Montclair PTA presents a Parent Information Night with teachers and OEA reps Feb 25th

February 25: Parent Information Night

Please join the Montclair Elementary PTA on Wednesday, February 25, 7 – 8  PM, at the Montclair Women’s Center (1650 Mountain Blvd) to hear from Montclair teachers and OEA representatives as they discuss –– and answer questions about –– the current Work to Rule action and the long term issues that fueled it. This meeting follows the one last Wednesday that featured School Board Director, Nina Senn, and members of the Superintendent’s team.
All  parents, guardians and teachers are welcome to attend!

February 25th March from Edna Brewer Middle School to the School Board Meeting

Edna Brewer teachers, parents, and students are planning to march on February 25th to the school board meeting. OEA Reps spoke at our PTSA meeting tonight and got a lot of support. We are planning to leave Brewer at 3:30.

We are thinking of heading from Brewer down to Lake Merritt, and march down the side of the lake to the Board Meeting. We are hoping that other schools will join!
In addition to addressing the contract demands, there will be items on the board agenda on giving an unprecedented 3 year contract to TFA, and on reorganization of the job classification of SEIU members working as Teachers’ Aides . Great time to show union solidarity.  We will be inviting all the SEIU members at our site to join the march.

Oakland Public School Parents post on increase in salaries for Top OUSD central office administrators from last year to this year; 34% increase

An Oakland Public School Parent posted:
I’m attaching an image tweeted earlier today by @scmaestra. and retweeted by @OaklandEA. Hopefully it will show up for you.
 
It’s a table showing the salary changes from 2013-14 to 2014-15 for OUSD top central office personnel plus the salaries for four brand new central office positions. I don’t know the original source of the figures, but I am presuming these are OEA findings or a table created by the District itself. I believe they are legitimate. Jack Gerson wrote about some of this herehttp://classroomstruggle.org/2015/02/11/antwan-wilsons-idea-of-cutting-administration-pad-the-top-chop-from-the-bottom/
Just for the record, the photo you reference was from data compiled by me from information requests to OUSD regarding contract management employees in both 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years and is taken from their actual, board approved contracts.  It is salary only data and does not include various perks like car allowances or health care coverage costs.  The public data is available to anyone who makes the request. 
In several cases, i.e.. Brigitte Marshall, the position title changed as well as the compensation.  So, technically, it wasn’t a raise but a change of position.  Nonetheless the salary data is accurate and I ran it past OUSD labor relations to confirm it before I put it out.

The salary data for 2014-15 is what is in the actual contract.  Transparent California runs a year or two behind
At any rate, in that one year alone, 20 individuals were given raises totalling $306,079. The percentage of “change in cost” varies, but their average raise in that one year alone was 5.64%.
The salary for the four new office positions totals $637,000.
Thus, in one year alone, those 24 lucky central office individuals were the recipients of an additional $943,079 from the District’s coffers.

Compare this to the OUSD teachers per the KPIX news report on 2/5/2015: “[OEA President Trish Gorham] said teachers have only had a total increase of 3.25 percent since 2003 and a high percentage of that small amount didn’t occur until two years ago.”

IMO, the contrast, arrogance, disrespect, and unfairness speaks for itself.

OUSD-central-office-salaries (2)

OEA response to Superintendent Wilson’s February 11 letter about contract negotiations

Here is a recent letter from OUSD Superintendent Antwan Wilson about the status of contract negotiations with the teachers: http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/…

Below is the teacher’s response. Since we regulary get updates from OUSD but the teachers do not have access to the same broad network, I thought I would post them both in one place.

Oakland Education Association
13 hrs · Edited ·
It is not always beneficial to do a tit for tat response. We decided, however, that there was cause to clarify our positions in regards to the letter to the community on February 11. Please keep up with our website (https://sites.google.com/a/oaklandea.org/oea/home) and emails for the latest news.
OEA response to Superintendent Wilson’s
“Bargaining Update” of February 11, 2015
OEA believes it is regrettable that the superintendent put out a “bargaining update” filled with inaccurate and misleading statements. If Superintendent Wilson believes that fear mongering is the best way to achieve a settlement, that’s his privilege, but we think it is unlikely to serve any useful purpose. Dissatisfaction with OEA’s proposal does not excuse purposely manufacturing fear through “Memories of Receivership” headlines.
1) The Superintendent implies that the OEA/OUSD settlement in 2000-2002 was responsible for the District being pushed into bankruptcy, completely ignoring the actual findings of fiscal mismanagement that led the District to overspend by $80 million and the unanticipated loss of 3200 students due to population shifts. It was not the agreement to raise teacher pay that pushed OUSD into bankruptcy it was OUSD mismanagement and a political environment willing to make it happen.
2) The Superintendent claims that OEA’s proposal would effectively absorb all of the $78+ million dollars in additional on-going funds the District has and is projected to receive between 2013-14 and 2016-17. OEA’s salary proposal is for about 37% of that amount. Per the District’s adopted budget for 2015-16, OEA’S SALARIES ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 34% OF TOTAL COSTS. THIS SLIGHT INCREASE IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT ANOTHER MASSIVE EXODUS OF OAKLAND’S EDUCATORS TO HIGHER PAYING DISTRICTS.
3) On January 27, OUSD presented OEA with a package of proposals that stated, “The component proposals are offered in the context of an entire Package as a basis for settlement,” and clearly stated that acceptance of all terms was required for a settlement. OEA responded in the same manner, using slightly different language. Neither of these is unusual in the context of bargaining. And such proposals do not assume that all positions are unchangeable. Neither side, in presenting their respective package proposals had a “Take it or Leave it” attitude.
4) The OEA does have other cost items in our proposal because we know that the rate of student improvement increases with reduced class sizes and more support personnel such as counselors. We know from experience that if it is not in the contract, the District will not provide it. And we are targeting those schools with the most need as having further class reductions and more prep time. Now is the time to give these schools the support they need rather than wait until they are labeled as failing.
5) The District has failed to provide evidence for the need to massively change the assignment process currently in the contract or as provided for in a separate MOU. And, in the current placement practice outlined in the MOU, seniority is rarely used as the deciding factor.
6) The OEA has made offers off and on the table to come together to envision district-wide change that would be in the best interests of all students. This type of visioning would take time in order to be properly supported and enacted on the scale that would produce meaningful reforms rather than chipping away at already stressed out schools. Most, if not all, of the “flexibilities” that the district has proposed under Article 27 can be achieved now through the current waiver process.
7) OEA did not reject the proposal to give two years of credit for each year of service at Intensive Support Schools. We simply stated that we couldn’t accept it at this time as we were still actively discussing it within our leadership.
8) OEA proposed scheduling more meeting dates in order to work through to a settlement more quickly. OUSD declined at this time.

Q&A with Board Member Nina Senn is tomorrow!

Board Member Nina Senn is hosting a Q&A with members of the superintendent’s office Wednesday February 18th at 7 pm, come with Questions about Work to Rule, Budgets, District Plans etc.

FEBRUARY 18: PARENT INFORMATION NIGHT  
Note: Updated agenda and new venue

Please join us on Wednesday, February 18, 7-8pm, at the Montclair Women’s Club (1650 Mountain Boulevard) to hear Nina Senn, our new school board member (and Montclair and former Montera parent), and members of the Superintendent’s team share and answer questions about what Work to Rule is and its impact from a programmatic and student support perspective, discuss the Pathway to Excellence, and provide a Budget Overview. Parents, guardians and teachers are welcome. To RSVP for this event, please click here <http://www.ninaforschoolboard.com/parent_information_night> . 

Letter from Hillcrest Parent

Teachers and “work to rule”–why we should care (and continue to take action to support our wonderful teachers!)

Stephanie McGraw
Oakland, CA

Feb 8, 2015 — Thank you to everyone who has signed this petition thus far. When I started it a few weeks ago, I never imagined that thousands of people would sign it so quickly. I especially want to thank OUSD Director Jody London for her thoughtful responses; it’s heartening to know that the OUSD Governing Board is engaging in this important conversation with us. I am updating this petition because the wonderful teachers at my children’s school (Hillcrest) have voted to “work-to-rule” beginning next week. As a teacher myself, I can 100% guarantee that this will adversely impact our children’s learning. However, it is imperative–now, more than ever–that we support our teachers as they advocate for a livable raise by putting more pressure on the OUSD Governing Board to listen to the teachers’ demands: if you’ve already signed this petition, please email it to your friends and ask them to sign it; if you haven’t done so yet, please post (or re-post) a link to the survey on your facebook page so that we can continue pressuring the OUSD Governing Board to offer a fair contract to our teachers.

To provide some background, about 20 OUSD schools are doing some type of work-to-rule. Seven schools are doing it daily thus far (Montera, Joaquin Miller, Montclair, Cleveland, Melrose, Glenview and Hillcrest), while others are doing it every-other-week or off and on. What “working to rule” means is that our teachers will only work the hours stipulated in their contracts (for most elementary school teachers, this is 8:15-3:05). This is a powerful way for the teachers to demonstrate just how much work they do without going out on strike. As a teacher (not for OUSD), I know that much of the work that we parents value (grading homework, providing students with extra support after school, communicating with parents, planning field trips and major projects, etc.) happens after the school day ends. My first grade daughter has been participating in a wonderful after-school-reading program put on by her amazing teacher, Mary Jardine. Beginning tomorrow, this program will no longer meet. Furthermore, I regularly meet with my children’s teachers well after the school day ends as they’re working to prepare the next day’s class or grading homework. For us at Hillcrest, this won’t be possible beginning tomorrow.

I understand that many parents are frustrated by this and wish that our teachers wouldn’t “work to rule.” However, it is imperative that we all band together and support our teachers who, when you think about it, are only asking to be paid a livable wage. They aren’t asking for a huge sum of money–they just want to be paid as professionals, and they deserve this given the amazing work they do. It’s important to realize that OUSD pays its teachers (salaries and benefits combined) less than ANY DISTRICT in Alameda County. Yet it spends more than most any other school district on administrative and contract services. Newly appointed Superintendent Antwan Wilson was given a huge pay raise over the interim superintendent (http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_25662079/oakland-school-board-vote-280-000-year-contract). Our teachers likewise deserve to be paid competitively for the incredible work they do. They also deserve the other concessions they are hoping for (limits on special education class size, increased counseling and support services, educator input into professional development options, and increased support for high-need populations).

Thank you all for your support, and for continuing to support our phenomenal OUSD teachers. Again, please help spread the word so that we can collectively pressure the OUSD Governing Board to listen to our teachers’ demands. Our teachers, as well as our children, need us.