Today’s blog comes from veteran teacher, union representative from Westlake Middle School, and OEA Executive Board Member, Angela Badami-Knight. Angela shares her thoughtful rationale for why she will be voting to ratify the Tentative Agreement reached by OUSD and OEA. Read on to learn more about the tenets of the TA and how they benefit Oakland teachers.
Although we know that we need even smaller class sizes and more resources in order to best serve our students, we cannot ignore the forward progress that has been made in this round of bargaining. Below I have outlined the reasons I voted YES from my seat on the Executive Board, and will be voting YES as a union member to ratify the Tentative Agreement.
Article 21- Counselor Ratios:
Academic Counselor Ratios are 600:1 district wide and now include 6th grade. (The previous ratios were 700:1 and did not include 6th grade.) Each school will get counseling services at least once a month. With this change, more schools will have the opportunity to have experts counseling struggling students and making sure they fulfill all their academic requirements.
Article 12 – Transfer and Vacancy Policy
OEA Members across the district have let the bargaining team know what they value in a vacancy/transfer policy. They value seniority rights for those displaced by no fault of their own and they value making sure that teachers new to their sites are on board with the vision of their school. This new process upholds these two values by creating a compensated Personnel Committee, and ensuring that teachers in the Talent Pool (teachers displaced of no fault of their own) retain the right to choose a site based on their seniority. Many schools have already been using some form of a hiring committee. These folks were usually hand picked by the principal and unpaid. In the new process, the Personnel Committee is elected by teachers at the site and are a majority of the decision making body. For two phases of the new process, Talent Pool teachers must engage with sites with vacancies, and also retain the right to choose whichever vacancy they see fit based on their seniority.
The new process also addresses the issue of principals hiding vacancies until the summer time, giving them the time to cherry pick internal and external hires. In the new process, external hires and voluntary transfers (for whom vacancies are usually hidden) are only allowed in the process at the very beginning (before consolidation happens) and AFTER Phases 2 and 3, when Talent Pool teachers have priority.
In order to be competitive with other districts, we must be able to hire during the school year. No one wants to go into the summer not knowing where they are working the next year, it is not good for schools, it is not good for teachers. With this new system, the bargaining team expects that the majority of positions will be filled before the end of Phase 3.
Article 24: Increased Compensation
This compensation package includes a guaranteed 8% raise, some of which is retroactive, and historic language ensuring that teacher salaries and raises are calculated into the OUSD budget from the beginning. It also includes “positive contingency” language that gives OEA members more money when the district gets more money. The bargaining team and CTA consultants have been monitoring the CA state budget process and are confident that we will see some extra compensation through these positive contingencies.
The 2.5% increase that comes into effect in January 2016 includes 1.65% compensation for increasing weekly minimum days by 30 minutes for teacher collaboration. This collaboration will not begin until Fall 2016. The Faculty Council at each school will use the Spring 2016 semester to figure plan how this collaboration will look at their site. At the beginning of the bargaining process, OUSD wanted us to have an extended day with zero compensation and with the district dictating how the time was used. The bargaining team heard from sites that they do need more collaboration time with colleagues and have made sure it is compensated and controlled at the school site. In addition, sites that do not have these minimum days will still get the 2.5% increase in compensation.
Overall, This compensation package is a step towards the median of Alameda County. After approving this contract, we can focus on lobbying Sacramento to make sure even more money is allocated to education budgets in the future.
Details of the compensation package:
2% raise effective July 2014
1% raise effective Feb 1, 2015
2.5% raise effective June 30, 2015
2.5% effective Jan 1, 2016
=8% raise by January 2016
Contingent funds/ raises — The contingency language is based on how much money OUSD gets from CA. The more money we get, the more money teachers get in the form of one-time money (bonus) and on-going raises.
2014-2015, 33% of any “one-time unrestricted funds” (i.e. LCAP funds) OUSD gets over what is projected will go toward a one time bonus for teachers by Oct 31, 2015
2015-2016, 39% of any money OUSD gets over what is projected will go toward an ongoing teacher salary raise, on top of the aforementioned %’s
2015-2016, 39% of any “one-time unrestricted funds” (i.e. LCAP funds) OUSD gets over what is projected will go toward a one time bonus for teachers by Oct 31, 2015
2016-2017, tiered percentage amounts for all funds above what is projected. This money will be added as an ongoing raise.
BREAKING NEWS: According to the latest assessment by our CTA advisor, the Mayor’s May revision estimate for the ‘14-15 school year is >2.5% additional (on top of the 2% and 1% half year on going). That means in excess of 5% retro pay, and 5.5% on going effective July 1, 2015. This new compensation formula will most likely be a BIG WIN for OEA!
Article 15- SDC Caseload Limits
SDC Caseload Limits are now embedded in the contract. Although they are not hard caps, it is historic that they are even mentioned. There is no regulation of SDC class size at the federal level, and only 31 states have state guidelines. The CA state guideline is 28:1, A ratio much higher than the proposed soft caps. Including soft caps and a detailed way of reporting class sizes above those caps, is a strong step in the right direction. I am confident that we are moving closer to being one of the few districts with hard caps for SDC classes. We now have an institutionalized way to gather data on class sizes, a more competitive compensation package to attract teachers, and a contractual starting point. One way we will ensure that we have good data and oversight is the creation of a new Special Education Faculty Council (Art 16) that can help monitor these issues and problem solve anything that comes up.
We also need to consider the role that the parent choice in the enrollment process has in creating inequitable SDC class sizes across the district. Why are parents choosing some schools over others? What can we do to ensure families have good choices in their neighborhoods? Once we have more detailed data about caseloads from the next two years, OEA will be in a better position to bargain hard caps.
Health Benefits Governing Board
The creation of the Health Benefits Governing Board (HBGB) is comprised of representatives from all of the unions in OUSD. Instead of having the district decide on the future of our health benefits, OUSD’s workers will be able to collaborate with each other to decide on how best to ensure that we maintain a choice of benefit providers while also keeping cost low for both the district and individuals. The district will no longer be able to try to bargain healthcare as a part of a compensation package.
The Bargaining Team, Executive Board, CAT Team and Site Reps have done extensive outreach during this bargaining period. We have found that there are many members who want movement away from the status quo, especially where Article 12 is concerned. This Tentative Agreement reflects a merging of varied OEA member opinions. The bargaining team had a difficult job. We have 2300 members, all with unique experiences, and it was their job to represent all of us. In addition, bargaining is a process in which you put out your ideal offer, and then each side makes moves that stay true to their values while also taking the other side’s values into consideration. I trust that this is the best possible offer the bargaining team could get at this time.
It would be devastating to have to go back to the bargaining table. The longer we drag out this process, the longer we will have to worry about low pay, conditions that do not help teacher retention issues, and the possibility of having a contract imposed on us. If we approve this Tentative Agreement, we can focus on advocating for an increased education budget at the state level, resources for students dealing with trauma, and strengthening teacher voice in policy making. In two years, we go back to the bargaining table and can build upon the progress we’ve made this round.
**What can you do to ensure that your opinion on the
Tentative Agreement (TA) is heard?**
1. Email members of the Executive Board and let them know that you support the bargaining team and the TA. We will be taking a recommendation vote on the TA and your supportive voice needs to be heard.
2. Let your school’s OEA Rep know that you support the TA, speak about specific articles that resonate with you. Rep Council will soon be taking a recommendation vote on the TA. Reps need to hear from folks with all opinions.
3. Attend the TA membership ratification vote, Wednesday, June 3, 2:00 at Oakland High School. Carpool with folks from your staff. Encourage everyone you know to take 10 minutes to come out to vote on the TA. Exercise your rights! Have your voice heard!
stayteaching 
Hello Christi- I respect your point of view, but feel I should give more information about special education caseloads and class sizes. 28:1 is the legal limit for Resource Specialist caseloads. We do small group instruction. SDC stands for Special Day Class. These are separate classes for students with disabilities. SDC teachers don’t have caseloads. They have class sizes. As far as I know, SDC’s already have soft caps, and they have never worked. Most of us in special education feel that the max class size in an SDC should be 12, so a soft cap that goes from 15 to 13 over three years, with no consideration of the unique needs of the students in that number, is not particularly exciting. General education teachers wouldn’t stand for soft caps on the number of students they teach. Yes, it is “historic” that special education class sizes are even mentioned, but the idea that we should be grateful for finally being noticed by our own union is insulting to special education teachers.
SDC is worded as caseloads because some programs have full inclusion, and therefor do not meet as a full class. The 28:1 ratio I was referring to is the only special education ratio spoken about in California Ed Code. It is also the ratio we use in our contract for the Resource Specialist Program.
The addition of SDC classes/caseloads in the contract is historic, and we cannot ignore this. We also cannot expect that we get exactly what we’ve sunshine the very first time it is in a contract and not an MOU. I imagine this was the same for General Education class sizes. We asked for low limits, we got higher ones, and we continued to ask for lower ones in forthcoming years.
There are many cost items in this contract, lowering class and caseload size is one of them. We should also understand that although the SpEd Caucus offered data from a survey in the middle of this school year, there were very few official reports of high SDC caseloads, as was required of the MOU. If we ratify this contract we will have a systematized way to report overages and a Special Education FC to help monitor the process. If we do not ratify, we get zero of these things and run the risk of having a much much worse contract imposed on us. We cannot ignore progress because it isn’t everything we’ve wanted. We got back to the bargaining table in 2 years and we need some non crisis time to get all 2300 OEA members engaged- correct emails for communication and voting, reps at every site, etc.
Putting aside any discussion of the TA for the moment, because I respect the fact that some members agree with it and some do not. I am just concerned about members receiving clear information about caseloads and class sizes in special education. What you wrote was this: “The CA state guideline is 28:1, a ratio much higher than the proposed soft caps.” You are correct that there is no state guideline for SDCs, but what you wrote implies that they are going down from 28 to 15, which is not true. I don’t know if your writing is simply unclear or if you just made an honest mistake, and I don’t think you are being deliberately misleading. I only felt it was important to clarify this point.