| UEA | United Educators Association of Texas |
Hot Topics | |
| New Retirement Threats & Turning Point in Voucher Debate | Thursday, May 26, 2005 |
| HOUSE PASSES BILL TO CHANGE TRS ELIGIBILITY | From the United Educators Association |
| AGREEMENT ON CONTRACTS / UPDATE ON VOUCHER VOTE | From the United Educators Association |
| Projected FWISD Budget Cuts | From the United Educators Association |
| Legislator Pension vs. Public School Employee Pension | From the United Educators Association Thursday, May 19, 2005 In today’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram, there is an interesting article concerning legislator retirement vs. public school employee retirement. You can read the article at the following link http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/legislature/11685057.htm UEA encourages you to contact your elected officials and voice your opinion on this issue. Below are the phone numbers at both the capitol and local district offices of the area elected officials. State Representative Name County Capitol # District # Speaker Tom Craddick 512-463-1000 432-682-3000 Rob Orr Johnson 512-463-0538 817-295-5158 Phil King Parker 512-463-0738 817-596-4796 Charlie Geren Tarrant 512-463-0610 817-738-8333 Anna Mowery Tarrant 512-463-0608 817-732-1372 Lon Burnam Tarrant 512-463-0740 817-924-1997 Marc Veasey Tarrant 512-463-0716 817-339-1430 Kent Grusendorf Tarrant 512-463-0624 817-465-9411 Toby Goodman Tarrant 512-463-0562 817-460-8290 Bill Zedler Tarrant 512-463-0374 817-361-7855 Bob Griggs Tarrant 512-463-0599 817-581-1000 Vicki Truitt Tarrant 512-463-0690 817-488-4098 Todd Smith Tarrant 512-463-0522 817-283-3131 Myra Crownover Denton 512-463-0582 940-321-0013 Burt Solomons Denton 512-463-0478 972-394-3904 Brian McCall Collin 512-463-0594 972-881-0890 Jerry Madden Collin 512-463-0544 972-424-2235 State Senators Name County Capitol # District # Lt. Gov David Dewhurst 512-463-0001 Jane Nelson Tarrant 512-463-0112 817-424-3446 Kim Brimer Tarrant 512-463-0110 817-332-8269 Chris Harris Tarrant 512-463-0109 817-461-9109 Craig Estes Denton / Collin 512-463-0130 940-898-0331 Florence Shapiro Collin 512-463-0108 972-403-3404 |
| Special Legislative Alert: Reitrement | From the United Educators Association |
| Special Legislative Alert | From the United Educators Association |
| CHANGING GRADES | From the United Educators Association |
| Questions and Answers About Surplusing Staff | From the United Educators Association |
| Uniform School Start Date Passes Senate | From the United Educators Association |
| Consultation Update--Support Contracts | From the United Educators Association |
| Legislative Update from UEA and TFT* | From the United Educators Association |
| Summative Conferences Are Over! FWISD | From the United Educators Associations |
| UPDATE ON UEA TESTING SURVEY Arlington ISD -------------------------------See the Results of UEA's Survey: Elementary Jr. High School High School | FROM UNITED EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION |
| UPDATE ON PROPOSED TRS CHANGES | From the United Educators Association and the Texas Federation of Teachers |
| CONTRACTS UPDATE | From the United Educators Association |
| EDUCATION PRIORITIES UNDER FUNDED | From the United Educators Association |
| ATTACK ON TRS BEGINS | UEA/TFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE |
| FWISD - FORMAL OBSERVATIONS ARE OVER | From the United Educators Association THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2005 They are over. That’s right. Today was the last day for an administrator to conduct a formal 45-minute observation for this year’s PDAS for teachers in schools with traditional calendars. (That also includes domain 7 for those who do not receive a complete evaluation for this year.) May 12th is the last day for formal observations for teachers on a year-round calendar and May 25th is the last day for those at Jo Kelley. It should also be remembered that teachers should have been notified, if any formal observation was conducted during this past week. In addition, today (Thursday, April 28, 2005) is the last day for appraisers to give back written summative appraisal reports to teachers in schools on the traditional calendar. Evaluators who violated the above time lines for teachers in schools on the traditional calendar also violated PDAS rules, state procedures and board policy. If you have a problem, call your association. |
| Contracts, Layoffs, and $20,000,000 shortfall | From the United Educators Association Wednesday, April 27, 2005 Last night UEA leaders and staff addressed the FWISD School Board on the following issues: 1. Removal of contracts from support personnel 2. Layoffs 3. $20,000,000 shortfall There were over 40 speakers who addressed the board. Our message has been clear from the beginning: We are opposed to the removal of contracts for support personnel and that there must be a raise for all employees. In this message we would like to address the $20,000,000 shortfall. First, let us state that we have never believed that there is a shortfall of $20,000,000. (You might remember that in December the shortfall was closer to $26,000,000.) INSTEAD, WE BELIEVE THE REAL SHORTFALL IS CLOSER TO $7,000,000 TO $9,000,000. We also believe that this amount will decrease as we get closer to the end of the year and true figures become known. While this is still a lot of money, it is a manageable sum in an almost $500,000,000 budget. Texas school administrators are famous for their over-estimation of expenditures and under-estimation of revenues. By doing this, they are able to keep most of us scared to death. Over 85% of the budget is found in payroll. To reduce this amount, the District must cut staffing. We have pointed out time and again that if there are to be reductions, they must be in administration because that is where we are so over budgeted compared to other school districts. Where we are compared the most unfavorably is in the classrooms. In fact our studies, and even those of the MGT report, show that we are near the bottom in instructional spending. UEA has also proposed a buyout for those who wish to take advantage of such an offer. As of yet we have received no reaction from the administration. Buyouts are usually the first step taken in private business and more recently in public schools as well. Buyouts have been offered in Grapevine-Colleyville, Carroll, Carrollton-Farmers Branch, White Settlement, Burleson, Cleburne and Arlington just to mention a few close districts. Dallas offered one to select administrators this year. We pointed out that FWISD must be considered as a family, and the family can solve its problems if it works together. We were pleased to hear the Superintendent state that he and the members of the Board heard the concerns presented. We are also glad to see that the administration is responding through emails to some of the concerns we continue to present. |
| EARLY BUYOUT FOLLOW UP | From the United Educators Association Tuesday, April 26, 2005 This morning, UEA declared that it would seek an early buyout to offset some of the budget problems facing the District. Already, we are receiving questions regarding this proposal. The biggest questions are, “How can the District save money by paying people to leave?” Over 85% of District spending is in payroll cost. Therefore, to cut the budget, the District feels that they must cut staffing. Already, their plan calls for cutting over 100 secretaries and 50 campus monitors. Talks are also being held on cutting other positions through layoffs. To cut jobs this way can in fact cost the District more money than through a buyout. It should be remembered that employees who face layoffs are entitled to appeal their termination through the District’s grievance procedures. This can cost money for attorneys and hearings. In the end, if the employees remain without a job, they can seek unemployment compensation. The result is a lot of unhappy and scared employees (those who are terminated and those just waiting for the shoe to fall). While layoffs might be necessary, many districts have found that it is better to reduce employees through buyouts. A buyout reaches the same goal -- a reduced labor pool. However, instead of spending the money on hearings and unemployment, the district provides an opportunity for those who can or wish to leave the ability to do so by giving them some money to rebuild in another place. A lot of people also made the mistake of believing that buyouts are only for those who are close to retirement. While encouraging those at the top of a salary schedule the chance to leave early, it is not the only way a buyout can be structured. For example, the Carroll ISD found that it had to reduce it staff because of a loss of state funds due to “Robin Hood”. They offered a $10,000 buyout to those who were eligible to retire and a $5,000 buyout to others. The result was the same—a reduced staff. In turn, this made it possible to manage the cost that had to be cut from the budget without the hardships of layoffs and terminations. As we said, “This isn’t our only rodeo.” We will continue to look for way to present to the administration and board that will get us through these tough times with the least impact on the employees and children of FWISD. |
| IMPORTANT - EARLY BUYOUTS | From the United Educators Association Tuesday, April 26, 2005 Subject: Early Buyouts FWISD claims to be facing a $20,000,000 shortfall. (This is down about $5,000,000 from where it was just in December.) As a result, they are talking cuts, layoffs, and shared job duties. (For example, nurses, librarians, counselors, assistant principals and others covering more than one campus.) To quote the Superintendent, “This isn’t our first rodeo.” We have struggled through these problems with other districts such as Arlington and Grapevine-Colleyville just to mention two. When times got tough, these Districts have used many different ideas to get through tough times. One of these has been an early buyout for those who wished to leave. These districts have realized that such a program was good for the employees and the district as well. UEA will recommend that FWISD consider an early buyout as a way to trim the budget. We hope that you will support this recommendation. |
| ACTION TUESDAY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING | From the United Educators Association Monday April 25, 2005 It is very important to attend tomorrow nights board meeting at 5:30 to voice your concern regarding the contract recommendations from the board. THIS RECOMMENDATIONs AFFECT EVERYONE IN YOUR BUILDING. Now you see why we think it is important for you to attend this meeting of the Board of Trustees. You will be able to speak at the 5:30 portion of the meeting. UEA encourages you to be there and take 10 people from your building to show opposition to the contract changes. YOUR VOICE makes a difference and needs to BE heard now. See below another way to communicate to your school board members by tomorrow night, if you are unable to attend the meeting. PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH ANYONE IN YOUR BUILDING THAT WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE. FORT WORTH I.S.D. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS EMAIL ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING ONLY ACCEPT FAXES: DR. SIM’S FAX NUMBER IS: 817-534-7411 MCCLUNG’S FAX NUMBER IS: 817-457-6807 THE FOLLOWING DO ACCEPT EMAILS: Dr. Camille Rodgriquez – district1@fortworthisd.org Christene Moss – district3@fortworthisd.org Judy Needham – district5@fortworthisd.org Chris Hatch – district6@fortworthisd.org Norman Robbins – district7@fortworthisd.org Juan Rangel – district8@fortworthisd.org |
| HEB End-of-Year Party | From the United Educators Association FRIDAY APRIL 22, 2005 Hello HEB, It is the end of another year. The tests are over and we all have a moment to catch our breath before we close our schools down. UEA will be hosting a simple get together at On the Border @ 2500 Airport Freeway. Come relax with us. THURSDAY, MAY 5TH , from 4:00 to 6:30 pm. Derik Hayenga, Associate Director, UEA |
| ORGANIZATIONAL PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR FWISD | From the United Educators Association Friday, April 22, 2005 It is our understanding that the attachment to this morning’s email did not make it. Therefore, we are embedding it in this email for your information. Below, you will find the plans that appeared before the Board of Trustees last night. It is the administration plan to have the following recommendations in place by JULY 1. Again, we hope you will be able to join us at the Board Meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 2005. The meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. You can speak during this portion of the meeting if you wish. Recommendation: 1. Eliminate contracts for all support staff, office, teacher assistants, campus monitors, custodians, maintenance persons and food service workers. a. Review and modify all applicable Board Policies b. Adopt policy revisions on or before July 1, 2005 c. Effective September 1, 2006, one year term contracts will be eliminated d. Notify all affected employees in writing of the proposed contract changes after policies have been revised and adopted by the Board of Education (UEA: Note—This will move all of the above employees to an at-will status.) 2. Eliminate contracts for all individuals in school support positions who are not covered under Chapter 21 provisions. a. Review and modify all applicable Board Policies b. Adopt policy revisions on or before July 1, 2005 c. Identify school support personnel and type of contract held d. Notify all affected employees in writing of pending contract changes e. Discontinue issuing any contracts to any school support personnel not meeting the criteria defined in Chapter 21. (UEA note: Chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code limits contracts to teachers, principals, supervisors, or other full-time professional employee who is required to hold a certificate issued under Subchapter B or a nurse. Supervisors refer to those who must hold a teaching certificate to do their job.) Almost every employee who does not fit the above definition would be denied a contract.) 3. Eliminate all two-year contracts for central administration staff except the superintendent. a. Review and modify all applicable Board Policies b. Effective July 1, 2005, newly hired administrators will not receive contract unless they are covered under Chapter 21 c. Effective September 1, 2006, term contracts will not be renewed for central administrative staff, except for those persons in Chapter 21 positions and possibly those with direct reports to the Superintendent. d. Notify all affected employees impacted by proposed contract changes in writing. (UEA: Note—this will move almost all non-certificated, non-professional employees to an at-will status.) 4. Eliminate all continuing contracts for individuals in non-Chapter 21 positions. To do this may require reduction in personnel pursuant to TEC Section 21.157, or giving employees the choice to return to classroom teaching. a. Identify any employees with continuing contract who are in non-Chapter 21 positions (see above) b. Assist affected employees with reassignment into other positions when possible (UEA note: chapter 21.157 says, “A teacher employed under a continuing contract may be released at the end of a school year and the teacher’s employment with the school district terminated at that time because of necessary reduction of personnel by the school district, with those reductions made in the reverse order of seniority in the specific teaching fields.) 5. Eliminate all continuing contracts for all positions except classroom teachers. Board Policy DCC (Local) should be modified to clarify the definition of “teacher” to “classroom teacher.” a. Review and modify all applicable Board Policies 6. Eliminate offers of continuing contracts to all new teachers, phasing in the use of two-year contracts. a. Review and modify all applicable Board Policies b. Classroom teachers currently employed in FWISD with continuing contracts would continue to maintain a continuing contract as long as they are continually employed as a classroom teacher in this district. c. Offer a continuing contract to classroom teachers who were employed prior to July 1, 2005, when eligible. d. Offer a two year term contract to teachers hired on or after July 1, 2005, following the successful completion of probation period 7. Eliminate Chapter 21 contracts for all positions that do not require Chapter 21 contracts under state law. This will require modification of Board Policy DCB (Local), and also modification of job descriptions to eliminate educator certification requirements for positions that do not require such certification under state law. a. Identify all professional employees who have Chapter 21 contracts, but who are not currently employed in a Chapter 21 position as defined by TEC Section 21.157 (see above). b. Review and modify job descriptions consistent with Chapter 21 requirements (i.e. position which do not involve teaching Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, direct supervision of persons teaching TEKS, or determination of curriculum) c. Offer at-will employment or appropriate contract 8. Use “Reduction in Personnel” regarding all non-essential personnel in central administration, campus administrator, and/or school support professional positions working under Chapter 21, continuing or term contracts. (See UEA note under #4.) a. Identify non-essential positions and use “reduction in personnel” procedures as appropriate b. Notify employees affected by the personnel reduction-and assist affected employees with reassignment into other positions when possible 9. Develop staffing formulas for secretaries, and eliminate positions above the number derived from the staffing formula. a. Review and modify all applicable Board Policies b. Begin reviewing and developing a process for staffing respective departments for 2005-2006 school year c. Eliminate non-essential secretarial positions d. Elect not to fill secretarial vacancies until all surplus secretaries have been placed if possible (UEA Note: The plan calls for a reduction of 104 secretaries.) 10. Add one position in the board services function to assist with handling the day-to-day operations. a. Fill current vacant position b. Consider, after July 1, adding a secretarial position to assist with board services functions with day-to-day operations. 11. Combine the District’s Curriculum and Instruction functions under the leadership of one director and eliminate the District’s testing and instructional support teams. a. Eliminate the Instructional Support Teams (IST) and Locally Developed Assessment Center (LDAC) b. Notify affected employees in writing c. Assist affected employees with reassignment into other positions when possible d. Utilize “reduction in personnel” procedures pursuant to board policy if necessary 12. Eliminate the 50 campus monitor positions that were added in the 2004-2005 budget process, as well as the 86 substitute monitors. a. Develop staffing standards for campus monitors b. Consider decentralizing funding for most campus monitors to schools c. Maintain centralized funding for some monitors to provide extra security at district events d. Eliminate 50 campus monitor pyramid substitute positions before the start of the 2005-2006 school year e. Reduce the number of substitute campus monitors (UEA note: The MGT study calls for eliminating all 86 substitute campus monitors.) Now you see why we think it is important for you to attend the April 26th meeting of the Board of Trustees. You will be able to speak at the 5:30 portion of the meeting. |
| Superintendent Recommends Elimination of Contracts and Positions in FWISD | SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS “IMMEDIATE ACTION” ON CONTRACTS AND POSITIONS At last night’s School Board meeting, the recommendations of the outside consultants were discussed. Attached you will find FWISD’s “Planning Document” on implementing these recommendations. This “Planning Document” was presented by Superintendent Joe Ross. UEA wants you to note that all items listed for “Immediate Action” consists of the recommendations to eliminate contracts for support personnel (custodians, campus monitors, cafeteria workers, secretaries, etc.), change contracts for teachers, eliminate approximately 104 secretaries from Central Administration, eliminating 50 Campus Monitors and all Campus Monitor substitutes, and eliminating all Instructional Support Staff. All recommendations to reorganize or eliminate true Central Administration positions are listed under “Phase 2” or left pending until July 1, 2005. Even though this report is listed as an “assessment of the organizational structure and staffing of the District’s Central Office”, UEA does not understand why all recommendations affecting support personnel are to be enacted immediately while those affecting the High Level (and highly paid) Central Administration are left untouched. UEA is deeply disappointed in Superintendent Joe Ross and his recommendations. The next School Board meeting is Tuesday April 26th and begins at 5:30pm. UEA encourages you to be there and to show your opposition to these recommendations. Your voice needs to be heard and needs to be heard RIGHT NOW! Below are the e-mail addresses of all school board members and Superintendent Joe Ross: Superintendent Joe Ross – jross@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu Dr. Bill Koehler – president@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu Dr. Camille Rodgriquez – district1@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu Jean McClung – district2@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu Christene Moss – district3@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu T.A. Sims – district4@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu Judy Needham – district5@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu Chris Hatch – district6@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu Norman Robbins – district7@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu Juan Rangel – district8@ftworth.isd.tenet.edu PLEASE PRINT THIS AND SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO E-MAIL. |
| Class Credit | From the United Educators Association Friday, April 21, 2005 For your information: Class Credit Section 25.092 of the Texas Education Code requires that a student may not be given credit for a class unless the student is in attendance for at least 90% of the days the class is offered. This section goes on to require that school districts appoint attendance committees made up of a majority of teachers to hear petitions for class credit by students who do not meet the 90% requirement. These committees may give class credit to a student who was in attendance fewer than the required days because of “extenuating circumstances.” School boards are required to establish guidelines to define what are extenuating circumstances and specify alternative ways for students to make up work or regain credits lost because of absences. This section goes on to say that professional employees are NOT to be assigned additional instructional duties because of this section UNLESS they are compensated. If credit is not given, a student may appeal the decision to the school board and from there to the state district court. This section of the law can also be found in Board Policy FEC Legal at the following website: http://www.tasb.org/policy/pol/private/220905/pol.cfm?DisplayPage=FEC(LEGAL).html&QueryText=25.092 And local policy FEC (Local) http://www.tasb.org/policy/pol/private/220905/pol.cfm?DisplayPage=EI(LEGAL).html&QueryText=25.092 |
| MGT REPORT AND EMPLOYEE CONTRACTS --- FWISD | Wednesday April 20, 2005 From the United Educators Association Subject: MGT Report and Employee Contracts Last Wednesday, UEA Leaders and Staff met with members of the District’s Management Consultation Team. The subject was the MGT report dealing with the reorganization of Central Office and employee contracts. The report stated that the District should end contracts for all non-Chapter 21 employees. This section of the law covers mainly teachers and those associated with the instructional program. It does not cover teacher assistants or those not directly related to instruction. Those not covered would include custodians, food service employees, campus monitors, secretaries and many, many others. Neither does it include administrators in these areas either. FWISD has awarded contracts to almost all employees for more than 20 years. In many cases, benefits have been closely related to the contract. At the meeting, UEA went on record as opposed to the denial of contracts for any group of employees. On Thursday, April 14th we sent out an email that informed you and other employees of that opposition. Since that time, we have met with three members of the Board of Trustees to express our concerns and opposition to not only this MGT recommendation, but to others in the report as well. Today, we will meet with Dr. Bill Koehler. Tomorrow, we will meet with two more School Board members. Our hope is to meet with all members of the Board before the Board Meeting on Tuesday, April 26 at 5:30 p.m. . (The Board will discuss the report on Thursday, April 21 but no one beside the Board will be able to offer comments.) While UEA continues to work with School Board and Administration; UEA remains in opposition to the changes recommended in the MGT report. Our opposition remains for the following reasons: 1. Benefits in the past for many employees have been tied to contracts (see statement from the District’s Management Consultation Team). 2. Contracts offer protections from unfair dismissals by those who would abuse such power. 3. Without employee contracts, it would be easier for the District to outsource entire groups of employees. We remain opposed to the removal of contracts for all employees and will state this position at the Tuesday, April 26th Board Meeting. We hope that you can join us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fort Worth Independent School District Employee Relations Team To: Larry Shaw, United Educators Association From: Leslie James, Employee Relations Consultation Team Re: MGT Report and Employee Benefits Date: April 18, 2005 On behalf of the District’s Employee Relations Consultation Team, I wish to dispel some speculative concerns you have expressed in recent emails about the MGT report, its recommendations and how they might affect employee benefits. Please remember, the District’s employee benefits are not tied to an employee’s contract status. Nor is anyone recommending a change in employee benefits due to a change in an employee’s contract status. So, whatever may be the possible changes to District employment contracts that occur after July 1, 2005 or after August 31, 2006, employee benefits are not to be thereby reduced or adversely affected. To be more specific, any anticipated changes the Board of Education may be called upon to consider in District contracts will be designed so as not to affect: · retirement benefits for the teacher Retirement System of Texas; · health insurance benefits; · state and local personal and sick leave and eligibility for other types of leave; · vacation time, if applicable; and · other employee benefits I hope this will reassure you and any District employees who may share your concerns Cc: Joe P. Ross |
| QUESTIONS ON CONTRACTS | From the United Educators Association THURSDAY APRIL 14, 2005 We have received many emails and phone calls asking who is considered Support Personnel. This is a good question and in some cases it is yet to be determined. However, Chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code defines who, by state, law must be given contracts. In cases such as teachers, contracts can be for a certain term such as one year or more or a continuing contract, which continues until the teacher quits or is released by the District for just cause. The employees listed below are also required to be provided contracts by state law. All not listed are in most cases considered “support personnel.” In most cases, only employees who are in positions such as classroom teachers, principals, librarians, nurses, and counselors and other full-time professional employees who are required to hold a certification issued under Subchapter B are required to have employment contracts. Employees who are not required to hold educator certification under state law are not entitled to contracts governed by Chapter 21 of the Code. In most cases, contracts are not required for secretaries, custodians, campus monitors, food service employees, paraprofessionals, teacher aides, bus drivers, maintenance employees, those who supervise these employees (unless their position requires them to have an instructional certificate for the job), just to mention a few. There is no state law that requires a district to provide those who work in payroll or school finances a contract either. Rule of thumb: Unless you are an employee of the rank of teacher or above in the Instructional area, it is safe to assume that no law requires that you receive a contract—regardless of rank or location. Contracts in FWISD have been provided through board policy. This is what we are working to protect. Larry Shaw, UEA’s Executive Director, will be addressing this topic at the April 26th meeting of the Board of Trustees meeting. This meeting begins at 5:30 pm. Please join us there. |
| UEA TO OPPOSE MGT RECOMMENDATION REGARDING EMPLOYEE CONTRACTS | From the United Educators Association THURSDAY APRIL 14, 2005 UEA to oppose MGT recommendation regarding employee contracts Yesterday, Wednesday, April 13, 2005 UEA’s Consultation Team met with the Consultation Team from FWISD to discuss the recommendations regarding the organizational Structure of the Fort Worth ISD. The UEA team’s spokesperson was Larry Shaw, UEA’s Executive Director. The spokesperson for FWISD’s team was Dr. Leslie James. At the meeting, UEA was notified that the Board of Trustees will meet next Thursday, April 21, to discuss the MGT report. UEA was also notified that at that meeting, the Administration will recommend the following: 1. Contracts will be ended for all support personnel hired after June 1, 2005. 2. All teachers hired after June 1, 2005 will be placed on a track for TERM contract instead of Continuing Contracts. 3. Teachers not currently on Continuing Contracts will be placed on a track for Term Contracts. 4. All administrators hired after June 1, 2005 will be given one-year Term contracts. Later that night, Shaw received a call from Dr. James notifying him that the Administration also plans to recommend changes in Board Policy that will end all contracts for almost all Support Personnel after August 31, 2006. The Administration’s plan also calls for all changes in Board Policy before the June 1 date. UEA notified Dr. James and the Administration’s team that UEA will oppose all changes listed above. “We believe this is a rush to injustice,” said Shaw. He went on to say that changes in contracts might involve other rights and benefits such as sick leave, insurance compensation, TRS benefits, vacation days (for those who get such), and other employee benefits for thousands of employees. At that point, Shaw requested an impact statement from the administration of how changes in contracts would impact employees in all of the above groups. If all holds true according to the Administration plan, the Board might after their first meeting vote on such a plan on May 10 with a second vote coming on May 24. UEA will be meeting with Board Members asking them to vote no, or at least to vote to delay any action on such a plan until the following has taken place: 1. The requested impact statement has been provided to all employees; 2. The administration continues to meet with the Association to resolve issues that will arise; and 3. Dr. Johnson, FWISD’s new superintendent, has come aboard. We will keep you informed. |
| A POSSIBLE RETIREMENT AGE OF AT LEAST 60 ? | From the United Educators Association And the Texas Federation of Teachers UEA/ TFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE* Monday, April 11, 2005 Subject: A possible retirement age of at least 60? At the March 24 meeting of the Teacher Retirement System board of trustees, TRS executive director Ronnie Jung reported that no bill had been filed so far to change the rule of 80. He said that there had been public discussion in the Senate Finance Committee (led by Sen. Robert Duncan, Republican of Lubbock) about imposing a minimum retirement age of 60, overriding the rule of 80. But even just talking about this notion had produced "thousands of letters" from TRS participants, said Jung. Similarly, at a hearing in the House Pensions and Investments Committee last month, Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, Republican of Brenham, noted that the Senate had lofted a "trial balloon" on this issue that had pretty well been deflated. Rep. Craig Eiland, the Galveston Democrat who chairs that House committee, and Rep. Bob Griggs, a Republican from the Fort Worth area, both took pains to say that their committee is not talking about messing with the rule of 80. Lawmakers have indeed been hearing your message, through e-mails and phone calls. The message has been over and over, “Do not tamper with the rule of 80”. However, this issue has not yet been laid to rest, and we need to keep those messages flowing. A new pretext for an attack on the rule of 80 has been provided by the recent TRS actuarial valuation reported to the legislature just before the March TRS board meeting. The report showed that, technically speaking, a shortfall in the pension fund has widened since last year. Ironically, your pension fund actually made billions of dollars of gains over that span. But accounting rules will not allow those gains to be fully credited to the pension fund for several years. Meanwhile, the technically worse "unfunded actuarial accrued liability" gives those so inclined an excuse to say something drastic must be done to reduce benefits and thereby shore up the pension fund. This is why a move to tamper with the rule of 80, by imposing a minimum retirement age of 60, could materialize very quickly. To see how it could happen, follow this next bit carefully. First of all, note that both the House and Senate have built into the new budget bill, SB 1, a very modest increase in the state's TRS contribution rate, to 6.12 percent from the current 6 percent. That looks at first glance like a clear-cut step in the right direction of reversing the 1995 cut in the state contribution rate from 7.31 percent. After all, the "temporary" 1995 cut, which now has continued year after year for ten years, is largely responsible for the shortfall in the pension fund today. But ask yourself this: Why would the budget bill raise the state contribution only to 6.12 percent, which doesn't come close to erasing the actuarial shortfall, instead of raising the rate all the way back to 7.31 percent (or even to 8 percent, which is what a state statute actually still calls for)? Well, it turns out that 6.12 percent is all the state would need to contribute to bring the unfunded liability down to an actuarially acceptable level--IF the increase to 6.12 percent were combined with a new law mandating age 60 as the minimum retirement age, overriding the rule of 80. That's what TRS executive director Jung told the TRS board on March 24, and that's what Sen. Duncan has said in explaining the increase to 6.12 percent in SB 1. Sen. Duncan has pointed out that it would take a change in law to impose the retirement age of 60, a change that cannot be enacted as part of the budget bill. However, it so happens that Sen. Duncan has filed a catch-all TRS bill, SB 1691, that would make a perfect vehicle for an amendment to establish the age of 60 as the minimum for retirement. SB 1691 is currently awaiting a hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee, which is chaired by none other than Sen. Duncan. So you can see how easily this whole scenario might unfold if we are not vigilant and vocal in opposition to "solving" the problem of the TRS pension shortfall by mandating a minimum retirement age of 60. Our message needs to be loud and clear: Tampering with the rule of 80 would be yet another take-away of a promised benefit. Imposing a minimum retirement age of 60 would trigger a new rush to retire before the change took effect--exactly the opposite of what Sen. Duncan and others intend. In fact, if they really want teachers and other school employees to wait longer to retire, there's a surefire way to go about it--by raising pay significantly and thereby giving veteran employees a reason to stick around. You can use the toll-free number, 1-888-836-8368, to call your state senator and state representative and ask them to oppose setting a minimum retirement age of 60. Just call during regular business hours, give the name of your state senator or state rep, and ask the capitol operator to connect you to that office. You also can e-mail an updated version of our letter on this topic from the TFT Web site, www.tft.org. For good measure, you can send this letter to Sen. Duncan and to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Republican of Houston, who is the presiding officer of the Texas Senate. If the e-mail letters and the calls keep pouring into legislative offices, there's a good chance we can nip this new benefit take-away in the bud. |
| MGT REPORT in the FWISD | From the United Educators Association FRIDAY APRIL 8, 2005 We are currently analyzing the recommendation from the outside consultant, MGT, regarding reorganization of Central Administration. As you know, some of their recommendations could have tremendous impact on many FWISD employees. As a result, UEA has asked for a meeting with the District’s Consultation Committee to discuss this report and the Administration’s position. UEA is concerned about several of the recommendations including the one that would eliminate contracts for all support personnel such as secretaries, custodians, teacher assistants, maintenance and others. In addition, there is a recommendation to eliminate 50 Campus Monitors district wide. We want to make sure that the rights and benefits of all support personnel are protected. UEA will be speaking to the School Board at the next meeting to present our ideas and concerns on this report. We understand that the outside consultant’s recommendations will be discussed at the April 21st Board Meeting. We will keep you informed with further details. |
| Results of UEA's Survey On Testing In The Arlington ISD See the Results: | From the United Educators Association APRIL 8, 2005 Yesterday, Arlington UEA leaders and UEA staff met with Dr. Bernd and Dr. Cavazos to review the results of UEA's survey on testing. In this meeting, we discussed several of the important issues determined by the results of the survey. The topics addressed were: 1. Reductions of benchmark and mini-tests at all grade levels. 2. Provide quality, on-time, error free benchmark and mini-tests 3. Improving the debriefing sessions at the Professional Development Center when disaggregating scores to include making them voluntary or paying teachers to attend 4. Clarify the policy regarding substitutes for elementary teachers when "bubbling in" answers 5. Checking the UIL Calendar so benchmark tests do not conflict Dr. Bernd and Dr. Cavazos said they would review the benchmark tests. Also, Dr. Bernd said he would make clear to the principals at the next meeting that all mini-tests are optional. It will be the individual teacher's decision on when or if to give mini-tests. Central Administration agreed that all tests should be error free and will work with teachers to insure the quality of the tests. Dr. Cavazos said the sessions at PDC are being reviewed now and will be improved or may be discontinued. Both Dr. Bernd and Dr. Cavazos assured UEA that substitutes should be used for all K-2 teachers to facilitate the "bubbling in" of questions for students' answers. They said the money is separate from each campus' substitute fund and is provided by Central Administration. Dr. Cavazos committed to reviewing the timeline of the benchmark tests to make sure there are no UIL conflicts with testing. UEA wants to thank Dr. Bernd and Dr. Cavazos for meeting with us about these concerns and for addressing them at the School Board meeting last night. We are committed to continue working together on this important issue. UEA will be publishing the results of the Survey on Testing in next week's PenPoint. |
| Legislative Update from UEA and TFT | From the United Educators Association APRIL 7, 2005 The Senate draft committee substitute for HB 2, the major bill of the session regarding school finance and "reform," was unveiled Tuesday, and it has to be said that this draft of the bill is a big letdown. In key respects, it looks way too much like the House bill. For example, it contains the same language removing education quality standards like class-size limits and teacher certification and contracts from schools rated "exemplary." It also contains incentive-pay provisions that closely resemble those in the House, tied to the same "value-added" methodology, unsupported by educational research, for measuring educational effectiveness. Again like the House, the Senate draft also includes a provision that would require the commissioner of education to contract out the management of low-performing public schools. In the Senate version, the trigger would be two consecutive years rated "academically unacceptable" for any reason. After all the talk we've heard about moving teacher pay to the national average, the Senate draft offers only a $1,000 increase--plus $500 to restore for teachers the full $1,000 for health-care stipends. This plan would continue the current, reduced stipend for all other employees--$500 for full-timers, $250 for part-timers--and would repeal the legislature's promise to restore the full $1,000 for everyone. Perhaps the most basic defect of the Senate plan, as in the House version, is the low priority given to rebuilding education funding, in contrast to the high priority given to property-tax reductions. As in the House, the Senate plan is part of a legislative package that devotes nearly 80 percent of all new revenue--more than $11 billion--to property-tax cuts, with the remainder--about $3 billion--for public schools. That $3 billion would make this bill at best a short-term Band-Aid for school finance, not a long-term solution for the funding-capacity crisis our schools face as they try to meet ever-rising expectations. Differences between the House and Senate approaches on other issues are deep enough, however, to raise doubts about the ultimate fate of the legislation. The biggest difference in this category is that the Senate plan would require an amendment to the state constitution authorizing a statewide property tax, while the House plan would not. The hurdle for passage of such a constitutional amendment is high: a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and approval by the voters in a referendum. Differences between the House and Senate over other revenue sources also are likely to emerge when the Senate Finance Committee tips its hand later this month on preferred tax options. And the Senate draft omits any change in the school start date and any provision for end-of-course testing to replace the current exit-level TAKS exam. Both these latter items are important to key players in the House. UEA/TFT notice These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| SENATE RELEASES EDUCATION BILL | From the United Educators Association APRIL 7, 2005 The Senate draft committee substitute for HB 2, the major bill of the session regarding school finance and "reform," was unveiled Tuesday, and it has to be said that this draft of the bill is a big letdown. In key respects, it looks way too much like the House bill. For example, it contains the same language removing education quality standards like class-size limits and teacher certification and contracts from schools rated "exemplary." It also contains incentive-pay provisions that closely resemble those in the House, tied to the same "value-added" methodology, unsupported by educational research, for measuring educational effectiveness. Again like the House, the Senate draft also includes a provision that would require the commissioner of education to contract out the management of low-performing public schools. In the Senate version, the trigger would be two consecutive years rated "academically unacceptable" for any reason. After all the talk we've heard about moving teacher pay to the national average, the Senate draft offers only a $1,000 increase--plus $500 to restore for teachers the full $1,000 for health-care stipends. This plan would continue the current, reduced stipend for all other employees--$500 for full-timers, $250 for part-timers--and would repeal the legislature's promise to restore the full $1,000 for everyone. Perhaps the most basic defect of the Senate plan, as in the House version, is the low priority given to rebuilding education funding, in contrast to the high priority given to property-tax reductions. As in the House, the Senate plan is part of a legislative package that devotes nearly 80 percent of all new revenue--more than $11 billion--to property-tax cuts, with the remainder--about $3 billion--for public schools. That $3 billion would make this bill at best a short-term Band-Aid for school finance, not a long-term solution for the funding-capacity crisis our schools face as they try to meet ever-rising expectations. Differences between the House and Senate approaches on other issues are deep enough, however, to raise doubts about the ultimate fate of the legislation. The biggest difference in this category is that the Senate plan would require an amendment to the state constitution authorizing a statewide property tax, while the House plan would not. The hurdle for passage of such a constitutional amendment is high: a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and approval by the voters in a referendum. Differences between the House and Senate over other revenue sources also are likely to emerge when the Senate Finance Committee tips its hand later this month on preferred tax options. And the Senate draft omits any change in the school start date and any provision for end-of-course testing to replace the current exit-level TAKS exam. Both these latter items are important to key players in the House. UEA/TFT notice These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| School Board Receives Report on Central Administration | From the United Educators Association TUESDAY MARCH 5, 2005 Yesterday morning, the FWISD School Board met to receive a report from MGT of America concerning the organizational structure of the Central Administration. Included in the report were several options for the FWISD School Board to make cuts in Administration. Included in the options were: 1. Eliminating contracts for all support staff 2. Eliminating 104 secretarial positions (Based on a formula for 1 secretary for every 4 Central Administrators at the position of Assistant Director or higher) 3. Downgrade all Assistant Superintendents to Executive Directors and Executive Directors to Directors. 4. Eliminate 10 drug intervention specialist positions 5. Eliminate the district’s Testing and Instructional support teams. All together, MGT’s options would save the district over $7,900,000. Unfortunately, UEA believes that the support personnel of the district and the secretaries of Central Administration will bear the major burden of the cuts. We want to stress that these are only recommendations from an outside consultant. The School Board will have many discussions of this report. UEA will monitor these discussions and will look further into the report. We will keep you updated on further developments. |
| Legislative Update from UEA and TFT | From the United Educators Association And the Texas Federation of Teachers* Wednesday, March 30, 2005 TRS-ActiveCare Changes: Premiums and benefits for various levels of coverage under the TRS program of health coverage for school-district employees, TRS-ActiveCare, will change come September 1. Under policies adopted by the TRS board last week, key changes are these: --Participants in ActiveCare 1 actually will see a slight improvement in their benefits, with no premium increase: No more copay will be required for the first $500 of preventive care. This change aligns ActiveCare 1 with federal requirements for high-deductible plans tied to health savings accounts. --Participants in ActiveCare 2 (which unlike ActiveCare 1 includes a drug plan) will see no premium increase but will have to start paying a $50 drug deductible. --Participants in ActiveCare 3, the plan providing the highest level of benefits, will see their premiums increase 6.5 percent. Costs of benefits for this high-level plan are going up fast; TRS says premiums would have to go up 23.5 percent if TRS were not planning to use $33.5 million in reserve funds to help cover rising costs. ActiveCare 3 participants, in addition to paying higher premiums, also will start paying a $50 drug deductible, will have to pay more of the cost of inpatient and outpatient hospital care, and coinsurance under the plan will drop from 85 percent to 80 percent in-network, 65 percent to 60 percent non-network. The primary reason for the higher costs under ActiveCare 3, according to TRS consultants, is adverse selection. That means only those with high medical bills find it sensible to choose this already-expensive plan, resulting in higher and higher expenditures per participant, resulting in turn in still higher premium increases--a vicious circle. The rising costs of TRS-ActiveCare 3 are driving more and more employees to choose the lower-cost ActiveCare 2 and ActiveCare 1 options, which is exactly the dynamic that the legislature intended to set in motion last session. The long-term trend, according to TRS executive director Ronnie Jung, will be toward a system with just two plans, one being the traditional type under ActiveCare 2, the other being a high-deductible, "catastrophic" plan like ActiveCare 1 that dovetails readily with a tax-favored health savings account. Push for Faster Phase-In of Higher Passing Standards: Commissioner of Education Shirley Neeley is expected to decide soon whether to speed up the phase-in of higher passing standards for an acceptable rating under the state accountability system. Neeley is under pressure to do so from private-sector advisers, such as business lobbyist and former White House education operative Sandy Kress, who serve on an accountability advisory committee at the Texas Education Agency. Kress and others in this group say too few schools are being identified as failures; if the passing standard is raised abruptly and more schools are therefore rated academically unacceptable, their campaign for private takeover of "failing" public schools will be bolstered. Counter-pressure is coming from the commissioner's Educator Focus Group, another advisory body at TEA, which argues for the continuation of the steady, incremental approach that has worked well in Texas. Coming Attractions: The Senate Education Committee has begun hearings on HB 2. This is the ill-conceived school-finance and "reform" package that passed narrowly in the House earlier this month. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the Houston Republican who presides over the Texas Senate, and Sen. Florence Shapiro, the Republican from Plano who chairs the Education Committee, have stated their intent to make major changes in the House bill. Also on the House Public Education Committee has begun to hear testimony on a batch of bills, including: HB 3393 by Rep. Bill Keffer, Republican of Dallas, which aims to reduce already-limited due-process protection for teachers under current law; and HB 984 by Rep. Elvira Reyna, Republican of Mesquite, which would unwisely and dangerously entrust on-campus medical care of students with diabetes to school employees designated as "unlicensed diabetes care assistants." UEA/TFT notice These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| Fort Worth UEA End-of-Year Party | From the United Educators Association MARCH 30, 2005 Fort Worth UEA is asking you to "Save the Date" of Wednesday, May 4TH for the FW UEA End of Year party. This year, the End of Year party for UEA members will be held at Botanic Gardens and will be from 4:30 till 6:30. Fort Worth UEA will be sending out more information on how to RSVP shortly. |
| Social Security News, State Budget Action, and Retire/ Rehire Restrictions | From the United Educators Association And the Texas Federation of Teachers March 21, 2005 Social Security Update: We have three pieces of good news to report on the Social Security front. First, the Texas legislature will consider calling on Congress to enact the Social Security Fairness Act under a resolution coming up for hearing on this afternoon in the House State Affairs Committee. HCR 63, filed by State Rep. Melissa Noriega, Democrat of Houston, lays out a strong case for repealing two unfair Social Security offsets that cut benefits for many Texas school employees and other public servants when they retire with a state pension. Rep. Noriega has recruited 19 House coauthors of both parties for her resolution—a dozen Democrats and seven Republicans. Second, this week the U.S. House version of the Fairness Act, H.R. 147, passed a milestone, winning the formal cosponsorship of a majority of House members. The cosponsor tally is now up to 221, three more than a majority in the U.S. House. Among the latest to sign on is Congressman Henry Cuellar, Democrat of Laredo. Third, a companion version of the Fairness Act now has been filed in the U.S. Senate. On March 14, U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, filed S. 619. Nine senators already have signed on in support of the bill. State Budget in Committee: The House budget-writing committee in Austin made some key decisions on Thursday, March 17th. The Appropriations Committee took formal action to acknowledge that the school-finance bill passed last week, HB 2, is not yet funded; the committee included in the draft budget an item indicating that $3 billion will have to come from somewhere as yet unspecified in order to fulfill the provisions of HB 2 purporting to distribute new money to school districts. Separately, the committee rejected a proposal from Rep. Carl Isett, Republican of Lubbock, to force Medicare-eligible school retirees out of their drug-benefit plan under TRS-Care and into the inferior coverage offered under the new Medicare pharmaceutical plan. Retirees with high prescription costs would pay a lot more out of their own pockets under the Isett proposal. Fortunately, the Isett recommendation was rejected at the urging of Rep. Joe Pickett, Democrat of El Paso. Rep. Jim Pitts, the Waxahachie Republican who c |
| MISD Employees' Child Transfer Policy Update | From the United Educators Association THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005 Mansfield I.S.D. held a called work session on Monday, March 7 at 6:30 p.m. The purpose of this meeting was to address the issue of transfers for district employees’ children. All board members were in attendance. The meeting was closed to comments from the public. Attached is a proposed DRAFT of the policy being considered by the board? The next school board meeting will be Tuesday March 29 at 7:00 p.m. This meeting allows time for public comment if you have an opinion on this subject. School board members can be reached via email at this address: pio@mansfieldisd.org . The public information office will forward these emails to the appropriate board member. |
| House School Plan Narrowly Approved, But It Hinges On Tax Bill Up For a Vote Tomorrow | From the United Educators Association And the Texas Federation of Teachers Thursday, March 10, 2005 House School Plan Narrowly Approved, But It Hinges On Tax Bill Up For a Vote Tomorrow The Texas House gave preliminary approval to a sweeping change in school finance and education policy today, voting 76 to 71 in favor of HB 2 by Rep. Kent Grusendorf, Republican of Arlington. As previously reported in the hotline, the Grusendorf plan was prettied up yesterday with a proposal for a teacher pay hike, but the bill offers no guarantee of the funding needed to make the proposal meaningful. All but one of the 63 Democrats in the House and nine Republicans joined forces to vote against HB 2. All major teachers associations, administrators associations, and most other educational related organizations opposed this bill. Last session, you may recall, the legislature took more than $1 billion out of the pockets of active and retired school employees and then took credit for providing approximately that same amount of money to school districts in new formula aid. Under HB 2 we apparently would see the same short of shell game, and lawmakers once again are casting a covetous eye on your pocketbook. Among the budget "savings" under consideration this time, the biggest take-away from school employees would be the failure to restore the $1,000 health-care stipend as required by law. That move alone would "save" $650 million at your expense. A proposed increase in the cut from your paycheck for retired school employees' health insurance would take another $58 million off your hands. If you're reminded at this point of the old saying about "robbing Peter to pay Paul," then you're starting to get the picture. The bottom line under HB 2: New school aid after accounting for enrollment growth and inflation would be next to nil yet would be expected to fund rapidly expanding services for students with special needs (e.g., students with disabilities, low English proficiency, or economic disadvantages)--as well as the purported pay raise for teachers. An especially compelling statement against the bill came from Republican Rep. Bob Griggs of Fort Worth. Griggs, a former superintendent, said this bill is the equivalent of "junk food" instead of reliable school funding. He said the bill offers a "sugar rush" of initial funding, but "funding falls apart after a very short period of time." Griggs recounted the success stories of two of his former students, one with severe disabilities and one who came to public school as an eighth-grader from Mexico with no English-language skills. Both are now highly successful, he said, thanks to the intensive interventions that public schools marshaled to help them. Their stories show that "dollars do make a difference," Griggs said, but HB 2 would leave districts with minimal discretionary funding for services to high-need students. One particularly bad part of HB 2 was almost removed today. This section would designate many more schools as low-performing in order to set them up as targets for state-mandated takeover by private school managers. This part of HB 2 would disregard a school's achievement of an "academically acceptable" rating under the state accountability system. Failure to meet federal mandates of "adequate yearly progress" for two years in a row would make schools ripe targets for privatization. An amendment by Rep. Garnet Coleman, Democrat of Houston, to strip this privatization mandate from the bill initially prevailed by a two-vote margin, 72 to 70. After a pause, however, four of Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick's lieutenants, who had apparently missed the vote, claimed that their voting machines all had mysteriously malfunctioned at once, failing to record their votes to table the Coleman amendment. Counting their four votes, the Coleman amendment was defeated. Voting against the bill: All but one democrat (Al Edwards of Houston who voted present, but not voting. Of the 87 Republicans: 76 voted yes; Rep. Brian McCall of Plano was present but did not vote; Rep. William Callegari of Katy was absent. Nine Republicans voted no. There were Rep. Fred Brown of College Station, Rep. Charlie Geren of Fort Worth, Rep. Toby Goodman of Arlington, Rep Bob Griggs of North Richland Hills*, Rep. Todd Smith of Euless, Rep. Pat Haggerty of El Paso, Rep. Delwin Jones of Lubbock, Rep. Edmund of Seguin, and Rep. Thomas Merritt of Longview. (Rep. Bob Griggs was former Superintendent of Birdville.) Tax Bill in Trouble: The speaker's resourcefulness probably faces a more severe test today, when the tax bill needed to cover HB 2's one-third cut in property taxes comes up for a vote. The tax measure, HB 3, has enemies everywhere you look. Many business interests dislike the new payroll tax in the bill. Advocates for low- and middle-income Texans point out that the bill would give Texas the highest sales tax in the nation. An official state budget analysis backs up the claim that HB 3 would provide net tax cuts only for Texans who make more than $100,000 a year. The rest of us actually would pay higher taxes overall, because new taxes would more than offset the benefit of the one-third cut in property taxes. The education community has no use for HB 3, either. It would provide a lot of pain for the vast majority of taxpayers but zero gain for Texas schoolchildren. HB 3 raises only enough money to offset property-tax reductions and "not one red cent more," to quote Rep. Grusendorf. Today's victory for the Grusendorf HB 2 plan thus could prove to be quite temporary. HB 2 and HB 3 are a package deal. If HB 3 with all its new taxes goes down to defeat, then the new school-funding formulas and education measures in HB 2 are automatically rendered null and void. This scenario, if it comes to pass, describes what could be the best possible outcome for public education this week at your state capitol. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What other associations say: Association of Texas Professional Educators (ATPE): Pay raise proposal added to HB 2 “The Texas House of Representatives, which has been debating HB 2 since yesterday afternoon, voted to include in the bill a proposal that would require school districts to provide some sort of pay raise for teachers, nurses, librarians and counselors. Although this seems like a good thing, the proposal might end up hurting schools because it does not include new state funding for the raise, but instead requires that schools grant the raise using existing funds. These funds might be allocated for other purposes such as valuable educational programs or hiring new teachers to relieve over-crowded classrooms. The proposal also lacks guarantees that ensure educators will actually receive the raise, and may include funding meant to restore the $1,000 pass-through supplement. The proposal is complicated and does not guarantee a raise like the one passed in 1999. The 1999 proposal guaranteed a raise of $3,000 above what employees were due to receive.” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA): HB 2 Passed the House 76-71 HB 2 has passed the House--with incentive pay and no health insurance stipend for ESPs. TSTA President Donna New Haschke has issued the following statement to the press: "Today the leadership of the House turned a deaf ear to the people of Texas, ignoring our children, their parents, and their teachers. HB 2 fails to provide Texas school children the education they deserve. “In fact HB 2 is not an education bill; it is an empty promise. It promises a pay raise - without the money to make it happen. It promises a health insurance stipend - but not to the people who need it most. “In the final analysis it is really a scheme that uses our school children to promote a tax system to reward only the wealthiest Texans. “It is a sad day when the House passes a major education bill based on the argument that we need to move the process along, rather than we did the best we could for the children of Texas. “HB 2 gets an F. Those who fail our children, their families, and their teachers will be held accountable by the people of Texas." UEA/TFT notice These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| "WHEN IS A RAISE NOT A RAISE?" | FROM THE UNITED EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION March 9, 2005 Texas House Up to No Good on School Bill: Real Pay Raise Voted Down, Sham Pay Raise Passed; Health-Care Money Voted Down, Equity Voted Down; Debate Continues The Texas House quit working just shy of midnight last night on HB 2, the session's big bill on school finance and education policy. Debate on scores of amendments resumed this morning. You may see headlines in today’s papers suggesting that the House approved a teacher pay raise last evening. The real story is very different. HB 2 shortchanges public education in multiple ways, and teacher compensation is no exception. The bill's author, Arlington Republican Rep. Kent Grusendorf, has long been a bitter opponent of across-the-board teacher pay raises. No such raises were included in the bill as introduced or as it passed out of Grusendorf's Public Education Committee last week. But as the debate wore on yesterday, vote-counters for House Speaker Tom Craddick, Republican of Midland, evidently began to fear that a real, across-the-board pay raise would be attached as an amendment to their bill. So House leaders orchestrated a vote for a sham version of a $3,000 pay raise. First, however, the folks in charge of the House had to dispose of a substitute motion by Rep. Jim Dunnam, Democrat of Waco, to pass a real teacher pay raise of $2,400 for next school year and another $2,400 on top of that for school year 2006-2007. The Dunnam substitute was defeated by a margin of 78 to 70. All 63 House Democrats voted for it, and so did seven House Republicans. According to the unofficial vote tally, the seven Republicans who voted for the real pay raise were: Dwayne Bohac of Houston, Charlie Geren of Fort Worth, Pat Haggerty of El Paso, Mike Hamilton from the Beaumont area, Bob Hunter of Abilene, Tommy Merritt of Longview, and Sid Miller of Stephenville. The sham teacher pay raise then was offered as the only version acceptable to the leadership, and House members went along with it by a vote of 102 to 42. Here's what the pay amendment says. Out of the money already promised to school districts in HB 2–intended to cover the costs of enrollment growth and state allotments such as those for extra services needed by students with disabilities, low English proficiency, and economic disadvantages–districts also would be told to raise teacher pay by "the lesser of" $3,000 per teacher or "the amount that can be provided using 44 percent of the increase in the district's maintenance and operations revenue from the 2004-2005 school year." Further, if your school district raised pay locally this year or last year to make up for the cut in the state health-care stipend, it could subtract that amount from this supposed pay raise. If this all sounds pretty shifty, that's because it is. This purported pay raise lacks crucial guarantees that were built into the $3,000 pay raise of 1999. On that occasion, the legislature wrote into the law extremely strict provisions to ensure that the $3,000 was a net gain on top of whatever your school district would have paid you in the next school year. And when that bill passed it had a guaranteed funding source. Neither one of these crucial elements is present in the sham pay raise tentatively adopted. While this move may have been slick enough to get the House leadership out of a tight spot in the floor debate today, it is likely to backfire as teachers learn that (a) the money for this raise has yet to be found and (b) even if the money is found there is no guarantee of receiving $3,000 above current pay. State Representative Marc Veasey of Fort Worth called UEA today to let us know that he and State Representative Lon Burnam of Fort Worth voted against the $3000 pay raise amendment because it was a sham amendment. He said he supports teacher pay raises and will vote on any amendment with a raise that is truly funded. Besides concocting the illusory pay raise, the House voted by a margin of 77 to 70 against restoring the $1,000 health-care stipend for all school employees. This fight will go on, and Rep. Jose Menendez, Democrat of San Antonio, deserves credit for offering the necessary amendment and pressing the legislature to keep its promise. The House briefly rebelled against Rep. Grusendorf and Speaker Craddick on the issue of funding equity, voting 75 to 73 on a motion by Republican Rep. Charlie Geren to kill part of the bill allowing funding disparities to widen. But Speaker Craddick's team quickly twisted arms and forced a reversal of that vote by a 75-to-72 margin. We will keep you up to date when there are further developments. UEA/TFT notice These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| POLICY CHANGE ON INTERVENTION PLANS/ WIN FOR PYRAMID SUBSTITUTES In FWISD | From the United Educators Association Wednesday, March 9, 2005 Subject: Policy Change on Intervention Plans Subject: Win for Pyramid Substitutes: Last night the Board of Trustees took a big step in protecting teachers from unfair retaliation. The Board voted to change Board Policy DNA. Before the change, the policy said: In order to assist a teacher about whom an appraiser has a concern, the appraiser may place the teacher on an intervention plan at any time during the school year. UEA filed a number of grievances charging that the policy not only violated state PDAS rules, but was being used in some cases as retaliation by some administrators. UEA won those cases. In the background notes to the Board, the Superintendent stated, “House Bill 1440 was passed by the 78th Legislature and become effective with the 2003-2004 school year. This new state law made it possible for the Board to determine when teachers would be evaluated and provided the option of evaluating teacher performance less frequently than annually. Staff reviewed the Legislative action and recommended revisions to Board Policy DNA (Local), which were approved and adopted by the Board on January 13, 2004. In the revisions, a section titled “Intervention Plan” was taken from legal policy, modified, and incorporated into the local policy. Upon further examination, the change in text is found to be misleading and erroneous. Consequently, another revision is being recommended at this time. The new policy will state the following: An intervention plan may be developed at any time at the discretion of the appraiser when the appraiser has documentation that would potentially produce an evaluation of rating of “below expectations” or “unsatisfactory.” This should slow down some of the misuse of the intervention procedures. To all Pyramid Substitutes: UEA and FWISD have reached a settlement on a grievance filed by the association on behalf of all Pyramid Substitutes. On January 3, 2005, Pyramid Substitutes were required to attend a meeting for half-a-day. They were told that there would be no pay for their attendance. UEA then filed a grievance seeking pay for this required attendance. The District has agreed with us that they should be paid. UEA and the Administration are working on just when Pyramid Substitutes will receive their pay. |
| Reception for Dr. Melody A. Johnson | From the United Educators Association March 7, 2005 FWISD employees, parents and community residents are invited to attend a reception for Dr. Melody A. Johnson. See details below: Finalist for FWISD Superintendent Friday, March 11 from 4-6 p.m. Wilkerson-Greines Activity Center 5201 C.A. Roberson (I-20 and Wichita behind the FWISD bus barn) |
| House Leadership Plans to Vote HB 2 Out | From the United Educators Association MARCH 7, 2005 Legislative Update from UEA and TFT* The first phase of the fight on school finance will appear on the House of Representatives floor on Tuesday, March 8, 2005. According to the current schedule, the House leadership plans to vote HB 2 out at that time. Make no doubt about it; this is a very bad bill. We are encouraged by the groundswell of public opposition to this legislation. (Email addresses and phone numbers can be found below.) The Austin American-Statesman said: "You know a bill is bad when teachers, school boards, school administrators, and PTAs--groups that have a hard time agreeing on anything--all oppose it." The Houston Chronicle said: "The Texas House Public Education Committee's party-line vote to approve an education bill made legislative leaders' priorities very clear: Property tax relief trumps adequate public school funding.... This week, education committee Chairman Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, pushed through his committee a bill that recycles aspects of failed funding schemes and invites another court challenge for failing to meet the constitutional requirement for adequate funding." The Dallas Morning News has called on the state's business community to join a united education community in opposing this bill. Press conferences around the state have brought community groups and educator groups together to say "no" to HB 2. · HB 2 creates a pay-for-performance incentive program that ties educator pay increases to student test scores. This program will put a greater emphasis on testing and limit teachers’ time and ability to teach students all the skills that will make them successful citizens. · HB 2 increases testing and accountability requirements and creates several unnecessary new programs without studying the effectiveness of the current system. · HB 2 does not restore the massive cuts in education funding made during the last legislative session. · HB 2 eliminates the $1,000 health care supplement for all public school employees and uses that money to provide a one-time $500 pay raise for only classroom teachers, librarians, nurses and counselors. (This will result next year in a loss of $500 for all non-teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors.) · HB 2 exempts highly rated school districts from state regulations such as, class-size limits, certification requirements, teacher contract rights as well as teacher benefits such as duty-free lunch and planning time. House members need your help to stand up to this pressure and tell the speaker "no." If House members vote for the current version of HB 2 just to "move the process forward," their vote will be counted as an endorsement of the upside-down priorities built into this bill. So call and email your member of the Texas House! Use the toll-free number to the state capitol switchboard: 1-888-836-8368. Just give your House member's name and ask to be connected to his or her capitol office. Email your legislator at the following email addresses: Legislative email addresses State Representative Rob Orr rob.orr@house.state.tx.us Phil King phil.king@house.state.tx.us Charlie Geren charlie.geren@house.state.tx.us Anna Mowery anna.mowery@house.state.tx.us Lon Bunam lon.burnam@house.state.tx.us Marc Veasey marc.veasey@house.state.tx.us Kent Grusendorf kent.grusendorf@house.state.tx.us Toby Goodman toby.goodman@house.state.tx.us Bill Zedler bill.zedler@house.state.tx.us Bob Griggs bob.griggs@house.state.tx.us Vicki Truitt vicki.truitt@house.state.tx.us Todd Smith todd.smith@house.state.tx.us Myra Crownover myra.crownover@house.state.tx.us Burt Solomons burt.solomons@house.state.tx.us Brian McCall brian.mccall@house.state.tx.us Jerry Madden jerry.madden@house.state.tx.us James Keffer james.keffer@house.state.tx.us Ray Allen ray.allen@house.state.tx.us State Senators Jane Nelson jane.nelson@senate.state.tx.us Chris Harris chris.harris@senate.state.tx.us Kim Brimer kim.brimer@senate.state.tx.us Craig Estes craig.estes@senate.state.tx.us Florence Shapiro florence.shapiro@senate.state.tx.us Kip Averitt kip.averitt@senate.state.tx.us UEA/TFT notice: These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| Meeting Time for Mansfield ISD Work Session on Employees' Child Transfer Policy | The Mansfield ISD Board of Trustees Work Session on the Employees' Child Transfer Policy will begin at 6:30pm on Monday, March 7th. The meeting will be held in the MISD Board Room. Yesterday's e-mail did not include the time. |
| Social Security & TRS Workshops | From the United Educators Association THURSDAY MARCH 3, 2005 The following SS & TRS workshops are scheduled for the UEA Member Center, please call 817-572-1082 TO R.S.V.P. Saturdays 9:00 till Noon : March 5, April 2, May 14 Sunday 1:00 till 4:00 April 10th The workshops are held at the UEA Member Center, 4900 S.E. Loop 820 Suite 204, at the Anglin Drive Exit. Center is located on the south side of the highway on the service road. Call the UEA office 817-572-1082 or email: penney@ueatexas.com if you have any questions. $25.00 for Non Members UEA Members Free |
| Lobby Day in Austin | From the United Educators Association THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2005 On Monday, March 14, 2005 (first day of Spring Break) UEA members will join with members of the Fort Worth Education Association/TSTA/NEA to travel to Austin. Once there, we will join with members of the Texas Federation of Teachers to lobby against House Bill 2. House Bill 2 could be considered a start for improving education, but it lacks so many things that are needed and contains other items such as merit pay for a few while providing no raise for most. This bill would also cut the $500 support employees are presently receiving for health insurance. Also, legislation in the Senate would require school employees to be at least 60 years old before they could retire with full benefits. In addition, it would require school employees to pay more for insurance. We will be leaving from the FWEA/TSTA building at 7:30 sharp on Monday, March 14, and returning later that afternoon. Lunch will be provided. If you would like to join us, please RSVP to spoole@ueatexas.com by Wednesday, March 10th. |
| Child Transfer Policy in Mansfield ISD | From the United Educators Association MARCH 2, 2005 The Mansfield ISD Board of Trustees will be holding a Work Session on Monday March 7th to discuss the Employees' Child Transfer Policy. The meeting will be held in the MISD Board Room. The meeting is open to the public. |
| Time to Say NO to a Bad Education Bill TRS Benefits Under Attack | From the United Educators Association MARCH 2, 2005 UEA/TFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE* Time to Say No to a Bad Education Bill; TRS Benefits Also Under Attack The Battle Over House Bill 2 Moves to the Floor–Time to Speak Out: The House Public Education Committee yesterday by a margin of six to three voted to send a bad education bill to the full House. The bill: (1) fails to undo more than $3 billion in damage done to schools and schoolchildren last session; (2) doesn't even begin to provide the added $5 billion a year needed to meet state standards and performance targets; (3) offers "merit pay" schemes instead of an across-the-board pay hike; (4) steers money unfairly away from schools with high percentages of high-need students; and (5) imposes an outright pay cut on 300,000 school support personnel, by abolishing what's left of the health-care stipend instead of restoring the full $1,000 as promised in law. There are many other reasons to oppose the bill, but you get the idea. Democratic Reps. Scott Hochberg of Houston, Rene Oliveira of Brownsville, and Harold Dutton of Houston all deserve our thanks for voting "no" on this bill in committee yesterday. TRS Benefits Under Attack: The Senate Finance Committee, which is drafting the budget bill for the next two fiscal years, voted today to erode TRS benefits in several significant ways and to continue shifting costs of TRS-Care, the retiree health plan, onto active employees, their school districts, and retirees themselves. The committee voted for a plan by Sen. Robert Duncan, Republican of Lubbock, that would: –Impose a minimum age of 60 for retirement with full pension benefits, even if you otherwise would qualify for unreduced benefits by satisfying the rule of 80. This would be a major erosion of state benefits for retired school employees. The stated aim is to "eliminate subsidized retirement" for those under 60. –Put another Band-Aid, largely at employee expense, on the state's health-care plan for retired school employees. Under the Duncan plan, active employees would see their payroll deduction for TRS-Care climb to 0.65 percent from the current half of a percent; retirees would take another hit from premium and other cost increases, adding 7.28 percent to their out-of-pocket expenses for health care; and school districts would see their contribution go to 0.55 percent. This scheme would continue the trend started last session of unloading state obligations onto employees and local taxpayers. This time 75 percent of the shortfall of $233 million for TRS-Care would be shifted onto active and retired employees and school districts. –Continue the 90-day delay in state contributions to TRS after school employees are newly hired, which is the tricky way lawmakers have found to dodge a prohibition on cutting state contributions below the constitutional minimum of 6 percent of school payrolls. –The Duncan plan does offer to increase the state contribution rate to 6.12 percent–but that is only a small fraction of the increase in the contribution rate that would be needed (to 7.31 percent) to allow benefit increases to be considered again. How to Contact your Legislator: UEA encourages you to contact your legislator. It is important to let them know your views on public education and retirement issues. Below are e-mail addresses for local legislators. UEA strongly encourages you to contact your elected officials using non-school computers and during non-school time. State Representative Rob Orr rob.orr@house.state.tx.us Phil King phil.king@house.state.tx.us Charlie Geren charlie.geren@house.state.tx.us Anna Mowery anna.mowery@house.state.tx.us Lon Bunam lon.burnam@house.state.tx.us Marc Veasey marc.veasey@house.state.tx.us Kent Grusendorf kent.grusendorf@house.state.tx.us Toby Goodman toby.goodman@house.state.tx.us Bill Zedler bill.zedler@house.state.tx.us Bob Griggs bob.griggs@house.state.tx.us Vicki Truitt vicki.truitt@house.state.tx.us Todd Smith todd.smith@house.state.tx.us Myra Crownover myra.crownover@house.state.tx.us Burt Solomons burt.solomons@house.state.tx.us Brian McCall brian.mccall@house.state.tx.us Jerry Madden jerry.madden@house.state.tx.us James Keffer james.keffer@house.state.tx.us Ray Allen ray.allen@house.state.tx.us State Senators Jane Nelson jane.nelson@senate.state.tx.us Chris Harris chris.harris@senate.state.tx.us Kim Brimer kim.brimer@senate.state.tx.us Craig Estes craig.estes@senate.state.tx.us Florence Shapiro florence.shapiro@senate.state.tx.us Kip Averitt kip.averitt@senate.state.tx.us UEA/TFT notice These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| Social Security & TRS Workshops | From the United Educators Association Monday, February 28, 2005 Peggy Buttner has scheduled the following workshops covering SS and TRS. Saturday 9:00 to NOON March 5th and April 2nd Sunday 1:00 to 4:00 April 10th and May 14th No charge for UEA members. $25.00 will be charged for NON UEA members at the door.. Reservations are not required. The workshops are held at the UEA Member Center which is located at 4900 Southeast Loop 820 (I/20) in Fort Worth near Anglin drive exit. A map to the center can be found at the following website: http://www.ueatexas.com/location/location.htm Hope to see you there. Call the UEA office if you have questions. |
| CCC (Campus Coordinating Committee) Training/Assistance | From the United Educators Association Monday, February 28, 2005 Subject: CCC (Campus Coordinating Committee) Training/Assistance UEA has scheduled four training sessions and last session is tomorrow for Campus Coordinating Committees. The purpose of this training is to provide guidance and support to all CCC leaders and members. If you are a CCC Chair and/or member, you are invited to attend. You do not have to be a UEA member to attend this training session. Session Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2005 @ 4:00 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE BOTANIC GARDENS MEETING CENTER OFF N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE We hope that you and your team will attend one of these sessions. Light snacks and drinks will be provided. Call the UEA office, 817-572-1082, if. you have any questions |
| Meeting With Providence School Employees & Union Leaders | From the United Educators Association FEBRUARY 25, 2005 On Thursday, February 24, 2005, UEA Executive Director Larry Shaw and Deputy Executive Director Steven Poole flew to Providence, Rhode Island. The purpose of the trip was to meet with the Providence School District’s employees and their Union leaders to find out their thoughts on Dr. Melodie Johnson who is destined to become the next Superintendent of the Fort Worth ISD. The report from the employees and the Union leaders was positive. That evening Mr. Shaw and Mr. Poole also attended the Providence School District’s monthly school board meeting. On Friday, February 25, 2005 Mr. Shaw and Mr. Poole also met with Dr. Johnson. The meeting with Dr. Johnson went very well and UEA looks forward to working with Dr. Johnson. |
| Planning & Preparation Periods | From the United Educators Association FEBRUARY 21, 2005 During the final months of school, teachers will be asked to participate in many, many activities. These activities might include benchmark testing, TAKS testing, field trips, end-of-school presentations and so much more. It should be remembered that Section 21.404 of the Texas Education Code says: "Each classroom teacher is entitled to at least 450 minutes within each two-week period for instructional preparation, including parent-teacher conferences, evaluating student work, and planning. A planning and preparation period under this section may not be less than 45 minutes within the instructional day. During a planning and preparation period, a classroom teacher may not be required to participate in any other activity." This law does not provide exceptions for the activities listed above. Therefore, planning periods have to be provided for teachers even if such activities are taking place. They do not have to be at the scheduled time, but they have to be "replaced" within the two-week (10 school days) time period that the original planning period was missed. Remember if you are getting more than 450 minutes in a two-week period (such as 55 minutes a day), it is possible to lose a planning period and still get at least 450 during that time. |
| Social Security Fairness Gaining Support Disarray on School Finance | From the United Educators Association FEBRUARY 21, 2005 UEA/TFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE* Social Security Fairness Gaining Support; Disarray on School Finance Social Security Fairness: The Social Security Fairness Act in Congress, H.R. 147, has picked up another dozen cosponsors last week, including the 14th Texan to sign onto the bill. Rep. Charles Gonzalez, Democrat of San Antonio, is the latest Texan to stand up for Texas school employees against two insidious offsets of earned Social Security benefits known as the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset. The bipartisan Fairness Act would repeal these offsets outright, protecting the rightful retirement benefits of hundreds of thousands of school employees (and other public servants across the country. The 14 Texans who now have signed up as cosponsors of H.R. 147 are: Ron Paul, Republican of Surfside Randy Neugebauer, Republican of Lubbock Gene Green, Democrat of Houston Michael Burgess, Republican of Irving Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Houston Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Austin Chet Edwards, Democrat of Waco Solomon Ortiz, Democrat of Corpus Christi Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat of Dallas Henry Bonilla, Republican of San Antonio Ralph Hall, Republican of Rockwall John Carter, Republican of Round Rock Ruben Hinojosa, Democrat of Mercedes Charles Gonzalez, Democrat of San Antonio If your member of the U.S. House is not on that list, you know what to do: Call his or her office via the new TFT toll-free line to the U.S. Capitol, 1-866-327-8670, and ask him or her to cosponsor the bill and press the House leadership for a prompt vote on it. You also can send a letter to your member of the House on this issue, from the TFT Web site, www.tft.org. Disarray on School Finance in Texas House: Hearings continue in the Texas House Public Education Committee on HB 2, the omnibus bill on school finance and "related matters." The focus in the full committee is still on the "related matters," such as the bill's mandate to start school after Labor Day and to force all school-board elections to be held in November. The finance part of the bill as filed was so full of errors and left so many questions unanswered that it was sent last week for repairs to a subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Scott Hochberg, Democrat of Houston. Chairman Hochberg has voiced his frustration with the task of drafting necessary amendments and dealing with tough questions without either a viable bill text to amend or viable instructions on the amounts of money available. The latter is a key point. The "new, improved" funding formulas in HB 2 as introduced would reduce dramatically the proportion of aid flowing for services to high-need students--the economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and students with low English proficiency. Fixing that problem could require a big infusion of additional money. UEA/TFT notice These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| Another Update on Superintendent Dr. Melody Johnson | From the United Educators Association Wednesday, February 18, 2005 We have just talked to the leadership of the Providence, Rhode Island union. They tell us they have an excellent relationship with Melanie Johnson and that she works well with teachers and teacher leaders. |
| Another Finalist for Superintendent in the FWISD Dr. Melody Johnson | From the United Educators Association Wednesday, February 18, 2005 Again, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has identified another finalist for FWISD Superintendent. Dr. Melody Johnson is currently the Superintendent of Providence, Rhode Island schools. She has also served as Associate Superintendent of San Antonio ISD. She received her Master's Degree from Texas Woman's University and her doctorate from University of Texas. We have contacted the Providence Teacher Union to get more information. Dr. Bill Koehler, president of FWISD School Board, said they would more than likely decide on a finalist for superintendent next week. See Also: |
| Candidates for Superintendent in the FWISD Dr. Jesus Chavez | From the United Educators Association Wednesday, February 16, 2005 In today’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram is an article about one of the two possible candidates for Superintendent of FWISD. His name is Jesus Chavez, presently the Superintendent of Corpus Christi ISD. We have checked with our counterpart in Corpus Christi to find out their feelings about Mr. Chavez. Linda Bridges, President of the Corpus Christi Federation of Teachers tells us, “They would hate to lose him.” She tells us that he works well with the Federation (Corpus’s largest teacher association) and that he holds administrators responsible for ensuring that teachers are provided an environment where good learning can take place. According to the newspaper, there may be another candidate as well. We are trying to find out who that might be. See Also: |
| Upcoming Workshops Reminder | From the United Educators Association Wednesday, February 02, 2005 Subject: CCC (Campus Coordinating Committee) Training/Assistance UEA is scheduling four training sessions and/or assistance for Campus Coordinating Committees. The purpose of this training is to provide guidance and support to all CCC leaders and members. If you are a CCC Chair and/or member, you are invited to attend. You do not have to be a UEA member to attend this training session. Session Dates: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 @ 4:00 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. Tuesday, March 1, 2005 @ 4:00 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. THESE MEETINGS WILL BE HELD AT THE BOTANIC GARDENS MEETING CENTER OFF N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE We hope that you and your team will attend one of these sessions. Light snacks and drinks will be provided. |
| Upcoming Workshops | From the United Educators Association Friday, February 04, 2005 UEA has scheduled the following workshops: Doing Well on your Evaluation Saturday, February 12, 9:30-10:30 a.m. Special children in the regular classroom Saturday, February 12 , 10:30-11:30 a.m. Ideas for Good Teaching (Discipline, Teaching Without Failure,Working with Parents) Saturday, February 19th 9:00 a.m.-noon Each workshop is approved for SBEC credit and many qualify for comp time provided by some school districts. There is no charge for any UEA instructional workshop. You do not have to be a member to attend. Reservations are not required. The workshops are held at the UEA Member Center which is located at 4900 Southeast Loop 820 (I/20) in Fort Worth. A map to the center can be found at the following website: http://www.ueatexas.com/location/location.htm |
| Location of Training Sessions | From the United Educators Association Thursday, February 03, 2005 Yesterday, Wednesday, Februrary 02, 2005, we sent out a message (please see below) relating to upcoming training sessions for Campus Coordinating Committees (CCCs). We forget to mention where the meetings will be held. Each meeting listed below will be held at the Botanic Gardens off University Drive. Please make note of the place of this meeting. Sorry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: CCC (Campus Coordinating Committee) Training/Assistance UEA is scheduling four training sessions and/or assistance for Campus Coordinating Committees. The purpose of this training is to provide guidance and support to all CCC leaders and members. If you are a CCC Chair and/or member, you are invited to attend. You do not have to be a UEA member to attend this training session. Session Dates: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 @ 4:00 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. Tuesday, March 1, 2005 @ 4:00 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. Botanic Gardens off University Drive. We hope that you and your team will attend one of these sessions. Light snacks and drinks will be provided. |
CCC (Campus Coordinating Committee) Training/Assistance | From the United Educators Association Wednesday, February 02, 2005 Subject: CCC (Campus Coordinating Committee) Training/Assistance UEA is scheduling four training sessions and/or assistance for Campus Coordinating Committees. The purpose of this training is to provide guidance and support to all CCC leaders and members. If you are a CCC Chair and/or member, you are invited to attend. You do not have to be a UEA member to attend this training session. Session Dates: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 @ 4:00 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. Tuesday, March 1, 2005 @ 4:00 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. We hope that you and your team will attend one of these sessions. Light snacks and drinks will be provided. |
| Voucher Lobby Strikes Fast | From the United Educators Association And the Texas Federation of Teachers (see statement below) Monday, January 31, 2005 Voucher lobby strikes fast: It looks as if the private-school voucher lobby wants to strike quickly this session in the Texas House, pushing a bill containing a voucher program to the floor as an "emergency" matter. Gov. Rick Perry, Republican of Haskell, paved the way with a call for vouchers in his "state of the state" speech this week. The governor pressed all the rhetorical buttons signaling support for vouchers, claiming that students are "trapped" in "failing" schools run by a "monopoly"--by which he means your neighborhood school. The only answer, said Perry, is "school choice"--as if a wide array of choices did not already exist within the public schools. The Speaker of the House, Republican Rep. Tom Craddick of Midland, meanwhile reportedly has been squeezing House members in back-room meetings at the capitol to back a draft education "reform" bill containing private-school vouchers. Craddick and his lieutenants are saying they want to bring this measure to a vote as early in February as possible. Another voucher bill already referred to the House Public Education Committee is HB 12 by Rep. Frank Corte, Republican of San Antonio. Corte's bill is portrayed as a limited-scale, pilot voucher program, but in fact it would introduce vouchers on a massive scale in major urban districts, at huge expense to Texas taxpayers. With the voucher push starting early and the capitol already crawling with hired-gun voucher lobbyists, it is time RIGHT NOW for all of us to start pushing back hard with letters and calls to our legislators. You will find an anti-voucher letter on the TFT Web site at http://www.tft.org/ Just click on the prompt to "visit the legislative action center," and you'll find the anti-voucher letter ready for you to send straight from the TFT Web site to your state representative and state senator. You also can call your legislators on the TFT toll-free line to the state capitol switchboard: 1-888-836-8368. Just give the name of your state rep or state senator to the capitol operator and ask to be connected to that legislator's office. Do not doubt the impact of your letters and phone calls. Exactly this type of grass-roots campaign has stopped the voucher lobby in its tracks session after session. Here's a preview of the anti-voucher letter: We urge you to oppose public funding for private-school vouchers or voucher equivalents. Vouchers in any form would drain taxpayer dollars from public education at a time when our public schools already face a budget crisis. Voucher legislation would erode the foundation of our state's success in public education--the funding needed to help our students meet high standards. Every dollar siphoned away for private-school vouchers would be taken from the funding pool that could pay for smaller class sizes, extra help for at-risk students, and better compensation to reduce the teacher shortage. The claim that Texas schoolchildren are "trapped" in failed neighborhood public schools is false. The fact is that only a tiny handful of neighborhood schools have been rated low-performing for even two years. The consistently failing schools are charter schools--privately run operations that already have cost Texas taxpayers more than $1 billion and that offer just a foretaste of what a private-school voucher program would look like. If parents want higher academic standards, their children are clearly better off attending the regular public schools. The truth is that the push for private-school vouchers is not about helping parents choose better schools for their children. It's about money. It's about taking money away from public schools to fund for-profit schools, including "virtual schools" offering classes over the Internet and home schooling. Vote no on vouchers! Vote instead for a proven model of educational progress: high standards for neighborhood public schools back up by the funding needed to help all our students meet those high standards. To find your legislator, go to this website: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| House Committees Named | From the United Educators Association and the Texas Federation of Teachers Friday, January 28, 2005 House Committees Named Will Play Key Roles in School Finance, Education "Reform House Speaker Tom Craddick, Republican of Midland, handed out committee assignments to state representatives yesterday, setting the stage for what may be a fast start in committee next week on separate bills addressing school finance and school "reform." (Contrary to expectations, Senate committee assignments were not announced yesterday by the lieutenant governor.) The House Public Education Committee will be chaired again this session by Rep. Kent Grusendorf, Republican of Arlington. The chairman's wish list for a catch-all "reform" package by all accounts once again will include measures that failed to pass in previous sessions: private-school vouchers, take-aways of teachers' contract rights, and so-called "pay for performance" policies offering selective pay raises for a small minority of teachers, based on criteria yet to be determined. A direct challenge to the chairman's priorities will come from the returning vice-chair of the committee, Rep. Rene Oliveira, Democrat of Brownsville, judging by the school-finance plan Oliveira announced today. Rep. Oliveira proposes a $3,000 across-the-board pay raise for all teachers. He also would provide significant new funding capacity for local school districts and would steer substantial resources into education programs that suffered cuts in the 2003 legislative session. The other seven members of the House Public Education Committee are as follows: Dan Branch, Republican of Dallas (Highland Park) Harold Dutton, Democrat of Houston Anna Mowery, Republican of Fort Worth Dianne Delisi, Republican of Temple Rob Eissler, Republican of The Woodlands Scott Hochberg, Democrat of Houston Bill Keffer, Republican of Dallas Mowery, Delisi, and Keffer are all new to the committee this session. If you live in the district of any of these nine members of the House Public Education Committee, you now have a special role to play as a grass-roots lobbyist. Speaker Craddick's current plan reportedly is to try to move a school-revenue bill and Rep. Grusendorf's "reform" package to the floor as separate bills. The revenue bill would come from the House Ways and Means Committee, which will be chaired by Rep. Jim Keffer, Republican of Eastland. The others on that committee are: Mike Villarreal, vice-chair, Democrat of San Antonio Al Edwards, Democrat of Houston Kent Grusendorf, Republican of Arlington John Smithee, Republican of Amarillo Vilma Luna, Democrat of Corpus Christi Ken Paxton, Republican of Frisco (in Collin County, north of Dallas) Allan Ritter, Democrat of Nederland (near Beaumont) Beverly Woolley, Republican of Houston Please stay on the lookout for hotline messages and special action alerts to contact your state representative. These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| Fort Worth ISD "Student Success Initiative Mid-year Progress Report" | From the United Educators Association Friday, January 28, 2005 Late Thursday, January 28, 2005, UEA received several calls regarding the requirement that many elementary teachers are being required to complete a report titled “Student Success Initiative Mid-year Progress Report” by MONDAY, JANUARY 31 OR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1. We have discussed our concerns regarding the lack of proper time to complete this report with Robert Ray, Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools. He offered his apologize and reset the due date to February 11, 2005. We appreciate Mr. Ray’s understanding. |
| Back to Work | From the United Educators Association January 26, 2005 Back to work… State Senators and Representatives returned to Austin after taking a week off for the inauguration of President Bush. The Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House should announce Senate and House committee members and leaders shortly. This will be the real start of the session. We expect few changes in the Senate because most of the State Senators were reelected. However, not the same can be said for the House of Representatives. Almost everyone expects Representative Kent Grusendorf (R-Arlington) to remain chair of the Public Education Committee. Rule of 80 vs. 90… We are still getting calls about a possible change in the rule of 80 for retirement. Under the rule of 80, a public education employee qualifies for retirement when their age and years of experience equals or exceeds the total of 80. Several bills have been discussed, and one was introduced by Rep. Hilderbran (R-Kerrville) in the special session during the spring that would have allowed school employees to receive an enhanced annuity if they chose to work until they met the rule of 90. The enhanced annuity would be determined by using a 2.5% multiplier, instead of the current 2.3%. This would result in a larger lifetime annuity for public school employees who taught longer than the rule of 80. As of yet, there has been little public discussion of the issue, nor has a bill been filed to change the Rule of 80 during this session. Social Security Fairness Act filed (again)… Rep. Buck McKeon (R-California) has once again filed the Social Security Fairness Act (HR 147). HR 147 is identical to HR 594 (from the 108th Congress) and would repeal the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). These are two provisions in present Social Security law that hurts Texas educators. HR 147 already has 122 Congressmen signed on as cosponsors. Cosponsors from Texas are Henry Bonilla, Michael Burgess, Lloyd Doggett, Chet Edwards, Gene Green, Ralph Hall, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Randy Neugebauer, Solomon Ortiz, and Ron Paul. Please urge Members of Congress who are not on the list to cosponsor this important legislation! HR 594 (now reintroduced as HR 147) died in committee at the end of the 108th Congress after the discharge petition filed by former U.S. Rep. Jim Turner fell 25 signatures short of forcing a floor vote on the bill. These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| Tuesday's Teaching Tip:
| From the United Educators Association January 25, 2005 We have one winner today, FARRELL LACKEY, KEENE I.S.D., Language Arts Teacher at Keene Intermediate School. Farrell will receive $25.00 for sharing this tip with his colleagues. THE OFFICE I have a ticket system that I use in my classroom as an incentive for students to carefully read and correct proofreading worksheets. I call these proofreading activities, “Earn Your Paycheck.” I separate the students into four groups. Each group is an “office.” Each office has a “boss” (group leader) that helps facilitate the group. Offices are given eight minutes to find ten grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors in a specific article. The groups are allowed one “supervisor” visit (the teacher) to assist with one answer. They work together in their groups, discuss their findings and make group decisions on the errors found. At the end of the eight minutes, all offices must shut down and return to their desks. Students trade papers and grade the articles as I read it aloud with the correct answers. Once all grades are written on the sheets, it is time to pass out paychecks. For a 100, you receive a full paycheck of 10 tickets. If you missed one answer, then you receive a partial paycheck of 5 tickets. Missing more than one results in no paycheck. Students collect their tickets throughout the week and “spend” their money at a small “store” that I set up in my room with little items for purchase on Fridays. This idea has really sparked motivation in my kids, plus, we have a lot of fun doing it. -Farrell Lackey, Keene Intermediate School, Keene I.S.D. (4th Grade) |
| The Bills Pile Up | From the United Educators Association January 24, 2005 Bills Piling Up in Texas Legislature, But Committees Not Yet Named to Hear Them Though the Texas legislature was in recess all this week and committees are not likely to be named until next week at the earliest, a steady stream of bills continues to be filed. Here's a sampling of measures that have caught our attention. How far any of these bills go in the 18 weeks remaining in this legislative process remains to be seen, but we're keeping an eye on them, and we'll keep you informed. (Next week the hotline will report on other bills of interest.) SB 221 by Sen. Judith Zaffirini, Democrat of Laredo, would authorize students to possess and self-administer medicine at school to deal with anaphylaxis, a condition often involving constriction of the airways caused by an allergic reaction. The common medical treatment for anaphylaxis is an injection of epinephrine, a drug that relaxes muscles in the airways. Epinephrine can be a life-saving drug, but self-administration can be hazardous, too, if the automatic-injection device is used incorrectly or inappropriately--a not unlikely scenario for a child who may already be in the throes of anaphylaxis. TFT's School Nurse Task Force will be taking a close look at this legislation and at alternative ways to protect students' health and safety. SB 205 by Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, Democrat of San Antonio, would require students' report cards to include the student's "body mass index," and for those students whose BMI is identified as "above normal" the school district would have to provide information to their parents on the ill effects of obesity. This bill is another that our School Nurse Task Force will review, again with an eye on alternatives that might better serve the senator's intended purpose. Another bill of particular interest to school nurses is HB 443 by Rep. Harold Dutton, Democrat of Houston, which would provide full-time school nurses with the same statutory guarantee of a duty-free lunch period that currently applies only to classroom teachers and full-time librarians. HB 517 by Rep. Ryan Guillen, Democrat of Rio Grande City, aims to tighten the requirement of physical activity for students in grades K-6. The bill says that time spent by a student walking from one class to another, or to or from a school bus, or engaging in other routine activities would not count toward compliance with the daily requirement of 30 minutes of physical activity promulgated by the State Board of Education. HB 386 by Rep. Bryan McCall, Republican of Plano, would entitle home-schooled students to take selected courses, including online courses, and receive other services from public schools without being required to take TAKS exams, in any school district that chooses to offer such services. At the local district's option, the bill also would entitle home-schooled students to take part in a school's sports and other extracurricular programs without meeting the "no pass, no play" requirement of state law. The bill allows extracurricular participation by a home-schooled student who was ineligible under "no pass, no play" when he or she quit going full-time to public school--based on an affidavit from the student's home-school "instructor" affirming good academic performance. These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| So much for promises! | From the United Educators Association Tuesday, January 19, 2004 Legislative Budget Plans: Not a Good Start for Education Employees' Health Care On Friday the initial budget plan supported by top state officials was filed as a starting point for deciding how much the state will spend in the 2006-2007 biennium. This "base budget" plan does not include the money needed to restore the full $1,000 annual stipend for school employees' health care. Failure to restore the stipend money would violate a legislative mandate to do so as of September 1, 2005--a mandate that was passed by a two-thirds majority in the Texas Senate and a solid majority in the Texas House in May 2003. However, this legislative commitment will not be worth the paper it was written on if the legislature fails to provide the necessary money this session in SB 1, the general appropriations bill filed Friday. Today the legislature's budget experts came out with a report that formally recommends no restoration of the full $1,000 stipend, calling instead for continuation of the cuts enacted as a supposedly temporary measure in 2003. This proposal, says the Legislative Budget Board, would save the state $650 million over two years. Translation: The state would take another $650 million out of the pockets of school employees. (This report from the LBB also takes a whack at health-insurance funding for higher-education employees and state employees covered by the Employees Retirement System.) The budget message delivered by the legislative leadership Friday and today confirms what we have been saying for months: Despite legislative promises, there will be nothing automatic about restoration of the full $1,000 stipend for all school employees. We will have to work to get the legislature to do the right thing. These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) |
| Tuesday's Teaching Tip:
| From: United Educators Association January 19, 2005 We have one winner today, Jody Hodges, Aledo ISD, Aledo Middle School. Jody will receive $25.00 for sharing her tip with her colleagues. The teaching tip is: Documentation for student lack of success is essential. Knowing exactly WHY a student is not turning in work is important. When I collect homework, EVERY student must turn in a paper, regardless of whether they did their homework or not. Students who do not have their homework must write their excuse on a piece of paper. They write things such as: left my homework at home, lost my paper, forgot, went to a football game, or the dog ate it. I keep these "zero excuses" and file them once a week alphabetically in a manilla folder that I have for each student. At progress report time, I staple the "zero excuses" to the progress report and mail home. What an eye-opener for parents! No more "I turned that assignment in but the teacher must have lost it". (Ever heard that one?) This documents the zero as well as their poor excuse for NOT turning i n the work. (At times a student may have a legitimate excuse) Sometimes, students even stretch the truth and write things like, "My parents made me go to church last night and we got home late so I didn't have time to do it." Parents don't like reading excuses that are not true!!! It hasn't solved all my problems, but students think twice about not having their homework, knowing their parents are going to get these excuses in the mail. Jody Hodges Aledo Middle School |
| Conference Periods and Busy Schedules | From the United Educators Association FRIDAY January 14, 2005 During the final months of school, teachers will be asked to participate in many, many activities. These activities might include benchmark testing, TAKS testing, field trips, end-of-school presentations and so much more. It should be remembered that Section 21.404 of the Texas Education Code says: "Each classroom teacher is entitled to at least 450 minutes within each two-week period for instructional preparation, including parent-teacher conferences, evaluating student work, and planning. A planning and preparation period under this section may not be less than 45 minutes within the instructional day. During a planning and preparation period, a classroom teacher may not be required to participate in any other activity." This law does not provide exceptions for the activities listed above. Therefore, planning periods have to be provided for teachers even if such activities are taking place. They do not have to be at the scheduled time, but they have to be "replaced" within the two-week (10 school days) time period that the original planning period was missed. Remember if you are getting more than 450 minutes in a two-week period (such as 55 minutes a day), it is possible to lose a planning period and still get at least 450 during that time. |
| State Legislature Begins 140 Day Session | From the United Educators Association, THURSDAY, January 13, 2005 State Legislature Begins 140-Day Session: Action Time for Educators The 79th regular session of the Texas legislature that began this week offers both promise and peril for Texas public education and educators. Lawmakers of both parties are telling us that support is strong for restoration of the full $1,000 health-care stipend that was cut in 2003. We're also hearing from a wide spectrum of legislators that they want to increase teacher pay across the board, though by just how much is far from clear. A better-than-expected revenue forecast from the state comptroller also makes it easier for legislators to imagine they might actually pass pay and benefit improvements rather than just talk about it. On the debit side, we have yet to hear of a school-finance proposal that would deliver what our public schools require, which is billions of dollars a year in additional revenue, over and above the amounts needed to reverse the cuts made in 2003 and to keep up with enrollment growth and rising costs. When state leaders talk about school finance, they continue to give priority to cutting property taxes, not to increasing education funding by the large amounts required. Key players in the legislature also are expected to try to amend a school-finance bill with bad-news legislation such as erosion of class-size limits, arbitrary and selective "pay for performance" plans, degradation of teaching standards, attacks on contract rights for professional educators, and imposition of private-school vouchers. Your own grass-roots lobbying with lawmakers from your area can help sway the legislature toward adopting this strong, pro-education agenda. We close this hotline with some encouraging news: Aaron Peña, a Democratic state representative from Edinburg in the Rio Grande Valley, has called for a $3,000 teacher pay raise in September 2005, as the first step of a multi-phase increase, by filing HB 354 on the first day of the session. House Bill 354 would provide the $3,000 to all teachers, full-time school nurses, full-time librarians, and full-time counselors--in other words, all those covered now by the state minimum salary schedule. The funding mechanism would be exactly the same as it was for the $3,000 state pay raise enacted in 1999, with an ironclad guarantee that the increase would come on top of whatever the school district's local salary schedule would provide an educator for the 2005-2006 school year. |
| Tuesday's Teaching Tip: Students Write A Letter | From the United Educators Association January 11, 2005 There is one teaching tip winner today from your colleagues. Noemi Ogle from Arlington ISD, Remynse Elementary, Third Grade/Bilingual Teacher Noemi will receive $25.00 for sharing this teaching tip with her colleagues throughout the metroplex. The tip is: "Do you have students who fail to turn in and/or complete homework or other assignments? I did! This year I found it to be a major problem with my students. After various unsuccessful attempts such as signing assignment sheets, calling parents and students, and losing recess or other fun times, I decided to try something else. I decided that my students needed to learn the concept of accountability. Here's how I did it. One day I had all the students who failed to turn in their assignments write a letter to their parents saying specifically what work they failed to do and what the result of that failure was. The parents were to sign the child's handwritten letter and then the child would write how he was going to correct the problem. If the child did not bring the letter back, then he would make a personal call to his or her parent. For most students, it only took one time of doing this to correct the problem. I still use this, but it's very rare that I need to. However, I am consistent. If a student does not turn in his work, then he writes the accountability letter. It's amazing how it has worked. I now have generally a 100% return on homework." Noemi Ogle (UEA recommends you speak with your principal before implementing changes in your classroom procedures.) |
| Social Security Fairness Act | From the United Educators Association Monday, January 10, 2005 With the Legislature beginning on January 11, UEA is once again sending our legislative email updates to thousands of North Texas educators. These emails are sent to public school employees with the goal of keeping everyone informed. We work with the Texas Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers to have a greater impact on legislation at those levels. (We are more than willing to work with other groups, including--but not limited to--school boards, other associations, retired school employees, PTA/PTO groups, just to mention a few.) From time to time, we will ask that you help by emailing your thoughts and concerns to various elected officials. (We will include their email addresses in those email newsletters.) We believe the best lobbyists for education are you and thousands of others like you who are directly impacted by what our elected officials do. We hope that together we can make good things happen for our children. Today’s Topics: 1. Social Security Fairness Act Returns; 2. Leaders Still Putting Emphasis on Tax Shifts 1. Social Security Fairness Act: Making good on his promise, California Republican Congressman Howard "Buck" McKeon reintroduced the Social Security Fairness Act on the first day of the new session of Congress. HR 147, the new incarnation of the Fairness Act, would repeal the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision that cut Social Security benefits for school employees and other public servants. McKeon's bill when filed had already drawn 122 cosponsors, including the following 11 out of the 32 members of the Texas delegation in the U.S. House (their names appear in the following order in the January 4 Congressional Record): Ron Paul, Republican of Surfside Randy Neugebauer, Republican of Lubbock Gene Green, Democrat of Houston Michael Burgess, Republican of Irving Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Houston Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Austin Chet Edwards, Democrat of Waco Solomon Ortiz, Democrat of Corpus Christi Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat of Dallas Henry Bonilla, Republican of San Antonio Ralph Hall, Republican of Rockwall 2. Tax Shifts Still the Top Priority of Texas Leadership: Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Republican of Houston, reportedly is circulating among state senators a proposal that would raise $7 billion annually for school finance--but his plan apparently would use nearly 80 percent of the new money merely to offset a one-third cut in school property taxes rather than to increase education spending. Just $1.5 billion a year, or $3 billion over two years, would be left over as new funding for as-yet-unspecified spending to achieve "educational excellence." Considering that it would take $3.7 billion over two years just to reverse the budget cuts and cost shifts that bludgeoned educational programs and battered school personnel in the current budget cycle, the lieutenant governor's proposal starts off about $700 million short of just getting us back to square one. In fact, increased education funding of roughly $5 billion a year is needed both to reverse the recent education cuts and to provide the increases required to meet the state's obligation to Texas schoolchildren. Once those priorities are addressed, cutting property taxes in our view would be in order as a second priority, requiring perhaps $3 billion a year to cut property taxes roughly 20 percent. |
| Fort Worth PDAS Dates For January, | From the United Educators Association January 10, 2005 Below you will find the district's calendar for PDAS dates for the month of January. It is very important that you take notice of these dates. These dates are local dates and are used as guidance for evaluators who are considering recommending a teacher for nonrenewal. These dates are not written in stone by state law or in the PDAS rules and/or regulations; they are part of local board policy. These rules USUALLY apply to teachers on probationary contracts where the District has to notify teachers 45 days before the last day of school if the teacher’s contract is going to be nonrenewed. If you feel that you are in trouble, call your association. · Jan. 6--Teacher Self-Report, Sections II and III, due to evaluator for those persons who are being recommended for termination or non-renewal. · Jan. 13--Written summative annual appraisal report must be given to any teacher being considered for termination or non-renewal. · Jan 14--No formal observation before a holiday · Jan 21--Last day for summative appraisal conference for those being considered for termination or non-renewal. · Jan 28--Last day to submit all written documentation to Human Resources on those teachers being considered for termination or non-renewal. |