Additionally, my wife and I were at the Shafer Elementary open house yesterday and Principal Mudlock noted that:
- there was a meeting today, on Thursday
- following the meeting an announcement will be made by the district regarding the outcome.
- Students will receive information on Friday in the event there is a strike on Monday.
- The district will post daily updates on their web site each day at 2:00 p.m. if there is a strike.
The editorial essentially speaks to the process of the strike and blames teachers for using what is available to them.
This latter point is what has interested me and of which I've written previously. To that end I sent the following questions to the State Rep.'s Craig Dally and Rich Grucella, State Senator Lisa Boscola, and Governor Rendell and Gubernatorial Candidate Lynn Swann regarding teachers' strikes in Pennsylvania:
- Do you support the current process that allows teachers to strike once school begins up to twice in a school year for a period of 2 to 20 days (and feel free to correct or clarify if I get this wrong)?
- Is there an alternative process that could be used that would still provide both parties incentive to negotiate? For instance a forced mediator 90 days in advance of an unsettled contract and an arbitrator 30 days out.
- How would you like to see this process changed, if at all?
- What other thoughts and/or comments would you like to share on this subject?
Bringing this back to our local situation, I've heard everything regarding the hang-up from the school offering 2% to the teachers wanting 8% per year for four years to the teachers wanting six figures at the top of the salary scale. In short, no one has very good information to work with.
I don't want a strike, and not knowing the offers I can't comment on who is right or wrong. The teachers are starting to get bashed as these two articles do. I don't want them to strike, but at the same time they are using the process that has been put before them. Can I blame them for that? No.
If I could walk into my boss and ask for an 11% pay hike in the middle of the year and get it - I would.
If my co-workers found out and they were offered a contract they didn't like and were given the option of continuing to work or having a work stoppage while they got a contract done that was acceptable and couldn't be fired for doing so and wouldn't lose any pay in the end - I'd bet they would.
This is what we are dealing with. The teachers are using the system that the state has set up and reacting to the situation the administration and school board has created.
Who is left out? Taxpayers, residents, and parents.
We can pick any party to blame, there is plenty to go around, but it begins with the state and works its way all the way down to the classmroom, not the other way around.
What do you think? Should the state change this process? Did the Board exacerbate the situation with its mid-contract pay raise to Dr. Lesky? Should the teachers hold back and not do everything they can within this process to get what they believe is fair? Post your comments and share your thoughts.
9 comments:
the state should definately chage the process. Maybe the board should not have given Lesky his raise at this time, but it shouldn't matter. Anyone can get enough credits to be an administrator if they want to. Administrators always get more money than teachers. Thats the way it is. Be an administrator if you want the money. (and the headaches)It's not logical to expect the teachers to do less than they are legally allowed to in a strike situation. Even common sense won't let them do what they might really want to do. The state is dictating to them what the procedure is. What ever their "leader" suggests - they must do. Thats what a union does. Dictates. I personally don't like them. They are outdated. It will be interesting, and I think most people in their position would do the same thing. Not that I think it's the right thing.
I think the point that was made in another comment and one I've heard elsewhere was that the raise given to Dr. Lesky was not a part of the original contract and it took place mid-contract. If it was merited, it should not have been considered until his existing contract was renegotiated in full (at the time of its expiration).
I'll be curious to see if any of the elected officials respond. Swann ought to as he really has nothing to lose. I can't imagine the teacher's union is supporting him and he needs to find points wherever he can.
I think the simple solution is to get rid of the union. Then you could pay teachers for the quality of work that each teacher performs. If you have an outstanding teacher you can reward them accordingly. Likewise if a teacher is "coasting" through a year and riding it out get to retirement, you could reward them with no pay increases, or put them on probation and if it continues let them go for not performing.
I think we may see some different models in the future for a variety of reasons (including many of those noted here), but I think you'd be hard pressed to see the teacher's union be eliminated.
Considering we're dealing with government, politics, and unions, a snale's pace for change could be a bit aggressive.
It will definitely be incremental, not radical. A good first step will be changing the ability to strike or if they can, place a financial penalty based on the days out for disruption. Still get the 180 days in, but maybe only get 75% pay for make ups or some such figure.
Then the teachers would need to weigh a potential gain against a pre-determined loss. Right now there is nothing to lose by striking.
Does anyone know if they are meeting at the Admin Offices today? It'd be great to get some reader photos of the parties exiting the building regardless of the outcome. If you get them, I'll post them.
Comparing Lesky and the teachers is comparing apples and oranges because those contracts are negotiated differently.
He may have gotten a higher increase but his job status is always more tenuous as a super than a teachers. Once a teacher has tenure they are rarely pushed out unless they have some gross negligence on the job.
Supers often have less than a 10 year run in the same position within a school district. At that point they typically move on or are moved out.
I do admit that the teachers have to be ticked at the high raise given to Lesky when they are being lowballed from what I hear. That is compounded when they see incompetent administrators (i.e. Callaghan and Swigart) moved into positions that they are unqialified for.
They should have let Swigart go to the Bethelehem school district instead of making backroom deals with her. That would have been addition by subtraction for our district. The teachers aren't dumb. They get disheartened when icompetent people are pushed along while solid ones are kept in place (Peter principle).
I don't disagree with the contract difference. I think the issue that rubbed people was the fact that there was no reason to issue the raise, except because the Board wanted to. It wasn't a part of a new contract, nor as far as anyone has disclosed was there a clause in the existing contract that required it based on some defined metrics. It was just a hey good job here's a bump.
Again, if someone offered it to me, I'd take it. I can't hold anything against him for getting a raise.
Having said that you make a very good point regarding the administrative revolving door.
I left the district in 2000 and maybe two are on the admin staff (which has also added about six positions if not more) in the same position. If I walked into a meeting less than half of the people would know who I was.
More teachers seem to get certificates for admin positions earlier in their career than was previously the case making them long term administrators instead of teachers.
They don't seem to keep positions very long as you indicate. To prove the point - how many principals have we had at the middle school since Mr. Jones (yes I was a student and it was a junior high then)retired?
He was there forever by most standards. It was steady and consistent. I think we've had four different principals there in the past five years.
I think this is one of those issues that makes for ineffective administration of a school district - constant turnover means everyone is figuring out the job instead of doing it and improving how to do it. It is also probably very frustrating for the teachers as each new admin brings new ways of doing things.
Thanks - great point that I hadn't given all that much thought to before you mentioned it.
I think a thorn in the side of the teachers' union is that the district has become top heavy in the past year and some positions are not even advertised, it is buddy system,we look after our own, correctly stating above the "Peter Principal" at its finest.Maybe classes in time management would make sense. You get in NASD and there is no getting out unless you make the choice yourself. Although they have downsized to quickly increase upscaling.
You are right about the buddy system. I know of an administrator (different district) who was put in a role that they were unqualified for for the last two years of their career because it would positively impact the renumeration during retirement years. I guess those calculations are heavily weighted towards the end of the career.
Now, get this, the position is going to be filled again on an interim basis as sort of a holding spot for an assistant superitendent who will eventually take over the superintendent job when the present super retires in 18 months.
While this may be wonderful for these individuals it is a bad deal for the students and taxpayers because the role in question is very important to the education of the students but will have effectively been ignored for 3-1/2 - 4 years by the time they fill it.
And that assumes that they won't use it for a favor yet again!
Some very interesting points of view here. I can identify with them all. The deeper problems we're dealing with, to my eye, are seemingly lack of responsibility, integrity and selflessness. Everyone involved is looking out for their own best interest, leaving the students, parents and taxpayers with the dirty end of the stick. There are no easy solutions to the problem it seems. Some years ago when the flight controllers decided to strike, basically crippling our country. President Reagan fired them and hired new ones. It wasn't popular or pretty, but it was effective. I'm not advocating firing teachers or administration officials, but it certainly looks inviting at times.
I'd prefer to see the system, as it is, scrapped and run as a free market enterprise. Where earnings from the top down are based solely on performance, with consideration for longevity. Privatization of services has proven very effective in many institutions throughout the country.
Unfortunately, the system as it is has been a longstanding one. Based on self-serving principles. Not on the greater good to be done. It is time to take a long hard look at it and how it operates. I don't believe the teachers, administration and certainly not the taxpayer, are served well now.
Don't mistake my comments here. I've said before, any dollar spent should go the most direct route possible, to gain the best return on investment. That would be to the teacher who actually produces the product we're paying for. The education of students.
Post a Comment