Still getting used to there being this open group. Im reposting here the latest email I sent to TTM and the BOE: My latest email, CCd to BOE members. To send later if possible: comments on elimination of music and PE. Hi Mrs. Thomas-Manning, As negotiations for the new contract continue, I would like to follow up on our meeting from a few weeks ago. When we met, you emphasized that the school district had been researching strategic compensation for three years, and gave me some of the details about two studies that the district had conducted. At the time, you did not have on hand the folder with further information about the studies, but said that you could get it for me. In a later email message, I recommended putting this information on the FAQ, phrasing the question like this: What were the findings of the two studies done by the district over the last several years? Which successful districts were the models, what best practices are we taking from them, and what failures are we taking steps to avoid? (Perhaps this could be accompanied by a link to final reports from these studies.) I havent seen this information appear on the FAQ yet, but as the contract negotiation team still aims to have some kind of strategic compensation in the teachers contract, I really would like to have this information, as would many other parents that I have spoken to. So I would like to make a public records request for the above information, as well as meeting minutes from meetings held regarding those studies. This would help resolve some conflicting information Ive received about these studies from second- or thirdhand sources. For example, you noted that teacher David Schottner participated in the more recent study until the end, and that his overall assessment of it was positive. However, someone else who spoke with him on this matter tells me that at every meeting, he reiterated that he and other teachers were participating in the study for the purposes of research, and not because they endorsed any of its ideas or conclusions. Furthermore, I am also told that near the end of the study, Schottner proposed a list of ideas that the teachers had for things they would like to see in any proposed plan for strategic compensation, but that that meeting didnt go well, because those running the study werent interested in these ideas. I also hear from many teachers that the proposed system is not at all like the one that was studied. If you like, I could come by the district office to pick up a hard copy and pay for the cost of the copies, or if it would be more convenient to scan the documents and email them, that would be fine, too. I would also like to reiterate my other questions from my last email: 2. How will we avoid the problem of conflict of interest from principals who will have to spend more of their limited budgets the more teachers that rate as Accomplished--especially given that we would like as many of our teachers as possible to be at the level? This one is particularly important, because a widespread perception is that strategic compensation is primarily used as a way of reducing costs, and its undeniable that this conflicting set of motivations exists and will need to be countered. 3. How will we avoid gaming of the system or outright cheating on the part of teachers? Although I have confidence in the quality of our teachers, the fact that an incentive to game the system exists is still worrisome to me and many other parents. 4. What is the Board of Educations, and your, opinion on one crucial component of a strategic compensation plan, as recommended in the TNTP report linked on the district website: a higher base salary for all teachers? Finally, I would like offer some comments on the ongoing negotiations. Although what I have learned about collective bargaining tells me that the districts release of the information on negotiation progress is illegal and a violation of fair labor practices, since the information is out there, here are my thoughts: 1. Thank you to the negotiation team for compromising on one of the big issues in the proposed contract: the elimination of health insurance. 2. Regarding the continued press for strategic compensation (aka merit pay) in the proposed contract, I repeat what I said in my last email, sentiments I have since heard from many other parents and teachers: Looking back on previous changes that have been made in the district, such as the creation of the Gateway Gifted Academy, and the establishment of the high-school academy system, I remember processes stretching over months, with parents and teachers meeting in focus groups and discussing advantages and disadvantages of various plans. As a result, the ultimate decisions have been accepted by the community. Although strategic compensation may have been researched for several years in Reynoldsburg, it certainly did not get the kind of discussion these other changes received. If the current proposed contract were withdrawn, and discussions held like those I described above--long before a final plan is written into a contract and its do-or-die time--I believe that in a year or two, there would be a much greater chance of putting into place a strategic compensation plan that people would be excited about and proud of. 3. Something I have not mentioned before, but which I have become increasingly aware of, is that there is currently no limit on class size, and some teachers have had as many as 35 students in a class. These numbers are obscured by the inclusion of small classes such as some for special-needs students, in overall average class size calculations. A limit on class sizes needs to be in the next teacher contract. Thank you for your attention; I look forward to hearing your further thoughts on these issues, whether by email, or during your open office hours, or at next weeks Board meeting. Regards, Neal Whitman
Posted on: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 04:08:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015