Jeremy Duss, Jonathon Farris, Carol Graves, Jeanette Heitman, Garret Jones, Jeff Kasparek, Cindy Rudie, Ryan Thompson, Hong Tran, Ginger Veith, Deidre Bradford, Jill Jensen, Kate Mennenga, Steve Rhoads, Lea Spaay-Kessich, Kris Tudor
Above are the names of staff that were give PRELIMINARY layoff notices. Again, these are PRELIMINARY! Some of these notices were reductions in hours and some are full layoff notices. These notices were approved to be given as part of our last meeting.
Many have asked me if these individuals would have received their notices if we had consolidated Maywood and Winnequah. The answer is maybe. Some of these individuals probably would have been giving notices based on our budget situation and the limited cuts the board did make. The increased time teaching time and reductions in OT/PT contributed to this list. Would these have been saved by consolidation? I will not venture to guess since I cannot predict how the board would vote on an issue.
Additionally, the board has received many concerns over the staffing of strings next year. While it is true our 2 most experienced strings teachers are on this list, that does not necessarily mean we won't have a good program in the future. When administration determines final staffing needs they take into account, among other things, the educational requirements the staff must have and staff seniority. Those two issues single-handedly drive many, if not most, staffing decisions. Therefore, one or both of them may be retained after administration determines final staffing needs.
It is my belief that each year the district should issue some layoff notices, so that it has some flexibility in staffing for the upcoming year. Because the notices have to be given by mid-April and not all staffing levels are firm this is a necessary evil. My concern for flexibility comes out of concern over giving our Administration the ability to maneuver staff as it sees fit. While they have a very good idea of where/how the staff will be made up giving them this flexibility allows them more time to finalize their plans. We have a great set of teachers and we need to keep them to the best of our ability. However, we operate under a pre-determined set of rules and we need to follow those rules. Unfortunately the preliminary layoff notices are one of the unpleasant aspects of those rules.
I know how this negatively impacts our teachers and do not take this emotional toll on them and their family lightly. I had a teacher ask me the other day if the cuts not made this year would be made next year? His concern was that if they are he would be out of a job and wanted to know if he should start looking for a new job this year. I told him that it was too early to tell exactly what cuts would be needed, but potentially yes they would be made. This fear of will I be cut or won't I has a real impact on these individuals lives and I hope as a board that we consider this when we begin looking at cuts next year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI understand the terror a person live under when their job looks to be in jeopardy. It's one of life's more stressfull experiences. I have been there. However, the purpose of this school district is not to provide employment for teachers but rather to ensure successful learning by our students. To that end, the district employs teachers. As thankless as your job is, it is student achievement that should be the consideration of the board as you look at cuts, not the impact of job loss on teachers. Certainly teacher/student ratios and student achievement are closely correlated, but they are not the same thing.
Jason, when asked if these positions would have received layoff notices if the Maywood-Winnequah consolidation occurred, you say maybe. According to President Sue Fox's school board update 4/15/10, she says definitively yes. This is why we need other avenues of information. Our school board president gets to state her opinions as facts on the school district website (I know, she has a disclaimer, but that doesn't seem acceptable to me.) I think this practice needs to change. Her opinions should be left to a blog if she feels compelled, but not posted on the district website.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Sue's claim, because we don't know where the board would have stopped cutting if Maywood would have been consolidated. The basis for my point is that:
ReplyDelete1. The board stopped making cuts at about $811k.
2. If Maywood/Winnequah was consolidated it would save about $260k.
Therefore, it begs the question would some of the items that were included in the cuts have been spared? I don't know the answer to this, so I say maybe. Maybe we would have gone to the full $1M and nothing would have changed. Maybe we would have spared some items on the list, so that would result in some of the teachers not being given preliminary layoff notices.
I just don't know.
Jason, two things:
ReplyDelete1. The consolidation of Winnequah/Maywood - would it really have saved $250,000 this year? Wouldn't there have been an approximate $200,000 cost to convert Winnequah to a K-5? So in the year it closes the district nets about $50,000 or so - but in subsequent years, it's $250,000. Thanks for answering.
2. Thanks for explaining about the notices. It was good to here you explain how the system works - and the necessary evil of issuing notices now so that you have flexibility.
It probably isn't fair to the teachers and administrators that this has to be done - but we're constantly told that the district has a set of rules they need to abide by when negotiating with the teachers union. The district is only using the tools that have been agreed upon. It might not be fun for everyone involved, but it's necessary.
Thanks again.
I'm not Jason, so he can confirm this, but the memo on the district website said the renovations to Winnequah would cost approximately $180,000. I have been told there is $70,000 left in the referendum fund, that can be used to off-set these costs. That brings the cost down to $110,000.
ReplyDelete$250K saved - $110 spent = $140 saved next year
The savings of consolidation was about $260k. The remodeling was about $180k. Referendum funds available for remodeling is about $70k. Net savings is about $150k the 1st year.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure that remodeling costs will go up in the future. This will result in less savings the 1st year if consolidation occurs.
Thanks for answering my question.
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to another question. What is the referendum fund? I assume it's money from the last referendum - but no matter what happens to maywood, can we use that $70,000 to help with the budget deficit? Or are there some limitations on on how it can be used?
Thanks.
The $70k cannot be used to balance the budget. It is specifically set aside for items related to the last referendum. It either gets used for that or it is used to pay back principal towards the referendum.
ReplyDelete