Save the Golden Goose

Delegate Bob Tata, a Republican fromVirginia Beach, is the Chair of the Education Committee in the General Assembly. On Monday January 26, he rose to speak up for public school education. His message was measured and powerful. It deserves to be heard.

(The video has been slow to load for me, but if you open the link and hit [pause], it will eventually load the whole six minute clip. Then click [play]. )

FY2010 Budget Priorities Resolution

With the budget cycle becoming serious, the RCEA Representative Assembly decided at its regular monthly meeting on Monday afternoon to discuss options. We believe it is important to have a unified message as budget discussions advance. Out of that discussion came this official resolution.

Roanoke County Education Association

FY2010 Budget Priorities Resolution

Approved Unanimously January 26, 2009

By

The RCEA Representative Assembly

WHEREAS the United States is currently in a recession; and

WHEREAS Commonwealth of Virginia expects significantly reduced revenue; and

WHEREAS the County of Roanoke is experiencing a decline in revenue which negatively impacts revenue for Roanoke County Schools; and

WHEREAS a deep and prolonged recession may require future budget reductions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke County Education Association that:

The RCEA affirms its strong opposition to the use of school division funds to support new programs in whatever manner or under whatever circumstances they may be presented, to the extent legally possible (unless the following items can be fully funded first); and be it

RESOLVED that We support the maintenance of effort for all benefits for all employees; and be it

RESOLVED that We support at least the maintenance of current salary for all employees; and be it

RESOLVED that We unconditionally confirm our strongest support for keeping current employees employed over funding any other budget category or item.

In a nutshell, the RCEA believes that our human capital is most vital component necessary to maintaining a quality school division. In that spirit, we oppose any movement to terminate employees or to relax salaries and benefits. We believe that if cuts need to be made, they should be carved from programs and other non-employee categories.

We understand that building a budget that does not directly impact personnel will be very difficult in these challenging times. We will continue to keep lines of communication open with the School Board and Superintendent's office to foster constructive discussions. In light of the Governor's proposed budget amendments, we will continue our efforts both locally and statewide to highlight the very real impact that catastrophic cuts to public school education would have on our school division.

January Newsletter

With the budget season in full gear, you may wish to read our latest newsletter. Just click on the link below and you will be taken to our Drop i.o. box where you can view or download the newsletter.

Stay tuned here for news from our next rep meeting on Monday.

January RCEA News

What About the Budget?

Folks, we are beginning to experience some of the darkest financial times I’ve ever encountered in my 27-year teaching career. Over the past week, Your Uniserv Director Pat Wood and I have visited with Delegate William Fralin, Delegate Onzlee Ware, and Senator John Edwards to discuss education funding.

Each of these local representatives hold key positions on either/both the education or appropriations committee. Thus, they will be positioned squarely to affect education funding in this year’s General Assembly. The message from each regarding that funding was bleak. Both Ware and Edwards volunteered that the funding shortfall in the state cannot be erased solely by making cuts to programs. New revenue (tax) must be raised. Both seemed to zero in on one area that may offer some hope, a gasoline tax. Ware talked about raising the gasoline tax by $0.10 a gallon at the pump while Edwards had a detailed plan to apply a 5% tax (similar to a sales tax) on gasoline at the wholesale level. He reasoned that by applying the tax in that manner, it would grow with inflation. Neither man, however, could assure us that such revenue enhancements would pass through the legislature.

We spent a great deal of time explaining to Mr. Fralin that Roanoke County is proactively planning how to cut the budget in order to make ends meet. We impressed upon him the fact that these cuts will affect instruction. There seems to be a popular and erroneous notion in the legislature right now that Governor Kaine’s proposed cuts in education funding will not affect the instruction programs, instead they’ll target school administration. Well, we’re looking at larger class sizes, a reduction in core services, a closed middle school (Central Middle), potentially a closed elementary school (Bent Mountain), a hiring freeze in association with an early retirement plan, potential RIF’s, and a potential pay cut.* You can’t tell me these things will not affect the instructional program!

* Very Recent Word is that a 1 to 1.5% pay cut is on the table for next year…we’ll know more as we learn more.

Some of you have asked what you can do to help secure funding for education during the upcoming General Assembly session. Well, our VEA president, Kitty Boitnott shared this letter with me, and I, in turn, am sharing it with you.

Dear Local President (That’s me!):

I am writing to request your help with mobilizing our members to take an active part in the lobbying effort that we are undertaking this week prior to the opening session of the General Assembly on January 14th.

We need our members to complete two simple tasks, and both of them can be accomplished by going to the Government Relations section of the VEA web site at http://www.veanea.org.

The first task is to click on and complete the writing of the electronic letters that have already been drafted. These messages need to be sent to their local legislators and senators (Delegate William Fralin, Delegate Morgan Griffith, Delegate Onzlee Ware, Senator John Edwards, Senator Ralph Smith). While the message has already been crafted, it may be altered to meet individual and specific needs.

The second task is to click on the link for the online petition which is being sponsored by a coalition of education stakeholders who have joined together for the purpose of advocating for public schools and the children of the Commonwealth. The link is at http://www.fundqualityschools.org.

So far we have had only 3,559 individuals to sign the online petition. Given that we have over 60,000 members, and their friends, family members and non-member colleagues may sign, I would like to see that number increase exponentially.

Likewise, so far, only 480 individuals have sent the electronic message to their local legislators. In order for us to capitalize on our strength as an organization of advocacy for public education, we must increase that figure into the thousands rather than the hundreds.

Please make every effort to engage your membership and mobilize members to take these two relatively simple actions. We cannot afford to miss out on this opportunity to let our collective voices be heard. Our students are depending on us to advocate for them, and I urge you not to let them down.

Thank you in advance for your quick response to this most sincere request for your help.

Kitty

E-mail: kboitnott@veanea.org

Web site: http://www.kittyboitnott.net

So my advice for now is to remain calm and respectful, but be vigilant and ready to defend what’s right. Please grab some friends and family and take a few minutes to introduce yourself to your local state delegate or senator by using the online site linked in Kitty’s letter. In addition, please, please sign the online petition. Let Richmond know that they must protect education funding, and if cuts need to be made, they must be temporary. We have almost 1,000 members, plus we all have friends and family. We really could make a huge difference!

Thanks for reading,

Thom Ryder

RCEA President

tryder@rcs.k12.va.us

RIF Policy Revision

Thursday night, the School Board will act on a revision to the Reduction In Force policy. This revision has been spearheaded by school board attorney, Pat Lacey. Mr. Lacey set about the task of stream-lining the policy, which was difficult to follow. His revisions were mostly successful with one exception.

(3) Any teacher on a plan of improvement shall not have any seniority or recall rights; provided, however, that the superintendent shall review the circumstances surrounding such plan of improvement, including, but not limited to, whether sufficient time has elapsed to allow the teacher to pursue the recommended corrective actions; whether the teacher has diligently pursued the recommended corrective actions; and whether the teacher had been previously placed on a plan of improvement. Based on such review, the superintendent may, in her sole discretion, exempt the teacher from this provision..

This exception deals with teachers on a Plan For Improvement, specifically how they will be treated in case of a Reduction In Force or "Destaffing.". In the original revision (black font), a teacher could theoretically be placed on a Plan For Improvement in February and then RIF'd in April when contracts are issued. Such a teacher would have little or no opportunity to work through the plan to improve the areas of need. At the Dec 11, 2008 school Board meeting I spoke to that point and asked the School Board to revise that section.

The compromise language that Mr. Lacey came up with is noted in red print. In my estimation, the original loophole still exists; however, an affected teacher must now undergo a review by the superintendent who will determine if the teacher should be subject to Exception #3. That is a small layer of protection. In my estimation, the process is still very murky. I would prefer that the whole exception be eliminated since, in my view, a Plan For Improvement is designed as a blueprint for a teacher to follow to improve areas of deficiency. It can also be used to document those deficiencies in building a case for termination. Allowing a teacher who is involved in a plan to improve particular skills seems to me to be counter-intuitive. However, if the Board is insistent setting local precedent by instituting this revised policy, they should go further by defining exactly how long a teacher has to be on a plan before they lose their standing. For example, they could state that a teacher on a plan loses standing in regards to exception # 3 after six months (or whatever they deem to be a reasonable/measurable amount of time) .

Make no mistake, the current revision is an improvement and may end up being what the Board decides to do, which I suppose, is their right.