We continue work to both close our budget gap as well as communicate information about what we are doing and what the circumstances are at any given time (as this picture is constantly changing based on modifications from the state, as well as the actions that we must take). In that regard, I provided some references to that information previously that is found in various locations on our RUSD webpage. At this time, we are also providing a Fact Sheet regarding some of the issues and information regarding the budget. As things change with time (e.g., May Revise, etc.), we will attempt to keep the Fact Sheet updated and accurate.
You can find the “button” to take you to the budget facts in the upper right hand corner of the opening RUSD webpage or click here. We hope that this continues to provide timely information to all as the situation continues to change. Additionally, you may be interested in President Vanderzyl's OpEd piece in the Press Enterprise on Sunday.
I believe most of us in education are painfully aware of the budget difficulties that we face in the state and the district. Also, Mr. Vanderzyl's comments in the Press-Enterprise were well thought out and sincere. It would be good if the spirit of his comments reflected the spirit of our district at this moment.
ReplyDeleteI have two questions for you, Dr. Miller. What is it that causes other districts to settle with their teachers, e.g., Corona-Norco and Los Angeles,that prevent job losses and class-size increases? And what can we do, teachers and management, in our district, to find a solution, though painful it may be, that saves teacher positions, maintains a reasonable class size, and serves our students despite the very challenging economic issues we face?
Thank you for the fact sheet. It helped some. My question though is, how do you plan to have our kids college and career ready when they graduate high school when you are increasing class size (many classes will be mainly behavior management) and closing the libraries at secondary level (if that is the plan since librarians and media assistants have been eliminated)? How are you getting books into the hands of our children (No Child Left Behind)? Or is this going to be eliminated too?
ReplyDeleteThe transparency many of us are looking for is what is your plan for next year and the years to come? Our children do not seem to be very important at this point. You need more than English and Math to make a well rounded student and productive person in the community.
I know that these are difficult times, and nearly 20% of the educators in RUSD have received a Reduction in Force notice. We must find ways to keep as many of the outstanding younger teachers in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find difficult to understand is, why doesn't the district offer a decent retirement incentive for teachers to retire so teaching jobs can be saved? Every district around us has offered a retirement incentive, not for just this year, but also last year! Why can't RUSD offer an incentive that will get teachers to retire? One fact often overlooked is that NO other district tried to tie contract language of any kind to a retirement incentive, unlike RUSD!
Much has been said about budget cut days (furlough days) that most districts have been negotiated with their unions. To date, RUSD ahs not come to the table to discuss these cuts. On Dr. Miller's Fact Sheet, he states, "While we value all of our employees, we have had to notify 444 of our teachers that they may not
be returning to our employment for the 2010-11 school year. The final number of effected
teachers will be contingent upon the outcome of the collective bargaining process with RCTA."
If the district is sincere about bringing back RIF's teachers, then when are we going to negotiate budget cut days?
Also, you state that there has been a reduction of 18 managers/administrators. How many of these actually lost a job, or were most of them retirements or reassignments back to the classroom? These reductions are nowhere near the 20+% of educators losing their job!
Mr. Martin,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the answer to your first question would be that the two districts you mentioned didn't have to negotiate with RCTA! Apparently their union representatives are more flexible.
In regard to the reduction of 18 managers,Mr. Lawrence questioned, "How many actually lost their jobs?" These managers have been valued effective teachers of RUSD for many years. They have given up a great deal to be a leader in the district and a support for teachers and students. They work far more than their 8 hours, and are tireless in their endeavor to help students achieve. Administrators/managers do not lose their teaching seniority as long as they remain in the district. Why should RUSD lose their expertise any more than the district should lose the expertise of the newer teachers. Many managers/administrators were teachers for decades before taking on the new assignment. One can only hope that all or most rif'd teachers are still here next year, but being upset because experienced, effective administrators may return to the classroom rather than lose their job completely is simply a very sad statement.
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent that RUSD and RCTA keep playing the finger pointing game. Let's put all the cards on the table and see who really is telling the truth. Broadcast the next negotiations meeting on your live podcast Dr. Miller. The next negotiations meeting should be about furloughs. You claim it is RCTA who does not want to negotiate..here's your chance to let the TRUTH BE TOLD! If saving jobs is the goal..then make it happen!
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement that we should explore every option possible to save jobs and ensure our students receive a quality education. The district and RCTA need to come to agreement about how to handle this issue as soon as possible. Managers have been cut, as well as, had reductions in their pay for next year. This will contribute to saving jobs, or in this case, lessen the amount of layoffs. I wonder if Mark Lawrence is willing to be paid by the union instead of by RUSD like it currently stands. Mark is fully released from the classroom and is paid by the district and has proposed that the district should look at the second floor before making necessary cuts. Again, we should look every where including the second floor, but we should look at the benefit of paying a union president's salary out of the general fund as well.
ReplyDeleteHow many assistant superintendent positions have been cut? Why do we need 7 assistant superintendents? Sending 5 of these back to the classroom will save many jobs for our great, dedicated teachers who also "work more than 8 hours and are tireless in their endeavor to help students achieve." We all need to take our fair share of the cuts.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that there are comparisons made to Corona-Norco Unified School District. They have not ratified any furloughs to date and we also have to consider that they can have over 40 students in a class at the secondary level. They salary schedule is higher than ours, but they pay upwards of $600 per month for family benefits. RUSD is now beginning to consider increasing class sizes for the first time due to a major fiscal crisis. By the way, they have 7 Assistant Superintendents and a minimum of 4 AP's and 1 administrative AD on all of their HS staffs. RUSD management teams have been cut more than many local districts.
ReplyDeleteDr. Miller,
ReplyDeleteToday Kathleen Sanchez visited Mark Twain Teachers. She basically told us that no pink slips will be rescinded until May 15th. She also said that involuntary transfers will have priority over any teachers whose pink slips are rescinded. That means that half the staff at Mark Twain will not return..even if jobs are saved! How is this in the best interest of our children? Most of us started this school 4 years ago! We earned the right to become a distinguished school, and now knowing that some of those pink slips can be rescinded..you tell us sorry..you can't stay! The decision about AP's has been made..Rescind those pink slips! If you truly care about children,and our staff as you have shared with us..then you will not destroy a school by removing 50% of its teachers.
We are in the same boat here at Kennedy. We have 11 pink slipped teachers and have been told the same thing. Those that might get a chance to return will very likely become an involuntary transfer. Cut to the chase: our jobs will be given away. Ironic that Kathleen Sanchez told us as well that they understand that it would be the best for the culture and community of our school to maintain the current staffing (if indeed we are not terminated) yet that appears to be just talk. If the district were really interested in minimizing the disruption at each school site they would at a minimum try to have as many pink slips rescinded prior to the final staffing meeting the principals have and certainly by May 15th. Yes a job is a job period. For anything I will be THANKFUL, but if 10 days or so could make the difference of packing up a classroom, leaving the kids we have grown to love, changing sites, changing grades, and leaving my fellow coworkers why can't that be taken into consideration?
ReplyDeleteWow! I can't believe that the teacher who may actually be getting their job back is actually complaining that they may have to change schools! I am sure there are plenty of teachers on the RIF list that are nowhere close to having their pink slip rescinded willing to trade places with you. Be grateful that you may actually have a job next year and quit whining!
ReplyDeleteI am a teacher on the RIF least that is nowhere near getting rescinded and I don't think it is fair that the district is holding back on rescinding so they can save all available positions for their "friends" that currently work at the district office but must return to the classroom. It is quite "transparent" that this is what is happening. I am certain this won't be published but at least someone will have to read it before they delete it!
ReplyDeleteAll the talk about furloughs being necessary right now is still very premature. Keep in mind RUSD began 2009-2010 with a $72 million surplus carryover from the 2008-2009-budget year. That reserve carryover is the largest for a school district of RUSD's size in Southern California to my knowledge. Certain site administrators as well as some downtown admin spur much of this talk of furloughs on. Most don’t know much detail regarding the district’s budget, they just hear financial reports projecting RUSD will have a $49 million dollar deficit to fill and they understandably panic, thus the talk regarding furloughs as necessary. Remember, every AP in secondary and many in elementary got RIFs, and I’m sure most are not looking forward to going back to the classroom and teaching, nor taking the pay decrease that would entail. A small salary cut of 2-3 % in furlough days for APs is nothing compared to the pay cut they would take if they are reassigned to the classroom and go back to teacher pay, so anything you hear an AP telling you regarding the necessity of furloughs should be taken with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteTake the time to examine the RUSD budget 1st and 2nd interim reports, both available on the RUSD website. One can find money all over the place within various accounts within the budget. Mark Lawrence pointed out the bloated over-allocations in the textbook and supply budget at the last board meeting. RUSD SPENT $11.98 MILLION ON BOOKS AND SUPPLIES in 2008, BUT HAS BUDGETED $33.26 million FOR 2009!!!!!! THAT IS A DIFFERENCE OF $21.28 MILLION!!!!! THE AVERAGE EXPENDITURE FOR TEXTBOOKS AND SUPPLIES OVER THE LAST 9 YEARS IS $13.4 MILLION!!!!! RUSD HAS BUDGETED ~$20 MILLION MORE FOR THAT ONE FUND THAN THEIR 9 YEAR AVERAGE EXPENDITURE!!!!
I have pointed out in previous postings that fund 67 (RUSD self-insured health fund) has a projected reserve balance for 2009-2010 of $37 million, which is approximately $28 million more than what is legally required ($8-9 million) for the fund. I got that figure directly from Mike Fine, who told me in a Health Benefits meeting in 2008 the legal requirement for the fund 67 reserve was "ballpark, $8 million to $9 million." Last year’s total expenditure from fund 67 was $17 million. There are other accounts within the RUSD budget that have significant over-allocations for 2009-2010 compared to what was spent in the same funds in 2008-2009. THE OVER-ALLOCATIONS IN RUSD’S BUDGET TOTAL IN THE $10s OF MILLIONS!!!!! I’ve only mentioned two. You can find out how much RUSD spent in each fund in previous years by visiting the RCOE website.
(http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp). Click on district then select financial reports for district. Select the year, Riverside County, and Riverside Unified School District. What you see are the unaudited actuals of what the district actually spent in each area, by fund each year. Compare what you see with what the district has budgeted for this year and you will see why there are major questions that must be answered.
Furloughs or salary rollbacks should remain the absolute last resort, should it be demonstrated that RUSD simply does not have sufficient reserves to bring back our RIFed colleagues jobs. To my thinking, that has not yet been demonstrated. Just adding the over-allocations from the textbook and supply fund with fund 67 totals enough money to save many hundreds of jobs. It would be reckless for the certificated bargaining body (RCTA) to request its members take salary cuts without first gathering all the facts and ascertaining that such action is actually necessary. The anonymous posts here and on the RCTA blog urging RCTA to propose furloughs in the negotiations process at this point remind me of someone yelling “fire” in a crowded room. The intent of such tactics is to provoke a panic among certificated staff to force us to settle prematurely and unwisely. Remember, only fools rush in. Let’s keep our heads and do our homework, as we often say to our students.
Does Jay VanMeter work for the district? If so it sounds like you really dislike RUSD, your employer. Although I'm sure that inaccurate information is out there regarding the budget,
ReplyDeleteas an employee I can't come up with any reason that the district would just get rid of staff so they can save a bunch of money. The budget is available to the public so I don't think they are hiding as much as people who seem to dislike and disrespect RUSD are saying. Principal's, and A.P.'s and Counselors have already taken cuts and some have lost their jobs. Some Classified staff have taken cuts and more will lose their jobs by mid May. Why should the teachers who left standing not also take some cuts as well.
I understand Mr. VanMeter's point. I realize that we need to look at the budget very closely.We also need to realize that this District can not just run off of students and teachers. There are things we need to have in order to function. The BAC budget document paints a very different picture than what the Union is projecting. Regardless, we also need to realize we are in a current fiscal situation that we have never seen before. As a RIFed teacher, things can not happen fast enough for me. We are all frustrated at the pace of negotiations and the counter information that is presented by both the district and the union. I realize that Mr. VanMeter is a teacher and feels obligated to look out for other teachers. But, I think it is hard to sit back and say we need to look at all other aspects of the budget before teachers discuss furloughs and pay cuts.Should we look at the budget and try and rescind the pay cuts and furloughs that some many have already taken? We need to realize that we are the only group in the district that has not taken a pay cut, or agreed to furloughs. I would like to say that we are the lowest paid group, but many classified employees are much lower on the pay scale and are being hit very hard. Most of the districts around us have all taken a pay cuts and been given furloughs. Why do we want to put ourselves above everyone else. I have seen it begin to happen already with the community around us. We are beginning to fall out of the public's good grace. The school board no longer supports our union, and quite honestly, many of teachers are beginning to question our tactics and thoughts. I understand we want to look at ways to save money, but for how long. 444 of us are one month away from loosing our jobs, and the ability to provide for our family. No offense, but unless you have been RIFed, you have no idea what a toll it takes on someone personally and professionally. We continue to hear about the district no being able to meet for negotiations, but then it comes out that we are the mercy of an IBB facilitator who lives in Sacramento, and the Union wants to use him. Maybe fools rush in, but how long do we wait before we become foolish? What if the District basically cuts everything around us and shows up at the negotiations meeting and says "we fixed the budget, the teachers do not need to take a pay cut. We are going to let all 444 teachers go though?" How will the union respond to that. They are getting closer everyday to becoming solvent with state. Maybe if we keep examining the budget the teachers will not have to do anything. For the 444 of us who loose our jobs, I guess we can always claim unemployment.
ReplyDeleteNot negotiating furlough days or pay decreases would be RECKLESS. This is April. In less than 6 weeks potentially 20% of the teaching staff could receive final lay-off notices.
ReplyDeleteWe took a hard stand and refused to negotiate the ERIP which would have saved a lot of jobs and prevented much of the trauma many of our teachers are being forced to endure. Instead we, teachers, took a hard stand and refused to let the District get the best of us. We sure showed them!
Guess what? Once the final lay-off notices go out, the District can reassign the layed off teachers where there are openings thus getting around the transfer language! But again, we were smarted and proved a point.
The Principals have agreed to furlough days, the VPs are negotiating, the Counsolers have negotiated among themselves to save jobs, and the Staff Educators have agreed to a shorter work year. All surrounding Districts have either settled or are in negotiations. We are the only teacher organization still refusing to save each other.
It is extremely apparent that the Union is of value until a member needs them and then it's too bad, you're on your own. We are out of time.
This situation is more like someone being raped in the middle of the street in broad daylight with the unaffected just walking by refusing to help out.
Our union is trying to help us, they are ultimately protecting each and every one of our jobs, our future jobs and our rights. Mr. VanMeter is correct that the budget needs to be looked at throughly, if we jump now, there is NO lifeboat available in the future. Patience, I know it is hard, living through the unknown each and every day is difficult, there is no easy way right now. Furlough days should be the very last resort, we are not there yet. The loss of 444 teachers will impact this district negatively. I just don't think the district will let 444 teachers go, I think they will find previously unidentified funds to bring most of us back, they always do. But if we give away our rights, and then presto, they have found funds, our rights are out the door and we are at their mercy, right where they want us to be. Support our Union Leaders.
ReplyDeleteNote: I tried to ask this on the RCTA blog and received no answer on Friday.
ReplyDeleteI realize our Union maybe trying to help us, but are they giving us all the information? They have told us for months that the District can not find time to meet and negotiate. The issue has come forth that the Union is choosing to use a specific facilitator for IBB and they live Sacramento. We need the truth and need to stop playing this blame game
You don't think the district will let 444 teachers go? So what is this, let's call the district's bluff? Didn't we do that with the ERIP? Look where that got us...
ReplyDeleteOpen your eyes and see what every single surrounding district is doing. Even LA realized the need for and choose to save class size reduction thus saving jobs. It is the 444 who are at your mercy.
If we wait much longer, the good news is that your so called life boat will have 444 extra seats for those of you who are left. And the students we pledge to serve will be left in your wake.
In answer to the question from Anonymous (April 3, 7:37 a.m.) regarding scheduling negotiating dates:
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Interest-Based Bargaining and using the facilitators was RUSD's from the beginning. The Interested-Based approach was advocated by the new superintendent Dr. Miller as being successful in his previous districts. It was RUSD who approached RCTA about using this method, not the other way around. RCTA agreed to participate in the process and the training, which the district and RCTA would both attend together.
Following the Interest Based Bargaining workshops Feb. 3-5, RCTA sent an email request to RUSD that said the following, "RCTA's team is available to negotiate on Feb. 22, 23 and 24th. We understand that Neil Bodine is also available those dates. Please let us know which dates work for your team." As you can see RCTA had verified that Mr. Bodine was available those days. THE DISTRICT NEVER RESPONDED UNTIL MARCH!!!!
In early March the District asked if RCTA would be willing to use Mr. Bodine's wife, JoAnne as a facilitator. RCTA didn't feel comfortable with that, since Mr. Bodine had worked with RCTA and JoAnne with CSEA previously. RCTA did state their willingness to work with JoAnne once we began the process, but felt Mr. Bodine should be the facilitator at the initial sessions. The District offered no further dates they would be available until the March 23rd session.
I have one additional comment regarding LAUSD, Corona-Norco USD (CNUSD) and their tentative agreements with their certificated bargaining units accepting furlough days. Both districts have been mentioned in anonymous blogs both here and in the RCTA blog (www.myrcta.org). RUSD is in a much better financial situation than either CNUSD or LAUSD. Here are the figures regarding the reserves of RUSD, LAUSD, and CNUSD, again taken from the state website I mentioned in the post above -
ReplyDelete(http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp):
Comparison of 2009-2010 Reserves by district:
District Reserve Beginning Balance Beginning Reserve Balance
(In $Million) (As % of 2008-2009 revenue)
RUSD $72.6 million 22% of revenue ($332 million)
CNUSD $43.5 million 12% of revenue ($374 million)
LAUSD $851 million 13% of revenue ($6.58 billion)
RUSD had a reserve balance compared to revenue 83% larger proportionately than Corona-Norco’s reserve, and 69% larger proportionately than LAUSD’s reserve. On top of all this, as I have mentioned RUSD has tens of millions of dollars budgeted beyond their expenditures in previous years. Over-allocations contribute to the projected RUSD deficit of $49 million. Two funds I have mentioned in particular are the textbook and supply fund, and the district self-insured health fund 67 (read post above).
I am not aware of most of the facts regarding the current budget details of either CNUSD or LAUSD, but I trust that after careful examination of their interim reports that the certificated bargaining units of both districts concluded to their satisfaction that furloughs were the best solution to their individual situations. For example, LAUSD projects to spend $294 million on textbooks and supplies this year, compared to $297 million spent last year. LAUSD IS SPENDING $3 MILLION LESS THIS YEAR ON TEXT/SUPPLIES THAN WHAT IT SPENT LAST YEAR, AND $83 MILLION LESS THAN ITS 6 YR. ANNUAL AVERAGE EXPENDITURE FOR THAT FUND. This is what one would expect given the state funding circumstances, and the fact that new text adoption has been postponed by the state for several years.
In comparison, RUSD has budgeted $33.3 million and projects to spend $28.7 million on textbooks and supplies this year, compared to $11.98 million spent last year. The projection for the RUSD textbook/supply expenditure this year is ~$20 MILLION MORE THAN RUSD SPENT LAST YEAR, AND ~$15 MILLION MORE THAN THE 9 YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE FOR THAT FUND!!!!!!
Many questions remain unanswered regarding RUSD’s current financial situation and the necessity of the number of RIFs it issued to certificated staff. Remember last year it was RCTA asking questions about the RUSD budget details that saved the jobs of about 100 elementary positions. As it turned out, RUSD had committed major errors in calculating its deficit projection, amounting to ~$10 million. It is neither dislike nor disrespect directed toward RUSD that drives me to ask questions, nor is it lack of sympathy toward my RIFed colleagues’ situation. I have spent numerous hours working on their behalf these last few months. Rather, it is simply common sense to get all the facts before making an informed decision. Isn’t that one of the goals we all set as educators for our students? We need to follow our own advice and get all questions answered before making our own informed decision, one that will affect every certificated employee in the district.
One would think because of the fact that RUSD is in much better financial condition than either CNUSD or LAUSD that it would be more conservative in issuing RIF notices to it’s certificated employees than the other two districts, since RUSD has such a proportionately larger reserve (22% of its 2008-09 revenue) to use toward budget solutions this year (read my post above). One would be wrong. Here are the comparisons of RIF notices by district:
ReplyDeleteDistrict Certificated RIF notices RIFs as % of Certificated Employees
RUSD 444 22% (2040)
CNUSD 343 14% (2507)
LAUSD 2826 7% (39,503)
So proportionate to its total number of certificated staff, RUSD HAS ISSUED 57% MORE RIF NOTICES THAN CNUSD, AND 214% MORE RIFS THAN LAUSD!!!! I am not aware of most of the facts regarding the current budget details of either CNUSD or LAUSD, but I trust that after careful examination of their interim reports that the certificated bargaining units of both districts concluded to their satisfaction that furloughs were the best solution to their individual situations. At the very least, it does appear from what I've seen that CNUSD and LAUSD have attempted to make significant budget cuts in such accounts as textbooks and supplies BEFORE slashing their certificated staff indiscriminately. For example, LAUSD is spending $83 million less this year for textbooks and supplies than its 6 year average, and $3 million less than last year. RUSD has done the exact opposite, projecting to spend $17 million MORE for texts and supplies this year compared to last year, and $15 million MORE than their 9 year annual average!!!! When this was brought to the board's attention by Mark Lawrence at the March 15 school board meeting, all that the board could come up with was this by one of the board members: "The textbook and supply account has a lot of stuff in it. Even gasoline expenses are included in that account." So that answers that question.....I guess? Sure, gasoline prices are up, but by $17 million more compared to last year?
Many questions remain unanswered regarding RUSD’s current financial situation and the necessity of the number of RIFs it issued to certificated staff, furlough days, and other proposals suggested here and on the RCTA blog (www.myrcta.org). It is simply common sense for the association to get all the facts before making an informed decision regarding what is necessary for the certificated staff it represents at negotiations. These decisions affect every certificated employee in the district and must not be made in haste on the basis of emotion, fear, and rumor but on solid financial facts.
Remember last year it was RCTA asking questions about the RUSD budget details that saved the jobs of 100 elementary positions for this year. RUSD had committed major errors in calculating its deficit projection, amounting to ~$10 million. If some of what I've mentioned here and in previous posts regarding RUSD's finances don't raise your eyebrow even a little, then nothing will.
Thank you for this thorough and enlightening comparison of information from two distrists that we are all watching. I am in total agreement, we must all, certificted and classified staff continue to ask for the details of two funds that you have brought forward. The information is quite amazing to see in print, explained in terms that we can all understand. My concern, as must be all our concerns,will there be enough in these funds and others to cover operating expenses for the next 3 years, which will be the most challenging? But 444 teachers and unknown tolls of classified staff, moderation and balance must be foremost. I cannot wrap my head around losing 444 teachers, and still educating our students? I cannot wrap my head around losing classified support workers at the school site along with custodial workers and still support the teaching staff and students as a whole. Much to think about and to examine.
ReplyDeleteI was beginning to listen to Jay about the budget until he came up with the Reserve Balance. I have heard this explained 4 times now. Once when Mr. Fine came out to our site and it makes perfect sense. We just received the stimulus money before the end of the year so it shows as a surplus. We spent that money this year.
ReplyDeletePlease don't give us partial or misleading information! There is enough of it out there already.
Negotiation is a process by which both sides should get something but not everything they desire. It should not be a war but a process to see what can be achieved for both parties. The Interest Based Process can work very well. It is unfortunate that it came to RUSD as this economic nightmare hit our district putting the process to immediate scrutiny before we have all had a chance to see where it can take us in becoming a more unitied district of employees.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that Mr. VanMeeter is very passionate but he does fail , however, to give you all the facts. First, his wife is a long term member of the RCTA negotiation team. He knows better than anyone, that RCTA and CTA invited Dr. Miller and Kathleen Sanchez to attend a workshop on Interest Based Bargaining in Anaheim last year. Up to that point IBB was the preferred form of bargaining suggested by CTA across California. Dr. Miller thought it was a good process to bring sides together to solve mutual problems and offered to pay for BOTH RCTA and the district team to be trained in it this year. This all was talked about for over a year before it happened!
Second, Mr. VanMeeter failed to state that in our negotiations it has been agreed that both sides may each bring in a budget analyst that will confer during IBB as to what the numbers really mean to the negotiating teams. That analysis should help the teams to talk the same talk and look for solutions to meeting any economic needs that come forth from that examination. Should we jump into solutions before well defining the problem....absolutely not! However, as stated so eloquently before...these are unprecented times of economic chaos from the state. It is gut wrenching to me to look at the faces of all the employees I work with that are being adversly affected by the stress....the clock ticking away as each day goes by not knowing if they will have a job or not....or what their work place will look like next year....even if it exhists in any kind of comprehendable manner? My own stress has been overwhelming in nature which I deal with only through the support of my family.....The REAL people of RUSD need the negotiation teams to work very hard and NOT leave the table without REAL tough decisions being jointly made....Also it is time that someone mentioned the elephant in the room. Listen to the rustling...listen to the wind....do you hear the whispers of voices of secretaries, office assistants, instructional aides, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians and managers who are feeling devalued by teachers through this economic crisis....Mark Lawerence says that the district has not come forward with furlough proposals. Negotiations are a two-way street....RCTA could have just as easily brought forth furloughs. Let's just state the TRUTH. We have all been at fault! We ALL need to come together to try and ride this economic upheaval in an effort to retain as much of what was before for the future. Again this means HARD WORK, an OPEN MIND, and a DEDICATION to finding a common ground of solutions by the RCTA and RUSD negotiating teams. My suggestion would be for anyone having important economic points, to write them down and submit them to your negotiation team so that their respective budget specialist can examine your ideas/comments/thoughts before the teams meet next week to save time and help your team to be better prepared for accurate and timely discussions. I wish us all well in this negotiation process!
Whatever happened to one principal, one ap, one counselor with the exception of 2 counselors (perhaps) at the HS level? That might justify their salaries being what they are. Teacher's salaries appear to be in line, if we want them to survive. It appears management salaries are completely out of line and should be brought back into balance. Cutting the bulk at the district would help tremendously!
ReplyDeleteTeachers need to be able to do their jobs and quit being pulled out of their classrooms for "meetings" all the time. Ridiculous! To have an entire grade(s) out for entire days while we pay for substitutes??? Does this make sense? Minimum days so teachers can have days to catch up on all the BS management puts on them???
Sounds like basic economics and common sense should apply.
OK, 90+ percent of the children at Longfellow Elem. receive free lunch. A good majority of the other schools are at least 50%. What's wrong with this??? I thought welfare and the state's asst. programs provided food for the under privileged. How about these parents MAKING their children's lunch with food they have been given? Look at all the money we would have.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of children at Longfellow also do not speak English, causing us to hire bilingual teachers and provide extra instruction. If we taught in one language, think of all the money we would be saving there too, not to mention cutting back on the 2 language forms and notices we have to send out. Look at the stats, these underachieving schools are held back by the english learners. What are we doing to our own children? The ones who are American Citizens, have paid for the right of an education, and are rightfully owed this education. Simple: be a citizen (legally), speak our language, get an education.
"The majority of children at Longfellow also do not speak English, causing us to hire bilingual teachers and provide extra instruction. If we taught in one language, think of all the money we would be saving there too, not to mention cutting back on the 2 language forms and notices we have to send out."
ReplyDeleteThis is quite an ignorant comment from a misinformed person. Get you facts straight people.
1)Longfellow teachers teach in English. WOW!!!!
2)We are teachers not immigration officers.Why should we be concerned about our students immigration status? Any teacher who is uncomfortable with that is in the wrong career. Move somewhere where immigration is not a current issue (the moon). This type of idiosyncrasy is the one thing that hurt education. A visit to a Longfellow classroom wouldn't hurt. I encourage anybody who blames schools like ours to visit and see first hand what we do. No translator needed.
This was not an attack on Longfellow, simply a statement. Most of the schools in RUSD have a large spanish speaking population. This was not an attack on an immigration status either. The fact is, everything the district does is in duplicate for the Spanish speaking population. Don't you think if the work was cut in half (English only) the cost would be close to that also?
ReplyDeleteI HAVE witnessed this first hand! Check out a Kindergarten class where things have to slow down for the English speaking children in order to translate, and teach English as well as basic academics! Perhaps if you are a teacher at Longfellow, YOU should step back and take a look at your own students! Translation probably needed!
In response to Anonymous (April 11, 11:15 pm) the facts as stated in my post of April 3 (read above) are correct with regard to IBB (interest-based bargaining). The negotiations conference Anonymous mentions RUSD and RCTA attending last year at RCTA's invitation was NOT an IBB training. It was called the CCS Labor-Management Conference. The training occurring at the CCS Conference was not an IBB training. The agenda of that conference (March 18-20, 2009 at Disney Paradise Pier Hotel) is available at http://www.alrb.ca.gov/content/pdfs/meetings/agendas/2009CCSConferenceBrochure.pdf.
ReplyDeleteIT WAS THE DISTRICT WHO APPROACHED RCTA TO ATTEND THE IBB WORKSHOP, which was held Feb. 3-5, 2010. The IBB process occurs with the participation of a state mediator, which has been mentioned in some posts on this blog and the RCTA blog (www.myrcta.org).
Anonymous comments such as these are made apparently to bring into question my presentation of facts regarding RUSD budget figures, but since the figures cannot be disputed, since they come directly from RUSD unaudited actuals and the current interim reports and are therefore legal public documents, contrary facts are invented, anonymously of course, to dispute comments I have posted of a non-budgetary nature. Or perhaps Anonymous has confused the IBB training with the CECHRS training (Health Benefits) last year in which RCTA did actually invite RUSD to attend? The outcome of that conference was the development of the EPO health plan, giving our members a third option for a health plan besides Kaiser or the RUSD PPO plan, and a second option for our CSEA colleagues for the first time in years. But again, my original information regarding the origin of the IBB process at RUSD is correct.
In mentioning IBB I was answering a post from a teacher asking why the district was stating to our members that negotiations dates had been delayed because RCTA was insisting on using a mediator from Sacramento. Well, again the idea of IBB and using the mediator was RUSD’s from the beginning. Read my post above. That is why it is laughable that management would blame the process on RCTA, when it was the district’s idea in the first place. And 4 dates were submitted by RCTA in Feb. for negotiations with the mediator available, but THE DISTRICT DID NOT RESPOND UNTIL MARCH! And then management turns around and blames RCTA for the delay?
One final comment regarding what Anonymous mentions as the “Elephant in the room…”and “whispers” from classified employees angry at certificated staff for not settling for furloughs to “save jobs.” At my school site Arlington I have heard no such comment from any classified staff, not one. Rather, here are a few of the unsolicited comments I’ve heard from my classified colleagues this year: “Tell RCTA in negotiations to watch out for self-funded health insurance plans, school districts make money running those types of plans…”; “My former school district made you feel like family, but working here you feel like you are expendable…”; “I get more information about what is going on from your union than from ours or the district.” So I suppose it depends on whom you hear “whisper” as to what you hear. But once again, whispers cannot and should not determine what RCTA does at the bargaining table. It is simply dollars and cents that will determine what occurs when negotiations are concluded.
A comment was made above (anonymously) that Mike Fine had explained 4 times at a school site meeting that the district’s general fund reserve was one-time money and would be spent this year, and that therefore all my budget information is unbelievable. That is incorrect information, but I doubt if Mike Fine would say that because he knows it is not true. Perhaps the anonymous poster misinterpreted Mike’s explanation? Of the total 2009-2010 RUSD beginning reserve of $72.6 million, only about $15 million of that is one-time or stimulus money. You may remember a figure of $56 million being mentioned in the past by RCTA as a district reserve balance. That is because at the beginning of 2008-2009, the district general fund reserve WAS $56.9 million. With the stimulus and one-time money added last year, that figure grew to $72.6 million for this year. IT WILL NOT ALL BE SPENT THIS YEAR. If one looks at the interim reports, even with questionable and massive over-allocations in my opinion in the textbook and supplies fund and other funds the district is still projecting a general fund reserve ending balance of $49.2 million at the end of THIS year, and $24.3 million at the end of NEXT year (see pg. 10 of 2009-2010 2nd Interim Report, pg 150 of March 15 RUSD school board agenda). And that does not include other HUGE reserve balances that are available for budget solutions from funds other than the general fund reserve. It is in the third year (2011-2012) that RUSD is projecting a deficit in the general fund reserve of -$5.5 million. If RUSD were to actually spend approximately $15 million less than what they are projecting to spend for this year, or transfer that amount from an over-allocated fund, then that $5.5 million deficit in two years suddenly becomes a ~$10 million surplus, and our “crisis” is solved. Read on……
ReplyDeleteWhen the district budgets $33 million for texts and supplies in the 2009-2010 budget for a fund that averages $13.4 million in annual expenditures the last 9 years (and $11.98 million last year), of course that will contribute to what they project to be a huge deficit, but is it real? The text and supply fund has NEVER SPENT MORE THAN $20 MILLION IN A SINGLE YEAR FOR THE LAST 9 YEARS. Why then would RUSD budget $33 million for texts and supplies this year and project in the 2nd Interim report to still spend over $28 million by June 30, in the midst of what they deem is a financial crisis? Other school districts have drastically reduced their budgets and expenditures for textbooks and supplies, but RUSD has INCREASED its projected text and supplies expeditures by ~$17 million over what was spent last year. Again, that question must be answered beyond the level of a certain RUSD board members’ comment at the March 15 board meeting that, “gasoline is included in that fund.”
I understand it is hard to swallow the amount for textbooks. I know the argument can be made that a teachers is more important than a book. But, I think it is important that we realize that the reason for the large increase in textbooks is because of the new and probably last adoption we will have in a few years. A new adoption normally runs about 30 million dollars. How do you propose we pay for it when it comes around? Should we lay off teachers then? They are banking the money so we can pay for it in the future. It is unfortunate, but we need money for things other than just teachers. Maybe, we need to look at our priorities, but I do feel we need to scrutinize everything and look at ourselves (teachers). Why was nothing discussed at the negotiations? We are the only group left that has not taken a pay cut? The classified group has been decimated and we sit back and ask for more budget cuts so nothing happens to us. I think our union is disillusioned about the district's budget, and it is so frustrating that we continue to bring up this stuff with out recognizing that we are the only group left who has not taken any sort of cut.
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable!!! These deceiving practices have to stop. Either the district or the Union have accomplish their goal: create confusion. Who do we believe? One thing is true though, while we are deciding who to believe time is going by and all 444 of us have just a little bit more of anxiety.
ReplyDeleteI demand an explanation from Dr. Miller because he is our leader. What is going on? How come these numbers are popping up everywhere? Why is it taking the district so long to come up with a reasonable solution? Is laying off 22% of your workforce the only and best solution? So far none of what RUSD is claiming makes any sense because the numbers just don't match. In one board meeting Mike Fine mention that money from the state totaling more than 40 million dollars is going to slowly come in, but we couldn't use it towards the budget for next year. What?!!! $33 million dollars to buy books next year? Dr. Miller there are 444 of your best workers that are tired of half baked answers. I know RUSD sympathizes with us, however we don't need sympathy we need real solutions. Based on the numbers that are flying around it certainly doesn't seem that we need to loose 444 workers.
A note about the textbook fund. Language Arts has been told not to expect new texts until 2014. The books at my site are so disgraceful, teachers hid them from parents at Open House.
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly why the budget reflects such a huge increase in the textbook category. A new adoption costs more than 30 million. How should we pay for this then? Should we lay off teachers then? We need to realize that this school district has expenses. We need to plan for the future. I am amazed that our teacher's union continues to question every penny, when everyone else (besides teachers) are taking huge cuts. The negotiations spent two days signing an MOU. Mean while classified has been cut enormously. When will we take a cut like everyone else?
ReplyDelete