|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Francisco Unified School District’s Board of Education Tuesday night approved sending pink slips to more than 900 teachers and other district employees who could be laid off this year to address a $113 million budget shortfall over the next two years.
The board approved the layoff notices, which must be sent to employees by March 15, but district spokeswoman Gentle Blythe said the number could be reduced if concessions such as furlough days or wage freezes are approved by employee unions.
Among the proposed layoffs, 502 are to teachers, counselors, nurses and social workers, while 277 are to teachers’ aides and 163 are to district administrators, Blythe said.
The cuts come after drastic reductions in state funding for education, she said.
“No one at the district wants to lose anyone,” Blythe said.
Matthew Hardy, spokesman for the teachers’ union United Educators of San Francisco, said he agreed that the state is to blame for the budget crisis but argued the number of layoffs “is way higher than it needed to be.”
Blythe said several negotiation sessions between the two sides have been agreed upon, and that the district “would love to work this out as quickly as possible to rescind these layoff notices as quickly as possible.”
Hardy said union members have already met twice with district officials for negotiations, but that the union has not received many budgetary documents it has requested to get an idea about the district’s financial situation.
Does anyone know how big the SF district is in terms of total # of teachers, or total staff (teachers, classified, and admin)? I know they’re much bigger than PUSD, but it would be helpful to be able to put these cuts into context by converting them to percentages.
Too bad they haven’t been able to finalize concessions with their teachers’ union yet. I know that PUSD is still in negotiations with CSEA, but at least everything with APT is wrapped up.
Is this a publicity stunt? By law and by contract, school districts need to give sufficient notice to teachers if a layoff may happen. So, how many of the 900 will really be affected? Does anyone know? What does history say? Hence, the question whether this is just a way to sensationalize this issue and gain public sympathy? How many of you are now off the payroll? Who fought for you?
This is an excerpt from SFGATE about the San Francisco school district cuts:
“To provide some perspective, here simply is our situation: SFUSD has an unrestricted general fund budget of approximately $400 million. Due to the actions taken in Sacramento over the last 18 months, our projected deficit over the next two years will total $113 million, or $1,365 less per student. This means we will be getting $4,977 per student instead of $6,342 per student. So we face 21 percent less for teachers and counselors, for books and math texts, for computers and art classes, and for field trips and science labs.”
Don’t school districts do this automatically every Spring to protect
themselves just in case they do need to do layoffs….longer warnings, etc. So union can’t whine about last minute job loss.
>So union can’t whine about last minute job loss.
It’s required by Ed Code.
In other words, the CTA’s extensive lobbying efforts are paying off.
“In other words, the CTA’s extensive lobbying efforts are paying off.”
Yes, the extensive lobbying has managed a 2 1/2 month warning for teacher who will possibly be laid off. Gosh, aren’t those teachers lucky to have the union. Of course the district can still lay them off up until something like August 15th if there are changes.
Are you really complaining that teachers get a warning about possibly being laid off? That seems pretty petty.
Complaining that teachers get a warning? Not at all. If I’m complaining, it is about how public employee unions have created a special class of citizen given preferential treatment. It is not a government by the people, for the people. It is a government by the union, for the union. Bigger picture…
No, its just petty- hidden in the verbose language of logic 101
You guys crack me up. I just point out that union lobbying plays a role in writing law (Ed Code) just as any other special interest/faction does and suddenly I’m being petty. Well tell all readers here, why does Ed Code require 2.5 months? Where’s the government code that gives the same requirement for all private sector workers?
I feel like Stacey is always waiting to jump up at every little thing she can make an issue of and back it with credible-sounding logic, especially something negative about the union or any other entity related to it.
Somebody definitely has a lot of time on their hands….
Looks like the LAO is petty too. I mean, only if you’re the sort of person to interpret questioning of why something does or does not work as being petty…
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2010/education/education_022510.aspx#zzee_link_35_1266960727
“Recommend Amending Law to Allow Districts Until June 1 to Make Layoffs. Rather than specifying “the end of the school year” as the final date by which districts must make layoffs, we recommend allowing districts until June 1 to make these decisions. By waiting until after the Governor’s May Revision, districts would have better information regarding the state budget and its likely impact on their local budget. By being able to rely on May Revision estimates rather than feel compelled to assume the worst–case budget scenario, districts could more accurately calculate how many layoffs are needed. Further, by setting a uniform date, teachers and schools will be better able to coordinate job–seeking and hiring.”
Stacey, your posts are well thought out and researched. Thanks for your input. It’s refreshing.