1) Teachers on Special Assignment started receiving notices on Friday, 3/8, via principals, that they may be reassigned.
link to a copy of the resolution to notify teachers on special assignment
2) Temporary Contract Teachers started receiving notices on Friday, 3/8, via principals, that they may not be rehired.
link to a copy of the resolution to notify temporary contract teachers
3) The Board’s Reduction of a Particular Kinds of Service resolution calls for eliminating 22 K-5 FTEs, so 22 permanent (and/or probationary) teachers will get preliminary lay-off notices (RIFs) on or before March 15. These notices also started going our Friday, 3/8, via principals.
link to a copy of the RIF Resolution
a) The majority of these lay-offs seem to be at elementary schools (although teachers at every school have been affected).
b) It appears that the district’s plan to balance the budget is to exercise what is called “flexibility” in the CSR programs. Right now, the district gets a certain amount of money per student in a 20:1 class (it’s not quite enough to pay for all the expenses of 20:1, particularly the teacher, which is why it “costs” the district money to participate in CSR). But a school can “flex” and go to 21:1, it just gets a little less money per student (a 5% penalty). The penalty is a little larger (10%) if the class goes to 22:1, an so on, until the penalty maxes out at 30% for 25:1 and above. But notice that the school still gets 70% of it’s CSR funding at 25:1. The savings for the district comes from needing less teachers; 100 students at 20:1 require 5 teachers, but at 25:1, they only require 4, and one gets laid off.
c) The catch is, this works at non-QEIA schools like Buford and Huerta, but QEIA has a provision that expressly says you cannot flex CSR at QEIA schools. The district ran into problems with this a few years ago when they did try to flex CSR at Jefferson and almost got kicked out of QEIA for it. But apparently a number of other districts have asked the state for waivers to this part of the QEIA and have had their waivers granted. So it appears that the district is planning on flexing CSR at the elementaries, reducing some teachers, and asking the state for waives, but not dropping out of CSR and QEIA entirely.
d) How does this affect the middle school? The middle school is not part of CSR, only QEIA. Unlike CSR, QEIA fully funds the teachers it uses to reduce class sizes, so there would be no savings for the district to increase class sizes, only the likelihood of losing the QEIA money entirely. Therefore, they are not cutting positions at the middle school.
e) But not cutting positions at the middle school doesn’t necessarily mean not cutting any teachers at the middle school. There are some folks at the elementaries with more seniority than some folks at the middle school, and the elementary folks may have the credentials they need to teach middle school classes. That’s where the “skipping” comes in.
4) Deviation from Seniority (skipping)
a) So as we all know, last year there was skipping and the Association argued against it. This year, there is skipping again, and we will argue against it again. There is not as much as last year, but the principal of seniority rights remains one of the bedrocks upon which our union is built. If reductions in force are ordered, a senior teacher who is appropriately credentialed by the state for a particular position should be able to bump into that position, and the newer teacher should not be skipped over.
b) The district’s skip criteria this year are not entirely clear, but what follows is my best I’m-not-a-lawyer analysis (and yes, I have already sent the information to our actual CTA lawyer so we can get a real analysis, but I haven’t gotten her response yet). My wordings are not exactly the same as the district’s, in an effort to make them more clear, but you can read the original yourself here.
c) According to the Skip Resolution, there are 6 skips (and mind you, I am not endorsing any of these or saying they are good or correct or even legal, just that this seems to be what the Resolution says):
i) Permanent NCLB compliant teachers will not be bumped from their positions by non-NCLB compliant teachers, regardless of seniority;
(a) I don’t know NCLB restrictions well enough to evaluate this, but this is what the HR Dept says prevents most multiple-subject credentialed teachers from bumping less senior single-subject credentialed teachers at the middle school.
ii) Permanent CLAD certified teachers will not be bumped from their positions by non-CLAD certified teachers, regardless of seniority;
(a) One has to assume that the term “CLAD” includes “BCLAD,” but then, one should never assume. And just about everyone in Lennox has a CLAD or a BCLAD (or a BCC or some other equivalent credential), so this does not seem to be a factor in any cases.
iii) Permanent Special Ed teachers w/ Autism authorizations and are currently teaching Special Ed will not be bumped by Special Ed teachers w/o Autism authorizations or teachers with Special Ed credentials who are not currently teaching Special Ed, regardless of seniority;
(a) This does not seem to be a factor in any cases.
iv) Permanent single-subject credential teachers who are currently assigned within the scope of their single subject credentials will be skipped entirely, regardless of seniority;
(a) This is a big one. It looks like there are 5 or 6 teachers who are currently teaching at elementaries who have single-subject credentials or authorizations of some type, but they aren’t able to bump into the middle school because they are not currently using their single-subject credentials.
v) National Board certified teachers will not be bumped by non-National Board certified teachers, regardless of seniority;
(a) This does not seem to be a factor in any cases.
vi) Single-subject credential teachers who are currently assigned to single-subject classes and whose credential authorized them to teach that subject through 12th grade will be skipped, regardless of seniority.
(a) Different wording, but I’m not sure how this us different from #4 (iv) above.
5) Tie-Breaker Criteria
a) In case two people have the same seniority date, the Board has to create tie-breakers to determine who is senior to whom. Here is what they came up with (and again, I am not endorsing any of these or saying they are good or correct or even legal, just that this seems to be what the Resolution says). My wordings are not exactly the same as the district’s, in an effort to make them more clear, but you can read the original yourself here.
b) For two teachers with the same seniority date:
i) Clear/preliminary credentialed teachers will be senior to intern credentials, short-term permits, or waivers;
ii) Teachers authorized to work with ELLs will be senior to non-ELL authorized teachers;
iii) NCLB compliant teachers will be senior to non-NCLB compliant teachers;
iv) Teachers with multiple subject matter authorizations and supplemental authorizations will be senior to teachers with fewer (or no) authorizations;
v) Teachers with “highly sought after” credentials or authorizations will be senior to teachers without these credentials/authorization (in the following order): speech, special education, chemistry, physics, geoscience, math, biology, foreign language, fine arts, English, social science, history, PE, pupil personnel services/psychologist;
vi) If none of those break the tie, actual years of experience, as determined by step placement on salary scale will determine who is senior;
vii) And if all else equal, last 4 digits of the teachers credential number will determine who is, with the lower number determining the higher seniority.
(a) This last one is always some version of random – a coin toss, drawing names out of a hat, etc.
6) Every teacher who was RIF’ed will have the opportunity to challenge their layoff, represented by the CTA lawyer, at a hearing with an administrative law judge.
7) According to the district, if the Early Retirement/Separation Incentive Program is successful and 14 teachers participate, they will be able to rescind most if not all of the RIFs.
