Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing! In this case our 2009 SAUSD thread has so many comments on it that it is now running too slowly. So we are starting this new thread for the second half of 2009.
So far this year we have had plenty to write about. The State budget cuts have had a devastating affect in Santa Ana. Layoffs have ensued.
To top this all off, the SAEA cut a weird deal with the SAUSD that essentially cut benefits for all the younger teachers. And then the SAEA held elections.
Now more budget cuts loom…and all the other issues remain. I expect this thread will fill up too before long…
Welcome 2nd Year Rif. I am glad that you found our blog and that you’ve signed up to keep informed.
It must be a terrible stress to be a teacher right now and be in limbo, yet again, for a second year in a row. Please tell your friends and colleagues about our fight to keep your jobs. Best wishes to all who continue to fight for the students and for honorable jobs that are in peril.
RV~ Thanks for the tip on the Biden web site. I left a note as you suggested. It’s nice to know that I do have a voice, even if it falls on deaf ears sometimes! Hope to see some of you at the board meeting July 14th!
SA Teacher,
Since you are on the Rif list, are you getting periodic updates by your union and specifically Susan Mercer? I think she promised to do that for you all.
If so, what are they saying? If not, do you know if there is anything planned for a group showing on July 14th?
I leave notes for Biden regularly. I am shocked at the continued destruction of the middle class. Especially the elimination of so many teachers when the students need these professionals so badly. Good for you for voicing your situation out. You just NEVER know what might happen or what might cause a positive chain of events 😉
Hi Guys:
This sounds good for those who are single and no family commitments I guess.
read below–or you may go directly to craiglslist-under orange county jobs—education.
Frustrated with classroom sizes and public school bureaucracy? (Newport Beach)
Reply to: ckonrad@ldxx.com [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-07-03, 5:08PM PDT
Frustrated with classroom sizes and public school bureaucracy? Unique opportunity to teach two small children and develop their curriculum. Single father entrepreneur needs an effective communicator with a teaching credential or significant teaching experience. Bachelor’s Degree with a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.0. Fluent in English and at least one foreign language. Proficiency in sports (high level participation in high school or college athletics preferred). Must have a flexible schedule and be willing/able to travel with the family at the last minute. Good driving skills & record a must. Salary range $50,000 – 90,000 per year.
Location: Newport Beach
Compensation: 50,000.00 – 90,000.00 per year
Principals only. Recruiters, please don’t contact this job poster.
Phone calls about this job are ok.
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
PostingID: 1252665091
SORRY! 🙂
COMMERCIAL TIME AGAIN!!!
Elementary Credentail Teacher Needed (Garden Grove)
Reply to: job-d2cha-1253285698@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-07-04, 9:03AM PDT
Summer section (July 6 to August 27)
Hours
9:00AM-1:00PM
Monday to Thursday
We are looking for an elementary credentail teacher to teach 5th and 6th grade english and reading. Email your resume today to start on Monday.
No college students for these positions!
I think this district is KNOWN as the district that hires “preliminary”, “emergency” or “interns” just to save a buck….if you don’t believe me go here….we are keeping a close eye on them…..
http://tiny.cc/SaveABuck
Education Code is outdated and if any politician out there is reading this, you’d be a big hero if you changed it. I wish they used TOTAL TEACHING YEARS, instead of Bakersfield, but they didn’t so we must roll on, but we have a voice. Tell every politician and person you know that they will continue to hire teachers who are cheaper and not fully credentialed unless they change things.
I heard from John Palacio regarding the Blue Cross/Blue Shield issue. He said that the transition wasn’t a smooth one so everyone must check their cards and info immediately and call the district and the insurance provider to make certain that your information is correct. Kaiser folks are ok…nothing changed, but always watch your check and report all changes here.
On another subject, http://tiny.cc/freeLunchAnyone <--my gripe for the day Compassion is wonderful and all, but the teachers are losing their jobs while the state of CA continues to give away "free lunches". This frustrates me to no end. They say that the money comes from the Department of Agriculture's Summer Meals Program, but really the middle class folks are paying for all of this in the end.
507 – what about changes in dental? Is anyone receiving new info yet?
RV~ I think I have gotten two emails from Susan~really nothing to write home about. Actually, I deleted them as soon as I read them. So far there are four of us showing up for the board meeting on the 14th. I have a question about the Bakersfield decision that maybe you can answer. I have a hire (and credential) date of 2002. When I approached Barton at the rif hearing he told me nothing could be done to reverse the BF decision because it went to the Supreme Court. I am beginning to think he wasn’t completely honest with his response as I got the feeling the topic was not open for discussion.
I have it from a source that they are not only feeding the kids, but the parents as well. A neighbor goes to a class at the Delhi center and immediately after the class, many of the the parents go and enjoy a free lunch. I’m not sure who is providing the funds for this, but I believe it is Federal money.
The following analysis demonstrates the District’s ability to fund CSR at the elementary QEIA sites. Later today, I expect to post a comment addressing the District’s ability to maintain CSR at all elementary sites.
When the QEIA money, CSR funding from the state, stimulus funding, and the costs to eliminate CSR are all considered, it becomes clear that eliminating CSR is not the best decision. This is true even when taking into account the lowered state funding expected in 09/10 and the currently economy.
Class size reduction at QEIA elementary sites is self-funding and does not encroach on the District’s General Fund. Maintaining CSR in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd at these sites would permit the rescinding of approximately 54 RIFs and an additional 15 RIFs if class size were lowered in 4th and 5th grades as required by the QEIA law. (My calculations are probably conservative since the District indicated that 75 RIFs were due to QEIA positions.)
The District receives additional money for the QEIA sites in the following amounts:
$500 per K-3 student
$900 per 4th – 8th grade student
$1000 per secondary student
The District has claimed that the QEIA money does not cover the cost of implementing the program. However, when combined with the Class Size Reduction money at the elementary sites ($1071 per 1st – 3rd grade student in a 20:1 class), there is enough money to maintain 20:1 in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, as the QEIA law requires, and to lower class size in 4th and 5th grades, as shown in the chart below. And the $535 in CSR money per Kinder student that the District gets wasn’t even included. (I would be happy to provide the spreadsheet used to make these calculations to anyone who may be interested.)
QEIA law also requires that, by 2010-2011, class size in 4th and 5th grades at QEIA sites be reduced to 25:1 and that it be done incrementally over a three-year period. Beginning in 2010-2011, the District must meet the 20:1 and 25:1 targets and maintain them for the duration of the funding which continues through 2012-2013.
The amounts left over could be used for indirect costs and/or centralized District services and carried over to help reach and maintain class sizes limits in future years.* Title I funds may also be used to support CSR at QEIA sites. (The District has been allocated $11,429,961 in Title I stimulus money in addition to the regular Title I allocation.)
The first amount for each QEIA site indicates the amount of QEIA/CSR money left over after going 20:1 in grades 1, 2, and 3. The second amount is the balance after also going 27:1 in 4th and 5th grade at these sites.
Diamond: $275,106; $103,142
Garfield: $321,565; $235,583
Kennedy: $425,302; $253,338
Lowell: $392,792; $220,828
Martin: $396,679; $310,697
Monte Vista: $312,381; $140,417
Edison: $272,410; $100,446
Davis: $273,210; $187,228
Wilson: $307,149; $135,185
The following assumptions were used in preparing these calculations:
1. The District’s figure for the average teacher cost ($85,982 – salary, benefits, and other costs) was used in these calculations. The actual cost may be lower if the teachers whose RIFs would be rescinded are lower on the salary schedule.
2. Not knowing the exact number of students at each grade level at the QEIA sites, the enrollment for each grade was projected based on the CBEDs number for the previous grade, i.e., the number of 1st grade students in 09-10 was based on the number of K students in 08-09.
As I’ve mentioned before, I believe the District’s intent is to use a potential loophole in the QEIA language which may allow them to have a year to make corrections if they are not on track to achieve the class size targets by 2010-2011, after which there are no allowances.
Even School Services of California, Inc., to which the District often turns for fiscal and other advice, advises districts to keep 20:1 at QEIA schools. While the loophole exists, using it still represents a risk. According to the California Department of Education website (http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r15/qeia07qa.asp):
“Funding can be terminated after the second or third year of full funding if interim requirements applicable in 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 are not met. If a school fails to achieve the final requirements by the end of 2010-11, and any year thereafter, funding is terminated.” (Emphasis in original.)
Furthermore, (at the risk of further state monitoring), QEIA schools must exceed their average API growth targets over the first three years, after which schools must meet their annual growth targets. Increasing class sizes will not contribute to improved student performance. The cost “benefit” to the District of eliminating 20:1 at the QEIA sites may be negligible or non-existent when considered alongside all of the relevant factors.
*Per the CDE, “Districts are not authorized to take more than their state-approved indirect cost rate from QEIA funds before passing the funds on to schools. However, schools may opt to access their district for special services that may be provided to support QEIA implementation. The proper approach to account for this process is for the district to allocate the funds (less the indirect cost rate) to the QEIA school site and then transfer funds from the school site for its special services.”
To #509 SA Teacher:
Neither David Barton, his attorney Carlos, nor anybody else at SAEA has ever been honest about Bakersfield. It is a decision of an appeals court, not the California Supreme Court. If you want to understand the Bakersfield decision, look on the OJ Blog thread called 2009 (Archive), and particularly at posts #307 and 370-372 by Retired Lawyer and Ed. Code Lawyer. They explain Bakersfield very well.
To #509 SA Teacher:
Neither David Barton, his attorney Carlos Perez, nor anybody else at SAEA has ever been honest about Bakersfield, a decision of a court of appeals, not the California Supreme Court. The reason why is because CTA was the force behind the Bakersfield decision. If you want to understand Bakersfield, I suggest you go to the OJ Blog thread called 2009 SAUSD (Archive) and read post # 307 and 370-372 from Retired Lawyer and Ed. Code Lawyer. They explain Bakersfield and the games that the district and union are playing with it very well.
David Barton + Carlos Perez = no help at all
http://www.youtube.com/user/californiagovernment
Unemployment Info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v0Rd9LAdbs
Karen Bass is not amused with Gov S
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc0X-IWpG2w <--school meals legis (eye roll)
To #513: Apparently David Barton had his own agenda regarding the Bakersfield decision. Needless to say, I am very POed about his stance. Moreover, I am even more angry with his casual response to me at the rif hearing stating there was nothing that could be done about it. I know Jill is also disgusted with the way it was handled through SAEA. Does anyone know how Susan feels about this? It seems that it is a possibility to get it back in the courts. Ed Code Lawyer post # 307 2009 SAUSD ( Archive ) states….”According to the Education Code, the seniority date is determined by the first date of paid service with the District in a probationary position. To obtain probationary status, an individual must have a full credential either a preliminary or a professional clear credential.” This seems pretty clear to me.
The union won’t support us with respect to Bakersfield because CTA brought the Bakersfield case and still supports it. The district could challenge Bakersfield in the courts, but it probably doesn’t want to spend the money. The district did try in 2008 to prepare a seniority list based on date of credential, but SAEA threatened it with a lawsuit and forced the district to change the list two or three days before last year’s rif hearing. David Barton bragged about this in one of his president’s letters. The whole thing is so corrupt it could make you sick.
Unfortunately, we were not organized before this year’s rif hearing and we allowed Carlos to lead us like sheep to a slaughter. Carlos should have made the argument for us that the seniority list was incorrect and that it should have been prepared by date of credential. But he refused because he gets all his business from CTA and would never do anything to piss them off, legal ethics not being any kind of consideration for him. Sadly, most of the teachers at the rif hearing trusted SAEA and Carlos to do the right thing, which of course they didn’t. So now, those of us with more seniority than many of the Bakersfield teachers find ourselves laid off while the Bakersfield teachers are sleeping easy this summer. I hope if nothing else we are learning a lesson for next year, if there is a next year for us.
I understand your feelings about the Bakersfield decision, but what we need to do is write to every politician you can about it and maybe they can work on bringing change to the Education Code which is outdated. I have been doing that and I think change will happen soon under Arne Duncan. I am not a fan of keeping teachers based upon test scores because there’s too many cheaters out there. I am not a fan of judging a teacher based upon a principal’s point of view because 90 percent of the principals I have experienced couldn’t teacher their way out of a paper sack. I think they keep talking about change (how they plan to keep the best possible teachers), but right now they do not have a plan…they’re all talk and no action.
http://tiny.cc/wasteOFmoney
Associate Superintendent-Business Services
(245 duty days, 12 month)
$184,629.00 per year
I have 3 words for this …drum roll
Waste of Money
http://tiny.cc/population915 <–well well well
They won’t be able to use their “declining enrollment” speech because we “ain’t buying it.”
Santa Ana is holding it’s own population-wise, in fact it went up.
Santa Ana
337,977 <—year 2000
337,267 <—year 2007
339,130 <—year 2008
1,153 <—00-08 #chg
0.3% <—0.3%
_______________________________________________________
On another note….
Patricia,
Once again, excellent job reporting on the financial situation of this district. You are not missing a beat and it is nice to see that someone is actually “doing something” rather than just saying they are.
You mentioned that the district is looking for a “loophole” so that they don’t have to keep the class-sizes down. This is not directed at Patricia, (she is merely the reporter in all of this)….I am directing this at Jane Russo and the leadership…
What happened to your….”this district does what is best for kids … MOTTO????” If they do not follow the QEIA rules, I will personally write to every politician, talk show, and blog board that I can that they are finding “loopholes” while still banking the money. This is ridiculous. It is time to put a stop to this corruption.
Stop breaking the rules!
Stop making up the rules as you go along!
Stop looking for loopholes!
Hire some CREDENTIALED teachers for once instead of saving a buck!
Do what is best for children rather acting like a BANK!
We are watching every move that you make like a hawk. We have a complete committee now + lawyers so one slip up and these people will own the SAUSD,
Like I said before, the district is one of the lowest scoring districts in OC and in California. If they continue to make “poor decisions” then eventually this district’s luck will run out.
“The only thing to fear is fear itself.” Franklin Roosevelt
Lastly….their “little loophole error” that they tried before…look where that got them…let’s hope that they are not dumb enough to try another “loophole”…..
(click on this) wait for about 8 seconds or skip the ad (top right corner)
All that stuff about doing what is best for the kids flew out the windown when Jane felt her job might be at risk. All this nonsense about banking the stimulus money and padding the reserves because of fear of what might happen next year shows that the district administrators are much more concerned about their own jobs than they are about students. It’s an outrage. That money was supposed to be spent now to save teachers’ jobs.
If this much feared state takeover of the district ever were to happen, it wouldn’t hurt students anyway. It would probably help in the long run by finally getting rid of the district fat and maybe even putting some competent and caring people on the board and in the district office. The state takeover could only hurt Jane and her bloated and incompetent bureaucracy. It is not fair or reasonable for the district to make decisions that harm students and teachers in order to save their jobs downtown.
Jill,
Just a question. Is that associate super of business job advertised replacing someone who is leaving (if so, who?) or is it a new position?
The more one looks at the District’s CSR/QEIA revenue compared to the cost of implementing CSR, the more absurd it seems to eliminate the program. However, when the District presents the costs of CSR to the Board, it appears to be a greater expense than it is in reality.
Accounting for the QEIA money for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders for reducing class size at the QEIA sites, the actual cost to the District for maintaining CSR at all of the sites is $3,163,000. When including CSR/QEIA revenue for Kinder students, the cost to the District is reduced to $126,970. (This does not account for the $6.7 million the District would receive for “implementing” CSR at 30:1 and taking the 30% penalty.)
Total cost to the District for implementing CSR in 08/09: $4,870,000
QEIA $ for 1st – 3rd graders at the elementary QEIA sites: $1,707,000*
CSR cost to the District using QEIA $ for grades 1-3: $3,163,000
CSR cost to the District using Kinder CSR/QEIA money: $126,970
In its budget presentations, the District does not present this information to the Board. When one Board Member asked the cost of CSR, he was told $19,260,000, which does not account for the CSR revenue from the state or the QEIA revenue. Furthermore, the cost of CSR as presented to the Board seems to grow from meeting to meeting. By May 26th, the cost reported to the Board had increased to $21,000,000 according to the Third Interim Report (comments for 08/09 on the Multi-Year Projection pages).
Costs associated with eliminating CSR must also be considered. These include a potential $7 million in increased substitute costs (District’s figure) and potential increases to the District’s unemployment insurance rates due to the dramatic increase in claims. In addition to these financial costs are the costs in academic achievement for the students, not to mention a multitude of other unexpected consequences.
When balancing the new costs incurred by eliminating CSR with the cost of the program, even taking into account the reduced penalty, it hardly seems fiscally prudent to end the program. No wonder even School Services of California, Inc., cautions districts to be careful when considering eliminating or reducing CSR. Hopefully, the Board will reverse its decision at the earliest opportunity.
*The District also received $1,816,200 money to reduce class sizes for 4th and 5th grade students at QEIA sites, as well as $7,019,300 in QEIA revenue at the intermediate and secondary levels.
It also needs to be stated that the District under-reported (perhaps inadvertently) their year-end projected QEIA revenue by $2,713,106. It also does not appear that they included $5,143,482 in Title 1 stimulus money on the budget presented to the Board on June 23 even though it had been received.
It remains to be determined if, or where, the $14.3 million in State Fiscal Stabilization money (SFSF), which had already been received, was included in the 08/09 estimated end-of-year figures presented to the Board. The District will also have to include, on the final end-of-year figures, the $2.3 million in IDEA stimulus money received in June and, most likely, the $4.9 million in additional SFSF money paid by the state in June.
The District also needs to show, for the projected 09/10 revenue, projected stimulus money which has been allocated but not paid: Title I (an additional $5,143,482) and IDEA federal stimulus money ($9,000,000). In addition, there is other stimulus money the State has received and is expecting to receive that has not yet been allocated to the Districts.
tmare (in #522),
I believe the position you refer to is currently occupied by Ron Murrey. It is not a new position. Apparently, he will be staying until a replacement is found. I wonder if this is how we incur such large consultant expenses.
Kelvin Tsunezumi, Executive Director for Fiscal Services, seems very competent. I wonder why he will not assume the position of Associate Superintendent for Business Services.
We have a growing list of folks…everything is completely CONFIDENTIAL! Don’t be shy now 🙂 if anything we can all have a happy hour as well.
Jill,
Are you doing this service for Susan Mercer and the SAEA union? Is this how she’s going to keep in touch this summer, as promised?
Red vixen (#527),
No, I am NOT affiliated with the Union whatsoever. A few of us decided to form our own committee of folks because we felt that we needed to support each other and stand united in this difficult time.
I heard from Ms. Mercer twice so far over the summer. I wrote to her today and asked her 3 questions. I am waiting for a response from her hopefully by Thursday.
Thanks for asking that by the way. 🙂
Patricia has worked really hard with this. I want to thank her for her efforts.
Summary,
Taking the 30% penalty = 6.7 million (going 30:1)
Laying off 252 / hiring them to sub = $7 million
Total = 13.7 million
CSR = $3,163,000 to keep it
Why would the district choose to take a loss?
Also,
QEIA + CSR Funds + Stimulus $ = more than enough to keep CSR
The cafeteria fund may also be used to help if necessary.
For more info, please view Patricia’s summary here:
or
Download Patricia O’Neil’s ORIGINALS (in PDF) form:
Patricia’s Summary 1 (Pdf)
Patricia’s Summary 2 (Pdf)
Patricia’s Summary 3 (Pdf)
Patricia’s Summary 4 (Pdf)
Anon Teacher (#493),
Regarding the seniority rights of administrators, I believe Ed Code states that administrators only have seniority for lay-off purposes if they were originally hired by the District in a position represented by the union or if they were hired as a site administrator. If they were hired by the District as a teacher, for example, and became tenured, they retain the seniority date they had prior to becoming an administrator. If they were hired as a site administrator, they can earn up to three years of seniority for lay-off purposes. (This also means that, for site administrators with more than three years in the District, their seniority date would change each year the list is prepared to reflect only three years of seniority each time.)
Has anyone asked SAEA this question? Do you know if this was addressed during the RIF hearings?
Ok Patricia,
Luv ya and all, but can you explain that to the everyday folk in their language, please?
Re: Gomeztrejo
Can he or can’t he be hired back as a PE Teacher is what they want to know? 🙂
1. Was he first hired by the District as a SITE administrator? If yes, then he can accumulate up to three years of seniority. The earliest possible seniority date for lay-off purposes would be in 2006 (even if he was hired before that).
2. Was he first hired by the District as a teacher and did he earn permanent status? If
yes, then he takes his seniority date with him when he becomes an administrator.
Of course, whether this is enforced may depend on SAEA.
Patricia,
I don’t know anything about this Gomeztrejo …. we will have to wait for the folks to return and tell you about him…they just asked me to watch him like a hawk so I am…but I have to get the scoop first.
531 – He was brought into this district as an AP at Saddleback. Was there a very short time and then became principal at Valley. Has never taught in this district. Look for him to cut a backroom deal with Juan Lopez.
533 – Has SAEA been asked to make sure he isn’t given a position that should be going to a RIF’d teacher with more than three years of seniority?
Susan Mercer continues to disappoint. She was a dreadful teacher at Lathrop. Why did any SAEA voting member believe she’d be better as their cheif representative?
I know that the issue of RIFS and rescission is the big one right now, but I have another question. Maybe Patricia can answer. Now that we apparently do not have the 3 staff development days and we only have one day at school prior to the kid’s return, what ever happened to the days before school we used to have before these 3 staff development days? I know we had at least 2. Now we are being expected to attend a day full of meeting and possibly one hour in our classrooms to get ready for an entire school year and 240 students. Even the teacher’s in my child’s three hour a day preschool with 12 students get one entire paid week to set up their classrooms, this is just crazy!
Okay, so I got the call from Blanca to go in tomorrow and fill out the papers to sub. So that is one step closer then before. They should be calling you to go in if you emailed her or wrote a letter to her saying you wanted to sub.
I just got off the phone with Blanca
no comment on that one…she had me on the phone, but said that she could only do a few files at a time so I guess I will just wait until she can do mine.
Jill,
Love how you found those videos and wrote words to it before looking at the video. Well I will post how it goes tomorrow when I go in to see Blanca.
There is an “information only” union meeting on July 28th at 4:00 for anyone interested in attending.
I wrote to Susan 2 days ago and asked her 3 simple questions. Today, I sent her the same 3 simple questions again. She did not even respond to me…..what kind of a leader is that?
2nd Letter sent…..
Susan,
I have a few questions for YOU, not Gladys or anyone else….and I would appreciate a response before Thursday, July 9th.
1. What is CTA’s response regarding the 1.5% pay cut?
2. What is CTA’s response regarding increasing class sizes next year in 1st – 3rd at the QEIA sites?
You indicated that CTA’s legal department had been contacted regarding both of these issues.
3. When were SAEA’s Bylaws and Standing Rules last submitted to CTA and approved?
I know that you are busy, but answering 3 questions shouldn’t be that difficult or time consuming.
We would appreciate it if you didn’t refer them to Gladys, we want to hear from YOU, the newly elected president.
Thanks a lot….we need you in our corner now! I would appreciate your promptness and efforts in this manner.
Sincerely,
Jill Puich
The reason she is not answering folks because…..drumroll….
*she may have allegedly lied about involving CTA in the Buyback day issue <--thus the reason she is NOT RESPONDING to our emails *I strongly suspect they agreed to this pay cut behind the scenes and if CTA has not been sent the bylaws for review despite their repeated requests This is YOUR Union folks....cutting YOUR pay behind the scenes and not being able to answer 3 SIMPLE questions now that we are calling HER on them. Susan, if you are reading this then it would be simply WONDERFUL and MARVELOUS if you could take the time to answer them for EVERYONE now! Thank you for your time.
Susan Mercer, the new Eva Peron.
I just talked to a friend who was laid off at the college just today. The colleges are going belly up.
Okay, Blanca was very surprisingly nice. Basically you meet with her to fill out a W4 and then get the sub packet and information on how to sign up for the system. She told me it is not 20 consecutive days and that it can be at any school. However, you can only sub 30 days in a classroom that you are not qualified to teach. In a classroom that you are qualified to teach, you can only sub 120 days. she also told me that there are a few long term assignments already given to subs from last year, but she has to go free up those assignments and put in a laid off teacher in order of seniority. I also stopped by the benefit office and confirmed that we only have to pay 35% of our cobra under Obama’s act and that by mid August we should have the paperwork in the mail. They are still waiting to see of anybody gets hired back.
Thanks for the “Blanca” update. I am waiting for her to call me in. I had her on the phone yesterday, but she wasn’t ready for me. My name better be on that list. John Palacio is watching and my lawyer.
I talked to a fellow teacher who is displaced. She called the district and spoke to Gabby I think. Gabby told her she had to wait to be assigned after they assign the voluntary transfers!!!! She was told they wouldn’t get to choose until 7/27 or later. I believe they have it backwards. Don’t the displaced teachers get first choice and then the voluntary transfers? Once again, is our union anywhere to be seen or heard from regarding important issues?
Jill, I would forward all your emails to Susan to CTA so they can see there is little communication from the people who are supposed to represent us.
Also, it looks like they are hiring TOSA’s at every site. I heard that they are calling teachers asking them if they want to apply. The only catch is that they are making it a bilingual position. WE
That is called “discrimination” ….my lawyer will be all over that one.
Your UNION has left the building and is apparently making “behind the scenes” deals with the district. I don’t see anyone following the Ed Code …but that’s ok…just wait and see what happens 🙂
TOSA = admin. assistants or admin wannabe
This is what the Union used to have up on their website regarding the displacement process. It has been taken off, but here it is…
http://tiny.cc/followYOURownChartPlease