A new report shows the Jefferson County Public Schools’ teachers’ union contract has many problems and is well behind current policy in more progressive school districts in Kentucky.
According to the recently approved “Analysis of Collective Bargaining Agreements in Kentucky Districts,” Jefferson County’s union contract:
• Is the most “cumbersome”
• “Strongly dictates the process for staffing schools in the district,” unlike other district agreements
• Unlike the other eight district contracts, remains “seniority driven”
• Constrains principals and school councils from retaining quality, newly hired teachers, allowing senior teachers to bump new hires with a “paper transfer” even if no opening is available at the school
• Might run afoul of Kentucky statutes
• Uses dubiously administered “Memorandums of Agreement” that might hide important contract modifications between the superintendent and the union from the visibility of school board members who are supposed to approve the document
• Prohibits using student performance data as part of the evaluation process for teachers
Staffing is key
Most of the eight other Kentucky districts with union contracts used to have similar staffing restrictions, but the new report from the Kentucky Office of Education Accountability (OEA) says all the other districts have moved on in the past decade to more progressive staff management agreements with their unions.
Under those much better agreements, superintendents, principals and school councils face far less interference in teacher hiring and placement due to outdated seniority rules. The OEA reports that administrators in districts that have dropped contractual seniority transfer guarantees find the current process to fill teacher vacancies to be far superior to past policy.
In stark contrast, contractual interference resulted in Jefferson County doing a terrible job in re-staffing its Persistently Low-Achieving Schools. Many of the new teachers in those schools are brand new and inexperienced. That is a recipe for continued failure that can be laid firmly at the feet of the uncaring union leadership in Jefferson County.
There is a lot more of important information in the new OEA report – especially regarding more problems in Jefferson County. The report was approved last Tuesday by the Kentucky Legislature’s Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee but still has not been released in the Legislative Research Commission’s web site. I’ll let you know as soon as it is.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Analysis of teachers’ union contracts exposes Jefferson County’s contract flaws
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The Jefferson County Teachers Union does not dictate the terms of the contract for a rubber stamp. Jefferson County administrators have to sign off on the contract before it is approved. Leadership, not the union, must take a hard stand on what is needed in that contract to turn education results around in Jefferson County.
The kids can't pay union dues so why should the union give a flip about the results kids achieve?
The county administrators are paid to represent the kids. It is time they grow some hair and do it.
RE: Anonymous on December 16, 2010 9:21 PM
You better hold that thought until you read the rest of the OEA report.
Among other things, the report raises serious concerns that the union's heavy political involvement in Jefferson County school board races means the union has "substantial clout" in the election of union friends.
It's the board, not the administrators, who sign off on the contract.
And, its the board who hires the head administrator, who then hires the lower-level admin types. So, the union is all over Jefferson County education.
You did hit a nail on the head, though it isn't one you aimed at.
Even though kids can't pay union dues, they ultimately are the customers for the union's product. If the system worked right, a good union would understand that customer dissatisfaction is, ultmately, not in the members' interest.
The problem is that the system is broken, which seriously interferes with the ability of customers to demand change.
Anyway, stay tuned. There is more in this report.
Thanks for your clarifications. I was trying to say the administrators had to sign off on the contract before the board approved it. But in Kentucky maybe the power structure is such that the board doesn't care what the administrators think it will take to produce the results needed as long as they have the union's blessings.
That's where lack of accountability for achieving results will keep Kentucky kids undereducated.
If superintendents, principals and other key education professionals do not speak up on changes needed in union contracts to take Kentucky education results to the next positive level then they should lose their jobs.
The spotlight needs to be turned on what our professional educators need to excel and highlight the barriers in their way. That way the school board might not get a free pass to appease the union if the parents, kids, businesses and other education stakeholders took up the fight for real reform.
RE: Anonymous on December 17, 2010 10:57 AM
I think we are getting on the same wavelength.
It is absolutely critical for professional educators and local boards to step up to their responsibilities to negotiate contracts that serve students. That is happening in some areas of Kentucky, but definitely not in Louisville.
However, in Louisville, the operation of the “Memorandums of Agreement” tends to cut the local board out of the equation, allowing the district staff to cut deals out of view of the board that may not serve either students or even principals well.
I had an immediate family member who worked for JCTA back in the 80's. I think Marty Bell was President then, this family member actually quit their job there because they basically couldn't sleep at night after seeing the "quality" of and atrocities committed by some of the teachers the union defended. I think the final straw for them was a series of "meetings" of some sort at Executive Inn where the JCTA spent union money to rent rooms and buy enormous amouts of booze for the "meetings" taking place there. I have long known JCTA does NOTHING that benefits students, it defends people who have NO BUSINESS in a classroom with our children and its president weilds more power than most realize or admit!
Is it correct, anonymous on Dec 19, that the immoral activity resulting at these booze-laden meetings gave Marty Bell the power to blackmail others as he rose miraculously to the position of "Deputy to the Superintendent", which was conveniently often mistaken in print as "Deputy Superintendent" making him appear to hold creditials he did not have?
Post a Comment