacher for the kind words. I appreciate your insights and contributions to the various threads at OJ.
We have extra OJ Business cards. Not to put you on the spot, but would you be interested in bringing some to the next union meeting? I wonder if they could just be put out on the sign-in table?
As far as the union website issues – I understand the hesitancy because there are only so many battles the board and reps can effectively fight, and why hand over any more gasoline to contentious management? However, I think the discussions here, at OJ, have been pertinent and interesting over the years. I, too, am glad that Art made the commitment to keeping educational issues at SAUSD in the spotlight.
SAHS Teacher,
Thanks indeed for your very kind words. We don’t get much of that around here!
I owe a lot to Red as she has been such a big help to me with our SAUSD posts.
Change will come to the SAUSD one day and our SAUSD threads will have immense historical value. We will know how we got into such a state – and how we got out of it together!
Recently, ideas have been implemented to help make the SAUSD posts more manageable. What do people think about the idea of classifying posts by topic, i.e., RIFs, contract ratification, etc.? I think it could be even more effective than grouping by certificated, elementary, etc., although I don’t know how difficult this would be technologically.
#23- I believe Art and RV responded to my similar request by posting the additional threads. I think that a forum is a great idea, but I don’t think the OJB has the type of software available to handle it. I am thankful that they were able to arrange things in this manner, as it is a big improvement. It would be nice if someone else could find a way to implement a SAUSD forum online for questions and answers about the many specific of both employees and the general public.
This thread is going to be closed. Please read and post comments about SAUSD at this link:
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/01/new-2009-sausd-corruption-thread/