Context: After a year of negotiations the Teachers' UNION declared
IMPASSE with a school district unwilling to work with and compromise with the
professionals doing the daily work in the classrooms with the children of Clay
County. A special magistrate was called upon to intercede and foster
compromise. The superintendent of Clay County, Charles Van Zant, Jr., refused to accept the
magistrate's judgement based upon the following (excerpted from his officially issued document "Employer School District Of Clay County's Objections to Special Magistrate's Recommendations):
1 1. In
rejection of the union's position that annual contract teachers be
granted job security after three consecutive highly effective
evaluations Van Zant stated “The
threshold to receive an effective rating is a 60% on the evaluation system which
is an artificially low standard established by the Clay Assessment Committee of
which union representatives constitute the majority."
The problem with his analysis here
is that the 60% percent is not an artificially low number. It is feasible to rate ineffective teachers below this number. In fact, union
representatives have approached school administrators in the past and expressed
concern regarding working conditions because of an excess of walk through
observations, both informal and formal, for teachers who continually produce
results, supported by test scores, classroom data, and prior evaluations. In addition to myriad other obligations,
quality teachers were feeling overburdened, undervalued, and unappreciated.
They felt as if they were being watched over as a parent with a child and
morale was low. When administration was
approached regarding the issue, union leaders suggested that quality teachers
be observed less frequently so bad teachers could be focused on, given due
process, and dismissed if necessary.
Administration response was to claim the observation document was too
verbose and complicated and they didn’t know how to utilize it effectively to
run bad teachers out. In other words, it
was too hard for administration to identify bad teachers and help them improve,
as superintendent Van Zant claims is the purpose of the evaluation
document. Continuing with this line of
thinking, it would also be even harder to establish a teacher’s faults and
prove them following the protocol of due process. Essentially, the Clay Assessment system isn’t
artificially low, the ability of county hired administration isn’t capable of
doing the specific job they are tasked with in this regard. A site-based analogy for those playing at home and unfamiliar with educational terminology would be akin to teachers being unable to fail incompetent students because of the teacher's inability to identify the meaning of the diction used to formulate the content specific standards they are tasked with implementing on a daily basis.
Secondly, to blame the weakness of
the evaluation document on a committee “of which union representatives
constitute the majority” is a not only a boldfaced lie but also a loaded
statement with a political agenda. The
union is NOT a majority on this committee and the culpability implied by Van Zant does not lie with the union as his statements would lead one to believe. He is intentionally distorting the truth to fit the narrative spun by his daddy and other like minds in the Florida legislature.
Furthermore, the teachers on this committee are
likely to earn an average of about $45,000 annually and are tasked with
planning, teaching, and grading daily lessons. The majority of this committee is made up of principals
who make close to six figures if not over 100,000 per year to not only
supervise but also utilize said evaluation document as their main daily priority. In
addition, the committee is led by the top ranking administrators in the
district second only to the superintendent.
These committee members are getting paid in excess of 100,000 dollars
per year and are tasked directly with the evaluation of personnel and instruction. Essentially, their job revolves around this tool that the superintendent deems "artificially" substandard. If they can’t manage to lead
a committee that creates an evaluation system that does not have “an
artificially low standard” then there are some serious questions to be
asked. The logic does not follow. The superintendent can’t have it both ways,
either the document is flawed because his appointed staff is unable to do
better or his refutation of the assessment system is unacceptable.
2 2. In
rejection of the union's position that annual contract teachers be
granted job security after three consecutive highly effective
evaluations Van Zant stated “…each
annual contract would automatically renew if the teacher receives an effective
or highly effective rating for three years.
Such automatic renewals clearly go against the intent of Florida
Statutes…”
This is simply not
true, 27 of Florida counties already have this in place and there has been no
attempt by the state to go after districts for willfully breaking the law. Van Zant goes on to say that the legislature “deliberately
removed PSC language with intent to limit teachers’ entitlement to continuous
automatic employment.” First of all, the use of the word entitlement is both insulting and intentionally provocative. The right to have a secure job and steady
means of income for those who consistently receive high evaluations and work “miracles”
with groups of children most adults would flee from after only minutes in
charge is not an entitlement. It’s been
earned. Going back and noting the fallacy of Van Zant's position on point #1, most teachers in this district are legitimately, not artificially, highly effective, and it’s not
"continuous automatic employment" to keep a job that’s been earned and is
consistently done with eminence and diligence.
If Clay County is an “A” district, then the teachers who have done the
actual work in the trenches have earned the right to keep continual employment, not question where the next meal or mortgage payment is coming from. Teachers don’t need to manipulate election
laws to secure employment, rather they do hard work and work hard at it.
A side note, but one
worthy of mentioning here, is that teachers on annual contracts don’t speak up,
fight back, or shout down bad ideas.
They go along. And when you go
along with a bad idea, you are doing a disservice to the students and local
populace. Job security is a must if you
are to do your job well because dissent can prevent failures from occurring before
they happen. And perhaps, people who
want to keep others on edge, timid, and afraid might have the sort of intentions that they
don’t want brought to light.
3 3. In rejection of the union's position that annual contract teachers be granted job security after three consecutive highly effective evaluations Van Zant stated "The
anecdotal evidence the special magistrate referenced in support of his
recommendation on this issue related to the Teacher of the Year that moved to
Alachua county is arbitrary, at best.
While no one except that teacher can cite the rationale for his leaving,
the School District notes that renewal in a “PSC-like” fashion as the union has
proposed would effectively negate what the Florida Legislature intended in
2011.”
First of all, the
teacher of the year, David Fields, has specifically stated at a school board
meeting that he feels that Alachua County can better provide job security because
they offer such protections to their teachers.
When deciding between Alachua and Clay, Dave and his wife Kendra felt
that Alachua was a far safer district to work than Clay with pending children on the way.
If she came to Clay, rather
than him going there, they did not feel confident that she could maintain
employment in a district that doesn’t value nor respect its professionals.
Secondly, to ensure future recipients of the Teacher of the Year award doesn’t prove to
be a liability for the political careers of the Superintendent and certain members
of the board, the process for selection and determination of the recipient has recently been changed so that certain voices lack a potential platform from which to speak harsh truths most seek to avoid and ignore.
4 4. Van Zant rejects the notion of teachers getting in-service credit for re-certification if they do not implement strategies from the in-service and follow up with paperwork and evidence of implementation. Van Zant states "In this regard, the School District believes
that the Florida Department of Education protocols require that follow-up
documentation should occur after implementation in cases in which the teacher
is to use a new skill or strategy as part of the ins-service training. It only makes sense that the effectiveness of
the strategy can only be measured after it is implemented. “
Logistically, there are so many things wrong with this
statement. If it “only makes sense that
the effectiveness" of anything “can only be measured after it is implemented”
then all bad ideas would have to be put into practice before issuing judgement. Telling my 11 year old son not to jump his
bicycle over a pit of hungry alligators before actually attempting it is not beyond the pale. Implementation isn’t always the path to determining
impotence. This sort of weak reasoning would preclude the existence of all management and supervisory positions. If all ideas need to be put into practice, all workers could just fling whatever they wish at the wall anytime they'd like and see what sticks. There would be no need for planning and refining, just trial and error....always.
Furthermore, to say teachers must implement a strategy in
order to be awarded the points for re-certification (125 hours every 5 years
plus a non-reimbursed fee approaching $100) is insulting and detrimental. If a college educated, experienced, classroom
professional determines that a day-long mandatory in-service training is nothing other than balderdash,
they should be awarded credit for time served.
What’s the reason for making them implement a bad idea that will just
subtract another day (days) from instruction? Competent people can smell manure when
thrown in their ugly mugs, there’s no need to feed it to the kids to ensure it is indeed ordure.
5 5. In his objection to the practice of "leapfrogging" (the practice of outsiders coming into the district coming into the district with credit for all experience while veterans loyal to the district are refused full credit for experience the superintendent states "The
School District …has had difficulties in recruiting individuals in hard to fill
positions, such as speech. “
This is an absurd
connection. There is one reason why
speech THERAPISTS do not take jobs in the county. Salary.
In the private sector, there is more money to be made, significantly more money. Furthermore, occupational therapists and physical
therapists in Clay County are on a separate pay scale than speech
therapists. The speech therapists are on
the teachers’ pay scale (even though they also require a 70-100 credit Master's Degree along with state licensing and completing a certification of clinical competence which entails over 400 clinical hours and requires an annual renewal fee). The other
therapists on the separate scale make about $25,000 per year more than speech
therapists. A speech therapist currently
working IN Clay County Schools makes 70,000 a year working for a private
contracting company. Simply put, that means that the
district is paying private speech therapists more than they would have to pay their own employees if
they would just pay their current speech therapists on the therapist salary
scale.
The reason for the
speech shortage isn’t because of “leapfrogging” but rather because Clay is
lacking vision, coherence, competence, and community in its upper
organization scheme.
6
6.
The
impasse led to the district absorbing the magistrate’s fees for composing this
report that the superintendent has rejected.
The school board will likely vote to reject it.
The teachers will likely refuse to ratify the
school board’s rejections.
That takes us
back to square one, negotiating a contract for the 15-16 school year, one that is essentially already over.
Hundreds, if not thousands of man-hours
wasted.
This translates to dollars because time
equals money, right?
So, essentially, this year
ends with absolutely no progress between management and labor at a significant cost.
Therefore, it will be the 16-17 school year
before negotiations pick up steam again and at that point it will be EIGHT (8)
years without any pay increase.
Not a raise, just a pay increase. No cost
of living, contracted step increase, nothing…nada.
Just an ever increasing inflation and rising cost of
health insurance…adjusted for real dollars, the people doing the work in the
schools of Clay have absorbed a net loss over the past decade of work while new
positions and raises have been given to those in the ivory tower.
It’s unjust at best.
It’s indescribably profane for sure.
