Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Negotiations Update, June 22, 2009
Click here for an update from the most recent negotiations meeting, held Monday, June 22, at 1 p.m. Our next negotiations session will be held July 6 at 9 a.m.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Negotiations Update, June 10, 2009
LNEA's negotiating team met with the board's team at 9am on Tuesday, June 8. The board's team presented their responses to LNEA's initial proposals, and vice versa. Click here for the updated Negotiations Summary chart. The next negotiations session, originally scheduled for 5pm on Monday, June 15, has been changed to 1pm. Another session will be held the following Monday, June 22, also at 1pm.
Please join us if you can:
Monday, June 15, 1pm at the BOE
Monday, June 22, 1pm at the BOE
Extra Pay for Extra Preps Survey Results
Several weeks ago you were asked to participate in a survey regarding supplemental pay for more than three preparations at Leavenworth High School. We received 121 responses. The link to this survey was sent to over 400 teachers. By comparison, 347 teachers responded last spring to a survey LNEA conducted regarding the possible elimination of the early retirement system. Following are the results of the survey regarding extra pay for extra preps at the high school:
Survey Results
& Analysis
for
Leavenworth NEA "Number of Preparations" Priorities Survey
Friday, May 22, 2009
Powered by Vovici EFM
www.vovici.com
Executive Summary
This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled Leavenworth NEA "Number of Preparations" Priorities Survey . The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 10 day period from Tuesday, May 12, 2009 to Thursday, May 21, 2009. 121 completed responses were received to the survey during this time.
Survey Results & Analysis
Survey: Leavenworth NEA "Number of Preparations" Priorities Survey
Responses Received: 121
| 1) | Select your primary work site from the choices listed on the drop down menu. |
| Response | Count | Percent |
| Admin Center | 0 | 0.0% |
| Leavenworth Senior High School | 45 | 37.2% |
| West Middle School | 14 | 11.6% |
| Warren Middle School | 7 | 5.8% |
| Anthony Elementary | 6 | 5.0% |
| Brewer Elementary | 8 | 6.6% |
| Lawson Elementary | 7 | 5.8% |
| Wilson Elementary | 11 | 9.1% |
| Muncie Elementary | 7 | 5.8% |
| Nettie/Ben Elementary | 6 | 5.0% |
| Leavenworth Virtual School | 1 | 0.8% |
| Leavenworth Co Spec Ed Coop | 5 | 4.1% |
| Other (please specify) | 4 | 3.3% |
| Analysis Commentary: |
| Indicated level of concern by work site. |
| Other Responses: | ||||
|
| 2) | At what level is your work assignment? (Choose ALL That Apply.) |
| Response | Count | Percent |
| Classroom Teacher | 87 | 71.9% |
| Resource Teacher | 6 | 5.0% |
| Itinerant | 4 | 3.3% |
| Special Education | 16 | 13.2% |
| Virtual School | 1 | 0.8% |
| Primary Elementary | 13 | 10.7% |
| Intermediate Elementary | 10 | 8.3% |
| Elementary Specials (Art, Music, PE, etc.) | 4 | 3.3% |
| Middle School | 21 | 17.4% |
| Senior High | 35 | 28.9% |
| Other (please specify) | 4 | 3.3% |
| Other Responses: | ||||
|
| 3) | Indicate your level of concern regarding the "number of preparations" issue. |
| Response | Count | Percent |
| Extremely concerned | 28 | 23.1% |
| Very concerned | 34 | 28.1% |
| Somewhat concerned | 30 | 24.8% |
| Slightly concerned | 14 | 11.6% |
| Not concerned at all | 15 | 12.4% |
| 4) | Possible Options: Select and rank the following settlement options for the "number of preparations" issue in order of your preference. Rank your choices by indicating your first choice, second choice, third choice, etc., using the drop down menus. Settlement options more important to you than those listed below should be entered in the 'Additional Comments' field. |
| | 1st choice | 2nd choice | 3rd choice | 4th choice | 5th choice | 6th choice | 7th choice | 8th choice |
| Afford elementary teachers the same protection by limiting the number of preparations allowable for elementary teachers. Departmentalization might reduce preps to 2 or 3 per teacher and allow teachers to specialize. | 12.7% (14) | 20.0% (22) | 14.5% (16) | 12.7% (14) | 11.8% (13) | 10.9% (12) | 11.8% (13) | 5.5% (6) |
| Eliminate the current provision entirely. (The contract would not contain language limiting the number of preparations for any high school teachers.) | 21.4% (22) | 8.7% (9) | 2.9% (3) | 4.9% (5) | 4.9% (5) | 6.8% (7) | 8.7% (9) | 41.7% (43) |
| Continue the current provision with the same stipend amount. (Leave the current contract provision unchanged.) | 12.4% (13) | 13.3% (14) | 17.1% (18) | 5.7% (6) | 9.5% (10) | 13.3% (14) | 21.9% (23) | 6.7% (7) |
| Continue the current provision but increase the stipend amount. (Increasing its effect as a deterrent.) | 11.4% (12) | 11.4% (12) | 6.7% (7) | 3.8% (4) | 6.7% (7) | 14.3% (15) | 17.1% (18) | 28.6% (30) |
| The negotiating team needs the latitude to weigh this issue against all others on the table. I will support whatever the negotiating team believes is consistent with the best attainable settlement. | 30.6% (34) | 10.8% (12) | 11.7% (13) | 16.2% (18) | 9.0% (10) | 9.9% (11) | 6.3% (7) | 5.4% (6) |
| Modify the provision so that no more than 3 preparations can be assigned with exceptions for vocational classes and one or two person departments, where the current stipend will be paid. | 5.7% (6) | 15.2% (16) | 15.2% (16) | 25.7% (27) | 18.1% (19) | 11.4% (12) | 5.7% (6) | 2.9% (3) |
| Modify the deterrent so that it would affect all levels in the district and cause student load to become the factor rather than the number of preparations. (This option may not be attainable since class size is not a mandatory topic for negotiations.) | 3.9% (4) | 9.8% (10) | 14.7% (15) | 17.6% (18) | 14.7% (15) | 17.6% (18) | 13.7% (14) | 7.8% (8) |
| Rather than reduce protections or benefits for the high school level, the team should work to identify other elementary level benefits similar to the supplemental pay for a combined classroom. | 21.8% (24) | 20.9% (23) | 16.4% (18) | 4.5% (5) | 17.3% (19) | 9.1% (10) | 6.4% (7) | 3.6% (4) |
Generated: 5/22/2009 6:47:43 PM
Thanks to Wade Anderson, Director of Research and Negotiations at KNEA for constructing and administering this survey. Thanks also to those who participated in the survey for the many individual comments and suggestions.
Teacher Rights Regarding USD#453's "On Improvement" Status
As most teachers are aware, USD #453 is listed as a school district that is “on improvement”with the Kansas Department of Education.
Dr. Harris and central office staff are focusing closely on this issue, and we take their efforts seriously and appreciate their desire and the desire of all employees of the district to address this issue.
Reflecting upon statements made several different times by Dr. Harris, however, that “tenure or not,” no teacher is “safe” when a district is on improvement, we decided to research this issue with a bit of scrutiny. We want to make you aware of several facts, provided to us by KNEA and KSDE:
1. The due process (tenure) law, K.S.A. 72-5436 et. seq., does not become null and void when a district goes “on improvement.” Nowhere in any document or statute does it state that districts “on improvement” have the right to ignore the due process law. Due process still applies for non-probationary teachers. Due process means that before a non-probationary teacher can be non-renewed, administration must provide ample evidence that a teacher is not responding to efforts to provide assistance regarding improvement of job performance.
2. There is no statute or regulation to our knowledge that connects a teacher’s job performance to student scores. Lily Kober, our UniServ director, states:
The only statute that references student test scores is the Evaluation statute. The pertinent section is K.S.A. 72-9004. a. “Consideration shall be given to the following employee attributes: Efficiency, personal qualities, professional deportment, ability, results and performance, including improvement in the academic performance of pupils or students insofar as the evaluated employee has authority to cause such academic improvement, in the case of teachers the capacity to maintain control of pupils or students, and such other matters as may be deemed material.”
There is no statute that directly links continuing employment with students making AYP on any standardized test. No Kansas laws have been amended to include NCLB as some part of continuing employment.
The evaluation procedure negotiated by each school district provides the “tool” or “vehicle” by which administration may document a teacher’s failure to perform adequately as a professional. Please read the documents included in USD #453’s Professional Appraisal System closely, so that you are familiar with the process, and understand clearly your responsibilities as a classroom teacher. You can find the Professional Appraisal System posted on the district intranet.
3. Peg Dunlap, KNEA’s Director of Instructional Advocacy, responded to our questions regarding USD #453’s status with KSDE. In part, she states:
According to KSDE information, presented at the August, 2008 State Board meeting, Leavenworth has been on improvement for 2 years for Title 1 purposes because of not making AYP in reading at the district level. [the upcoming school year would be year 3]
For the 2008-9 school year, 19 Title 1 districts were on improvement [all but 1 KS USD receive Title 1 funds]. Of those, 3 were for the 1st year, 5 in the second year, 7 were in the third year, 4 were in the 5th year. As you can tell from the length of time that some USDs have been on the list, and the fact that they’re still operating, and in some cases, getting MORE money to help them, nothing evil will happen to Leavenworth.
Districts on improvement had to submit an improvement plan to KSDE. That plan is a matter of public record, and you should request a copy from your superintendent to see what was submitted to KSDE.
On improvement means that for 2 or more years, the district has not met AYP goals. No individual schools in Leavenworth are on improvement. The district getting the designation is the result of aggregating all the building data. What happens is that sub-groups don’t have enough students to “count” at the building level but get enough to “count” when aggregated at the district level. It’s statistical.
Because of that kind of aggregation, districts often get identified for situations that are beyond their control. That said, if there are groups of students who are not progressing as they should, it is worth discussing why, and how that situation can be remedied. Is it the curriculum? Is it instruction? Is it parent participation and support? It’s often a combination of all those elements. It can also be the result of NCLB requirement for testing that are out-of-touch with reality, as for some special education students.
Any district has the right, and responsibility, to ensure that teachers are meeting expectations and teaching effectively. Most districts do that through the evaluation system. One thing for LNEA to consider is working with the district to ensure that the evaluation system, which is pretty new, as I remember, is being used appropriately.
We will secure a copy of the district’s improvement plan, and will try to post specific information on GoogleDocs regarding all districts and buildings on improvement in the state, so that you can see Leavenworth relative to other districts in the same kind of situation.
We encourage all staff, regardless of our standing with KSDE, to work diligently to improve scores. Especially now we all have a common desire for our district to join the ranks of those districts who are consistently making AYP in reading and math.
As always, please contact us with any questions you may have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)