EDU members report on concerns around the district

Tom Edminster and Nina Lawitt raise some concerns about conditions in the district:

1. What are we going to do about the 1 hour/day cut in pay that security aides (“T-10’s”) experienced several years ago??

2. What shall we do about SENIORITY in our classified unit?? Whenever classified have had to change their job classification, they have LOST their SFUSD-wide seniority. UESF agreed to this. Are we ever going to rescind this attack on SENIORITY—which we went along with. RETURN to seniority by “date-of-hire” would seem rather basic.

3. Child Development/Early Childhood program: UESF opened the door to undermining conditions with a “pilot program,” but it never held SFUSD to the initial terms of the agreement. The “pilot program” was supposed to give CDP staff more hours that would in turn generate a higher yearly salary for the under-compensated CDP teachers –even though the CDP teachers were not paid the CDP per diem rate for the added hours! Yet SFUSD shortened the CDP/Early Childhood program work year from 248(218) days to 191 days. This caused a huge loss of income for CDP staff, both paras and teachers. The CDP teachers also suffered an extra loss of 6 weeks of non-service days, which had previously been a “vacation” benefit. [There will be a “Summer Session” CD/EC program but many CD/EC teachers and paras will NOT get the opportunity to work it because only certain sites will be open.]

SFUSD also reneged on pilot program commitment to a “support teacher” for every 2 classrooms. This is an issue for CD/EC workers and clients. The “support teacher” position was essential to insure adequate staff coverage during the day : allowing for meeting time, prep time and time for professional development. The lack of the “support teacher” position may be why the paras’ hours were extended to 9 hours per day by means of one extra hour, that is actually unpaid.

4. When will UESF insist on “meet and confer” with SFUSD to review ALL TESTING?? The over-testing of most students and the EROSION in instructional time, the EXTRA time put upon teachers to assess and process testing—should be contested on a SYSTEMATIC—not merely a piecemeal basis.

5. How about that “Weighted Student Formula,” which was really a formula for austerity? School sites used to be staffed based on staff to student ratios. Then-UESF Pres. Kent Mitchell cut a deal with then Superintendent Ackerman (in violation of the UESF-SFUSD contract), and thereafter school sites were funded based on a dollar amount per student, rather than SFUSD as a whole being responsible for staffing. And UESF has never looked back. AS A MATTER OF FACT, the overall student ratios for each division (34.4 students per teacher for High Schools, for example)—has been TAKEN OUT OF THE CONTRACT, as of the LAST contract agreement negotiated by the Dennis Kelly regime.