March 22 meeting

[casey]

From board docs:

Agenda for
03/22/2010 Regular Board Meeting




1. Regular Meeting - Open Session 5:00 pm
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Recess/Reconvene
3. Regular Meeting - Open Session 7:00 pm
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Pledge of Allegiance
D. Board Salutes
E. High School Student Representative Report given by Anna Ding from Metea Valley High School
4. Consent Agenda and Superintendent Report.
AA. Superintendent Report
A. Approval of Consent Agenda Items B through E.
B. 2nd Reading and Approval of Policies, Rules, Exhibits: 705.07 (Student Residency), 705.07R (Administrative Guidelines for determining Student Residency), 705.07-E4 (Notice of Determination of Non-Residency), 705.07-E5 (Preliminary Notice of Non-Residency), 291 (Access to the District's Public Records), 291-E-1 (Record Request Form), 291-E-2 (Compliance Form), 291-E-3 (Denial Form), 291-E-4 (Notice of Intent to Deny), 291-E-5 (Notice of Extension of Time Request) and 291-E-6 (Public Notice -Procedures for Obtaining Records under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act), 291-R (Rules and Regulations Regarding Record Requests)
C. Approval of Minutes from the Regular Board Meeting of March 8, 2010, the Special Board Meeting of March 15, 2010 and Executive Session of March 8, 2010 and March 15, 2010.
D. Approval of the Metea Valley Change Orders
E. Business and Financial Items
5. Consent Agenda Items for Separate Consideration
A. If Necessary
6. Action Items
A. Approval of the Transportation Bid
B. Personnel Report (See Action Items C-H)
C. Approval and acceptance of resignations, recommendations for employment, or leave of absences as presented
D. Approval of Resolution Regarding Non-Renewal of First, Second, and/or Third Year Probationary Teachers
E. Approval of Resolution Regarding Non-Renewal and Honorable Dismissal of Fourth-Year Probationary Teachers
F. Approval of Honorable Reduction of Work Year for Tenured Employees (Elementary Asst. Prin.)
G. Approval of Motion Regarding the Non-Renewal and Dismissal of Part-time Teachers
H. Approval of Resolution Regarding Non-Renewal and Honorable Dismissal of Support Staff (Annual releases only - Reading, Enrollment, and Bilingual Assistants).
7. Discussion Item
A. Austerity Plan - Phase III: Dave Holm and Administrative Cabinet
8. Public Comment
A. Public Comment
9. Adjournment
A. Adjourn the meeting

[friend]

Did anybody go to the SB meeting tonight?

[doctorwho]

Mar 22, 2010 21:49:22 GMT -6 friend said:

Did anybody go to the SB meeting tonight?

I planned on it but at last minute got called to a parent meeting at VB club @ 8:30 in Western Springs. I know some people here were likely going to be there though as I talked to them during the day--anxiously waiting their reports.

[casey]

You'd think I'd learn to not waste my time and go to these things. Last night was the same old, same old. The only difference was this time it was the teachers and teacher union that was told to sit down and shut up!

There were probably 250-300 people at the meeting with a good majority being teachers (all wearing Save Our Schools pins) and a good number of music parents.

Thankfully the SB had the good sense to reverse the order of the meeting and conduct the presentation portion/public comment first (before old/new business). Dave Holm as well as other administrators presented their austerity plan. Obviously it was the same one that's posted on line. There weren't too many surprises but I do have to admit to being a little uncomfortable hearing a 36-37 size class for some high school courses (KB mentioned some math classes, etc.). That's downright scary.

I will say this, it is clear that the position we are now in as a district has taken its toll on all administrators, school board members, teachers, kids, community members, etc. We're all in this sh!tty position together and no one likes it. It was clear that that some of the administrators are really disheartened over the whole thing. KB gave an impassioned speech at the beginning and end and one could ALMOST feel sorry for her. The message is still there "it's the State's fault" and they're doing their best to convince an unbelieving public of that. MM was encouraging people to head to Springfield (seriously) to get the message out to elected officials. It made me sick. I can't believe we have people foolish enough to think that the state can bail out school districts. Where's this money going to come from?

I'd say there were about 20 speakers signed up. Quite a few speaking on behalf of the music program and the technique classes being cut at MS levels. One fourth year teacher (204 NV grad) with a considerable music background pleaded with the SB to find a way to keep the music program (and her job) intact. I felt sorry for her. She became a face to one of the 145 teachers let go.

Several teachers spoke out and made it clear that the way the teacher cuts were made was not equitable, fair, or sensible. Val Dranias the president of the teacher union talked about how many first year teachers were kept while third and fourth year teachers (all with excellent evaluations, etc.) were let go. From listening to the different teachers speak about it, it appeared that decisions were made with no regard to seniority or performance but more just a willy-nilly, hodgepodge method.

Also, it was pointed out that ALL MV teachers (regardless of whether they're first, second, third, fourth year, tenured, etc.) were allowed to stay while Waubonsie lost a disproportionate number of teachers (40ish?). The point was before a more seasoned HS teacher from another school loses a job they should have been allowed to be offered a position at MV before a first or second year teacher. Just by teaching at Metea it appears all teachers were offered immunity from cuts. I don't think that seems right, does anyone?

The teachers' group was imploring the SD to slow down and take another look at the teachers they are letting go (they have until mid April). They are asking that the union be involved in the release of teachers and that there is some sort of fair, impartial system in place. I can't disagree with that!

Jennifer Streader stood up and blamed the state and encouraged everyone to head to Springfield - rah! rah!

One speaker talked about the conflicts that exist with events at the high schools. In her own case two of the three high school concerts at WV and NV have been on the same day. She's had to pick between her kids' events. She pointed out that the district promised that they would do whatever possible to eliminate conflicts. She gave the district a 66% failure rate in her own situation. Keeping siblings and families intact would have solved this problem but our district was not smart enough or compassionate enough to allow this to happen. So sad.

One speaker did address the loss of .5 special ed interventionists at the top 4 performing schools. She pointed out how unfair it is to hide a special ed child that needs services behind all the high performing kids in a school. How is that right? She also went on to call out the SB and admonish them for putting us in this position. She told them to quit blaming the state and said that she was embarrassed for our once proud school district (couldn't help but agree with her )

I know this is long and I'm sure I'll be adding more as the day goes on but this is my quick (ok, not so quick) take on the meeting.

[asmodeus]

From listening to the different teachers speak about it, it appeared that decisions were made with no regard to seniority or performance but more just a willy-nilly, hodgepodge method.

I would need to hear more about the process before coming to that conclusion. I don't subscribe to the union's "last hired, first fired" philosophy, so I am somewhat encouraged by the chance that some actual thought went into the decisions on which non-tenured teachers to keep.

[lacy]

Thanks Casey. 36-37 kids in a math class??

Kinda puts the concerns about the music program into perspective. I hope they are able to raise the funds to keep technique, but we can't justify allowing regular classes to get this large to maintain electives.

[lacy]

Mar 23, 2010 6:59:30 GMT -6 asmodeus said:

From listening to the different teachers speak about it, it appeared that decisions were made with no regard to seniority or performance but more just a willy-nilly, hodgepodge method.

I would need to hear more about the process before coming to that conclusion. I don't subscribe to the union's "last hired, first fired" philosophy, so I am somewhat encouraged by the chance that some actual thought went into the decisions on which non-tenured teachers to keep.

I agree. And I don't think the union deserved a "seat at the table" in making those decisions. That should be up to the administration.

However, I don't understand why MV lost none(?) is that right? Are they going to shuffle people around to equalize staffing at all the schools or are the kids going to teach themselves at WV?

[brant]

Thank you Casey for your take on the meeting. Of course is was expected KB would spin the districts troubles solely on the state while ignoring the drain MV has taken on the taxpayers. As for Jennifer Streader, well we all know where her priorities lay; MV and screw everything and everyone else.
For me the loss of the special edcuation interventionists is a killer. As I have mentioned I have a freshman and sophomore at WV that are special needs. My family would have moved after this school year but what people don't understand is that it is very difficult to move a special needs child from one school to another at this age. I just hope my kids graduate before the real bad cuts that are sure to come takes hold. As for my middle schooler he knows he will graduate elsewhere.
The last speaker you mentioned was right on. We were a proud SD once that has been ripped apart by greed and incompantance.

[brant]

Mar 23, 2010 7:11:01 GMT -6 lacy said:

Mar 23, 2010 6:59:30 GMT -6 asmodeus said:

I would need to hear more about the process before coming to that conclusion. I don't subscribe to the union's "last hired, first fired" philosophy, so I am somewhat encouraged by the chance that some actual thought went into the decisions on which non-tenured teachers to keep.

I agree. And I don't think the union deserved a "seat at the table" in making those decisions. That should be up to the administration.

However, I don't understand why MV lost none(?) is that right? Are they going to shuffle people around to equalize staffing at all the schools or are the kids going to teach themselves at WV?

So MV lost none? How does CB, CP, SR and Jennifer Streader and friends explain that one?

[casey]

Mar 23, 2010 6:59:30 GMT -6 asmodeus said:

From listening to the different teachers speak about it, it appeared that decisions were made with no regard to seniority or performance but more just a willy-nilly, hodgepodge method.

I would need to hear more about the process before coming to that conclusion. I don't subscribe to the union's "last hired, first fired" philosophy, so I am somewhat encouraged by the chance that some actual thought went into the decisions on which non-tenured teachers to keep.

Agreed and it was pointed out that by "law" (Nancy Valenta's words) the SD cannot lay off a tenured more seasoned teacher over a non-tenured less expensive teacher. Law? Really? I think it is called strong unions.

[Arch]

I do not believe that MV losing none is true.

[macrockett]

Mar 23, 2010 7:24:26 GMT -6 brant said:

Mar 23, 2010 7:11:01 GMT -6 lacy said:

I agree. And I don't think the union deserved a "seat at the table" in making those decisions. That should be up to the administration.

However, I don't understand why MV lost none(?) is that right? Are they going to shuffle people around to equalize staffing at all the schools or are the kids going to teach themselves at WV?

So MV lost none? How does CB, CP, SR and Jennifer Streader and friends explain that one?

Maybe the same way they explain the existence of MVHS Brant

[macrockett]

Can't add to Casey's synopsis of last night's meeting. I will say the 1.5 minute limit on speaking threw a wrench into my 3 minute plan to speak. Hard to lay out the facts in such a short time, so I will do that here later.

I did remind the Board that resources are finite and, as a result, those resources should be spent on needs, not wants (referring to my mantra of the want of MVHS v the need).

I also reminded them that it has been know for quite some time that the State of Illinois is dysfunctional, so why rely on them at all in budgeting.

I basically threw a soft ball whereas they deserved much more. That was delivered by another speaker, alluded to by Brant above, who pulled no punches in pointing out the District's shortcomings.

[casey]

Mar 23, 2010 7:39:25 GMT -6 Arch said:

I do not believe that MV losing none is true.

Arch, I don't know whether that's true or not but it was brought up several times by several different speakers and it was never corrected by the admin/SB. I think that it was addressed by Nancy (maybe someone can remember better than I) and it was pointed out given that MV is new they wanted to keep the staff intact, build continuity and tradition. I honestly don't think MV is losing anyone but are gaining 30 something teachers (yeah, all the ones being taken from Waubonsie). Maybe someone else knows for sure?

I have a hard time with the District's The Math Their Way. Here's the way I see it. Waubonsie's senior out-going class is around 1000 kids, in-coming will be around 600. That's a loss of 400 students. Metea will be adding an additional class of 500. You're going to tell me the over 40 teachers being let go from Waubonsie are needed at WV to make up that difference? I do know that they mentioned some WV teachers going to Frontier next year. Once again, it appears Waubonsie is taking the brunt of the hits. Big surprise .

[sam2]

Casey, thanks for the excellent recap of the meeting.

Is it possible that the more senior, untenured teachers were chosen in order to keep a larger pool of non tenured teachers? My theory -- which may be completely wrong -- is based upon an assumption of how much service is required to become tenured. I thought it was 5 years. If so, then terminating a teacher with 4 years instead of a teacher with 2 years, gives the admin 2 more years to be able to cut a teacher.

Again, I may be completely wrong in my assumptions -- if so, someone will let me know and I'd appreciate that.

If I'm correct, what would happen if all teachers were tenured? Would none of them be subject to termination?