Have San Leandro schools solved their money problems?

I'm glad to see that the school district is financially sound. I haven't looked at a spread sheet recently, but the actions of school administration sure make it look like there's no money problem in the district.

Why else would the principal at Garfield Elementary have rejected a gift made by teachers to support the school crossing guard program? That's right, she returned the donation. San Leandro Teachers' Association, the Union representing San Leandro's 500 teachers, made a contribution to each of the elementary schools in the district to support the financially endangered school crossing guard programs. Most of the schools graciously accepted the gift, but apparently the Garfield Principal determined that the school has no need for the money.

At least I'd like to think that the contribution was rejected because of an improving district budget, because it's past time for teachers' salaries (among the lowest in Alameda County) to catch up with our neighbors. Although, I admit, the district has been sending out mixed messages. After all, teacher salaries were reduced last year by cutting a staff development day from the school calendar. And then, the district offered Muir teachers the opportunity to work that day for only 25% to 35% of their normal salary. (District to teachers: We want you to do the work, we just don't want to pay you for it.)

I guess it leaves me wondering, if the contribution weren't rejected because of the district's improving financial situation, then why would the contribution to Garfield be rejected? Could it be that the district now views teachers as social pariahs? You know, so despicable that they are unworthy of making charitable contributions? Akin to tobacco companies and alcohol companies? That doesn't seem like a strong basis for good staff relations and positive school climate.

I just can't believe that would be the truth. That would be a bit insulting. I'd much rather believe that a big offer for a pay raise to catch San Leandro teachers up with their neighbors is just around the corner.

Why is the San Leandro School District Attacking Its Teachers?

(An open letter to the San Leandro School Board of Trustees)

As a 10 year teaching veteran of the San Leandro Schools, I am horrified by the district's recent attacks on its teachers and on our Union.

The biggest insult is the continuing saga of our pay scale.  The district has been dragging its heels at the bargaining table, despite knowing that teachers in San Leandro are among the lowest-compensated teachers in Alameda County.  The district has made no effort to improve the status of our pay-scale.  While neighboring district (Castro Valley most recently) have passed on  COLA increases to their workers, our District has refused to make a commitment to its teachers.

Several other districts in the County have lower revenue, but still manage to pay their teachers more than San Leandro.  As a Board, please examine how those districts succeed, and then instruct our Superintendent to make it happen.

Unfortunately, the disrespect shown to teachers by the District does not stop at the salary scale.  These recent events show the District's motives:

* Reduction of permitted release time for SLTA officers, and reneging on the agreement of how the release time should be compensated.  The district recently informed SLTA that it would significantly reduce the President's release time, and eliminate the release time for the Vice President altogether.  This is clearly a Union-busting maneuver.  The district has nothing to gain by this decision other than silencing the voices of teachers.  As a Board, did yoiu approve of this anti-teacher tactic?

* The Budget-Cut process, in which teachers (at staff meetings) were forced to state which vital student programs we could live without.  (District Office administrators' positions, perks, expense accounts and salaries were not listed in the menu of potential cuts.)  The Union's bargaining team represents teachers.  Talk with us at the table.  (That's the law.)

* Discouraging Union Input.  The SLTA President was given notice of his "invitation" to address the Board about budget cuts on the afternoon of the meeting that was scheduled later that night.  It's clear that his voice really wasn't wanted at your meeting.

While a cynical person might be able to dismiss some of the bargaining and budget-cut shenanigans as "business-as-usual" for a District that has never shown an interest in fairly compensating its teachers, the next insult from the district is unfathomable.

* Denial of Bereavement Leave.  A teacher whose spouse died was denied bereavement leave.  After the leave was denied, the grievance was rejected.  And now the district is going to fight this case all the way to arbitration.  Is the District really going to spend the $40,000 it takes to send a case to arbitration just to avoid spending a few hundred dollars?  Do you, as a member of the School Board, really approve the District's effort to deny leave for a grieving spouse no matter what the cost?  This is a dedicated, well-loved teacher in our District!

In the past, I had heard it said that even though teachers in San Leandro have always been under-compensated, that this was a good district to teach in because people are treated with respect.  Clearly, the spirit of respect has changed.  As Board Members, ultimately, the way the district treats its employees is your responsibility.  The Superintendents answer to you.

Sincerely,

Thomas B. Morse