By Michelle Nelson
At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I must respond to the
editorial published Tuesday as well as to Lisa Pampuch’s column of
Feb. 18.
First, I am disappointed that the Dispatch did not print any of
the evidence I shared with its Editorial Board Feb. 15.
By Michelle Nelson
At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I must respond to the editorial published Tuesday as well as to Lisa Pampuch’s column of Feb. 18.
First, I am disappointed that the Dispatch did not print any of the evidence I shared with its Editorial Board Feb. 15. Insomuch as an editorial is an opinion, to ignore so much of the larger picture does the reading audience a disservice.
The charge we have filed against the district is about time, nothing more, nothing less. Lisa Pampuch, a member of the Editorial Board, wondered if the real reason we filed such a charge wasn’t really “about measuring teacher performance and keeping merit pay at bay.”
For one thing, Superintendent Edwin Diaz has stated publicly that he won’t even consider merit pay. For another, there is no mention of merit pay anywhere in the district’s Accountability Plan.
In addition, it’s the teachers who have been pushing for greater accountability in how the district measures performance. It was the district that hid behind the “not a good fit” explanation until the firing of Kristen Porter exposed that practice for all to see. It is the district that has repeatedly failed to evaluate its teachers properly, either by not following simple procedures, or not providing adequate documentation. Finally, they are beginning to document what they see, thanks to Kristen Porter, the Alliance for Academic Excellence, the teachers’ negotiating team, and, it seems ironic now, the Dispatch.
Teachers are not opposed to accountability. What we are opposed to, and have told the district for years, is continuing to add to the teachers’ plates without taking anything away.
As I shared with the Editorial Board of the Dispatch, the district administration participated in a Time Committee in 2001, whose purpose was to find the time within the day to provide staff development. What the administrators were surprised to find was that the average teaching day was already 9.5 hours. The district office administration, which is responsible for mandating programs, had no idea how much time its teachers were spending doing the basic job of preparing lessons, teaching, correcting papers, tutoring, conferencing with parents and performing other duties.
As a result of those findings, the Time Committee made several recommendations, including (1) take something off the plate before adding to it, (2) do one initiative at a time, not four or five, and (3) differentiate the staff development so that the teachers with the requisite knowledge and expertise weren’t wasting their time or the district’s money.
The very next year, the district began a 3-year, $5 million staff development plan that increased the workload. The Association conducted a survey that pointed out to the district in very specific language what practices were increasing the work and the amount of time that was being added to the day. The 39-page document was shared with the district office administration and the Board.
What was the district’s response? It formed a committee. The Association agreed to work through this committee as a means of solving problems related to time, staff development and the excessive number of assessments (tests) the district was requiring. Eventually, after months of spinning our wheels, it became clear that the committee was strictly advisory and no real solutions were forthcoming. The Association withdrew its involvement.
The lesson learned, many times over, is that relying on the district to make a good faith effort to solve a problem will create plenty of dialogue, but does not guarantee a resolution.
Having said that, we did not jump the gun this time by filing an unfair labor practice charge. This complaint is not “premature.” We had discussed the issue with the district, but knew that it could not be resolved within the narrow timeline allowed us. Neither the Association nor the district can extend the timelines and the Association has a legal obligation to protect its members if the hours and/or working conditions change. It’s that simple.
As for not having specifics, we submitted a lengthy document to the district that outlines the major areas of the contract which we felt were potential violations. Those potential violations came right from the site plans.
How much input did the teachers actually have in this “collaborative” process? Stay tuned for Part 2.
Guest columnist Michelle Nelson is the president of the Gilroy Teachers Association
