Lowlights of the FCB's Contract Proposal
This proposal:
Eliminates the class size caps in the early elementary years K, 1 and 2 and goes to ratios that could lead to class sizes of 40 or more
Eliminates the prohibition of counselors doing lunch dutyEliminates the ratio of counselors to studentsEliminates the ratio of adjustment counselors to studentsEliminates the ratios of Evaluation Team Leaders to studentsEliminates the duty-free lunches for elementary teachersWould allow principals to require teachers to attend professional development on Saturdays with no compensation
Would allow the Superintendent to add three additional days to the school year
Eliminates middle school teachers' team timeLengthens the school dayAlso, under this proposal:
Many teachers with 15 or more years in the system receive no raises Many teachers who receive a raise next year would get a cut in pay the following year*
No teachers received a raise this year (except those who were illegally granted raises already).
This FCB proposal will not attract and retain highly qualified teachers. The changes in working conditions, which are our students learning conditions, are educationally untried and unsound.
*On April 25, 2006, the Finance Control Board lawyer said the intention is not to cut teachers' pay in the second year of the proposal, but to freeze those 1,200 plus teachers' salary. However, the FCB's "Final Proposal" language clearly indicates these teachers would receive a cut in pay in year two of the proposal. This means, after already going four years without a raise, these teachers would look forward to an additional seven years without a raise. Although the FCB lawyer said on record in fact finding that no teacher would receive a cut in pay, they did not submit a written amendment to their last proposal/final offer stating such.